Gender, Miracles, and Daily Life: The Evidence of Fourteenth-Century Canonization Processes 2503529585, 9782503529585

Citation preview

GENDER, MIRACLES, AND DAILY LIFE

HISTORY OF DAILY LIFE Editorial Board Gerhard Jaritz, Central European University (Budapest) and Austrian Academy of Sciences David Austin, University of Wales Lampeter Claude Gauvard, Université Paris 1 Christian Krötzl, University of Tampere Katharina Simon-Muscheid, University of Bern Daniel Smail, Harvard University

V O LU M E 1

GENDER, MIRACLES, AND DAILY LIFE The Evidence of Fourteenth-Century Canonization Processes

by

Sari Katajala-Peltomaa

H F

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Katajala-Peltomaa, Sari. Gender, miracles, and daily life : the evidence of fourteenth-century canonization processes. – (History of daily life ; v. 1) 1. Canonization – History – To 1500. 2. Christian life – History – Middle Ages, 600-1500. 3. Christian saints – Cult – History – To 1500. 4. Thomas, de Cantelupe, Saint, ca. 1218-1282. 5. Nicholas, of Tolentino, Saint, 1245-1305. I. Title II. Series 235.2'4'09023-dc22 ISBN-13: 9782503529585

© 2009, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2009/0095/65 ISBN: 978-2-503-52958-5

C ONTENTS

Abbreviations

vii

Acknowledgements

viii

Introduction

1

Chapter 1. Selection of Witnesses and Formation of Canonization Processes

23

Chapter 2. Vagaries of Everyday Life: Spheres of Invocation

71

Chapter 3. After Grace Was Gained: Expressions of Gratitude

161

Chapter 4. Depositions and Memories of Miracles

247

Conclusions

289

Select Bibliography

301

Index

307

A BBREVIATIONS

BAV

Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana

BN

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale

CIC I

Corpus Iuris Canonici editio Lipsiensis Secunda post Aemilii Ludovici Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis Romanae fidem recognouit et adnotatione critica, Instruxit Aemilius Friedberg, Pars Prior, Decretum Magistri Gratiani (Leipzig, 1879)

CIC II

Corpus Iuris Canonici editio Lipsiensis Secunda post Aemilii Ludovici Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis Romanae fidem recognouit et adnotatione critica, Instruxit Aemilius Friedberg, Pars secunda, Decretalium Collectiones (Leipzig, 1881)

Clare

Il processo di canonizzazione di Chiara da Montefalco, ed. by Enrico Menestò, Quaderni del Centro per il collegamento degli studi medievali e umanistici nell’università di Perugia, 14 (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 1984)

DM

Caesarius Heisterbacensis, Dialogus Miraculorum, ed. by Joseph Strange (1851; repr. Ridgewood: Gregg Press, 1966)

Louis

Processus Canonizationis et Legendae varie Sancti Ludovici O.F.M. Episcopi Tolosani, Analecta Franciscana, 7 (Quaracchi-Firenze: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1951)

Nicholas

Il processo per la canonizzazione di S. Nicola da Tolentino, ed. by Nicola Occhioni O.S.A., Collection de l’École française de Rome, 74 (Rome: Padri Agostiniani di Tolentino, École française de Rome, 1984)

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

D

uring this project I have had the privilege to collaborate with several persons. I wish to thank professors Christian Krötzl and Marjatta Hietala for encouragement and support. I am grateful to Didier Lett and Maiju Lehmijoki-Gardner for their thoughtful comments and to André Vauchez for comments and conversations. Virginia Mattila has checked the language of this book and Jouni Keskinen has helped me in drawing the map of canonizations. Gerhard Jaritz and other board members of History of Daily Life series have, with their insightful remarks, helped me to improve the contents of this study. The professional editorial board of Brepols Publishers has helped me to finalize the publication. I wish to thank them all. The Department of History at the University of Tampere has been an innovative place to work. I have also had the opportunity to stay in the Finnish Institute in Rome. The financial support of the Finnish Doctoral School of History and the Academy of Finland, the projects Transition and Continuity: Society, Everyday Life and Religion in Northern Europe, 1450–1600 and Hoping for Continuity, Facing Oblivion: Childhood, Education and Death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, has made this project possible. I am especially indebted to my colleagues who have smoothed my path with long-lasting conversations, comments, and practical advice. I want to thank Jussi Hanska, Katariina Mustakallio, Susanna Niiranen, Tapio Salminen, Kirsi Salonen, Raisa Maria Toivo, and Ville Vuolanto. I am also grateful to my family: my husband, Ari Peltomaa, and our children, Otto and Sanni. Otto and Sanni have, in my daily life, caused many ‘incidents that run against the accustomed way of nature and cause wonder’. I define them as miracles, too. This book is dedicated to them.

INTRODUCTION

Miracles and Interaction

T

he practicalities in the cult of saints were an integral part of medieval Christianity. Interaction with saints was strictly interwoven into the everyday lives of the devotees. For the laity the saints were primarily helpers in the difficulties and dangers of daily life.1 Commonly sainthood was seen as energy, as power over nature. Saints’ force, virtus, continued to work after their death through relics.2 For 1

For their holy lives the saints were also role models for ordinary Christians. Their inner piety and devotion was to cause admiranda yet also imitanda. Their modes of piety presumably reflect the more general perceptions of the era, although the saints put the ideal cultural constraints of the era over the limit so that they could not actually be imitated. Richard Kieckhefer, Unquiet Souls: Fourteenth-Century Saints and their Religious Milieu (1984; repr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c. 1400–1580 (1992; repr. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), pp. 164–82, argues that in late medieval England saints were for the devotees essentially not role models but helpers and healers in time of need. However, this relationship could spring from a sense of empathy and intimacy. Occasionally lay saints offer a fruitful point of comparison for the laity’s devotional practices, like the saintly penitents on the modes of piety that were regularly seen as feminine. See Maiju Lehmijoki-Gardner, Wordly Saints: Social Interaction of Dominican Penitent Women in Italy, 1200–1500, Bibliotheca Historica, 35 (Helsinki: SHS, 1999). On women saints, see for example Caroline Walker Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women, New Historicism: Studies in Cultural Poetics, 1 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987); Bynum, Fragmentation and Redemption: Essays on Gender and the Human Body in Medieval Religion (New York: Zone Books, 1991). On male biographers’ relationships to female saints, see Gendered Voices: Medieval Saints and their Interpreters, ed. by Catherine M. Mooney, Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999). 2

On saints’ virtus, see Thomas Head, Hagiography and the Cult of Saints: The Diocese of Orléans, 800–1200, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th series, 14 (Cambridge:

2

Introduction

laymen and women a miracle was an unexpected incident made to happen by divine intervention.3 Presumably close to their range of thoughts came the definition of Caesarius of Heisterbach:4 ‘we call a miracle an incident which runs against the

Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 102–03. On the perception of the relics as the living saint, see Patrick Geary, Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978). On the practicalities in the cult of relics, see Nicole Herrmann-Mascard, Les reliques des saints: formation coutumière d’un droit, Société d’histoire du droit, Collection d’histoire institutionnelle et sociale, 6 (Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1975). On saints’ praesentia at their shrines, see Peter Brown, The Cult of Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity, Haskell Lectures on History of Religions, n.s., 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 87–105. 3

The definition and concept of miracle was set up in Antiquity by Augustine (354–430). According to him, a miracle was a difficult or unusual event that exceeds the faculties of nature and surpasses the ability of the observer to understand and causes astonishment. Thomas Aquinas followed in his footprints by stressing that God does not act against nature but outside its normal patterns. Such unusual events caused admiration or amazement and are thus called miraculum. Thomas Aquinas also introduced the distinction of miracles that are above nature (supra naturam), against nature (contra naturam), or apart from nature (praeter naturam). Michael E. Goodich, Violence and Miracle in the Fourteenth Century: Private Grief and Public Salvation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), pp. 147–48. On the medieval theoretical discussion of the concept of miracle, see Benedicta Ward, Miracles and the Medieval Mind: Theory, Record and Event 1000–1215 (London: Scholar Press, 1982), pp. 3–32; also Michael Goodich, ‘Reason or Revelation? The Criteria for the Proof and Credibility on Miracles in Canonization Processes’, in Procès de canonization au Moyen Âge: Aspects juridiques et religieux/Medieval Canonization Processes: Legal and Religious Aspects, ed. by Gábor Klaniczay, Collection de L’École française de Rome, 340 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2004), pp. 181–97. On modern definitions of miracle, see Pierre-André Sigal, L’homme et le miracle dans la France médiévale (XIe– XIIe siècle) (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1985), p. 10, and Christian Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag: Formen des Verhaltens im skandinavischen Mittelalter, Studia Historica, 46 (Helsinki: SHS, 1994), p. 18. 4

Caesarius (c. 1180–1240) was a Cistercian monk in the monastery of Heisterbach. He was also a prior of the monastery for some time. Caesarius compiled altogether thirty-seven books; the famous Dialogues on Miracles was written around 1219–23. Dialogus miraculorum was primarily intended to be a guidebook for the novices of the Cistercian order. However, it became quite popular and spread widely in circles outside the order and also among the laity. In the fifteenth century it was translated into German. Altogether sixty manuscripts have survived up to the present day. Karl Langosch, Caesarius von Heisterbach: Leben, Leiden und Wunder des heiligen Erzbischofs Englebert von Köln (Münster: Böhlau, 1955), p. 6, and Brian Patrick McGuire, ‘Inledning’, in Triviallitteratur og samfund i latinsk middelalder: Caesarius af Heisterbach og hans Dialogus miraculorum, ed. by Brian Patrick McGuire (Copenhagen: Köpenhavns Universitet, 1982), pp. 9–67 (pp. 34–37). Dialogus miraculorum is assumed to reflect quite uncritically the general perceptions of the era and it is also called ‘a treasure-chest of medieval folklore’. Ronald C. Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims: Popular Beliefs in Medieval England (1977; repr. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), p. 51.

Introduction

3

accustomed way of nature and causes wonder’.5 The wish to experience a miracle was one of the strongest elements in the interaction with a saint. The expectations, hopes, and experiences of a miracle gave cults their strong symbolic power. Miracles were essential elements of the medieval culture and principal manifestations of the relationship between heaven and earth. The belief in the omnipresence of the supernatural and the permanent intervention of heavenly powers was a fundamental aspect of the medieval mode of thought. God had given saints a special force for their merits and sufferings: they were exceptionally close to the Godhead.6 Saints acted as intercessors between the faithful and the divine, but interaction with them was not only a question of personal piety or spiritual motivation. The cult of saints was closely connected to the economic and political as well as social levels of the community. Moreover, saints and cults needed supporters. Without a supportive surrounding community a person cannot be defined as a saint or an event as a miracle.7 An existing cult and a group of devotees were prerequisites for opening the canonization hearing. This study focuses on the interconnection between miracles and daily life, on the interaction of men and women with each other and with the heavenly intercessor. Interaction refers to the various rituals in applying and invoking the saint’s help, giving thanks for the miracle, as well as the formation of narrations and memories of these events. The interaction with the intercessor reveals the social roles of men and women as well as the perceptions of masculinity and femininity. How was gender

5

DM X 1: ‘Miraculum dicimus quicquid fit contra solitum cursum naturae, unde miramur.’

6

Anders Fröjmark, Mirakler och helgonkult: Linköpings biskopsdöme under senmedeltiden, Studia historica Upsaliensia, 171 (Uppsala: Acta universitatis upsaliensis, 1992), pp. 12, 78; on joining of heaven and earth at the tombs of saints, see Brown, Cult of Saints, pp. 1–22. 7

Pierre Delooz, ‘Towards a Sociological Study of Canonized Sainthood in the Catholic Church’, in Saints and their Cults: Studies in Religious Sociology, Folklore and History, ed. by Stephen Wilson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 189–216 (pp. 194–99 and 208), claims that a saint is essentially a saint for the others and by the others. Similarly he stresses that an event can only be defined as a miracle if someone sees it as such, yet it is also an event which expresses the saintly quality of a person who is presumed by the community to intervene in this way. The miracles as responses to social needs and their intimate association with the society in which they took place are stressed by Ward, Miracles and the Medieval Mind, p. 215. Geary, Furta Sacra, p. 5, claims that relics of the saint do not themselves possess value. They only passively reflect as much meaning as they were given by a particular community. On the importance of the relics for the community, see ibid., passim.

4

Introduction

constructed in this interaction? This question is approached by analysing practicalities of daily life and miracles in the depositions at the canonization processes.8 The saints at stake here are Nicholas of Tolentino (1245–1305) and Thomas Cantilupe of Hereford (1218–82), and the supporters and devotees are the witnesses in the canonization inquiries of these saints. The supportive surrounding communities were located in the Marches of Ancona (Marche di Ancona) in central Italy and in England, in Hereford and its surroundings.9

8

The lay Christians’ interaction with saints and the interconnection between miracles and everyday life have been at the core of recent scholarship. See, for example, the seminal works of Ronald Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, and Pierre-André Sigal, L’homme et le miracle. See also Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life: Aspects of Medieval Communication Reflected in the Newly Established Cult of Thomas Cantilupe (d. 1282), its Dissemination and Effects upon Outlying Hereford Villagers’, in Wallfahrt und Alltag in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit: Internationales Round-Table-Gespräch Krems an der Donau 8. Oktober 1990, ed. by Gerhard Jaritz and Barbara Schuh, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 592 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), pp. 165–217, where the author concentrates especially on the modes of diffusion of the cult of Thomas Cantilupe. On the family roles, see Didier Lett, L’enfant des miracles: enfance et société au Moyen Âge (XIIe– XIIIe siècle), Collection Historique (Paris: Aubier, 1997); Lett, ‘Adult Brothers and Juvenile Uncles: Generations and Age Differences in Families at the End of the Middle Ages’, History of the Family, 6 (2001), 391–400; also Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, and Krötzl, ‘Parent Child Relation in Medieval Scandinavia According to Scandinavian Miracle Collections’, Scandinavian Journal of History, 14 (1989), 21–37. On comparison of different canonization processes, see André Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident aux derniers siècles du Moyen Âge: d’après les procès de canonization et les documents hagiographiques, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 241 (1981; repr. Rome: École française de Rome, 1988); Procès de canonization au Moyen Âge, ed. by Klaniczay; Goodich, Violence and Miracle; and Ronald C. Finucane, The Rescue of the Innocents: The Endangered Children in Medieval Miracles (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000). On construction of memories in canonization processes, see Laura Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning in the Canonization of Vincent Ferrer, 1453–1454’, Speculum, 73 (1998), 429–54; Jussi Hanska, ‘The Hanging of William Cragh: Anatomy of a Miracle’, Journal of Medieval History, 27 (2001), 121–38; and Medieval Memories: Men, Women and the Past, 700–1300, ed. by Elisabeth van Houts (Harlow: Longman, 2001). On cultural concepts, popular religion, and modes of thought of the era, see for example articles in the collections Saints and their Cults, ed. by Wilson; Interpreting Cultural Symbols: Saint Anne in Late Medieval Society, ed. by Kathleen Ashley and Pamela Sheingorn (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1990); and Images of Sainthood in Medieval Europe, ed. by Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski and Timea Szell (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991). On the popular belief system, see Aron Gurevich, Medieval Popular Culture: Problems of Belief and Perception, Cambridge Studies in Oral and Literate Culture, 14 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), and Brown, Cult of Saints. 9

The canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe is preserved in one manuscript in the Vatican Library. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, Inquisitio de fide, vita et moribus et fama et miraculis recolende

5

Introduction

Map 1. Places where the canonization hearings of Thomas Cantilupe and Nicholas of Tolentino were held.

The canonization processes of Nicholas of Tolentino and Thomas Cantilupe of Hereford are chosen as main sources for several reasons. Hagiography in general has been widely used — and appreciated — as source material for the study of cultural concepts, popular religion, modes of thought, as well as the daily practicalities

memorie domine Thome de Cantilupo quondam episcope dicte ecclesie Herefordensis. There exist two manuscripts of Nicholas of Tolentino’s canonization hearing. They have been edited by Nicola Occhioni O.S.A. and published under the title Il processo per la canonizzazione di S. Nicola da Tolentino (= Nicholas). The edition has been consulted here.

6

Introduction

of the laity.10 However, canonization processes have been little explored by scholars of gender history. The hearings of Nicholas of Tolentino and Thomas Cantilupe are especially valuable for the study of everyday life and gender construction since they contain a lot of accurately recorded and often rather lengthy depositions, also on and from women. The most important reason for the choice of these particular hearings among the multiplicity of hagiographic material is the abundance of detail to be found in these processes. Moreover, in both cases the whole procedure — the canonization process, the relatio or recollectio done by the clerical authorities, and the papal bull of canonization — are available.11 A relatio, not to mention canonization bull, was not compiled after every hearing. As auxiliary material other canonization processes of the era have been also used.12

10

On historiography of studies using hagiographic material, especially in social history, see Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 1–7; of canonization processes, see Gábor Klaniczay, ‘Introduction’, in Procès de canonization au Moyen Âge, ed. by Klaniczay, pp. 1–5. 11

According to Domenico Gentili, ‘Introduzione’, in Il processo per la canonizzazione di S. Nicola da Tolentino, ed. by Nicola Occhioni O.S.A., Collection de l’École française de Rome, 74 (Rome: Padri Agotiniani di Tolentino, École française de Rome, 1984), pp. ix–xxx (p. xvi), the recollectio of Nicholas’s process is preserved in five manuscripts. I have used the copy of the Vatican Library: BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4027, Rubrice examinationes et recollectiones sumpte de processu inquisitione articulis et attestati omnibus habitis et receptis super vita conversacione et miraculis recolende memorie Nicolai de Tholentinum ordinis heremitarum sancti Augustini Camerinensis diocesis et relatio super hiis; there exist two different relatios of the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe. The one containing only miracles is in the Vatican Library, BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4017, with the later title Processus super miraculis Thomae de Cantalupo; and the summarium and recollectio of the life and miracles is in the Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, BN, MS Lat. 5373 A, fols 66r–126v , In negocio canonizacionis pie memorie domini Thome quondam Herefordensis episcopus. The canonization bulls are edited and can be found for example in Bullarium Romanum: Bullarium diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum romanorum pontificum, Taurinensis editio, vol. IV (Turin: Augustae Taurinorum, 1859), and Bullarium Romanum: Bullarium diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum romanorum pontificum, Taurinensis editio, vol. VIII (Turin: Augustae Taurinorum, 1863). The orthographic guideline of the study is to use the Latin names of the witnesses as they are found in the sources. I have chosen this method to be able to apply a similar approach to all the source material and consider all the witnesses in an equal manner. For the saints, however, the conventional and regularly used English forms of their names are used here. The place names follow the modern English or Italian conventions. Generally the original Latin quotations are presented in the footnotes and sometimes partial translations in the actual text. Occasionally Latin terms are interpolated in the main text for the sake of argumentation. 12

Other processes consulted are the inquiry of Clare of Montefalco (1318–19) which was fairly close both temporally and geographically to Nicholas’s process yet has been preserved only

Introduction

7

The recognition of sainthood, the right to canonize, was a papal prerogative.13 Thus canonization processes were carried out by the set rules implemented by the papal curia. The interrogation was to be held in partibus: in the vicinity of the shrine or in another place at the core of the cult. The pope sent three commissioners usually of high clerical rank to carry out the actual interrogation of the witnesses. The commissioners formed the articuli interrogatorii, the list of questions to be asked of the witnesses. The life, merits, miracles, and fame of the putative saint were the focus of the questions.14 The process of canonization of Thomas Cantilupe was held from 13 July to 13 November 1307 in London and in Hereford, near the Welsh border.15 The core

fragmentarily. The records have been edited by Enrico Menestò and published under the title Il processo di canonizzazzione di Chiara da Montefalco (= Clare). A fruitful point of comparison is also the canonization process of Louis of Toulouse of 1308, which has been edited in Analecta Franciscana: Processus Canonizationis et Legendae varie Sancti Ludovici O.F.M. (= Louis). The canonization processes of Charles of Blois were organized after the Black Death in 1371. The records have been edited, yet due to the inaccuracies of the edition the manuscript was consulted here. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4025, Liber canonizacionis domini Karoli ducis Britanniae. All the unedited material was consulted both in manuscripts and in microfilms. The only exception to this is the summarium of the Cantilupe process BN, MS Lat. 5373 A which was consulted only as photocopies. This material has also been edited by Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 633–47. 13 The right to canonize became papal prerogative in 1234. On the evolution of canonization practices, see Eric Waldram Kemp, Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1948). 14

The commissioners were not supposed to be from the same area where the hearing was held or otherwise connected to the putative saint — such as a member of the same religious order. On practicalities of hearings, see Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 39–67. 15

Thomas Cantilupe belonged to the high nobility of English society. He was a well-educated man: he had studied canon law and theology in Paris and civil law in Orléans. After returning to England he taught law and theology at the University of Oxford, where he also worked as chancellor. Before achieving the episcopate in 1275 he held several canonries and he was an archdeacon in Stanford. He was the Bishop of Hereford until his death in 1282. Presumably he was not in regular close contact with the inhabitants of his diocese. Thomas Cantilupe also took part in the political discord of the era. Moreover, his career as bishop was rather turbulent. He ended up in quarrels with his archbishop, John Beckham. The situation led to open conflict when the Archbishop excommunicated Thomas. Thomas travelled to the curia to clean himself of these accusations and to persuade the pope to remove the excommunication. Apparently he succeeded in this, yet he died during the travel in Italy. Because of the uncertainties of the status of Thomas an inquiry of the state of excommunication had to be done before opening the canonization inquiry. This inquiry has been preserved in one manuscript in the Vatican Library: BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4016, Inquisitio de excommunicationis articulis quibus recolende memorie dominus Thomas de

8

Introduction

of the cult of Thomas Cantilupe was in Hereford and its rural surroundings. The commissioners holding the Cantilupe hearing were William Durand, Bishop of Mende, Ralph Baldock, Bishop of London, and William de Testa, a papal tax collector. They were well educated and learned in the canon law and papal administration.16 Henricus Schorne, Gilbertus de Cheueninge, and Thomas de Gynes were proctors of the process.17 Altogether 223 depositions were recorded. Some of the witnesses were interviewed several times, yet over two hundred witnesses gave their depositions at the hearing.18 The canonization process of Nicholas of Tolentino took place from 20 July to 28 September in 1325.19 The witnesses to the life and miracles of Nicholas came

Cantilupo quondam episcopus Herefordensis dicebatur tempore obitus sui fuisse ligatus. Thomas Cantilupe was buried in Hereford, but the miracles at his grave did not start until five years after his death. However, after this they were multiple, and the cult flourished long before it got the official approval from the papacy in 1320. Thomas’s successor, Richard Swinfield, was the cult’s main promoter. Kings Edward I and Edward II also applied for his canonization. For the details of Thomas’s life and cult, see Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 135–37 and 173–88, and Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 257, 338, 463. 16

For an introduction to the careers of the commissioners, see Robert Bartlett, The Hanged Man: A Story of Miracle, Memory, and Colonialism in the Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), pp. 16–21; for their future commitments after the hearing, see ibid., pp. 126–38. 17

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 1r and 182 v. The proctors were in the service of the commissioners. Their task was to cooperate with the commissioners, to open the process, and to gather the witnesses at a suitable time and place to testify. Thus the outcome depended heavily on them and on their reliability. Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, p. 54. On the practicalities of this process, see also Christian Krötzl, ‘Prokuratoren, Notare und Dolmetscher: Zu Gestaltung und Ablauf der Zeugeneinvernahmen bei spätmittelalterlichen Kanonisationsprozessen’, Hagiographica, 5 (1998), 119–40 (pp. 126–28). 18

Presumably 205 witnesses can be identified, but the identification is sometimes unclear due to the inconsistent orthography and lack of details on the position of the witness. For example, Walterus de Caple/Capel gave his testimony as witness numbers 98 and 204. They are likely the same person yet the testimony given as witness number 204 lacks all the details of his position. However, since in this deposition he mainly verifies the fame of the miracle (recovery of Lucia de Aspertone) as is typical for the deposition of the clergy, presumably he is the same person as witness 98 who is also a cleric. Both of these miracles took place in the diocese of Hereford but in different parishes, in How Caple and in Ashperton. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 165r and 243v . According to Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 177, there were 205 witnesses. This accords with my calculations with the reservations mentioned previously. 19

Nicholas of Tolentino was of humble origin, born after his parents’ invocation to his namesake, Nicholas of Bari. Nicholas was an Augustinian friar. Unlike Thomas Cantilupe, Nicholas was a familiar figure in Tolentino during his lifetime. He had multiple and lively contacts with the

Introduction

9

from urban central Italy. The interrogatory was carried out in Tolentino and in several nearby towns of the Marches of Ancona. In Nicholas’s process the commissioners were Federico, Bishop of Senigallia, and Tommaso di Cesena. The third commissioner, Ugolino, Abbot of Saint Peter’s in Perugia, declined the duty due to his other commitments and the unpleasant weather. Thomas di Fermo, lector of the Augustinian friars of Tolentino, acted as consultant, proctor, agent, promoter, and messenger.20 Altogether 371 depositions were recorded. Since six witnesses were interviewed twice there were altogether 365 witnesses.21 In addition to commissioners and proctors, the notaries were also important figures in the formation of canonization records. Their task was to write the testimonies down. They translated the vernacular oral testimony of the witnesses to the written Latin deposition found in the records. The notaries put the depositions in formam publicam and guaranteed for their part the judicial reliability of the process.22 The notaries took notes at the interrogation and transliterated the whole

inhabitants of Tolentino. Cf. Didier Lett, Un procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: Essai d’histoire sociale, Le nœud gordien (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2008), pp. 17–65. Nicholas was described as a devoted and understanding confessor. He gained the fame of sanctity already during his lifetime and performed several miracula in vita. Miracles started at the shrine immediately after Nicholas’s death. The main promoters of Nicholas’s cult were the Augustinian friars and the inhabitants of Tolentino. The official recognition of Nicholas’s sainthood took place more than a century after the inquiry. He was canonized in 1446. The reason for the delay may have been the Augustinian friars’ role in the Great Schism. Gentili, ‘Introduzione’. On the other hand Alain Boureau, ‘Saints et démons dans les procès de canonization du début du XIV e siècle’, in Procès de canonization au Moyen Âge, ed. by Klaniczay, pp. 199–221, suggests that the delay in the canonization was due to the excessively close association, even if it was defined as combat against, the Devil since it took Nicholas too close to the dangerous dialogues. On typologies of sainthood, see Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 163–256, and Robert Brentano, Two Churches: England and Italy in the Thirteenth Century (1968; repr. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 174–237. On the image of a saint found in the canonization process and the motivation and expectations of the organizers, see Laura Ackerman Smoller, ‘Northern and Southern Sanctity in the Canonization of Vincent Ferrer: The Effects of Procedural Differences on the Image of the Saint’, in Procès de canonization au Moyen Âge, ed. by Klaniczay, pp. 289–308. 20 Nicholas, documenta et mandata, pp. 3–4, 12, 14. Cicchus Venture and Marangolus Iacobutii were messengers (nuntius iuratus) helping to get the word to the witnesses. Nicholas, citationes testium, pp. 22, 28. On the practicalities of this process, see Gentili, ‘Introduzione’. 21

According to Gentili, ‘Introduzione’, p. xx, there were 365 witnesses. However, similar reservations about the identification of witnesses are valid here as in the Cantilupe hearing. 22

The institution of notary public had evolved in Italy by the beginning of thirteenth century and became established in England during that century. Notaries were public persons: they had the capacity to produce public judicial documents. On the notarial art, see Christopher R. Cheney, The

10

Introduction

testimony later. Afterwards the testimonies were read to the witnesses and they could correct their depositions.23 Occasionally interpreters were also needed if the commissioners and the witnesses did not have a common language or the dialect used differed greatly from the one the examiners comprehended.24 Theoretically all the putative saints were evaluated by a fixed standard and sainthood had similar requirements throughout Western Christianity. However, regardless of the regulations and requirements of canon law, the practicalities of diverse hearings varied widely. The papal permit for opening the inquiry alone required — in addition to the candidate of impeccable life and posthumous miracles — so much time, money, effort, allies, and promotion that the communities and devotees might well be unable to pursue canonization.25 As a result many cults in medieval Europe flourished without official canonization. The official canonization can be seen as a papal control mechanism of saints and cults, yet apparently it was not very effective. Despite the official procedure of confirming a person’s sainthood the cult of saints remained decentralized, diffuse, irregular, and unsusceptible to regulation.26

English Church and its Laws 12th –14th Centuries (London: Variorum, 1982), pp. 173–88. On notaries’ roles in the formation of canonization processes, see also Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 53–54, and Krötzl, ‘Prokuratoren, Notare und Dolmetscher’. Public notaries had sworn an oath and claimed their right by imperial or apostolic authority. This was also the case in the canonization processes of Thomas Cantilupe and Nicholas of Tolentino. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 3r–v and 263v –264r. Nicholas, citationes testium, pp. 70, 643. 23

The accuracy of this work can be seen in the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe, where, for example, details like ‘idem dominus Thomas’ were corrected to their apparently more exact form ‘dictus dominus Thomas’. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 112v . 24

On these occasions the deposition may have been translated several times. Such examples can be found in the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe while the majority of the witnesses of Nicholas’s process understood and spoke Latin. For details, see Krötzl, ‘Prokuratoren, Notare und Dolmetscher’, pp. 132–35. However, the importance of languages used, the need for interpreters, and their impact on the judicial reliability of the inquiry was also noted by the commissioners. For example, in the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe the language of the testimony as well as the language in which the questions were posed were recorded: ‘deposuit in gallico et intellegit latinum’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 182r). On the commissioners’ utterances to interpreters to keep the deposition secret until it was officially publicized, see for example ibid. fol. 220r. 25

The economic requirements only increased in the actual hearing. On costs and efforts, see Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 36–38; for the list of unsuccessful petitions for opening a process for canonization, see Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 82–83. 26

According to Aviad Kleinberg, ‘Canonization without a Canon’, in Procès de canonization au Moyen Âge, ed. by Klaniczay, pp. 7–18, canonization processes were not actually control mechanisms but more likely only a papal accolade for those who were willing to pay.

Introduction

11

Gender and Spheres of Everyday Life Construction of masculinity and femininity were — and are — essential elements in forming the hierarchies, identities, and modes of thought of any given culture. The ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are not universal characteristics but created differently within each society. Thus, in the context of these canonization hearings, there was not one single fixed idea of the masculine and the feminine as essential qualities. Gender includes the biological difference of the sexes yet stresses the importance of the social and cultural components. Social and cultural construction of masculinities and femininities defines one group in relation to another including, as a defining component, aspects of sexuality but also other aspects of behavioural expectations and social limitations. Gender was inflected by other systems of difference — it can be seen as a part of the matrix of social status.27 According to Sharon Farmer, gender was and is one of the fundamental categories of difference affecting hierarchies of power, but because there have always been other categories of difference there have never been just two genders; to fail to incorporate other categories of difference into the analysis of gender construction causes simplistic gender categories.28

27 Carol Braun Pasternack, ‘Negotiating Gender in Anglo-Saxon England’, in Gender and Difference in the Middle Ages, ed. by Sharon Farmer and Carol Braun Pasternack, Medieval Cultures Series, 32 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), pp. 107–42, claims that gender can be seen, rather than just as a binary system, as occupying multiple sites along a continuum or within a matrix. Elisabeth van Houts, ‘Introduction: Medieval Memories’, in Medieval Memories, ed. by van Houts, pp. 1–16 (pp. 2–3), also stresses the importance of other factors — status, age, health, morality, and religion — in predicting how men and women performed their roles in society. See also Judith C. Brown, ‘Introduction’, in Gender and Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. by Judith C. Brown and Robert C. Davis, Women and Men in History (London: Longman, 1998), pp. 1–15 (pp. 1–6), and Ruth Mazo Karras, From Boys to Men: Formations of Masculinity in Late Medieval Europe, Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), pp. 3–5. 28

Sharon Farmer, Surviving Poverty in Medieval Paris: Gender, Ideology and the Daily Lives of the Poor (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002), pp. 1–2, 69–70, and Sharon Farmer, ‘Introduction’, in Gender and Difference in the Middle Ages, ed. by Farmer and Pasternack, pp. ix–xxvii. Sharon Farmer criticizes recent scholarship for its tendency to fall back to the old simplistic masculine/feminine binary. Similarly, Jacqueline Murray, ‘One Flesh¸ Two Sexes, Three Genders?’, in Gender and Christianity in Medieval Europe: New Perspectives, ed. by Lisa M. Bitel and Felice Lifshitz, Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), pp. 34–51, criticizes the binary gender system and analyses the affect of biological sex difference in gender constructions. On the construction of femininity in medieval literature, see Gender in Debate from the Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance, ed. by Thelma S. Fenster and Clare A. Lees, New Middle Ages (New York: Palgrave, 2002). Currently some scholars, like Ruth Mazo Karras and JoAnn

12

Introduction

The aim of this book is to address the complexity of the lived experiences of the participants, the options and responsibilities of their gendered roles. Gender with other variations in the social position — age, wealth, status — is a tool to analyse the social relationships within daily life. As a point of comparison the gender constructs of clerical authors are considered. Clerical rhetoric influenced the norms and models which determined gender roles and social relations, thus it had significance in the lives of the witnesses of these inquiries.29 It should be stressed, however, that the gender constructs of

McNamara, have concentrated on the formation of masculinity, or rather masculinities, in the medieval context. Karras, From Boys to Men, has studied the masculinity of diverse social statuses: of chivalry, university students, and craft. JoAnn McNamara, ‘The Herrenfrage: The Restructuring of the Gender System, 1050–1150’, in Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages, ed. by Clare A. Lees, Medieval Cultures Series, 7 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994), pp. 3–30, on the other hand, has concentrated on the members of the religious orders. Both of these studies have concentrated on hegemonic masculinity, the essential core of which is domination. This included control over women and children, competing with other men, and even aggression. Not much value is attached to the cooperation between genders or fatherhood. On construction of clerical masculinity, see Ruth Mazo Karras, ‘Thomas Aquinas’s Chastity Belt: Clerical Masculinity in Medieval Europe’, in Gender and Christianity, ed. by Bitel and Lifshitz, pp. 52–67. 29

Since the majority of the surviving source material, especially from the earlier centuries of the Middle Ages, was written by men of religious status, their construction of the female sex, women, and femininity has aroused scholarly interest. Since these men rarely had any real relationships with or experiences of women, these — often misogynistic — writings did not usually represent actual historical women but more likely images of positive or, much more often, negative role models. The biological sex differences were ordained by God in the Creation. Furthermore, the ‘nature of woman’ was not confined to the biological realm, but women’s bodies were also essential in the formation of social and cultural constructs of gender order. Equally decisive was the Fall: since Eve had fallen into the Devil’s temptations and corrupted Adam as well, the pitiful situation of humanity was considered to be her fault. Moreover, this was not considered to be an individual lapse but typical behaviour for all women. In the clerical literature women were deemed to be deceitful, weak, and given to temptations — the Devil’s gateway. On the biological sex difference and its implications for the social construction of gender, see Joan Cadden, Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science, and Culture, Cambridge Studies in the History of Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), especially pp. 167–227, and Danielle Jacquart and Claude Thomasset, Sexuality and Medicine in the Middle Ages (1985; repr. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988); on interconnection with spirituality, see Elizabeth Robertson, ‘Medieval Medical Views of Women and Female Spirituality in the Ancrene Wisse and Julian Norwich’s Showings’, in Feminist Approaches to the Body in Medieval Literature, ed. by Linda Lomperis and Sarah Standbury, New Cultural Studies (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), pp. 142–67. On the masculine and especially clerical image of women, see Penny Schine Gold, The Lady & the Virgin: Image, Attitude, and Experience in Twelfth-Century France (Chicago: University

Introduction

13

clerical authors or other theoretical concepts were not a uniform ideology in the Middle Ages. The set of beliefs evolved during the period and there were many discrepancies and even contradictions in the didactic moral literature. The gender images and models were used in fluid meanings and in various situations. Here the gender constructs of the clerical rhetoric are compared to — and often challenged by — the lived experiences of the men and women testifying in these hearings. We all simultaneously occupy different social roles which are based on or affected by gender, status, wealth, age — as well as diverse social spheres. For the majority of us, as well as for the majority of the witnesses in these processes, the first sphere of interaction, of social responsibilities and opportunities, is the intimate private sphere of domestic settings. However, all members of the community also occupy a social position in the public sphere. Naturally, not all the members of the community hold official public power yet all participate in the social context — the majority by physical presence and all by opinions, narrations, and memories which are collectively shared. Likewise, the attitudes, expectations, and norms of these spheres affect our behaviour.

of Chicago Press, 1985); Howard R. Bloch, Medieval Misogyny and the Invention of Western Romantic Love (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991); and the collection of essays in A History of Women in the West, vol. II: Silences of the Middle Ages, ed. by Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, series editors Georges Duby and Michelle Perrot (1990; repr. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1994), especially the articles of Jacques Dalarun (‘The Clerical Gaze’, pp. 15–42), Carla Casagrande (‘The Protected Women’, pp. 70–104), and Silvana Vecchio (‘The Good Wife’, pp. 105–35). Questions of family, parental roles, and children have aroused a keen interest among scholars in recent years. These themes have also been important for the study of medieval women and gender roles. The works of Judith M. Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside: Gender & Household in Brigstock Before the Plague (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), and Barbara Hanawalt, The Ties that Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), for example, have been influential. Both have studied medieval English peasants. Similar groundbreaking work has been done in Italy by Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, La maison et le nom: stratégies et rituels dans l’Italie de la Renaissance, Civilisations et societes (Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 1990), and David Herlihy, Women, Family and Society in Medieval Europe: Historical Essays 1978–1991 (Providence: Berghahn Books, 1995). Alltagsgeschichte has been an important field of study in German scholarship. See for example Claudia Opitz, Frauenalltag im Mittelalter: Biographien des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts, Erbegnisse der Frauenforschung, 5 (Weinheim: Beltz, 1987), which draws evidence from hagiographic material, and the collection of articles in Frau und spätmittelalterlichen Alltag: Internationaler Kongress Krems an der Donau, 2. bis 5. Oktober 1984, Vorgelegt von Heinrich Appelt, Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse, 473 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1986).

14

Introduction

Public space generally meant that of common possession by all the people, and private meant departure from common usage. The public space was accessible to all, yet individuals were also less protected there. Private referred to one’s own resources and to domesticity, to the home.30 In a social sense a public act was committed in the open, before the eyes of all, and a private act in one’s own house, hidden from the view of others. In the private space individuals had the right of not being overheard or watched. These two spheres were separated, yet the dividing line was fluid.31 The status of many places was open to negotiation, thus the definition of spaces can be seen as a phenomenon of constant production and social construct.32 30

Georges Duby, ‘Introduction: Private Power, Public Power’, in A History of Private Life II. Revelations of the Medieval World, gen. eds Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988), pp. 3–31 (pp. 3–5). The classification of spheres can be defined, for example, by access (physical access, access to activities and intercourse, access to information) or agency (is the agent acting on his/her own account or publicly, as an official). Stanley I. Benn and Gerald F. Gaus, ‘The Public and Private: Concepts and Action’, in Public and Private in Social Life, ed. by S. I. Benn and G. F. Gaus (London: Croom Helm, 1983), pp. 3–27. The access to the space and, even more importantly, the people present are under scrutiny here, while the agency, the official public power, is excluded. However, on the importance of public performances — whether carried out or manipulated by officials — in the medieval English marketplaces, see James Masschaele, ‘The Public Space of the Marketplace in Medieval England’, Speculum, 77 (2002), pp. 382–421. Sometimes a communal sphere is categorized between the public and private spheres. In the communal space of an English village, like at a pond or well, all the inhabitants had rights. Highways, streets, lanes, and footpaths were public, and all persons, outsiders as well as inhabitants, had rights there. Brian Roberts, The Making of the English Village: A Study in Historical Geography (Harlow: Longman, 1987), p. 20. The access and rights of outsiders to the public space were, however, limited and depended on the situation. For example, people wandering around after sunset with no reason could be arrested. Keniston Marjorie McIntosh, Controlling Misbehaviour in England 1370–1600, Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time, 34 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 65–67. 31

Duby, ‘Private Power, Public Power’, pp. 7–10. Private property and persons within it were protected: the importance of privacy was stressed in the regulations of late medieval London, which required that even the smells from neighbours were not allowed to disturb the private space. Yet in the late medieval context privacy can be seen as communal and relative rather than individual and absolute. Diane Shaw, ‘The Construction of the Private in Medieval London’, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 26 (fall 1996), 447–66. 32

A medieval town was a mosaic of private jurisdictions and the distinction between the public and private space was a matter of controversy and litigation. For example, the public or private status of a marketplace was not always evident to the inhabitants. See Kathryn Reyerson, ‘Public and Private Space in Medieval Montpellier: The Bon Amic Square’, Journal of Urban History, 24 (November 1997), 3–27. The judicial aspect is not, however, under scrutiny here.

Introduction

15

The public–private dichotomy was not the only way of classifying space.33 Equally important was the division into sacred and profane. The sacred sphere was an essential element in the community, yet it penetrated and intermingled with the public and private realms; thus no clear distinction between these spheres can be made.34 Moreover, the sacred sphere was not defined only in physical terms: the communication with God or the heavenly intercessor could take place everywhere. A particular physical space was not a prerequisite. This communication cannot be easily categorized as either public or private. The interaction with the supernatural was always personal and intimate; its spiritual significance was connected with the person’s soul and morality. Yet the devotional practices of personal importance required outer signs which could be observed by others — in other words, public acts. The use and responsibilities connected with particular spaces were gendered. The space determined the limits of behaviour for men and women. In the didactic literature the clerical authors stressed the interconnection between different spheres and gender: women were connected with the private and domestic realms while men were to occupy, guard, and govern the public space.35

33

Henri Lefebvre categorizes space as absolute or abstract. According to him, the medieval space was absolute in contrast to the abstract space of modern times, which is formal and quantitative and erases distinctions which derive from nature or time or originate in the body. The absolute space, on the other hand, was simultaneously religious and political in character: the rites and ceremonies had a major role in defining it. Absolute space consisted of sacred or cursed locations. Everything in these societies was situated, perceived, and interpreted in terms of such places. Absolute space was indistinguishably mental and social and comprehended the entire existence. Henri Lefebvre argues that space had a great effect on social relations, yet he claims that absolute space did not make a great distinction between the private and public realms. Absolute space did not govern the private space of the family yet it was not left with a great deal of freedom. See Henri Lefebvre, Production of Space (1974; repr. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), pp. 35, 48–49, and 358; on absolute space, see ibid., pp. 229–91. Lucetta Scaraffia, ‘Questioni aperte’, in Luoghi sacri e spazi della santità, Premessa di Sofia Boesch Gajano e Lucetta Scaraffia, Sacro-Santo (Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, 1990), pp. 11–19, also claims that symbolic places were important in forming identities and memories in traditional societies. 34

See for example Edward Muir, ‘The Virgin in the Street Corner: The Place of the Sacred in Italian Cities’, in Religion and Culture in the Renaissance and Reformation, ed. by Steven Ozment, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 11 (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1989), pp. 25–40. 35

Barbara Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute’: Gender and Social Control in Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 70–87. Sharon Farmer, ‘Manual Labour, Begging,

16

Introduction

The gendered division of space was not only a moralists’ myth. The tasks and responsibilities of daily life were gendered and similarly connected to a particular sphere. The daily routines took men more often outside the domestic sphere while women were more bound to the responsibilities of home. Yet women were not confined to the domestic sphere. Even though the use of space was wider for men, the ordinary daily duties also brought women into regular contact with persons outside their domestic sphere.36 Moreover, the villages and towns of the fourteenth century were a very public world: both men and women relied on their neighbours, cooperated with other inhabitants, and worshipped together in the parish church. The community’s interest and control extended to even the most private of acts: sexual relations and marriage were subject to considerable community control.37 The medieval oralaural culture turned anyone pursuing daily business, for example in a marketplace, into a public performer in a social sense.38 Indeed, the general rhetoric of the interconnection between gender and space was often challenged in the interaction with

and Conflicting Gender Expectations in Thirteenth-Century Paris’, in Gender and Difference in the Middle Ages, ed. by Farmer and Pasternack, pp. 261–87, claims that the most important gendered association was to connect men with productive work and women with reproductive work. This also led to the distinction of spaces: women were associated with the private and men with the public sphere. The vision of exclusive and separate realms was strong in the minds of clerics. 36

On gendered allocation of space and responsibilities in rural and urban England, see Hanawalt, Ties that Bound; Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute’, pp. 70–87; Barbara Hanawalt, ‘Medieval English Women in Rural and Urban Domestic Space’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 52 (1998), 20–26; Bennet, Women in the Medieval English Countryside, pp. 6–7; and Judith M. Bennett, ‘Public Power and Authority in the Medieval English Countryside’, in Women and Power in the Middle Ages, ed. Mary Erler and Maryanne Kowaleski (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1988), pp. 18–36 (p. 18). On Italian city-states, see Robert C. Davis, ‘The Geography of Gender in the Renaissance’, in Gender and Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. by Brown and Davis, pp. 19–38, and Edward Muir and Ronald Weissman, ‘Social and Symbolic Places in Renaissance Venice and Florence’, in The Power of Place: Bringing Together Geographic and Sociological Imaginations, ed by. John A. Agnew and James S. Duncan (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989), pp. 81–123. 37

Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside, pp. 6–7, and Bennett, ‘Public Power and Authority’, p. 18. However, the need for privacy was also stressed; see Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 101–02; Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, p. 44; and Shaw, ‘Construction of the Private’. 38

Reyerson, ‘Public and Private Space’, pp. 3–27, and Ellen Kittell, ‘Women, Audience, and Public Act in Medieval Flanders’, Journal of Women’s History, 10 (autumn 1998), 74–96. Jill Dubisch, In a Different Place: Pilgrimage, Gender, and Politics at a Greek Island Shrine (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 207, argues that all roles, including gender, are public since they are defined and evaluated by a larger community.

Introduction

17

the saint. The depositions of the canonization processes depict a different image of the gendered use of space. The concept of sphere can be approached from a judicial, social, cultural, or physical point of view. Here the focus is on the social construction of the spheres, while attention is also given to the actual physical space. However, these fluid and intermingling spheres are themselves an object of this study — not fixed or rigid categories according to which the activities are classified. Here focus is on the way gender was constructed and reflected in the depositions of the canonization processes. The concept of sainthood or the personalities of these saints are not of great importance for scrutiny, but the devotional practices of the devotees — the invocations, the votive offerings, and the formation of the memories of the miracles — form the core of this book. The focus is the laity who themselves did not seek a saintly life or reputation. For the devotees religion was not the main obligation, as pious as they may have been, but rather a part of life and often also a means to find solutions to diverse problems. The interaction with the saint had spiritual significance for the devotees. However, to plead for a saint’s help can also be seen as a social strategy. It was a conscious choice and deliberate approach to difficulties: saints had the power to heal and protect. The gender of the participant had its effects on this procedure since it dictated the accustomed spheres, roles, and permissible modes of behaviour, thus affecting the problems the help was pleaded for, the mode of supplication, as well as the manifestation of gratitude for the grace bestowed. To get a profound image of the above-mentioned phenomena — construction of gender, miracles, and daily life — the main question is an approach with four different perspectives. First attention is given to the formation of these sources. Therefore the first chapter is dedicated to the clerical point of view: to the selection of the witnesses for the inquiries as well as to the evaluation of the credibility and trustworthiness of their testimonies. The preferences of the committees of inquiry as well as the requirements of canon law reflect the clerical authorities’ perceptions of masculinity and femininity. After this the study proceeds with the analysis of depositions and follows the structure of the miracle. First the focus is on the invocation and on the initiators, the participants, and the diverse spheres, both physical and social, in which it took place. Since the majority of the witnesses were laymen and -women the practicalities of family life stand out in the source material. Similarly the vagaries of everyday life — illnesses and accidents, likewise the gendered tasks, roles, and responsibilities in coping with them — are prominent in this part.

18

Introduction

After entreating, and receiving, the saint’s help attention is turned to the rituals of thanksgiving, to the manifestation of gratitude. The diverse votive offerings, both goods and deeds, were a way to communicate with the divine. However, the choice of oblation simultaneously reflects the gendered social roles. The interaction with the saint, like the diverse forms of pilgrimage, was also a way to construct gender and make one’s social position acknowledged in a wider community. The last chapter concentrates on the narrations of these events and the formation of the memories of the miracles. Attention is given to how some elements became fixed and some forgotten in the recollection. In addition to the particularities in the depositions the intermingling of the public and private, the collectively shared and personal memories, is also of interest in this chapter. These canonization processes were held in different geographical places. The different cultural spheres the cults and the devotees occupied obviously pose a challenge for the reading of these sources. Attention should be paid to the regional particularities. The main approach is comparative, yet the points of comparison are multiple. Some of them arise from the source material while some are thematic. In addition to comparing these two processes within their cultural contexts, the evident point of comparison is the activities of men and women in their diverse roles, as well as the comparison of different perceptions of masculinity and femininity. Comparing the perceptions and mode of thought of the clerical authorities and the laity is equally important, since both of them have shaped these records. The regulations imposed by the papal curia and implemented by the commissioners shaped the content of the depositions. The witnesses were not free to discuss the features or details they considered significant. The officials dominated the proceedings at the hearing, the selection of the witnesses, the questions to be asked, and the way the information was treated to collect reliable evidence of the putative saint’s life, merits, and miracles. The canonization processes took shape according to the judicial regulations, and their relationship to the actual historical event is closer than in other kinds of hagiographic material. Saints’ vitae or miracle collections were composed by clerical authors according to set rules: the aim was to use typical themes and motives to proclaim the glory of God and of the particular saint. The outcome was regulated according to previous examples.39 Presumably the hagiographical topoi have had 39

Nowadays the scholars generally agree — in contrast to previous views — that hagiographic material is neither an accurate reconstruction of past events and God’s intervention nor mere fabrication provoked by religious imagination. Rather, this material conveys the mode of thought,

Introduction

19

their effects on the outcome of these inquiries, too, yet on most occasions the clerics exerted influence by their presuppositions and questions. Nevertheless, the clergy was well aware of the general patterns of a miracle story; this predirected the questions posed and the answers anticipated. However, the laity was likewise aware of crucial elements in miracles. The set patterns of a didactic miracle story may have helped them to memorize and give meaning to their own experiences.40 Even though there were differences between the mode of thought of clerical authorities and lay devotees there is no reason to exaggerate the polarity of late medieval culture. The domain of culture was complex and multifaceted, not merely

the values, and the social as well as the religious practices of its era. Geary, Furta Sacra, p. 10, argues that a medieval hagiographer’s task was to demonstrate how the saint exhibited universal characteristics of sanctity common to all saints of all times, thus the characteristics did not necessarily need to come from the particular saint’s own life. In addition to these universal characteristics the political motives, social background, or even personal interests of the compiler may have affected the miracles collected and the way they were represented in the collection. On the influence of political motives and social relationships on the narrative methods, see Didier Lett, ‘Deux hagiographes, un saint et un roi: conformisme et créativité dans les deux recueils de miracula de Thomas Becket’, in Auctor et auctoritas: invention et conformisme dans l’écriture médiévale, Actes du colloque de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (14–15 juin 1999), ed. by Michael Zimmermann, Mémoires et documents de l’École des Chartes, 59 (Paris: École des Chartes, 2001), pp. 201–16. On the effect of monastic propaganda on hagiographic material, see Ward, Miracles and the Medieval Mind; on different interests and contexts of diverse hagiographers within the same miracle collection, see Kathleen Ashley and Pamela Sheingorn, Writing Faith: Text, Sign, and History in the Miracles of Saint Foy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999). Ashley and Sheingorn have also stressed that medieval literature, including hagiography, is always a ‘rhetorical construction that serves historical purposes’ (ibid., p. ix), while Felice Lifshitz, ‘Beyond Positivism and Genre: “Hagiographical” Texts as Historical Narrative’, Viator, 25 (1994), 95–113, claims that hagiography can be seen as an ideological tool. The influence of narrative models on miracle stories is stressed by Sofia Boesch Gajano, ‘Dalla storiografia alla storia’, in Miracoli: Dai segni alla storia, ed. by Sofia Boesch Gajano and Marilena Modica, Sacro/santo (nuova serie), 1 (Rome: Viella, 2000), pp. 215–33. 40

On clergy’s expectations and the structure of miracle narrations, see Stanko Andriæ, The Miracles of St. John Capistran (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2000), pp. 228–34; on witnesses’ recollections intermingling with literary miracle stories, see Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning’, and Hanska, ‘Hanging of William Cragh’. The essential element of medieval culture, religion, was based on the written word while oral communication was the norm in medieval society. Information related to the cult of saints especially circulated orally yet was supplemented by written evidence. These features should not be seen as binary opposites but as intermingling with each other. See Julia M. H. Smith, ‘Oral and Written: Saints, Miracles, and Relics in Brittany, c. 850–1250’, Speculum, 65 (1990), 309–43. See also Evelyn Birge Vitz, ‘From the Oral to the Written in Medieval and Renaissance Saints’ Lives’, in Images of Sainthood in Medieval Europe, ed. by Blumenfeld-Kosinski and Szell, pp. 97–114.

20

Introduction

a dichotomy of clerical and lay spheres.41 These spheres — the clerical or the lay — were internally heterogeneous.42 As an aspect of methodology it should be stressed that the canonization records do not reproduce the actual historical event which was comprehended as miraculous by the participants. These records do not even reproduce the stories and narrations of the event that were circulating orally by the time of the hearing. What is extant is the version of these narrations that was shaped by the questioning formula of clerical authorities, turned into a literate form, and translated into Latin. However, the value of these sources for social historians is appreciated and accepted. Scholars generally argue that the testimonies in canonization processes give valuable information on everyday life and reflect the genuine mode of thought of the laity while some even stress the authenticity of the laity’s voice in these depositions.43 Thus the

41

The strong polarity and differences between clerical and lay culture are stressed, for example, by Jacques LeGoff (see Pour un autre Moyen Âge: temps, travail et culture en Occident (Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1979)) while continuity rather than disruption is stressed by several scholars, for example, Gurevich, Medieval Popular Culture. Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, p. 581, claims that the attitude of popes and cardinals was nearly the same as the attitude of ‘simples fidèles’. Others stress the difficulty of obtaining genuine knowledge of the laity’s perceptions, especially on matters like inner motivation. See Susan Signe Morrison, Women Pilgrims in Late Medieval England: Private Piety as Public Performance, Routledge Research in Medieval Studies, 3 (London: Routledge, 2000), p. 69. On the complexity of medieval cultural assumptions, see Nancy Caciola, ‘Spirits Seeking Bodies: Death, Possession and Communal Memory in the Middle Ages’, in The Place of Dead: Death and Remembrance in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. by Bruce Gordon and Peter Marshall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 66–86. 42 When possible, attention is also paid to the discrepancies and contradictions in the clerical literature, for example in the construction of femininities and masculinities in late medieval culture. However, not all the nuances can be scrutinized here in detail since the focus is the social realities and mode of thought of the laity. Thus some generally accepted formulations of the clerical point of view are referred to only as ‘the Church’s teachings’ or the ‘opinion of clerical authors’. By these statements, however, I do not wish to imply that the medieval Church or clergy was one uncomplicated unity with fixed qualities. 43

For example, Goodich, Violence and Miracle, p. 9, claims that despite the notarial act ‘the precision and variety of the accounts which remain nevertheless often allows us to detect the authentic voices of a wide spectrum of participants and witnesses to the miracle’. See also Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, p. 228. Paolo Mariani, ‘Racconto spontaneo o memoria construita?Testi e confronto in alcuni processi di canonizzazione del secolo decimoquarto’, MEFRM, 108 (1996), 259–319, also claims that the canonization processes are heard ‘viva voce di quasi muto’ (p. 260). However, see also Leonard Boyle’s cautions on taking the translated depositions of the laity literally: ‘Montaillou Revisited: Mentalité and Methodology’, in Pathways to Medieval Peasants, ed. by J. A. Raftis, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies and Texts, 2

Introduction

21

depositions reveal more general cultural assumptions of the clergy as well as detailed information about the daily lives of the witnesses. The analysis of the depositions is essentially qualitative. Quantitative aspects are occasionally expressed in statistics or in footnotes. However, they can quite often be seen as indicative and preliminary material for the closer reading. They offer a general view of the phenomenon but do not reveal the nuances of the depositions. Thus the analysis is based on comparison and qualitative scrutiny of individual depositions.

(Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1981), pp. 119–40. The criticism is against the methodological approach of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie’s Montaillou, village Occitan de 1294 à 1324, Bibliothèque des histoires (Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1975), which is based on inquisitorial records, yet the notions are also valid for canonization processes.

Chapter 1

S ELECTION OF W ITNESSES AND F ORMATION OF C ANONIZATION P ROCESSES

Practicalities of the Hearing Structure of Canonization Processes

T

he miraculous occurrences experienced by the devotees were recorded in canonization processes. However, these sources do not reveal the whole cult of these putative saints or include all the miracles performed by these intercessors. Presumably many more Christians felt that they had experienced a miraculous cure or rescue than was actually recorded in the canonization records. The clerical authorities’ control began already when reporting the cure to the officials of the shrine. Usually an inquiry was held immediately at the shrine and the miracle was publicized by ringing the bells. However, the clergy may have interpreted the situation differently from the beneficiary and refused to record the incident. Presumably the intensity and amount of control and need for certification increased simultaneously with the hierarchal level of those holding the inquiry. The officials at the local shrine may have interpreted the occurrences rather favourably while the papal commissioners usually scrutinized the cases more thoroughly. Moreover, only a minority of the miracles were examined in the canonization hearings, and only a small part of these found their way to the final canonization bull.1

1

For example, at the shrine of Thomas Cantilupe a votive or devotional offering was left several thousand times, and more than four hundred miracles were collected in the registers of the shrine. However, fewer than forty cases ended up in the canonization hearing, only ten of which were reported in the final canonization bull. The list of offerings is in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 74r–v and 312v–313r. On the register, see Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 178–83. This list was

24

Chapter 1

Thus miracles to be scrutinized and witnesses to be interrogated in the canonization inquiries were evidently selected beforehand. Not all the beneficiaries were interviewed. The methods of selection varied from one process to another, even though canon law and the regulations of the papal curia dictated the practicalities of execution and guided the composition of these documents.2 It is noteworthy, however, that the methods of selection have not aroused scholarly interest. Many studies of canonization processes do not take into account the actual process of selection. Quite often the depositions are taken as given: no consideration is given to the fact that the depositions to be found were formed after an active process of selection and rejection of witnesses and miracles to be investigated. The scholars quite often concentrate on the practicalities of the inquisitorial committee, the role of the notaries or commissioners, or on the actual events described in the deposition: the beneficiary, the petitioner, and the illness or accident and its surroundings. Generally little or no attention is given to whose words were written down and why.3 An important exception to this is the recent article by Paolo Golinelli, who studied the selection of witnesses in some Italian canonization processes. He claims that a clear temporal shift can be found in the attitudes of the organizers. In the earliest records witnesses from different social strata were selected to testify. Often the whole community was expected to give testimony on a particular candidate’s sainthood. This approach was altered and later, in the fourteenth century, only the partly added and copied for the canonization process after the actual inquiry, fols 247 r–308 v. On the canonization bull of Thomas Cantilupe, see Bullarium Romanum, IV , 291–94. 2

Often a preliminary inquiry was held by the local officers to have proof of the existing cult for the papal curia. See Enrico Menestò, ‘Il Processo apostolico per la canonizzazione di Chiara da Montefalco (1318–1319)’, in Mistiche e devote nell’Italia tardomedievale, ed. by Daniel Bornstein and Roberto Rusconi, Nuovo Medioevo (Napoli: Liguori Editore, 1992), pp. 107–26 (pp. 107–18), and Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 60–67. 3

For example, Goodich, Violence and Miracle, pp. 10–13, compares the number of witnesses as well as the accuracy of depositions in miracle collections and canonization processes, yet he does not ponder the choice of witnesses in particular cases. Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 40–60, notes that the witnesses should have and had come from different levels of society, yet he does not analyse the choice but concentrates on the practicalities of the organizing of the hearing: the notaries and the interrogatory of chosen witnesses. Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning’, is very attentive to the discrepancies in the depositions but does not pay attention to the selection of the witnesses who made those depositions. Krötzl, ‘Prokuratoren, Notare und Dolmetscher’, and Thomas Wetzstein, Heilige vor Gericht: Das Kanonisationsverfahren im europäischen Mittelalter (Cologne: Böhlau, 2004), pp. 56–85, on the other hand, concentrate on the legal aspects — and not on the practicalities — of witness selection.

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

25

witnesses of high prestige were summoned. According to Paolo Golinelli, this notion is especially valid in Nicholas’s case: the attention was reserved for the groups of higher status in the town, which simultaneously stressed their leading role in the community.4 Golinelli emphasizes the importance of clerical or high social status, yet does not pay much attention to the gender of the participants. In the Cantilupe hearing the commissioners carefully selected not only the witnesses but also the miracles to be investigated. The organizers preferred miraculous recoveries from death, which had taken place in public with many spectators, as well as the healing miracles at the beginning of the cult.5 Similarly the miracles with biblical examples, the resurrections of the dead and the recoveries of the blind and the lame, were appreciated.6 Several witnesses testified to each incident. Only approximately forty miracles were approved to be fully investigated. The commissioners of the canonization hearing of Nicholas of Tolentino required a different approach. According to the later relatio, altogether 301 miracles were recorded.7 The miracles do not seem to have been selected especially carefully beforehand: they were mostly recoveries from various illnesses. The cures took place in domestic settings, and only one or two witnesses testified to them. The canonization records of Thomas Cantilupe comprised two parts: pars prima was of the life and merits of Thomas while pars secunda concentrated on the miracles. However, among the depositions of the first part there were also testimonies to miracles. The witnesses testifying to the miracles were not asked about the details of the life of Thomas Cantilupe. The second part was also strictly organized. The different miracles were given titles, and witnesses to each miracle were 4

Paolo Golinelli, ‘Social Aspects in Some Italian Canonization Trials: The Choice of Witnesses’, in Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge, ed. by Klaniczay, pp. 165–80. 5

For example, the cures of Iuliana Kock, Johannes de Holehamton, Editha (the wife of Robertus), Agnes de la Brok, Adam de Kylpek, Agnes de la Hulle, and Avicia de la Putte took place at the beginning of the cult at the shrine while the scene of the accident can be defined as public in the revivals of Johanna la Schirreue, Johannes Drake, Willelmus le Lorimer, Rogerus (son of Gervasius Cocus), and Nicholas (son of Johannes Piscator). 6

Fourteen revivals of the dead, ten recoveries of the paralysed, and five recoveries of the blind were selected for the canonization process. On biblical miracles in canonization processes, see also Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, p. 546. 7

It should be noted that the cure of Lucas, the son of Sostenga Molieratutii, cannot be found in the relatio. Lapse is most probably the reason for this negligence since the miracle does not essentially differ from other miraculous cures of children, which were petitioned by the mother and took place in the domestic settings. Nicholas, testis XXXVIII, pp. 166–67. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4027, fols 12r–51v .

26

Chapter 1

interrogated together one after the other. Some practicalities of the examination were also written down in the records.8 The hearing was precisely organized, controlled, and recorded — up to the point that it is claimed to have served as a model for later hearings.9 The commissioners were also rather strict with the details: the deposition or the inquiry of a particular miracle was completely stopped if the witnesses were not accurate or altered the story in relation to other depositions.10 Nicholas’s process was not divided according to a set structure. The depositions of the life and miracles were written down side by side; no division was made. The miracles were not labelled, nor were the witnesses to each miracle interrogated consecutively.11 In Nicholas’s hearing the commissioners did not sort or arrange the order of the testimonies to the miracles. Moreover, in many cases the organizers were apparently not interested in finding several witnesses for the miracle. The principles according to which the whole inquiry was arranged seem to have been fairly liberal. People were free to testify about the miraculous cures they had personally experienced; no further assurance for the depositions was required. The details of the miracles were not validated by several eyewitness testimonies. No comments about the validity or truthfulness of the depositions were made by the commissioners. Testimonies were not interrupted or rejected due to missing or inconsistent details. Only a few remarks on the practicalities of the examination can be found.12 In the Cantilupe hearing both the proctors and commissioners summoned witnesses to give testimony. The commissioners were more active in calling people for interrogation on life and merits while the majority of the witnesses testifying

8

The place, date, and even time of the interview can be found. For example ‘post hec in crastinum scilicet die XVII mensis septembris Cecilia uxor predicti Ade le Schirreue [. . .] a procuratori capitulum herefordenis producta’: BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 126v . Comments about the witnesses’ behaviour were occasionally written down. ‘Respondit indignanter quod non’: ibid., fol. 133v. Changed order of witnesses was also remarked and explained: ibid., fol. 188r. 9

Christian Krötzl, ‘Kanonisationsprozess, Socialgeschichte und Kanonisches Recht im Spätmittelalter’, in Nordic Perspectives on Medieval Canon Law, ed. by Mia Korpiola, Publications of Matthias Calonius Society, 2 (Helsinki: Gummerus, 1999), pp. 19–39 (p. 37). 10

For example BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 73r–v and 214v–215r.

11

For example, witnesses giving testimony to the miraculous revival of little Sennucia were soror Paulucia (testis XXIX, pp. 150–51), Manfredinus (testis LXXXI, pp. 224–25) and domina Imilla (testis C, pp. 287–88). There is no mention by the notaries in the depositions that there are also other witnesses testifying to this miracle. 12

See, for example, Nicholas, processus rogatorialis perusinus, pp. 466–68.

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

27

to the miracles were called by the proctors. Local proctors were naturally more aware of the miracles and the individuals involved in them.13 When selecting witnesses for pars secunda commissioners usually only wanted to verify the fame of the miracle and the reputation of the witnesses by interrogating the parish priest after other witnesses. The mode of selecting the witnesses was much more obscure in the canonization process of Nicholas of Tolentino. The party summoning the witnesses to testify is not clear. At the beginning of the hearing the proctor presented a list of 217 names. Many of these people were interrogated later while the majority never gave their deposition in front of the commissioners. When the witnesses to be interrogated were summoned to the hearing this was done by both the proctor and the commissioners.14 However, apparently some of the witnesses were called in only by the commissioners since the petition of Friar Thomas is not mentioned in all the cases.15 Interestingly, many witnesses who were later called in never gave their testimony, or at least their depositions cannot be found in the canonization records. They were summoned to testify sub pena excommunicationis.16 Likely they appeared in front of the commissioners or at least justified their absence properly. If these persons gave their testimony but it was not duly recorded, the reason for the exclusion is not mentioned.

13

The outcome of the hearing depended heavily on local proctors’ reliability. In the Cantilupe hearing the proctors had to swear an oath that they would not deviate from the truth. ‘Item post predicta dicti domini comissarii receperunt corporale iuramentum tactis sacrosanctis Ewangeliis prestitum a dicto magistro Henrico procuratori capituli Herefordensis in animam suam et in animas illorum a quibus constitutus est procuri quod in negocio isto et in processu toto non aget nec faciet aliquid nec aliquas probationes inducet per calumpniam vel maliciam’: BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 3r. On the de calumnia principle, see Gentili, ‘Introduzione’, p. xvii. 14

Nicholas, citationes testium, p. 41: ‘ex eorum officio et ad petitionem dicti fratris Thome procuratoris et syndici supradicti venerabiles patres domini episcopi et inquisitores predicti pro tribunali sedentes [. . .] commiserunt, imposuerunt, et madaverunt’. On chosen witnesses in Nicholas’s process and the nature of the cult before opening the canonization hearing, see Lett, Un procès de canonisation. 15

Nicholas, citationes testium, pp. 50–51: ‘predicti reverendi patres domini episcopi pro tribunali sedentes [. . .] commisuerunt, imposuereunt et mandaverunt’. 16

On penalties for not attending the interrogatory and other practicalities in summoning the witnesses in canonization processes of the late Middle Ages, see Wetzstein, Heilige vor Gericht, pp. 432–35.

28

Chapter 1

Moreover, some of the witnesses were apparently not called to testify by either the proctor or the commissioners, but more likely volunteered. Presumably they were met at the shrine on the feast day and interrogated there. Not all these pilgrims were called to testify beforehand.17 Further confusion arises because the depositions of the witnesses summoned and interrogated on the same day can be found at rather long distances from each other in the final records.18 Thus the procedure of calling witnesses to testify and the organization of the process is more obscure in Nicholas’s hearing than in the inquiry of Thomas Cantilupe, which was strictly and clearly organized. Testimony and Canon Law The regulations of canonization hearings fell under the jurisdiction of the Church. The importance of the judicial accuracy of hearings can be seen in the pope’s orders to repeat the hearing if it did not meet the standards of canon law.19 Canon law was not, however, explicit concerning the organizing of canonization hearings. No clear rules or norms for the practicalities were given in the major compilations.20 The status, prerequisites, and incapacity of witnesses were discussed in several parts of the decretals of Gratian and of Gregory IX (pope 1227–41). Yet, the actual

17

For example Iohanna, the wife of Ufreducius Petri (Nicholas, testis CCCXXXII), Lucia, the daughter of Bonaventure (testis CCCLIV), and Tarducius Iohannis (testis CCCLXI) were not called beforehand to give testimony. Yet their depositions can be found in the records. Some of the missing witnesses called, as well as witnesses not called to testify but whose depositions can be found, may be explained by variations in orthography; the identification is in some cases unclear. 18

For example, Berardus, Berardescha, and Ceccha Appillaterre were all summoned and interrogated on 24 July. Nicholas, citationes testium, p. 27. However, in the final canonization records Berardus is testis XVI (pp. 116–30), Berardescha testis LXXXIV (pp. 235–42), and Ceccha testis LXXXV (pp. 243–47). The members of the Appillaterre family testify mainly to the same miraculous occurrences. 19

The judicial accuracy required by the papal curia was not immediately acknowledged by the organizers. Several hearings were rejected or ordered to be repeated by the pope due to their legal inadequacy. The inadequate accuracy in the hearings, for example the witnesses were not interrogated one by one or their testimonies were not written down verbatim, became less common by the end of the thirteenth century when the new standards were internalized. Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 60–67. 20

On the veneration and canonization of saints in commentaries of canon law, see Wetzstein, Heilige vor Gericht, pp. 244–76.

29

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

procedure of selecting or questioning the witnesses, especially in canonization hearings, was not defined in detail.21 Different aspects in the standing of the witness were considered significant in normative instructions. Gender was an essential aspect in validating the witnesses: in the Decretum of Gratian (c. 1140) women were totally forbidden to testify.22 However, it is argued that the prohibition was valid only in criminal cases. In simple civil cases women were allowed to give testimony. Later commentators have also argued that women were allowed to give testimony but only in a restricted manner.23 Table 1. Number and percentage of witnesses in the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe. Men No.

Men %

101

49.3

44

21.5

145

70.7

60

29.3

0

0

60

29.3

together 161 78.5 Source: BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015.

44

21.5

205

lay religious

Women No.

Women %

Total No.

Total %

100

Women were interrogated in the canonization hearings, yet prejudice against their testimonies can be found. The prestige given to men’s testimony is evident in the Cantilupe process. In this inquiry only 44 out of a total of 205 witnesses were women. Altogether 161 men gave depositions at this hearing. Furthermore, some men, and only men, testified more than once, which increases the importance of male witnesses.24 The gender ratio is more even in the canonization hearing of Nicholas of Tolentino. Nearly half of the witnesses, 171 out of 365, were women, while 194 men gave depositions in the inquiry. 21

On the canon law regulations in selection of the witnesses in canonization hearings, see Krötzl, ‘Prokuratoren, Notare und Dolmetscher’, pp. 122–23; Krötzl, ‘Kanonisationsprozess, Socialgeschichte und Kanonisches Recht’; and Wetzstein, Heilige vor Gericht, pp. 64–68. 22

CIC I, C. 33, q. 5, c. 17: ‘Mulierem constat subiectam dominio uiri esse et nullam auctoritatem habere; nec docere potest, nec testis esse, neque fidem dare nec iudicare.’ 23

Wetzstein, Heilige vor Gericht, pp. 65–66, and René Metz, La femme et l’enfant dans le droit canonique médiéval, Collected Studies, 222 (London: Variorum, 1985), pp. 105–06. See also Filippo Liotto, ‘Il testimone nel decreto di Graziano’, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, ed. by Stephan Kuttner, Monumenta Iuris Canonici. Series C : subsidia, 5 (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1976), pp. 81–93, and Krötzl, ‘Prokuratoren, Notare und Dolmetscher’, pp. 122–23. 24

For example, dominus Gilbertus who also served as proctor testified as witness numbers 100, 104, 137, 139, 172, 176, and 181. Johannes Alkyn testified as witness numbers 116, 133, 154, and 160.

30

Chapter 1

Table 2. Number and percentage of witnesses in the canonization process of Nicholas of Tolentino. lay religious

Men No.

Men %

Women No.

141

38.6

163

53

14.5

together 194 53.1 Source: Nicholas, testis I–CCCLXXI.

Women % 44.7

Total No. 304

8

2.2

61

171

46.9

365

Total % 83.3 16.7 100

The fairly equal selection of men and women as witnesses makes Nicholas’s process exceptional as a judicial hearing. Women held inferior legal status and their legal capacities were commonly restricted in late medieval Europe. Moreover, mistrust in women’s words was not restricted to the judicial field; it was a general tendency in medieval culture, especially in the clerical literature. The hagiographic material, often treating features of family life, could make an exception to this.25 Clerical authors regarded women’s words as powerful, but their persuasiveness was often connected to women’s physical bodies, which were associated with decoration of all kinds, physical beauty, and intimacy. Sexuality was a major reason for the prejudice against women and especially towards their words in clerical literature. Because of the alluring sensuality and sexuality of women their words were considered dangerous.26 In the clerical stereotypes women were depicted as garrulous, quarrelsome gossipers who changed their opinions and words constantly. This tradition originated from the patristic writings of antiquity and was repeated and accepted by medieval authors.27 However, the most recent studies have altered the traditional image of 25

The suspicion of women’s memories and avoiding them as informants are seen in a variety of cases, for example in the chronicles and legal procedures. On gendered attitudes, see Patrick Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Elisabeth van Houts, Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe, 900–1200 (Houndmills: MacMillan Press, 1999); and Medieval Memories, ed. by van Houts. On hagiographic material and women as informants, see Kathleen Quirk, ‘Men, Women, and Miracles in Normandy, 1050–1150’, in ibid., pp. 53–71. 26

Claire M. Waters, Angels and Earthly Creatures: Preaching, Performance, and Gender in the Later Middle Ages, Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), pp. 96–97; on the seductiveness of the feminine interconnected with the delusiveness of rhetoric, see Bloch, Medieval Misogyny, pp. 37–63. Many clerical writers took biblical examples for their reasoning of gender construction. On women’s traditional image in clerical writings, see Casagrande, ‘Protected Women’; Bloch, Medieval Misogyny, pp. 13–35; and Ruth Mazo Karras, ‘Gendered Sin and Misogyny in John of Bromyards “Summa Predicantium”’, Traditio, 47 (1992), 233–55. 27

Multiloqium and verbositas were typically feminine vices up to the point that mulier linguata was an archetype found in the exempla stories. For a categorization of sins of language, see Carla

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

31

archetypes of good and evil women in clerical literature. The purpose of the texts affected the image of women or femininity in them — medieval writers could use gendered images in fluid meanings.28 The Christian tradition also had positive examples of the words and testimonies of women. The most notable of these can be found in the Bible: Mary Magdalen. She found the empty sepulchre on Easter morning, and Christ appeared first to her. Her task was to announce the news to the other disciples. However, the male disciples did not want to believe her but claimed the testimony of apostola apostolorum as ‘idle talk’.29 Similarly the active role of Mary Magdalen did not alter the general mistrust held in clerical writings and in canon law against women’s speech — the silent Virgin Mary remained as an ideal role model for medieval women.30 Moreover, the generally held prejudices undoubtedly also had their effects on the selection of the witnesses. The organizers were well aware of the gender constructs in clerical literature. Casagrande and Silvana Vecchio, I peccati della lingua: Disciplina ed etica della parola nella cultura medievale (Rome: Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana fondata da Giovanni Treccani, 1987), passim: on multiloqium, pp. 407–17. For a thorough study of capital sins and their evolution during the Middle Ages, see Carla Casagrande and Silvanan Vecchio, I sette vizi capitali: Storia dei peccati nel Medioevo (Turin: Einaudi, 2000). 28

For example, in the sermons of practical advice for married couples women were deemed equal and supportive, in contrast to the point of view of the traditional lamentations of marriage. Rüdiger Schnell, ‘The Discourse on Marriage in the Middle Ages’, Speculum, 73 (1998), 771–86. When lamenting the weaknesses of women one could truly lament the feminine element of man or of the flesh. Dalarun, ‘Clerical Gaze’. Fluidity of images is also stressed in the writings of Cistercian monks of the thirteenth century: the choir monks were described as feminine in their writings; they used the nuptial imagery which put them in a feminine position relative to the divine, while lay brothers (and later nuns) were associated with the virile language and bodily mortification of the flesh in the imitation of the suffering Jesus. Martha Newman, ‘Crucified by the Virtues: Monks, Lay Brothers, and Women in Thirteenth-Century Cistercian Saints’ Lives’, in Gender and Difference in the Middle Ages, ed. by Farmer and Pasternack, pp. 182–209. These images do not, however, alter the basic assumption of gender hierarchies in the clerical rhetoric. 29 The occurrences of Easter morning vary in detail in the Gospels, yet Mary Magdalen played a crucial role in all of them. Katherine Ludwig Jansen, The Making of the Magdalen: Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), pp. 265–70. On positive images of female saints’ preaching, see Waters, Angels and Earthly Creatures, pp. 96–142. On other biblical role models for women’s preaching, see Alcuin Blamires, ‘Caput a femina, membra a viris: Gender Polemic in Abelard’s Letter “On the Authority and Dignity of the Nun’s Profession”’, in The Tongue of the Fathers: Gender and Ideology in Twelfth-Century Latin, ed. by Davis Townsend and Andrew Taylor, Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), pp. 55–79. 30

Karras, ‘Gendered Sin and Misogyny’, p. 253.

32

Chapter 1

Witnesses to the Life and Miracles: Gender and Questions The gendered hierarchy of witnesses can also be seen in the questions asked of them. Moreover, the evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses appears to be rather similar in both of these processes even though gender played a more crucial role in validating the witnesses to testify in the Cantilupe process. Only men testified about the life and merits of Thomas Cantilupe even though the majority of these witnesses of pars prima at least mentions some miracles. Women testified only to the miracles.31 It should be noted that witnesses who were likely to know something about the life of this high-ranking cleric were former colleagues, friends from his student years, or members of his curia. Moreover, Thomas Cantilupe was claimed to have avoided all relationships with women, thus necessity may have dictated the absence of women’s testimonies. Some members of religious orders were called to testify by the commissioners. The laymen testifying about the life and merits were mostly members of Thomas’s familia. Members of his familia and officials of Hereford Cathedral were also interrogated in the excommunication process of Thomas Cantilupe.32 31

Not even the members of the Braose or de Briouze family (Maria de Breuse, witness number 2, and Willelmus de Breuse, number 3) were interrogated about the details of the life of Saint Thomas. The Braose or de Briouze family were wealthy members of the upper aristocracy. Willemus was a direct descendant in the male line of one of the more important barons of William the Conqueror. On the family’s position and history, see Bartlett, Hanged Man, pp. 86–102. Only questions about the particular miracle were asked of these witnesses. Maria de Breuse testified first about the miracle they had witnessed. In her case extra explanations were used to clarify why she was not interrogated further. ‘Et quia dicta domina non erat perita in iure nec in excerciis earumdem et deposuerat in multis de auditu dici et nec fuerat producta nisi super isto miraculo tamen [. . .] et ideo fuit licentiata’: BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 10r. Barlett, Hanged Man, p. 102, sees this explanation as condescension apparently due to her gender. However, it is also possible that the reason for these comments was the fact that Lady Maria de Breuse testified as a second witness in the whole process. Possibly the commissioners wanted further to clarify the situation and their decisions. In the cases of Willelmus de Breuse and Willelmus de Codinenston, who testified after her, it was enough to note that the witness was sufficiently examined and thus released. ‘Et quia videbatur sufficienter examinatus fuit licenciatus’: BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 13r, see also fol. 14v. 32

The former Bishop of Hereford had been in dispute with Archbishop Pecham, who had allegedly excommunicated him. Thus, before the inquiry on his sanctity, an inquisition whether the Bishop had died excommunicated was due. Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 174–75. For example, Johannes de Kemesaya (witness number 57 in canonization process), Robertus Deynte (witness numbers 60 and 178), Robertus de Glocester (witness number 56), Richardus de Kymberle (witness number 12), and Johannes Alkyn (witness numbers 116, 133, 154, and 160) also gave their testimony in the excommunication process. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4016, fols 12r–30 v, 38r–39 r, and 106v–107v.

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

33

The prevalence of men’s words can also be found in pars secunda: 120 men were interviewed about the miracles while forty-four women gave deposition concerning the miracles performed by Thomas Cantilupe. Regardless of the particularities of his life the intercession of Saint Thomas was not gender related: both men and women invoked the saint and were healed by him. The help of Saint Thomas was not sought primarily or mainly by men. At the beginning of the cult women were even more eager to turn to this new heavenly intercessor than men.33 More importantly, both men and women witnessed miracles. Therefore the reason for the gender division of the witnesses testifying to the miracles performed by Saint Thomas is more likely to be found in the attitudes of the inquisitorial committee. The number of women witnesses was not restricted in Nicholas’s hearing. Yet a similar feature about the questions asked can also be found in this process. In Nicholas’s process only one woman was asked about the articuli, the questions about the life and merits of Saint Nicholas.34 All the other witnesses testifying to the life of Nicholas were men. Several women had known Nicholas personally; some had even experienced a miracula in vita.35 They were not, however, interrogated about the details of the life of Nicholas. Some women were asked about the first question of the articuli: fama of his life and of the miracles he had performed.36 Some women had known Nicholas for many years, had had many conversations with him, or confessed their sins regularly to him, yet they were not interrogated about the life and merits of Saint Nicholas.37 33

Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 184–86.

34

Nicholas, testis CCLXXX, pp. 573–77. On the content of these questions, see Nicholas, articuli, pp. 16–21. As noted, the process was not divided into different parts, but the witnesses of life and miracles are found mixed with each other. The difference is that the articuli formed by commissioners concentrated on the details of the life of Saint Nicholas. Usually the witnesses interrogated about the life of Nicholas also at least mention some miracles while the information of the life of the putative saint was not regularly required or asked about the witnesses testifying to miracles. 35

Nicholas, testis LXXIX, pp. 218–20; testis XCI, pp. 264–69.

36

For example, domina Iacobucia (Nicholas, testis LXXXIII), Philippa (testis XCIII), Ceccha Ugolini (testis XCIV), and domina Nina (testis XCV) were interrogated about the first question. 37

For example, domina Bruna Pensanicti (Nicholas, testis CCLXXII) stated that she had known Nicholas for ten or twelve years. Domina Iohanna (testis CCXXXVI) and domina Verdiana (testis CCXXXVIII) had several conversations with Nicholas. Iohanna Angelucii Pauli (testis CCXXXIII), domina Verdiana (testis CCXXXVIII), and Margarita de Salinguerre (testis CCLXIX) had frequently confessed their sins to Saint Nicholas. None of them, however, was interrogated about the articuli, not even about the first one of the reputation of life and miracles.

34

Chapter 1

On the other hand, when Friar Philippus, lector of the Augustinian friars, and Iohannes de Murrovallium, a Cistercian abbot, were interrogated about the details of Nicholas’s life, all the questions of the articuli were asked, notwithstanding that they had not known Nicholas personally.38 Laypersons of high rank could also be questioned on all the articuli without personal knowledge of the life of Nicholas.39 Moreover, several men testifying to the details of the life of Nicholas did not know him any better than the women, who were not expected to give testimony about the life of the friar despite their personal knowledge of Nicholas. The difference was that many of these men held high religious or social positions. It gave more weight to their words.40 Women could not derive prestige from those functions since they did not hold such positions in society — women lacked official authority. High status men were favoured when witnesses were chosen to testify about the life of the candidate. The preference for men can also be found in other processes.41 Gender may have been important in categorizing the witnesses, yet it was not an insuperable obstacle. For example, in the case of Clare of Montefalco (d. 1308) several witnesses testifying about her life were sisters of her cloister since they were the ones — and presumably the only ones — to have reliable information of the cloistered nun’s life.42

38

Nicholas, testis VI, pp. 82–83, and testis XVII, pp. 130–33. Friar Thomas de Mathelica was interrogated about all the articuli of the life of Saint Nicholas, even though he had personally known Nicholas only for a few weeks before his death; testis CCLXV, pp. 543–47. 39

For example Nicholas, testis XV, pp. 111–16: dominus Adcursus Gualterii Bonacursi, doctor legum de Tholentino. 40

For example sapiens et discretus vir dominus Petrus domini Iacobi, legum doctor (Nicholas, testis CCXXIV), Friar Iohannes prepositus Sancti Quatervi (testis CCXXVIII), and dompnus Gentilis canonicus plebis Sancte Marie (testis CCXXIX) stated that they had confessed their sins to him and had many conversations with him while nobilis et potens miles dominus Accurrimbona (testis CCXXV) had had much advice from Nicholas and they had several conversations. Iohannes Mattie (testis CCLI) had only seen Nicholas a few times. 41

For example, in the case of Charles of Blois only one woman testified about his life. She was Guillamecta Petri de Barra in whose house Charles had stayed several times. Therefore she likely possessed valuable information of his habits and customs. In Charles’s case the majority of the men were laymen. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4025, fols 40v –41r . Smoller, ‘Northern and Southern Sanctity’, has come to similar conclusions. She points out how the commissioners carrying out the hearing of Vincent of Ferrer chose witnesses of more humble status when interrogating of the miracles, yet the depositions of the life of the saint were made by male witnesses of high social standing. 42

In Clare’s case the canonization records are too fragmentary for any comparison of the status of the witnesses and the questions asked. More than half of the original 486 depositions are

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

35

In Nicholas’s case the exceptional witness was domina Angelischa, the widow of magister Accaptus. She was the only woman to be interviewed about the articuli of Nicholas’s life. She was apparently of fairly good social standing. What is significant, however, is the common reputation she enjoyed. She was claimed to be a holy woman of saintly life.43 It remains unknown whose definition this was; likely it was a commonly shared opinion in Tolentino, where she lived. Her fame was the reason for the more profound interrogation since she answered most questions on the basis of hearsay. Her personal knowledge of Nicholas was based on several confessions made to him. Thus in cases where the reputation of women was not suspect they, too, could testify to important details of the life of a saint — like men. The definition of good reputation was gender-based: women’s reputation largely depended on their sexual morals, thus they were especially vulnerable to defamation. Women’s morality was easily suspected, yet a bad reputation was hard to overcome since women could not use public or visible deeds to clear their names.44 This may have been behind the suspicion of women’s ability to give testimony. However, sexual honour was also based on social standing. In the clerical rhetoric women of high social status were seen as more able to control their sexual desires. People of low social standing — both men and women — were thought to be more bound by corporeality and the body.45

missing. Even though the majority of the names of the missing witnesses have been restored, it is not possible to know the questions asked. Furthermore, the list of questions has not been fully preserved. One third of the articuli interrogatorii are missing. However, the prominent role of female witnesses is evident: 242 on the extant list of 417 witnesses were women. Enrico Menestò, ‘Introduzione’, in Clare, pp. xxi–lxix. 43 Nicholas, testis CCLXXX, pp. 573–77: ‘Domina Angelischa, uxor quondam magistri Accapti, [. . .] que haberetur et vocatur sancta mulier et sancte vite in Tholentino.’ 44

Older women could testify since their sexual morality was no longer an issue. Patricia Skinner, ‘Gender and Memory in Medieval Italy’, in Medieval Memories, ed. by van Houts, pp. 36–52 (p. 49). 45

Sharon Farmer, Surviving Poverty, pp. 39–44 and 69–70, argues strongly on the multiplicity of medieval gender categories: the cultural constructs of femininities and masculinities differed according to social standing — wealth, ethnicity, and occupation. She challenges especially the traditional view that women were more associated with the body by arguing that there were various hierarchies of femininity and masculinity. Women in general were connected with reproductive work and men with productive work. Lower-status men were connected with bodily work and moral weaknesses arising from the body. Higher-status women were thought to be more able to control their physicality. The dangers of sexuality were not usually preached to respectable matrons; not as much as to the lower-status women, labourers and servants, for example. Wealthy matrons

36

Chapter 1

The moral or sexual honour of domina Angelischa or the sisters of Clare’s cloister, who were also presumably of fairly good social standing, was not suspected. Woman with saintly reputation or celibate nuns were reputable and reliable. Thus they could overcome the gendered prejudice of testimonies’ credibility. Men’s reputation was based on different values, and honour could be proved by actual deeds. For men the reliability was apparently assured by good social position — education, occupation, and wealth — while for women the high status as witness seems to be based, in addition to good position, on high morality. A regular theme in these processes is that women could testify in their own case: to the miracles they had personally experienced or seen. In these cases no explicit comments about women’s sexual honour — or the lack of it — can be found.46 Apparently the details of life were considered to be more valuable than a single miracle in evaluating the candidate’s sainthood. The qualification of sainthood was based on the life and merits of the candidate; the healing ability of the relics was only a ratification of this. 47 Thus the examiners were more likely to be inclined to reputable and prestigious witnesses in these significant matters. Women were not regularly asked about the details of the life of the putative saint even though they may have had firsthand information.

were thought to be able also to control the sexuality of their male and female servants. On the divisions of intellect/body, rational/irrational, and reason/emotion as equal to the division of male/female, see Bynum, Fragmentation and Redemption, pp. 108–09. Farmer, Surviving Poverty, pp. 39–40, 47–48, and ‘Manual Labour, Begging, and Conflicting Gender Expectations’, pp. 261–62, claims that a more profound reading implies that in the Genesis passage both Adam and Eve were profoundly identified with body and physicality. Thus the traditional mind/body division is not completely valid since the clerical authors in fact constructed various hierarchies of masculinity and femininity. 46

However, it is possible that on some occasions the role of the mother of the rescued child was belittled or even vilified. For example, Thomas Schonk implied that the mother of the drowned Johanna la Schirreue had been too busy entertaining herself in the tavern. Thomas claimed that his son needed to repeat several times the drowning of Johanna before the girl’s mother understood it: BAV, M S Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 132r. Johannes Syward claimed that the mother of Rogerus was drunk at the time Rogerus fell off the bridge: ibid., fol. 193v . Both of these men played a crucial role in the accident or in the miracle. However, these comments did not affect the attitude of the commissioners. Both of these mothers were chosen to testify and their depositions were important. 47

André Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, p. 581, also argues that by the beginning of the fourteenth century the miracles served only to confirm the validity of a person’s sainthood, which was based on other criteria. Miracles as proofs of sainthood were problematic to some extent since they could also be performed per malos. Wetzstein, Heilige vor Gericht, pp. 246, 280.

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

37

The choice of witnesses had often more to do with the commonly held conceptions of reliability and prestige than with access to information and knowledge.48 This is clearly emphasized in the selection of witnesses testifying about the fame of sanctity of the candidate.49 For example, when the commissioners wanted to know about public opinion and the reputation, fama sanctitatis, of Saint Thomas they decided to question three specific witnesses in Hereford. These three elderly men were chosen because they were recommended as the most reliable of the citizens of Hereford and no one could believe that they would lie.50 The three men were Willelmus Jaudre, Johannes de Leoministre, and Arnaldus le Glouere. They all held citizenship and were approximately eighty years old.51 The people of good reputation and good social position were more likely to be trustworthy. Advanced age also imbued the words of the witnesses with respectability.52 Similar trends can be found in Nicholas’s process. Witnesses testifying to miracles were often asked questions about the fama of Saint Nicholas. When testifying solely about the fame of sanctity, men of religious status were the most popular witnesses.53

48

Golinelli, ‘Social Aspects in Some Italian Canonization Trials’, also claims clear tendencies in the choice of the witnesses. According to him, preference was always given to clerical witnesses. After them, social standing dictated the choice. 49

Chris Wickham, ‘Gossip and Resistance among the Medieval Peasantry’, Past and Present, 160 (1998), 3–24 (p. 4), claims that in the twelfth-century court cases in Italy the local knowledge was sharply distinguished between testimonies per visum, per auditum, and publica fama. Direct witnessing per visum was the only fully legally acceptable knowledge. However, public fame was the next reliable mode of testimony: it was socially accepted as reliable since it was what everybody knew. 50

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 87v: ‘sub virtute iuramenti prestiti per ipsos testes nominantes et de fidelitate inter omnes cives herefordensis specialiter comendatos et quod erant tales homines quos nullo modo credebant deviare de vero et in faculatibus habundantes’. 51

The age of Arnaldus le Glouere is not given. The depositions of these witnesses can be found in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 88r–92r. 52

On the venerability of witnesses according to status and age in early medieval chronicles, see van Houts, Memory and Gender, pp. 23–25. Occasionally old age could overcome low status. See Judith Everard, ‘Sworn Testimony and Memory of the Past in Brittany, c. 1100–1250’, in Medieval Memories, ed. by van Houts, pp. 72–91, esp. p. 81. 53

For example venerabilis vir dominus frater Matheus de Sancto Severeno abbas Sancti Laurentii (Nicholas, testis CLI), discretus vir magister Chiroltus de Camereno, rector ecclesie (testis CLIII), venerabilis vir dominus Mercenarius, canonicus Maceratensis (testis CLXXIV), dompnus Iacobus domini Gentilis (testis CCLXXXIV), dominus Gualterucius plebanus sancti Genesii (testis

38

Chapter 1

However, several laymen also gave their depositions on this aspect. They were nearly all learned in the law and entitled magister, notarius, or iurisperitus.54 It is noteworthy that women could also give deposition solely about the fame of sanctity of Nicholas. Presumably the reason for their selection was that they testified about the fama in remote areas.55 In exceptional cases high moral standing was not a prerequisite for women’s testimonies. When they possessed important information women’s words could also be trusted without close personal involvement in the case. Wealth and Reliability In addition to gender, other qualities were also important in evaluating the worth of the testimony. The age of maturity was an important aspect in validating the witnesses.56 The decretals of Gregory IX stated that the good reputation of the witnesses and the quality of their knowledge should also be considered.57 The mentally ill were forbidden to give testimony, and preference should be given to the wealthy rather than the poor in the selection of witnesses. The witnesses should also testify alone because otherwise they could instruct and corroborate each other.58 The secrecy of the depositions is also stressed on many occasions in the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe. The interpreters especially were instructed to keep the testimony confidential until it was published.59 The truthfulness of the depositions was ensured by an oath the witnesses were to swear touching the holy Gospel. This is stated in both Cantilupe’s and

CCLXXXV), dominus Dominicus, canonicus (testis CCCXIX), and dompnus Petrus Venuci, canonicus (testis CCCXX) testified only about the fama sanctitatis of Nicholas. 54

For example Nicholas, testis CCXLIV, pp. 522–23; testis CCCIX, p. 600; testis CCCX, pp. 600–01; testis CCCXII, pp. 602–03; and testis CCCLXIX, p. 641. 55

For example, Alundantia was of Perugia (Nicholas, testis CCCXXXVII), Bellaflox from Mathelica (testis CCCXL), and Clarucia from Assisi (testis CCCLVII). See also Gentili, ‘Introduzione’, p. xxvi. 56 The age of maturity is not exact, however. The witness should have been over fourteen or over twenty. CIC I, C. 4, q. 2, c. 13. 57

X 2.20, CIC II, cols 315–40.

58

Krötzl, ‘Kanonisationsprozess, Socialgeschichte und Kanonisches Recht’, pp. 21–22, and Krötzl, ‘Prokuratoren, Notare und Dolmetscher’, pp. 122–23. 59

See for example BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 29v, 68v, 71v, and 220r.

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

39

Nicholas’s processes.60 The evaluation of witnesses is not clearly stated in Nicholas’s process. The witnesses should be legitimate but other attributes of status were not required. The other principal questions mentioned were about how the witness had come by his or her knowledge and about the details of the miracle to validate the deposition.61 In the Cantilupe process more attention was paid to the status of the witness. It was to be scrutinized: witnesses were to declare whether they were literate or illiterate,62 of noble or of low birth, rich or poor, if they were related or of the familia of Saint Thomas, and how old they were.63 These were the characteristics the canon law stressed, and they were considered important in the evaluation of the deposition. Gender did not need to be specified at an actual hearing. The commissioners also stated that the questions were to be modified according to the witness: they were to be asked solely questions to which they were likely to know the answer. To ask all the questions of all the witnesses would only be a waste of time and parchment.64 An example of a question that was omitted was the

60

Nicholas, citationes testium, p. 28: ‘iuraverunt corporaliter ad sancta Dei evangelia, tactis sacrosanctis evangeliis, testimonium perhibere veritatis super dicto negotio’. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 3r : ‘Iurent testes sacrosanctis Ewangeliis manu tactis.’ 61

Nicholas, documenta et mandata, p. 13: ‘Testes legitimos, quos super vita et miraculis quondam Nicolay de Tholentino ordinis heremitarum sancti Augustini debetis recipire, prius ab eis prefato iuramento diligenter examinare curetis, et de omnibus contingentibus negotium interrogetis.’ This principle concerning the witnesses’ standing and knowledge was stated already by Pope Greogory IX with the letter Testes legitimi that opened the inquiry for the canonization of Saint Elisabeth of Hungary in 1232. See also Golinelli, ‘Social Aspects in Some Italian Canonization Trials’, p. 169. 62 The term litteratus could refer both to the knowledge of Latin or to the clerical status. The illitteratus was used both for the persons who could not speak Latin as well as for laicus and vice versa. M. T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307 (1979; repr. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), pp. 226–30. Both interpretations are valid here: the question refers to the social standing of the witness, yet knowledge of Latin was also important and the language in which the testimony was given was also reported. 63

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 3v : ‘Ante tamen eorum examinationem postquam iuraverunt vel in fine examinationis describatur conditio dictorum testium, scilicet an fuerint literati vel illiterati, nobiles vel plebei, divites vel egeni et an fuerint de parentela vel familia dicti domini Thome et cuius etatis sunt ipsi testes.’ 64

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 3v –4r : ‘et non interrogentur super omnibus articulis infrascriptis passim omnis, sed illi dumtaxat de quibus verisimile erit quod super his de quibus interim rogabuntur scire debeant veritatem, ne se aliter fieret cum multi fuit tantum ad probandum miracula inducendi contingeret tempus circa eorum examinationem in vanum expendi et mem-

40

Chapter 1

theological pondering as to whether a particular miracle was above or against nature.65 This question was asked of Willelmus de Breuse and Willelmus de Codineston. But, since they were not able to answer satisfactorily, the question was omitted for later witnesses.66 The selection of the witnesses was not made only according to the qualities of status and wealth, but on some occasions their importance can be seen. For example, in the case of Hugo le Barber the commissioners commented on his position. Hugo had been the barber of Thomas Cantilupe for three years. He testified about the life of the former Bishop but also about the miraculous recovery he had personally experienced. However, a shadow of a doubt was cast over his deposition due to his position and poverty. The commissioners added at the end of his deposition that despite his poverty or condition there was no reason to suspect his deposition.67 His reliability may have been all the more important since he testified to the life of Thomas. Witnesses of lower status than Hugo also testified without any comments about their standing and its effects on the trustworthiness of the deposition. Yet they testified to the miracles performed by Saint Thomas.

branas inutiliter occupari’. On clear selection of questions for each witness, see Smoller, ‘Northern and Southern Sanctity’, p. 292. 65 The distinction of the miracles to be above (supra naturam), against (contra naturam), or apart from nature (praeter naturam) was introduced by Thomas Aquinas. Goodich, Violence and Miracle, pp. 147–48. 66

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 4v : ‘Item tercio si dicta miracula fuerunt supra vel contra naturam.’ The answer of W illelmus de Breuse (witness number 3, fol. 12r ): ‘Post haec dictus dominus Willelmus de Breuse iuxta formam tercii interrogatorii super tercio articulo de miraculis formati interrogatus si miraculum quod dixerat accidisse in persona dicti Willelmi Cragh fuerat supra aut contra naturam. Respondit quod ex disposicione quam viderat in dicto Willelmo non credebat nec estimabat quod per vires vel potenciam nature humane poteruit curari a passione quam habuit et tunc evitasse mortem post suspedum supradictum.’ Interestingly the answer of Willelmus de Codineston, who was a priest and rector ecclesiae in the Diocese of Chichester, was not more sophisticated. He testified as witness number 4 (fol. 14r): ‘Iterrogatus super tercio interrogatorio tercii articuli si predictum miraculum fuerat supra vel contra naturam. Respondit se credere quod sic et quod absque miraculo non potuisset tunc evitasse mortem.’ Presumably some kind of selection of questions according to the witness was done already before this since domina Maria de Breuse (witness number 2) was not interrogated on this subject. 67

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 28v –29r : ‘Et licet dictus testis esset pauper ex devotione tamen quam videbatur habere et ex eius etate et condicione persone non fuit visum dominis comissariis ut dixerunt et preceperunt redigi in processu quod racione paupertatis vel condicionis persone sit contra eius depositionem aliquam suspicionem colligenda.’

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

41

The importance of good economic position was a common feature: wealth gave prestige to the depositions. Good status as a sign of trustworthiness is also stressed in other processes.68 In legal matters the poor people’s testimony was considered less trustworthy. Occasionally several witnesses were required to be interviewed about the details of a miracle if the beneficiary was poor.69 In the Cantilupe process several witnesses were interrogated for each miracle. Yet no clear difference can be found according to the status of the beneficiary of the miracle. The importance of the number of witnesses and the insufficiency of only one witness was also stressed in canon law.70 Presumably this was the main reason for the multiplicity of depositions for each case and not the position of the witnesses. The interrogators may have been especially cautious with poor witnesses of miracles because it was believed that they were susceptible to bribes, that they might feign illnesses in order to obtain more alms, or that they might feign a miraculous cure in order to gain fame and perhaps increase their incomes as a result. The officials at shrines even occasionally claimed that all beggars were liars.71 Apparent utterances of mistrust are not regularly seen in the attitudes of the organizers in these processes. The exception was the comments on Hugo’s position which actually confirms the basic assumption of poor people’s untrustworthiness by rejecting it in that particular case. The mistrust of poor people’s testimony may also be seen in the requirement for extra proof: bodily tests were often preferred since the signs of the body were considered to be more trustworthy than the words of the poor.72 However, in these hearings the commissioners did not require physical evidence of former illnesses. Considering the time lapse between the miracles and the hearing such proof may have been impossible to demonstrate.73 The requiring of proofs does not seem to be an exclusively clerical attitude: a similar judgement can also be found in the depositions of the laity. For example, 68

See for example the canonization process of Saint Louis of Toulouse: Louis, cap. XXXI–XXXIII, pp. 120–21. 69

Farmer, Surviving Poverty, pp. 50–60. On registrars at the shrine favouring informants of higher social standing, see Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 102–03. 70 James Brundage, ‘Juridical Space: Female Witnesses in Canon Law’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 52 (1998), 147–56 (p. 152). 71

Farmer, Surviving Poverty, p. 50, and Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 102.

72

Farmer, Surviving Poverty, p. 43.

73

However, the commissioners scrutinized the neck and tongue of Willelmus Cragh who had miraculously recovered after dying from hanging. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 222r.

42

Chapter 1

in the case of Alicia de Lonesdale the other witnesses wanted evidence of the paralysed girl’s condition. Amicia le Rysshwyk told the commissioners of the Cantilupe hearing how she and other women entering the church required proof of the illness of Alicia who was begging at the church door. They thought she may have been feigning the paralysis and lifted her clothes and touched her knees and hips.74 Reliability and trustworthiness seem to be closely connected to prestige and wealth.75 It remains unknown whether these qualities were seen as signs of trustworthiness by all the members of the community. The trustworthiness of persons who were not of high rank could have been put under suspicion, yet these same persons held similar prejudices against their inferiors. Amicia le Rysshwyk was a laywoman of fairly modest position: she lived by selling small goods and presumably was not married since her husband is not mentioned. Apparently in the eyes of commissioners she was not a highly appreciated witness nor were her words respected or relied on. However, she held similar suspicions of the words of persons of lower status. She was likewise prejudiced against the claims of the begging girl and needed extra proof to believe her. The Case of Willelmus, Son of Johannes le Lorimer An illuminating example of the methods of the selection of witnesses to testify about the miracles performed by Thomas Cantilupe is seen in the case of Willelmus, the son of Johannes le Lorimer. The two-year-old boy drowned in the river which ran close to his home. Thomas Domington, a boy of fourteen years, found the little body, pulled the corpse out of the water, and raised the hue and cry as was the custom.76 After this several people came to the scene of the accident, saw Willelmus dead, and took part in the invocation of Saint Thomas. The proctor and the commissioners therefore had many eyewitnesses with first-hand information to 74

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 68v: ‘Cum autem quadam die domenica dicta Alicia peteret elemosinam in Ecclesia sancti martini in vinetria londonensis, dum missarum sollempnia agebantur dicta Amicia et alie mulieres volentes probare an dicta Alicia ratione questus fingeret se contractam elevaverunt vestes eius ut viderent et palparent tibias et coxas eiusdem.’ On other bodily proofs in the case of beggars, see ibid., fols 186r–187v . 75

The connection between high status and reliability is also stressed in witnesses of early medieval chronicles. See van Houts, Memory and Gender, p. 23. 76

The English custom obligated the founder to raise a hue and cry when someone was found murdered or accidentally killed. Hence other members of the community knew to come to the accident scene and notify the coroners. Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, pp. 11–12.

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

43

choose from. Altogether twelve witnesses were called in to give their depositions of this incident. According to Hugo de Atfordon, those present included all these witnesses chosen to testify but also Walterus Balhardy, Amicia Boke, and Matilda, wife of Philippus de Domington, and many other men and women of that parish.77 If all the eyewitnesses were not competent to give their deposition what were the modes for selecting the witnesses? Ten of the witnesses were chosen by the proctor and two more witnesses were asked by the commissioners to give more evidence on the miracle. It is noteworthy that all ten proctor’s witnesses were men. There were several women available to testify, some of them were even mentioned by name, but none of them was chosen to give their deposition of the miracle. Since Willelmus was miraculously rescued only two years before the hearing it is probable that the majority of the people present at the scene of the miracle were still alive. This was not always the case: some miracles had happened several years, even two decades, before the hearing. In such cases the proctor and the commissioners had to be content with the surviving witnesses. The preference for men was no coincidence but rather a common theme throughout the interrogation of miracles in the Cantilupe process: whenever plenty of eyewitnesses were available the choice was more often for men than for women. Cibilla, the wife of Robertus Gumbald, and Matilda, the wife of Philippus de Domington, and Agnes, the maid of Willelmus de Domington, were involved in the accident scene. They thought there was no hope left and argued that they should start the preparations for the burial.78 From this point of view they would have qualified as witnesses to testify whether the victim was truly dead or not. They were not selected, however. It is noteworthy that not all the men were present throughout the miraculous process, yet they were chosen to testify.79 Women chosen to testify about miracles were usually close relatives of the beneficiary or they played a crucial role in the recovery and in the miracle. This was

77

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 148r : ‘supervenerunt omnes testes supra producti ad probacionem huius miraculi et Walterus Balhardy et Amicia Boke Matilda uxor Philippi de Donington et plures alii mares et mulieres eiusdem parochie’. 78 79

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 152r.

For example, Willelmus Votte (witness number 88) saw Willelmus dead in the house of Willelmus de Donington after the first invocation. He did not stay until the revival nor take part in the invocation. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 153v –154r. Rogerus, the chaplain (witness number 86), testified only by hearsay. He was not present at the scene of the accident or in the revival. Ibid., fols 152v –153r.

44

Chapter 1

undoubtedly the reason for the selection of Alicia, the mother of the drowned Willelmus. She was absent all the time. She had left for a nearby village in the morning and returned only after Willelmus’s revival. Presumably Willelmus had followed her, fallen off the bridge, and drowned in the river. Thus the mother may have also had some valuable information on the timing of the accident since there were no eyewitnesses. Alicia was chosen by the commissioners to testify. This is exceptional since the commissioners mainly chose men — only one other woman was chosen by the commissioners to give her deposition in the hearing.80 Perhaps the proctor ignored Alicia, the mother of Willelmus, because she was not present at the time of the drowning or the recovery. Similar motives can also be found in the selection of other women to testify. For example, the only woman testifying to the miraculous recovery of Rogerus was Diomisia, his mother.81 Editha and Cecilia, the mother and grandmother, were the only women testifying to the miraculous resurrection of the drowned Johannes Drake.82 In the revival of the drowned Johanna la Schirreue ten witnesses gave their deposition. In addition to the beneficiary herself, her mother Cecilia, her godmother Johanna, and the wife of the tavern owner testified. The godmother Johanna pulled the corpse out of the water, and the first resuscitation attempts were made in the tavern.83 Women were not completely rejected or ignored as witnesses, yet it seems that their contribution to the inquiry needed to be well justified. Mere presence at the miracle scene was not sufficient reason for selection — as it was in the case of men. However, on some occasions the commissioners were willing to overlook even major obstacles in the witness’s status if he or she possessed valuable and important information. In the case of Willelmus le Lorimer the commissioners would have been keen to interrogate Matilda, the servant of Alicia and Johannes, since she likely possessed information on the timing of the drowning. Matilda had inferior legal status. She was a woman, but more importantly she was a servant. A major obstacle would also have been her age. At the time of the hearing she was approximately thirteen, thus a minor from the legal point of view. She was not interviewed,

80

Juliana, the wife of Hugo le Barber, witness number 8. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 29v .

81

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 189r–203v . Altogether eight witnesses gave their depositions. It is not known, however, if any women were actually present at the ditch where the boy was found dead. 82

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 140r–146r. Altogether eight witnesses gave their depositions.

83

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 123r–140r.

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

45

however. She was infirm at the time of the hearing. Moreover, it remains obscure whether her place of residence was known since Matilda had run away from the house of Alicia and Johannes.84 Canon law was not completely exact regarding the age of the witness, as noted. The suggested ages for eligibility to be a witness were fourteen or twenty. However, several witnesses under twenty testified in the Cantilupe process.85 Indeed, it was fairly common for the judges of canon law to ignore some obstacles when permitting persons to testify.86 One of the minors was Thomas Domington, the boy who found the drowned Willelmus. His testimony was very important since he pulled the body out of the water and raised the hue and cry. He was sixteen at the time of the hearing. Presumably because of his age the commissioners added after his deposition that he testified in firm mind.87 These additional comments about witnesses are fairly uncommon. In this case supplementary assurance of the validity of the testimony may have been essential due to the crucial importance of Thomas’s statement. All the men chosen to testify in the case of Willelmus le Lorimer were of free status. This was also a common theme in the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe. Only three witnesses were stated to be of unfree status.88 Free tenants enjoyed superior legal status. They could also leave the village and buy and sell their land while unfree tenants had obligations to perform labour service and to submit to the lord’s control.89 However, by the fourteenth century the old division of free and unfree peasants had lost a lot of its former significance. Marriages and the land market had obscured the distinction. Wealth, domination of village power, and 84

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 157v : ‘item interrogata si dicta ancilla posset haberi ad ferendum testimonium quando dictus Willelmus recessit ab eadem. Respondit quod dicta ancilla est infirma [. . .] aufugerat dicta ancilla de domo eorum nec ex tunc fuerat in servicio viri ipsius Alicie et eiusdem’. 85

For example, according to their own statements Johanna, the daughter of Radulfus (witness number 33), was fourteen (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 51v –52v ), Beatrix le Mareschal (witness number 35) was fifteen (ibid., fols 53v–54 v), Alicia de Lonesdale (witness number 40) was nineteen (ibid., fols 66r–68r), and Nicholas Piscatoris (witness number 93) was seventeen (ibid., fol. 158r–v). 86

Brundage, ‘Juridical Space’, pp. 152–53.

87

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 147v : ‘deposuit in anglico animo constanti’.

88

Cecilia la reve (witness number 75), BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 143r–v ; Gilbertus le reve (witness number 76), ibid., fol. 144r–v; and Willelmus Holchip (witness number 102), ibid., fol. 169r. It should be noted, however, that in the short depositions at the end of the process the legal status was neither ascertained nor established. 89

R . H. Hilton, The English Peasantry in the Later Middle Ages, Ford Lectures for 1973 and Related Studies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), pp. 125–26.

46

Chapter 1

alliances were more important aspects in hierarchy, and they did not depend solely on legal status.90 The blurring of the free and unfree status in marriage can clearly be seen in the case of Gilbertus le Reve. The other witnesses to the miracle stated that Gilbertus and his wife Cecilia were not of free status or they were uncertain of it.91 Gilbertus himself claimed that he was personally free yet had unfree land possession due to his wife’s position.92 The free or unfree status had legal significance, thus it was regularly ascertained from the witnesses. However, since co-villagers were not entirely aware of other witnesses’ status the legal status likely was not of great importance in the village hierarchy and relations. The land possessions of the witnesses or their economic status did not interest the commissioners. These aspects were not asked from the witnesses. The information of economic position is sporadic and occasional. It is not possible to ascertain whether the witness belonged to the wealthy fraction of the community.93 It is possible that as peasants these witnesses were already, in the prejudiced eyes of the commissioners, low status and poor. Thus no further clarification of their economic status was required. As noted, the canonization process of Nicholas of Tolentino does not provide this kind of information. The age or status — wealth, citizenship, or occupation — is not regularly mentioned in the depositions. Yet it appears to be that the majority of the witnesses were prosperous town-dwellers of Tolentino or neighbouring cities.94

90

Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, pp. 5–6, and Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside, p. 50. 91

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 141v: ‘quod Gilbertum le Reve et Ceciliam uxorem eius productos in testes dixit non esse liberos’; ibid., fol. 145v : ‘de Gilberto teste supra examinato quia nescit certitudinaliter an sit servilis condiconis quantum ad personam’. 92

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 143v : ‘erat liber in persona habens tamen possesiones serviles racione uxoris sue’. 93

The economic situation of the peasantry is typically divided into three categories according to their wealth and power: primary villagers, secondary villagers, cottars. The wealthy peasants were wealthy in land and chattels and dominated the village offices, while secondary villagers were respected and could prosper in good years yet had less land. The smallholders, cottars, were free but held very little land, therefore they had to rely on other supplementary activity. Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, pp. 5–6. 94

On these communities’ hierarchies, witnesses’ status, and privilege given to esteemed members of community to testify, see Lett, Un procès de canonisation, passim.

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

47

Some of them were described as titled nobles.95 Several witnesses had legal expertise or held high offices.96 Women were regularly titled as domina, an epithet reserved for the nobility or prosperous town-dwellers.97 In Nicholas’s process no comments about other witnesses can be found either. Since many of the miracles had only one or two witnesses this was not an important question. In the Cantilupe process the condition of other witnesses was asked but by this the commissioners meant the moral position of the witnesses. In the case of Willelmus le Lorimer all the witnesses described each other as God-fearing, good Christians, and truthful persons. They all had good reputations in their parish.98 The commissioners no doubt wanted to know what kind of persons the witnesses were. This had legal significance also since the testimony of witnesses of bad reputation,

95

For example Nicholas, testis XXVIII, testis XXXVI, testis XLII, testis LXVII, testis CXVII, testis CXXX, testis CCXXV, and testis CCCXV. Domina Marina Uppelli (testis LXVII) and Annese Vinzoli (testis XLII) were members of the high nobility. See also Mario Sensi, ‘Nobildonne di casa Trinci et Marsciano, due famiglie comitali umbre, devote di San Nicola da Tolentino’, in San Nicola, Tolentino, le Marche: Contributi e ricerche sul Processo (a. 1325) per la Canonizzazione di San Nicola da Tolentino, Convengo internazionale di studi. Tolentino 4.–7. Settembre 1985 (Tolentino: Tipolito A. Pezzotti, 1987), pp. 365–70. 96 For example doctor legum (Nicholas, testis XV, testis CCVI, and testis CCXXIV), iuris peritus (testis XXX, testis CCXXVI, testis CCXXVII, testis CCXLIV, testis CCCX, and testis CCCXVI), notarius (testis XVI, testis XXXII, testis XXXIII, testis CXIV, testis CXX, testis CXLII, testis CLXXX, testis CCCIX, and testis CCCXII), magistrus (testis XVI, testis LXXX, testis CXIV, and testis CXLII). In new and isolated societies the notaries had especially important roles. They were among the most important officials of the community while the magistrus could mean several different things and occupations. Yet, the title magistrus without epithets refers to a section of society with property. Emilia Saracco Previdi, Convivere nella Marchia durante il Medioevo: Indagini e Spunti di Ricerca, Studi e testi, 14 (Ancona: Deputazione di storia patria per le Marche,1986), p. 282. 97 For example, altogether twenty-four women from Tolentino were chosen to testify. Only seven of them were not titled domina. Nicholas, testis XCIII, testis XCIV, testis CCXXXV, testis CCXXXVII, testis CCXXXIX, testis CCXLV, and testis CCLXX. However, some of the chosen women were titled domina when summoned to interrogatory yet not in their deposition. For example testis CCXXXIII (citationes testium, p. 33) and testis CCXL (citationes testium, p. 33). Thus presumably they were not members of the nobility but of more modest background. Domina may also refer to the marital status of a woman. However, for example Flordalisia (testis CCXLV) and Servita (testis CCXXXV) were not titled domina even though they were married. 98

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 147v : ‘reputantur in parochia sua boni homines et fideles et veraces timentes deum et diligentes proximum populares liberi’.

48

Chapter 1

infamia, was forbidden.99 However, in their own cases such persons could also testify. For example, the notorious Willelmus Cragh gave his deposition concerning the resuscitation miracle he had experienced.100 Respect Given to Clerical Witnesses The witnesses had ranks according to their gender, status, economic position, and age. However, the clearest distinction between different witnesses seems to have been formed according to their religious status: the depositions of the clergy and laity were not evaluated to be of equal worth. This is seen especially clearly in the testimonies given by hearsay. Late medieval culture valued eyewitnessing; its importance was stressed in literature, history, canon law, and in gathering information, for example, for annals or chronicles.101 This feature can also be seen in the canonization processes. However, sometimes there were no eyewitnesses or only a few.102 In these cases the commissioners and proctor had to settle with the witnesses testifying about the events they had only heard about and not actually seen. It is notable that in these cases, when witnesses were testifying by hearsay about the miracles, the preference was clearly for men. The words of the clerics especially were considered trustworthy. Absent clergymen were very often chosen to testify in the Cantilupe process even though there would have been many eyewitnesses to the miracles. The

99

CIC I, C. 2, q. 4, c. 2.

100

Willelmus ap Rees alias dictus Cragh (witness number 148), BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 220r–222r. The good reputation of some witnesses can also be seen as relative: prostitutes, defined as respectable and of good character, could also testify in cases concerning, for example, male impotence. Good reputation was the prerequisite of the canon law; the reason their oaths were not challenged may reflect that they were seen as experts in sexual cases. The prostitutes themselves were not respected. Nevertheless, the lack of good name could be disregarded when necessary. On prostitutes as witnesses, see Ruth Mazo Karras, ‘“Because the Other Is a Poor Women She Shall Be Called his Wench”: Gender, Sexuality, and Social Status in Late Medieval England’, in Gender and Difference in the Middle Ages, ed. by Farmer and Pasternack, pp. 210–29. 101

Jeanette Beer, Narrative Conventions of Truth in the Middle Ages, Études de Philologie et d’Histoire, 38 (Geneva: Libraire Droz, 1981), pp. 23–34; Brundage, ‘Juridical Space’, p. 152; and van Houts, Memory and Gender, p. 23. 102

In other canonization processes of the fourteenth century, Goodich, ‘Reason or Revelation?’, esp. p. 186, had found the basic principle that only one eyewitness was not sufficient evidence for a miracle.

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

49

commissioners seem to have favoured clerics especially. After the witnesses chosen by the proctor the commissioners generally wanted to interview the rector or vicar of the parish. This is regular in nearly all the miracles. For example, in the miraculous revival of Willelmus le Lorimer, Rogerus, the chaplain, was chosen to testify.103 In the revival of Nicholas, the son of Johannes Piscator, Walterus de Caple, the rector, was chosen to testify.104 Vicar Gilbertus de Cheueninge gave his deposition on the revival of Galfridus.105 In the revival of Johannes Drake altogether three men of clerical status were called to testify.106 In the majority of the cases the clerics had not been present at the scene of the miracle; they had only heard about the event. On some occasions they were not even present in the village at the time of the miracle. For example, Walterus de Caple, the rector testifying to the miraculous revival of Nicholas, stated that he did not know anything sure about the incident. At the time of the miracle he was still studying in Canterbury.107 However, the words of the clerics were considered important: they were heard and written down. Clerics’ judgements of other witnesses were especially appreciated. In many cases the intention of the clerical deposition was to confirm the common fame of the incident and the good reputation of the witnesses.108 In several cases these were the only questions the clerical witnesses were expected to answer. The commissioners examining the miracles performed by Thomas Cantilupe seem to have favoured clerics of higher rank: Rogerus, the chaplain, was chosen to testify in the case of Willelmus le Lorimer only because, at the time of the hearing, the rector of the church was ill and could not make his appearance in front of the commissioners.109

103

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 152v .

104

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 165r.

105

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 167v .

106

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 145v –146r.

107

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 165r : ‘dixit se nichil scire certitudinaliter de miraculo antedicto quia anno quo dicitur contigisse studiebat in studio Cantebregge’. 108 109

For example BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 145v –146r.

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 152v : ‘predicti domini episcopi et comissari ex officio suo vocaverunt coram se dominum Rogerum cappellanum perpetuum in capella Beate Marie de Nova Radenor commorantem in parochia dicte ecclesie. Cum rector dicte ecclesie diceretur esse infirmus et non posse venire ad dominos comissarios antedictos’.

50

Chapter 1

The respect given to the words of the clerics can also be seen by analysing the witnesses that were summoned to testify several times. Altogether ten witnesses testified more than once, and six of them were clerics. All the other witnesses testified twice while Gilbertus de Cheueninge and Johannes Alkyn gave several testimonies. Johannes Alkyn testified four times, yet in his case the reason for the confidence in his statements was probably not solely due to his clerical status. Johannes Alkyn was a member of the minor orders: he was a doorkeeper at Hereford cathedral. He was married, and thus not clearly or entirely separated from laity. He was called to testify by the proctors.110 Gilbertus de Cheueninge held higher status in the clerical hierarchy: he was perpetual vicar in the parish of Magna Markle (today Much Marcle).111 He had served as a custodian at the shrine of Saint Thomas. He was once called by the proctor and six times by the commissioners. Indeed, in the cases of Johannes and Gilbertus the reason for their repeated appearance in front of the commissioners may not be their clerical status alone but their offices at Hereford cathedral. They had been present at many miracles that took place at the shrine. Clerical eyewitnesses were hard to find, and thus valuable. Interestingly the commissioners did not find any conflicting interests in the depositions of Gilbertus. He also served as proctor after 18 October.112 Thus he chose the miracles and the witnesses testifying about them, and when needed also added his own testimony to validate the details of the depositions of other witnesses. In the canonization process of Nicholas of Tolentino clerical reliability is also emphasized: Augustinian friars as well as secular clergy were keen to recount miracles they had only heard of.113 The laity usually testified to the miracles they had 110

BAV, M S Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 183r: ‘fuit tamen in obsequio decani ecclesie Herefordensis et aperitor in dicta ecclesia xxxiii anni’. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4016, fol. 106v: ‘clericus uxoriatus’. Johannes Alkyn testifies in the canonization process as witness numbers 16, 113, 154, and 160. 111

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 167v : ‘vicarium perpetuum ecclesie de Magna Marklee Herefordensis diocese’. Gilbertus de Cheueninge testifies as witness numbers 100, 104, 137, 139, 172, 176, and 181. 112 113

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 182v .

For example the Augustinian friars Iacobus de Camereno (Nicholas, testis I), Leonardus de Montefalcono (testis III), Natimbene de Sancto Severeno (testis IX), Angelus de Sancta Victoria (testis X), Victor de Camereno (testis CXLVIII), Guillelmus de Montelpero (testis CLIV), Massarellus de Monte Sancte Marie de Georgeo (testis CLV), Andreas domini Iohannis de Monticulo (testis CLXXVII), and Franciscus de Nursia (testis CCXI) had not personally experienced the miracles performed by Saint Nicholas, yet they recounted the miraculous occurrences they had heard of.

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

51

personally experienced while the clergy resorted to hearsay.114 Plausibly the Augustinian friars wanted to promote the cult of Saint Nicholas while the religious standing may have offered them and other members of clergy an opportunity to recount the miracles more freely than the lay witnesses were allowed to do. However, if the clerics failed in their task their words were not treated differently from the depositions of the laity. For example, a priest named Johannes de Ryshok was to be interrogated about the miraculous recovery of the badly hurt Galfridus. His deposition was rejected because he changed and varied his deposition and contradicted himself.115 More commonly the commissioners were suspicious of the words of the laity. Suspicion was cast on lay witnesses’ depositions, and sometimes they were rejected due to the inaccuracy of details. An example of this can be seen in the miraculous recovery of Editha. In this miracle six of eleven witnesses were women. Two depositions of these women were interrupted because of the inaccuracy of their depositions.116 These two women were Johanna, the wife of Andre Vielator, and Alicia, the wife of Henricus Galant. The depositions are not written down in full, so it is impossible to analyse to what extent the witnesses varied the story. It cannot be concluded that interruption or the strict attitude was based on the gender of the witnesses. However, it should be noted that witnesses disagree on several details in this case. This miracle was said to be the first performed by Saint Thomas; maybe the twenty years that had lapsed between the incident and the hearing had blurred the memories of the witnesses.117 The practicalities of organizing the hearing as well as the selection of witnesses seem to differ clearly in these canonization processes. However, the evaluation of 114

In addition to the Augustinian friars, other members of religious orders also testified about miracles by hearsay. For example, the Franciscan friars Franciscus de Montelupone (Nicholas, testis XIII) and Petrus Mulucci (also Bishop of Macerata at the time of the hearing, testis CLXXI), the Cistercian abbot Iohannes de Murrovallium (testis XVII), and the Benedictine abbot Nicholas (testis XXVI) recounted miracles they had not personally witnessed. 115

Johannes first gave his deposition on 9 October. It was late and the deposition was not written down. When he came back the next morning his deposition did not accord with the previous one and it was rejected. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 167v: ‘quia in hiis quo heri narraverat et quo hodie narravit coram ipsius dominis comissariis fuit repertus varius et vacillans et se ipsi contrarius a testimonio repulerunt eundem’. The deposition of Johannes de Ryschok has not been written down and he is not marked as a witness. 116

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 214v –215r: ‘variavit et vacillavit non fuit ulterius examinata’.

117

On further details, see ‘Miracles and the Public Domain’ in Chapter 2.

52

Chapter 1

the credibility of witnesses seems to originate from a similar mode of thought. The hierarchy of witnesses was similarly established. The appreciation of clerical witnesses is seen clearly in both processes. Mainly members of the clergy testified about the important details of the life of these putative saints. The words of the clerics could also be trusted when they testified without personal knowledge about things they had only heard of. The hearsay testimonies of the clergy can be found concerning the life, reputation, or miracles of the candidate. After the clergy the most respected witnesses were laymen with good social standing. High status and wealth apparently gave prestige and reliability to their testimonies since they were also often interrogated about the life of the candidate. Personal knowledge, as in the case of the members of Thomas Cantilupe’s familia, was appreciated. High age may also have given more credibility to laymen’s testimonies. Women were mainly ignored as witnesses to the life of a saint. Apparently good social status did not give enough credibility to the testimonies of women. In the Cantilupe case no woman was interrogated about the life of the former Bishop. The sole example to be found in Nicholas’s process suggests that only when good standing was interconnected with acknowledged high morality could the prejudice against women’s words be overcome. In such situations women could also give testimony on important details of a candidate’s life. There seem to be noteworthy differences in organizing these two processes. One could conclude that in the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe the decrees of canon law were taken literally on many occasions. On the other hand in the canonization process of Nicholas of Tolentino the attitude of the organizers was more liberal. Several witnesses were called to testify who actually never showed up — or at least their depositions were not written down. The canonization process includes several miracles with only one testimony. The age or status of the witnesses did not interest the commissioners as much as in the Cantilupe process. Yet the lack of details may be due to different notarial practices. Moreover, the most important aspect was taken care of in both of the processes: all the witnesses swore an oath by touching the holy Gospel. The greatest difference between the processes seems to be the selection of miracles and witnesses to testify to them. In Nicholas’s process no — at least no strict — selection was made beforehand. The miracles were not selected beforehand and the people chosen to testify could recount the miraculous occurrences of their life fairly freely. Apparently the commissioners were not very eager to find several witnesses for each miracle. Presumably the fairly liberal mode of examining also

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

53

offered women opportunities to testify. However, the tolerant approach in implementing the hearing may have been a result of the good standing of the witnesses. Since the majority of them were better-off town-dwellers it is possible that the commissioners were inclined to trust their testimonies of their personal recoveries. In the Cantilupe case the organizers seem to have been rather reluctant to call women to testify even about the miracles. The miracles and witnesses were chosen carefully beforehand, and women qualified to testify only if they were close relatives of the beneficiary or played an important role in the course of action. Mere presence at the scene of the miracle was not a sufficient reason for their selection, while eyewitnessing made men’s testimonies trustworthy enough for them to be selected for the inquiry. However, once chosen to testify the women’s words were treated equally with those of men. No clear gendered prejudices can be seen in the commissioners’ questions or attitudes towards the witnesses to miracles. The credibility of clerics could also be doubted if their testimony did not fulfil the requirements. Moreover, when pondering the depositions — and occasionally in the comments about the witnesses — the commissioners and authors of the summarium and relatio may have put more faith in the women’s testimony.

Evaluation of the Depositions After the Canonization Hearing: Relatio and Recollectio After the selection of the witnesses and the interrogatory accomplished by the commissioners the depositions were also evaluated. The next step in the procedure of canonization, after the actual hearing in partibus, was to summarize the records for the use of the curia. At this level the clerical perspective for the hierarchy of the miracles as well as the evaluation of the credibility of the depositions can be seen. The relatio of Nicholas’s process was composed by Cardinal Guillelmo Godin, and it was done soon after the actual hearing since it was presented to Pope John XXII in 1328.118 The relatio was composed following the depositions of the canonization hearing, but the testimonies were organized and arranged. Similar structure as in the Cantilupe process was applied to this later relatio. The

118

According to Domenico Gentili, there are five manuscripts of this relatio of which the version in the Vatican Libarary (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4027) is used here. See also Gentili, ‘Introduzione’, p. xvi.

54

Chapter 1

composition was divided into two parts: to the life and miracles of Saint Nicholas. Moreover, the miracles were arranged according to a set structure: the miracles were ordered according to their type, and all the depositions on a particular miracle were gathered under each case. Notably, similar preferences can also be found in the relatio of Nicholas’s process as in the Cantilupe hearing. For example, the importance of biblical examples can be found in the relatio: first were listed the resurrections and second the recoveries of the blind.119 Under each heading all miracles of that type were listed. Moreover, the order of the miracles under each heading was not chronological as found in the canonization record but according to the number of witnesses. For example, the revival of ser Ventorinus was listed first with nine witnesses; next was the revival of Puccius Angelii with six witnesses.120 This was a common feature in all the cases: the number of the witnesses seems to have been the most important detail in ordering the miracles under each heading. The number of witnesses was not considered to be of paramount importance in the canonization process proper. However, in the later relatio this point was also emphasized. It seems that Cardinal Godin paid more attention to the canon law requirements than the commissioners holding the hearing. In Nicholas’s case the miracles were only categorized and the occasionally unclear structure of the actual canonization process was organized while in the recollectio and summarium of the Cantilupe process actual selection and evaluation of the miracles was done. In the recollectio only the miracles of the canonization hearing were considered: they were organized according to their type and some of them were omitted. The manuscript contains only twenty-six miracles while in the canonization records there were thirty-eight of them.121 This recollectio was presumably done soon after the actual canonization hearing by the same notaries, since the ink and handwriting appear identical. In the recollectio there is no evaluation of miracles or depositions, while in the later summarium some pondering can be found. This summarium, currently at the

119

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4027, fols 15r–22v .

120

The witnesses listed in the relatio to testify to the case of ser Ventorinus were ser Giliolus Iohannis (Nicholas, testis XXXII), ser Ventorinus (testis XXXIII), magister Symon Luce (testis XXXIV), nobilis domina Annese (testis XLII), friar Victor de Camereno (testis CXLVIII), domina Bertina (testis CLII), dominus frater Petrus, Maceratensis episcopus (testis CLXXI), domina Nicolucia (testis CCXIX), and Sensus Angelucii (testis CCXX). It should be noted, however, that Sensus Angelucii did not testify about this incident. He did not even mention ser Ventorinus. 121

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4017, fols 1r–127v .

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

55

Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, was rendered after the recollectio by a high-ranking cleric of the papal curia, presumably in 1319 or at the beginning of 1320 in Avignon. In the summarium the author examines the cases of twenty-six miracles, pondering the depositions as well as the circumstances and the nature of the miracles.122 However, the method of rejecting miracles is not explained in the Vatican recollectio of the Cantilupe process. The number of witnesses, as in Nicholas’s process, was not the basis for evaluation. In some cases the questionable reputation of the beneficiary seems to have been the reason for omitting the miracle — like the resurrections of the criminals Willelmus Cragh and Cristina Cray.123 Similarly the cure of Editha furiosa cannot be found in the recollectio. In Editha’s case suspicions may have arisen due to the unreliable witnesses. However, the miraculous cure of friar Richardus and the vision seen by dominus Richardus (Richard Swinfield), the successor of Thomas Cantilupe as Bishop of Hereford, are not recorded either. The omission or approval of a particular miracle in the recollectio does not seem to rely on the hierarchy of the witnesses. Miracles with high-status witnesses were also ignored. Apparently the gender of the witness did not play a major role in approving or rejecting depositions or miracles on the next level after the actual inquiry. There can be found only one example where the gender of the witnesses may have affected the attitude towards the miracle. Four eyewitnesses testified to the miraculous resurrection of Gilbertus, who had drowned in the water container 122

BN, MS Lat. 5373 A, fols 66r–69v. Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 569–80 and the edition of the document pp. 633–47, assumes that the unknown author was an Englishman. It should be noted that there are actually two recollectios based on the canonization hearing. After the summarium in the Paris manuscript the details of the life as well as some of the miracles of Saint Thomas were also compiled (fols 70r–119v). The Paris recollectio was organized according to a structure similar to the Vatican recollectio. However, some miracles were missing — even some resurrection miracles with a lot of witnesses were omitted — even though they ended up in the final canonization bull. The Paris recollectio is clearly a copy, since the text skips from the middle of a deposition, at the end of a page, to a completely different miracle and continues in the middle of the deposition without any comments or clarifications (fols 82v –83r). Thus no pondering on the reasons for omitting or approving particular miracles or depositions can be done. It is not a reliable source for the clerical evaluation of the miracles or depositions. Moreover, no particular assessment of the value of testimonies or miracles can be found. Presumably the Paris manuscript is not, however, a copy from a possible earlier Vatican recollectio but a copy from the process itself since at the end it also contains depositions of pars prima — of the life of Saint Thomas — which are absent from the Vatican recollectio. 123

See also Hanska, ‘Hanging of William Cragh’, where the author stresses the discrepancy between the testimonies of the witnesses in the case of Willelmus Cragh.

56

Chapter 1

in the hallway of his home.124 No major discrepancies can be found in the depositions. The commissioners did not comment on the reliability of the miracle or the testimonies. One of the witnesses was even interviewed at the miracle scene and the commissioners saw the water container. This was not, however, convincing enough since the miracle was not passed for the recollectio.125 Possibly it was considered suspicious that all the witnesses were women. The father of the boy was summoned to testify as a first witness even though he was not present at the miracle scene. However, his deposition cannot be found in the records even though he apparently appeared in front of the commissioners and swore an oath. Instead of the father, the mother of the boy was interviewed. It remains unknown whether it had been sufficiently convincing for the commissioners if the father had testified since the case has another apparent shortcoming: no cleric was interviewed to confirm the fame of the miracle and the trustworthiness of the witnesses. Thus it remains unknown whether the gender of the witnesses caused the rejection. Another possible reason is their lay status. It is possible that a credible case needed not only male witnesses but moreover clerical testimonies. The Order of Witnesses and Evaluation of Testimony In addition to miracles particular depositions were also evaluated on the next level after the hearing — in the recollectio. In the Cantilupe recollectio the order of the witnesses was not changed although some of the depositions were completely ignored, for various reasons. In Nicholas’s relatio, on the other hand, the evaluation was done by changing the order of the depositions; nothing was omitted. The order of the witnesses was also significant. In other legal procedures the first witness usually held higher status than others.126 Presumably in canonization hearings, especially in the Cantilupe hearing where the witnesses were placed in precise order, the first witness was considered to be the most important. At least 124

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 51v –55r.

125

This miracle was not analysed in the summarium or noted in the canonization bull. On general papal effort to reduce the number of miracles in the canonization bulls, see Goodich, ‘Reason or Revelation?’. 126

For example, in English legal acts of ‘proofs of age’, the first juror was usually considered to be the most important and had prestige among the witnesses. The first juror answered the questions about the place and date of birth and the godparents for the whole group; he was almost always an eyewitness to the baptism. John Bedell, ‘Memory and Proof of Age in England 1272–1327’, Past and Present, 162 (1999), 3–27 (p. 24).

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

57

quite often the depositions of later informants were revised, and it was only noted that the witnesses replied in a similar manner to the last questions as did the previous witness.127 It remains unknown whether these witnesses agreed verbatim on the questions or if the notaries only interpreted the answers to be similar enough. Apparently less important witnesses’ depositions could be treated in this manner. The questions summarized were usually about the state of the other witnesses; also questions on the use of magic or the rise of enthusiasm after the miracle as well as the witnesses’ motives to testify were asked. Quite often the sole answer was yes or no, thus the summary did not seriously contradict the deposition. Apparently the later witnesses were not considered to add any new or valuable information to the earlier depositions. It should be noted, however, that while the clerics were usually interrogated as last witnesses their testimonies were not summarized in this manner. Moreover, their depositions had another meaning: their role was not to clarify the details and particularities of the miracle but to confirm the common renown of the miracle and the reputation of the other witnesses. The amount of information and personal knowledge seem to have been the most important devices for the ordering of the witnesses in the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe. Quite often the beneficiary him- or herself was the first to be interrogated concerning that he or she was of appropriate age and condition. In the case of children when both of the parents had been present and active in the miracle scene it seems to be that the father was interviewed before the mother.128 Yet, there are exceptions to this.129 Presumably there was no need for further ranking of the order of the witnesses in the recollectio since this kind of evaluation was already done in the canonization hearing proper.

127

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 165r: ‘Item requisita super quattuor ultimis interrogatoris factis Johannis piscatoris predicto respondit in effectum sicut Johannis predictis.’ 128

For example Adam le Schirreue was interrogated as witness number 64 and Cecilia, his wife, as witness number 65 (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 124r–129r); Johannes Piscator was interrogated as witness number 94 and Lucia, his wife, as witness number 95 (ibid., fols 158v–162v); Robertus Russel was interrogated as witness number 99 and Leticia, his wife, as witness number 101 (ibid., fols 165v –169r). 129

For example in the case of Johannes Drake the mother, Editha, was interrogated as first witness even though both of the parents were present at the scene of the miracle. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 140v –146r.

58

Chapter 1

In the canonization process of Nicholas no clear order of the witnesses can be found. Apparently the commissioners did not value the paternal point of view since usually the words of the father were not required to confirm the deposition of the mother. As noted, the order of the witnesses in the actual hearing did not correspond to the chronological order in which the witnesses were called in to testify or were interrogated. Moreover, the depositions of the same miracle were not collected together but were scattered in the records. However, in the relatio the miracles were ordered according to their content and the witnesses were listed under each heading. The order of witnesses is not ascending according to their number in the actual canonization record. Thus some considerations must have been made for the proper order. Since the miracles performed by Nicholas were not usually witnessed by both of the parents, in the actual hearing estimations of the value of their depositions are hard to find. However, similar features are stressed as in the Cantilupe hearing. First is usually the witness who possesses the most information. In cases where both of the parents testify, no preference for the father can be found.130 For example, in the miraculous revival of ser Ventorinus the first witness in the relatio was his wife, domina Nicolucia. She took care of her husband and invoked Saint Nicholas for his recovery. The second witness on the list is ser Ventorinus, the beneficiary himself. The third witness was ser Giliolus, the father of ser Ventorinus. The father had been present during the illness and according to his own words also pleaded for the help of Saint Nicholas for the recovery of his son. However, his deposition was not considered as important as the testimony of Nicolucia. It is noteworthy that ser Giliolus was involved in the miracle process. Moreover, he held high social standing: he was titled as discretus vir ser Giliolus Iohannis. Similarly testimonies of other witnesses who were of high rank — members of the nobility or religious orders, even a bishop131 — were not, in this case, considered to be as important as the words of the wife of the patient.

130

For example, in the accident of Ansovinus the deposition of the mother was listed first (domina Andriola, testis CXII), then the father (Ansovinus, testis CXLIV), then two eye-witnessing women (testis CXVI and testis CXLV). The mother made the vow but the father was also present at the miracle scene. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4027, fol. 17r. In the resurrection of Sennucia the mother’s deposition (domina Imilla, testis C) was also ordered first, then the father’s (Manfredinus, testis LXXXI), and last the deposition of the eye-witnessing aunt (testis XXIX ). Both mother and father invoked Saint Nicholas. Ibid., fol. 17v . 131

See above, note 120 in this chapter.

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

59

The importance of the testimony of Nicolucia was also stressed by the fact that the commissioners arranged a special interrogatory for her and Sensus Angelucii in Perugia to have their depositions of the incident. They were infirm and could not attend the hearing in San Ginesio, where the commissioners were interrogating other witnesses.132 This kind of arrangement was not unique, however. In the Cantilupe process similar procedures were carried out when the witnesses were unable to appear in front of the commissioners. For example Alicia, the mother of the drowned Gilbertus, was interrogated in her home since she was pregnant and in her last trimester and could not easily have appeared in front of the commissioners.133 This was customary: expectant mothers were protected and taken care of; they did not need to appear in tribunals.134 Willelmus, the father of the paralysed Alicia, was also seriously infirm and could not appear in front of the commissioners, thus he was interviewed in his home.135 These procedures emphasize the value of the information people possessed more than the high position of the witness. Nicolucia, Alicia, and Willelmus were not witnesses of high prestige. Nicolucia and Alicia were married laywomen, thus not highly esteemed as witnesses according to the regulations of canon law, even though they were of fairly prominent social position and married into notable and wealthy families.136 Willelmus may have been esteemed more trustworthy in the legal context because of his gender, yet he was poor and had to beg. Hence his underprivileged position may have made his deposition dubious. The value of information possessed and the reliability of the deposition is also stressed in the recollectio of the Cantilupe process. Some particular depositions were omitted even though the rest of the miracle was written down in the recollectio. The reason for this was not the unreliable or low status of the witnesses but more likely the credibility, discrepancies, and significance of the deposition itself.

132

Nicholas, processus rogatorialis perusinus, pp. 466–73.

133

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 53v : ‘Et est sciendum quod dicta Alicia apparebat [. . .] ut dixerunt gravida et adeo partu propinqua quod ad precencia dominorum Episcoporum predictorum venire comode non potuisset.’ 134

Lett, L’enfant des miracles, pp. 252–54.

135

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 64v .

136

Radulphus Sporum, the husband of Alicia, was a goldsmith and a citizen of the city of London. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 53r . On the London economy and women’s contribution to it by household economy, small retail trade, dowry, and dower, see Barbara Hanawalt, The Wealth of Wives: Women, Law, and Economy in Late Medieval London (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

60

Chapter 1

For example, some of the depositions of the clerics were left out. Their testimony usually concerned the renown of the event or the reputation of other witnesses. Presumably this kind of information was not important anymore at this point.137 Some single depositions were apparently left out due to the inaccuracies they contained. For example, in the case of Johanna la Schirreue the deposition of her father, Adam le Schirreue, was not written down in the recollectio.138 The reason may be the inconsistencies in his deposition. At the end of his deposition the commissioners noted that he repeatedly varied his deposition saying that they asked Saint Thomas to revive the girl, and then that they asked Saint Thomas to ask God to revive the girl.139 Clerical point of view stressed that the thaumaturges did not act independently but that God performed the miracles on saints’ pleadings and for their merits.140 This seems also to be well comprehended by the witnesses. Simultaneous petitions to God and the saint as well as supplications for the saint to pray to God to act are numerous.141 Since the exact words of the invocation are not clearly stated in all the cases it remains unknown whether Adam le Schirreue was the only witness in the Cantilupe process who was inaccurate in this detail. In Nicholas’s process there are

137

For example, dominus Johannis de Almalia (witness number 79) and Willelmus de Murinal (number 80) were interrogated about the resurrection of Johannes Drake (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 146r), but their depositions cannot be found in the recollectio. The other depositions in this case are collected in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4017, fols 23r–31 r. Similarly dominus Willelmus de Bradeweye, the chaplain, was interrogated as witness number 169 about the miraculous recovery of Adam and Rogerus de Kylpek (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 236r), but the deposition was omitted from the recollectio. The other depositions are written down in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4017, fols 107r–111v. 138

The other depositions are BAV, Vat. Lat. 4017, fols 1r–23r.

139

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 126v : ‘et tercia die repetitus variavit in hoc quia prius dixerat quod rogabant dictum sanctum Thomam quod resuscitaret dictam puellam et in hac repetitione dixit quod rogabant ipsum sanctum Thomam ut rogaret deum quod resuscitaret dictam puellam’. 140 141

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 538–40.

For example, ‘mensuravit dictum filium suum ad sanctum Thomam de Cantilupo et rogavit deum et dictum sanctum Thomam’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 54r); ‘rogavit deum et dictum sanctum Thomam quod darent sanitatem dicte filie sue’ (ibid., fol. 65r); ‘rogavit cum lacrimis flexis genibus sanctum Thomam qui iacet in hereforde quod rogaret deum ut daret vitam dicte filie sue’ (ibid., fol. 130r); ‘inceperunt [. . .] rogare et invocare adiutorium sancti Nicolay de Tholentino quod rogaret Deum pro resubsitatione seu liberatione dicte puelle’ (Nicholas, testis XXIX, p. 150); ‘ipsa fuit que vovit eum Deo et beato Nicholao predicto de Tholentino pro resuscitatione dicti testis’ (ibid., testis CV, p. 298).

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

61

examples of invocations of only the saint’s help.142 This did not interest or disturb the commissioners in Nicholas’s hearing. However, the miraculous resurrection of Johanna was analysed in the summarium and ended up in the final canonization bull, despite the discrepancies of the father’s testimony.143 On some occasions the reason for the rejection of the deposition is not clear. For example, the rejection of several depositions in the case of the recovery of Iuliana and Margeria or the deposition of Johannes Moniworde in the case of the new tongue of Johannes de Burtone is not explained. The depositions do not greatly deviate from other testimonies. Commissioners have not mentioned any negative comments on the witnesses or depositions.144 Possibly the reason for omitting these depositions was that they were shortened and not all the questions or answers were written down in full. At the end of all these depositions six or seven questions were abbreviated by only referring to the questions posed to a previous witness and his or her answers. Apparently the compiler of the recollectio regarded that these statements would not add anything particularly new to the body of evidence. The abbreviation in the actual canonization hearing may have been done mainly for convenience: to save time and parchment. Possibly these depositions were not crucial in validating the miracle, yet it cannot be concluded that these witnesses were seen as untrustworthy or useless. It is noteworthy that many of these witnesses had firsthand eye-witness information about the incidents. Moreover, the majority of these witnesses were of relatively good standing. Johannes Moniworde mentioned before was a citizen of Hereford. He was also apparently to some extent educated, since he testified in French.145 The witnesses to the recovery of Iuliana and Margeria were peasants. Some of them were poor, while 142

For example, ‘vovit eum ipsi sancto promittendo si resubsitaretur cingere archam ipsius sancto Nicolay de cera’ (Nicholas, testis CLXV, p. 390); ‘domina Francesca, mater eius, vovit eam beato Nicholao, quod si liberaretur eam transmicteret Tholentinum ad ecclesiam ubi iacet sepultus et offerret ibi supra archam ipsius unam tubaelam’ (ibid., testis CXXXV, p. 341). 143 BN, MS Lat. 5373 A, fols 66v–67r; Bullarium Romanum, IV , 291–94. On the discrepancies in the depositions and doubt of the miracle, see Goodich, ‘Reason or Revelation?’. 144

In the canonization records the depositions can be found in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 172 –173v, 178r–182r, and 187v–188r. r

145

Michael Richter argues that since the mother tongue at least for the majority of the witnesses was English, knowledge of French, not to mention Latin, implies education of some sort. On the connection of social status, education, and proficiency in diverse languages in medieval England, see Michael Richter, Sprache und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter: Untersuchungen zur mündlichen Kommunikation in England von der Mitte des elften bis zum Beginn des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1979), pp. 187–201.

62

Chapter 1

some of the rejected statements were given in French and partly even in Latin.146 These notions once again stress the importance and value of the information possessed at the expense of the status of the informant on this level of evaluation. Gendered Words: Pondering the Credibility of the Testimonies The author of the summarium of the Cantilupe process examined contradictions and discrepancies in the depositions evaluating the credibility of the miracles and testimonies. The twenty-six miracles chosen are briefly enumerated; then doubts about the supernatural character of the occurrences are presented. The pros and cons are weighed up and a solution attained. According to André Vauchez, this may well be the only medieval document containing the high clergy’s direct reactions to supernatural occurrences.147 In addition to pondering whether the particular case was a genuine miracle or not, the author also evaluates the specific depositions and the value of testimony given in them. Interestingly, in cases of discrepancies, he occasionally prefers the mother’s testimony, thus ignoring the traditional gender prejudices. For example, in the case of the drowned Johannes Drake the author of the summarium explains the reason for the contradiction of the time of the resurrection in the depositions as simple-mindedness of the father.148 However, the reason for this conclusion was not the convincing testimony of the mother but more likely the fact that other witnesses also corroborated the mother. The commissioners’ comments must have helped to ignore the father’s incoherent testimony. They had noted in the canonization records that the father was valde simplex homo.149 It remains unknown what the commissioners actually meant by this statement. In their eyes the majority of the lay witnesses were plausibly regarded as uneducated, unlettered, and simple-minded. Such mentions are rare, however.150 It is possible that 146

Agnes Cole (witness number 106), Adam Kock (number 112), and Willelmus Tynlic (number 113) testified in English; Stephanus Wardelowe (number 114) and Willelmus Tyle (number 115) testified in French; and Johannes Aunfrey (number 111) testified partly in French and partly in Latin. 147

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, p. 570.

148

BN, MS Lat. 5373 A, fol. 67r.

149

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 142v .

150

In the case of Nicholas the son of Johannes Piscator this kind of definition was also used: ‘quia simplex erat multum dictus Nicholaus non fuit super pluribus a dictis dominis comissariis interrogatus’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 158v).

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

63

the comment simplex was used when the witnesses did not meet the advance expectations of their performance since the clerics could also be described in this manner.151 Presumably high sophistication was not expected from witnessing laywomen. Only one woman was defined as simple-minded. She was Juliana de Lude, testifying to the miraculous cure of Editha.152 Since the interrogatory of two witnesses in this miracle had already been discontinued due to discrepancies in their depositions, the commissioners may have been more alert to trustworthiness in this case. Possibly, since the witnesses — and especially testifying women — were rather strictly selected beforehand, such definitions were not regularly needed. However, these comments may have been used to evaluate the witness among his group of witnesses. For example, Willelmus de Wayte was defined as laycus et simplex. He had been part of Thomas Cantilupe’s familia and was interrogated about the life of the former bishop.153 The majority of the witnesses of pars prima were clerics or members of religious orders. Similarly, in Nicholas’s records Gemelucius Forensis was defined as simplex laicus. He testified about the miraculous cure of his father Forensis. All the other witnesses were clerics.154 Yet, it should be noted that while the definition laicus was used several times in Nicholas’s records none of the other witnesses were defined as simplex. Moreover, some of these laymen were also interrogated about the life of Saint Nicholas.155 There were also other reasons for the compiler of the summarium of the Cantilupe process to support the mother’s point of view. This can be seen, for example,

151

In the inquiry on the excommunication of Thomas Cantilupe, which was implemented by the same commissioners and notaries, a chaplain of Hereford, Stephanus de Hultone, was defined as ‘simplex et non multum litteratus’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4016, fol. 35r). He testified in French and the poor knowledge of Latin may have made him appear simple-minded — at least among his peers — in the eyes of the commissioners. 152

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 219 v: ‘quia erat ita singularis et videbatur simplex et obliviosa et in aliquibus narraverat non fuit super pluribus requisita’. The interrupted depositions are in ibid., fols 214v –215r. 153

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 102r–v.

154

Gemelucius Forensis (Nicholas, testis CCCXXI), dompnus Symon Forensis, presbyter et sacerdos (testis CCCXXII), dompnus Cucius Carlucii, sacerdos (testis CCCXXIII), dominus dominus Berardus, episcopus Camerinensis (testis CCCXXVII), and Friar Victor (testis CXLVIII). 155

For the interrogation of the life of Saint Nicholas from laicus, see, for example, Nicholas, testis CCXLVI and testis CCXLVIII. For interrogation of personal cures or rescues, see ibid., testis CCLXXIII, testis CCCXIII, and testis CCCXIV.

64

Chapter 1

in the case of the accidental death of Rogerus.156 In his deposition Johannes Syward claimed that he had measured the dead boy while Diomisia, the mother, stated that before the birth of Rogerus she had made a pilgrimage to Hereford and prayed at the shrine for Saint Thomas to help her and her progeny. Johannes Syward was apparently eager to stress his own role in the course of the event as well as to belittle the role of the mother: he claimed that Diomisia had been drunk at the time of the accident.157 The mother, on the other hand, acknowledged the invocation made at the accident scene by Johannes Syward. Johannes Syward was presumably of good social standing158 while the parents of Rogerus were of relatively humble position. Diomisia and her husband were poor servants.159 Notwithstanding, the miraculous resurrection was explained to be due to the invocation the mother had made while she was pregnant with Rogerus. The author of the summarium regarded the mother’s activity as more important for the miraculous resurrection. The other witnesses did not agree on Johannes Syward’s statements about the mother’s drunkenness. The problem in this case was not the initiator: nearly all the witnesses agree on Johannes Syward’s invocation. However, they were not certain if he made the vow to the Holy Cross or to Saint Thomas and in which order. Presumably this was the reason why Syward’s claims were ignored and the author of the summarium believed the words of the mother even though there were no witnesses for this prenatal invocation for help. The entity invoked was the basic question in qualifying the miracle as a proof of sainthood. This kind of contradiction and confusion in the depositions could have been a valid reason to exclude the whole miracle from the records. However, the commissioners decided to hear all the witnesses. They had come a long way from Conway to Hereford; perhaps because of this the commissioners did not immediately refuse to hear more about the incident. Yet, they were suspicious of the details, and

156

In the canonization process witnesses numbers 123–30 testify to the incident. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 188r–203v. For details of this case, see also R . C. Finucane, ‘The Toddler in the Ditch: A Case of Parental Neglect?’, in Voices from the Bench: The Narratives of Lesser Folk in Medieval Trials, ed. by Michael Goodich, New Middle Ages (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), pp. 127–48. 157

Johannes Syward claimed that he invoked Saint Thomas and that he had also started the chanting after the resurrection. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 192v –194r. 158

He was titled as burgensis de coneweye and he testified in French. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 192v –194r. 159

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 200r–203v .

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

65

three witnesses were called in for a second time to further clarify the details of their deposition: whether Rogerus was measured for the Holy Cross or to Saint Thomas. The place where the little body was found also required further clarification.160 The father was called in a second time as well. After the mother’s testimony the commissioners wanted to ascertain the family’s devotion to Saint Thomas before the incident. The commissioners were satisfied with these explanations, the investigation was not rejected, and no further comments were written down of the incident in the canonization records. Furthermore, one of the commissioners, the Bishop of London, was apparently impressed by this miracle. Later he also took a personal interest in the case and he paid the boy a pension: Rogerus was educated under the Bishop’s care.161 The author of the summarium of the Cantilupe process was also convinced of the miraculous resurrection and the mother’s crucial role in it. In this case a woman’s words were treated with respect even though they contradicted the deposition of a witness of higher rank. More importantly, the case turned out to be so convincing that the miracle also ended up in the final canonization bull. It is noteworthy, however, that in the actual bull the miracle was described to have taken place since the boy was measured for Saint Thomas after the accident.162 The principle that the husband’s version should prevail when the husband’s and wife’s testimonies conflicted was mentioned in canon law.163 As noted, this regulation was not taken literally in the evaluation of depositions after the actual inquiry. Moreover, the commissioners had already overlooked this requirement: there can be found examples of conflicting testimonies in the records of Thomas Cantilupe. For example, the interrogatory of the miraculous recovery of Johannes, the son of Hugo and Agnes le Chandeler, was completely stopped due to the contradictory details in the parents’ depositions. In this case neither one of the depositions was valued more than the other, neither mother nor father was appreciated more or treated as more trustworthy. Due to the conflicting statements the third

160

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 196r–197r.

161

Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 70.

162

Bullarium Romanum, IV , 291–94: ‘Infans alius nondum aetatis annorum duorum in fundo cuiusdam fossati, in quem locum de ponte altitudinis magnae de nocte asseritur cecidisse, repertus mortuus, frigidus omnino et rigidus absque aliquo signo vitae, mensuratus ad hunc Sanctum, vitae fuit mirabiliter restitutus.’ 163

Brundage, ‘Juridical Space’, p. 152.

66

Chapter 1

witness, Roysia de Denham, was left unheard and the miracle did not interest the commissioners any further.164 Here the claims for the authority of the husband’s words were neglected. According to canon law, women were allowed and even required to testify in matters concerning the home and family life.165 This may have equalized the significance of the testimonies in this case. One reason for the strict attitude may also have been the fact that Hugo and Agnes were the only eyewitnesses. The mother of Hugo had been present and active in the incident but she was dead at the time of the hearing. The third witness, Roysia de Denham, was not present during the illness or when the miracle took place. Usually the miracles in the Cantilupe process were confirmed by several depositions, many of which were given by eyewitnesses. Canon law stressed the importance of eyewitnesses, but the rules were not entirely clear, and the practicalities varied greatly.166 The commissioners may have been more alert to contradictions in cases with few eyewitnesses. There is only one other case with two eyewitnesses. In the case of the mangled Galfridus the only eyewitnesses were his parents. In this case two clerics were interviewed to confirm the words of the parents. The interrogation of a cleric called Johannes de Ryschok was interrupted due to the inaccuracies in his testimony concerning the resurrection of Galfridus.167 These examples can be seen as further proof of the strict attitude of the commissioners in the Cantilupe process. However, they simultaneously stress the importance of information possessed. Occasionally it overruled the prerequisites for the status of the witnesses. These examples suggest that while the commissioners as well as the proctors were, at least in the case of Thomas Cantilupe, reserved in summoning women to testify and chose them mainly when they had valuable information, they did not treat the women’s depositions differently. Once summoned to testify women were treated with similar reservation and appreciation as men. However, the control of credibility and evaluation of the depositions and cases did not end with the hearing. In the Cantilupe process the unclear or unreliable miracles or depositions were omitted altogether. Finally ten cases were approved 164

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 73r–v : ‘cum dictus Hugo et dicta Agnes in depositionibus suis se ad invicem contrariarentur, noluit dictus dominus episcopus mimentensis ultra procedere ad examinacionem miraculi supradicti’. There were minor differences in the dates and some bigger discrepancies of the symptoms of the illness in the depositions. 165

Brundage, ‘Juridical Space’, pp. 149–52.

166

Brundage, ‘Juridical Space’, p. 154.

167

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 167v .

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

67

for the final canonization bull. In Nicholas’s case the clerical control seems to have been less strict and the attitude more tolerant. The rather obscure structure of the canonization hearing was organized by the compiler of the relatio, and the hierarchy of the depositions and cases was simultaneously created. Yet, no cases or depositions were omitted. Moreover, no exact selection was performed for the canonization bull either. When finally in 1446 Saint Nicholas of Tolentino was canonized, the bull mentioned all the miracles.168 Devotees, Witnesses, and Depositions To give testimony in front of clerical authorities was a public and official situation for the witnesses. The interaction in these situations was not of an equal nature: the commissioners controlled the summoning of the witnesses, the questions, and the recording of the depositions. The attitude of the witnesses themselves towards the interrogatory frequently remains obscure. Some of the witnesses seem to have been especially eager to give their depositions on the miracle they had experienced or witnessed. For example, a rather large group of witnesses were willing to travel all the way from Conway to Hereford to testify about the miraculous resurrection of Rogerus.169 Many witnesses were keen to show the revived child, relics, or other proofs of their experiences.170 Moreover, the witnesses even seem to have told the commissioners quite openly embarrassing details of their lives.171 However, the reluctance to appear in a court of law is stressed in many cases. It would have required time and money, and in order to avoid it the witnesses decided to invoke the saint to resuscitate the dead back to life. Naturally there were other — and probably more important — reasons for the invocation as well. The appearance in front of the commissioners also took time and money, yet the raising

168

Only two miracula in vita and two resurrections were mentioned separately. The miracles were defined as follows: ‘miracula trecenta et unum fecit. Quiubus impositum sit rerum harum examen’ (Bullarium Romanum, VIII, 88–90). 169

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 188r.

170

For presenting the revived child, see BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 191 r–v; Nicholas, testis LXVI, pp. 199–200; for relics, see Nicholas, testis XVI, testis LXXXIV, and testis LXXXV. 171

For example, the repeated hesitation in devotion and in fulfilling the promise to the saint that eventually led to the saint’s punishment was openly recounted. See Clare, testis CXXI, p. 398. See also BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 123r–140r.

68

Chapter 1

of the hue and cry and the investigation of the sudden death would have brought other disadvantages as well — like the defamation of reputation and possible fines. The high expenses were also mentioned in the case of Rogerus. The investigation of the previous miracle had to be discontinued since these witnesses who had come a long way with high costs could not wait and stay in Hereford.172 Similarly some of the witnesses summoned to give their testimony in Nicholas’s process but who did not actually appear may have been involved in business negotiations out of town and therefore could not or did not want to make their appearance in front of the commissioners. Not all the witnesses were willing to testify, at least not to miracles they had not personally experienced. This is apparent in the case of Philippus le Longe. Two women, Iuliana and Margeria, had both been paralysed and cured due to the intervention of Saint Thomas.173 Iuliana and Margeria had both lived in the village of Eton, and all the witnesses were interrogated about both cures. Philippus le Longe did not concur with this, however. He did not want to testify to the cure of Margeria since he claimed that he had sworn the oath to testify only to the cure of Iuliana. He was upset about the questions and strongly objected to the commissioners. It seems that sworn testimony in front of the clerical authorities was not considered a privilege by all low-status witnesses. Philippus was poor; he did not live in his own house but had rented a cottage and he earned his living by his work. The description of his reaction may reveal a common attitude towards the rural poor. He was described as clearly in confrontation with the commissioners and notaries and as a barbarous and fierce man. He became very impatient and disturbed when asked about the miracle of Margeria, thus the commissioners did not care to ask more about this miracle.174

172

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 188r. Similar reasoning was used when not all the witnesses who met at the shrine of Nicholas on the feast day were interrogated: ‘venerunt hodie Tholentinum ad visitandum tumulum, ubi iacet sepultum corpus suum, et parati erant testificari coram eis de miraculis, que sciebant Deum eius precibus demonstrasse; tamen quia ipsi domini venerabiles patres non poterant ad tanta attendere, propter ipsarum gentium examinandarum multitudinem, et quia ipsi testes volebant et intendebant ad eorum patrias recedere’ (Nicholas, citationes testium, p. 62). 173

Altogether twelve depositions (witness numbers 104–15) were gathered on this miracle. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 169v –182v . 174

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 172 r: ‘Item requisitus ut narraret si quid sciebat de miraculo quod dicitur contigisse in persona margaria de hominer dixit quod nolebat deponere super dicto miraculo quod non erat iuratus ut dicebat se licet constaret manifeste contrarum dictis dominis commissaris fratribus et nobis notaris infrascriptis predicti domini comissari non curaverunt quod

SELECTION OF WITNESSES

69

It remains unknown whether this incident reveals the common attitude of the inquisitorial committee. Yet, probably it reveals the common attitude of the interviewees: these situations were important and exciting. One needed to be prepared for the interrogatory; one could be truly nervous if caught unprepared. It remains unclear how extraordinary these situations were for the witnesses. Probably by the fourteenth century both free and unfree peasants had experiences of several legal courts. Moreover, by that time they were also familiar with documents.175 In the canonization process of Nicholas of Tolentino notaries were an especially well-represented social group as well as other occupations which had acquaintance with the law. For them appearing in front of the commissioners may not have been an extraordinary occurrence. For women the situation was different, since their participation, also in secular courts of law, was limited.176 As noted, the canonization records or later documents do not reveal the whole cult. These putative saints had already long before performed and continued to perform miracles for their devotees regardless of the papal inquiry or its outcome. The commissioners’ selection of particular cases to be investigated or witnesses to testify may have stressed or neglected some features in the practicalities of the cult as written down in the records. The different types of the miracles selected for the hearing — like revivals after accidents within the public sphere in the Cantilupe records or private recoveries from different illnesses in Nicholas’s records — may have stressed some features in the depositions. When analysing the activities of the devotees the effect of the clerical authorities’ preferences or source material’s shortcomings are pondered within each case. However, the commissioners’ interests lay in the confirmatory details in validating the miracle and its performer: the entity invoked and the proper invocation. The witnesses’ occupations before the miracle, gender roles, and interaction within the

deponeret super dicto miraculo quia tamquam homo siluestris et impetuosus fuerat nimium impaciens et turbatus quia si facta fuerant interrogatoria supradicta.’ 175

Philipp Schofield, ‘Peasants and the Manor Court: Gossip and the Litigation in a Suffolk Village at the Close of the Thirteenth Century’, Past and Present, 159 (1998), 3–42, and Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, p. 53. 176

On the interconnection of gender and performance in different courts of law in medieval rural England, see Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside, pp. 18–32; on restrictions on women’s legal action in Italy, see Thomas Kuehn, ‘Person and Gender in the Laws’, in Gender and Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. by Brown and Davis, pp. 87–106, and Carol Lansing, ‘Gender and Civic Authority: Sexual Control in a Medieval Italian Town’, Journal of Social History, 31 (1997), 33–59.

70

Chapter 1

family or within the community were not grounds for selecting or rejecting a miracle for the canonization records. Therefore there is no reason to assume that these miracles were not representative from these points of view. Thus the canonization processes offer a valid view of devotees’ interaction within the public, private, and sacred spheres — and this is where we shall turn next.

Chapter 2

V AGARIES OF E VERYDAY L IFE: S PHERES OF INVOCATION

Miracles and the Public Domain Invocations as Public Rituals

L

ate medieval Christianity demanded both public and private participation in the field of religion, but the relationship between the different spheres was not always unproblematic. Even though the official authority and initiative was restricted to the clergy, the spiritual motivation and significance were always personal and intimate in nature and thus not completely controllable by the authorities. Many of the devotional practices in the cult of saints also intermingled in between public and private spheres. The official recognition of sainthood and the liturgy of the feast day were controlled by clerical authorities while the unofficial side, the rituals of invocation and votive oblations, gave laymen and -women an opportunity for independent activity. Occasionally this participation took place in the public sphere hence offering the participants a more acknowledged initiatory role. Miracles — and the hopes, expectations, rituals, and narrations connected to them — formed a significant element of laity’s religiosity. In the miracle the essential feature, the prime mover, was the vow, votum.1 The votum included the invocation of a heavenly intercessor and an undertaking to do something in proportion 1

The Latin word votum includes the prayer and invocation of a saint as well as the promise made to the saint. The English word vow is used here since it gives better expression of the binding nature of the promise than prayer. The petitioner was obliged to the saint once invoked. See also Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning’, p. 430.

72

Chapter 2

for the saint.2 The invocation of a saint created a relationship between an individual and a heavenly intercessor. By making the vow the faithful placed themselves under the protection of the saint. The promise to the saint was not to be taken lightly: to leave the vow unfulfilled was a grave sin. The moral contract was binding.3 The idea of the vow had connections with feudal homage. The reciprocal obligations of the saints and the faithful who sought their help were based on the principle of mutual exchange of gift and counter-gift. The idea ‘a gift ought to be rewarded’ was one of the basic principles of social relations in barbarian and early feudal society. It is possible that the feudal rites had influenced the rites of devotion or both drew on the same state of mind. The idea of reciprocity of gifts derives from archaic and pre-Christian times, but it was preserved and manifested in the cults of saints during the later Middle Ages.4 The vow was conditional: if the saint failed to help, the petitioner was not obliged to fulfil the promise. The inefficient patron was abandoned and replaced by a more efficient intercessor. The promise made to the saint was binding if the petitioner received the hoped-for result. After the miracle the beneficiary ought to

2

For example: ‘O sanctae Nicolae, rogo te quod roges Deum ut filium meum dictum sanet de infirmitate predicta, et ego promitto Deo et tibi quod filium meum predictum portabo ad tumulum, ubi iacet corpus tuum cum una torcia cere valoris xx solidorum monete currentis, totum nudum ibidem spoliabo, et indumenta ibidem relinquam’ (Nicholas, testis CCCVII, p. 599; ‘Oh Saint Nicholas, I ask you to ask God to cure my son from this infirmity, and I promise to God and to you that I will take my son with a wax torch worth of xx solidi of current money to the sepulchre where your body lies and I will undress him completely naked and leave his clothes there’). 3

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 530–31, and Menestó, ‘Il Processo apostolico’, pp. 122–23. If one failed to fulfil the vow one was obliged to seek absolution for the sin from the papal see. On this kind of supplication in papal penitentiary, see Jussi Hanska, Strategies of Sanity and Survival: Religious Responses to Natural Disasters in the Middle Ages, Studia Fennica Historica, 2 (Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, 2002), pp. 97–99, and Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages: The Example of the Province of Uppsala 1448–1527, Suomalaisen tiedeakatemian toimituksia: Humaniora, 313 (Helsinki: Academia scientiarum fennica, 2001), pp. 153–56. 4

Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 79, and Gurevich, Medieval Popular Culture, p. 40. The importance of the gift and the obligations concerning it in primitive societies is stressed by Marcel Mauss, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies (1950; repr. London: Routledge, 1990). Pierre Bourdieu, ‘The Sentiment of Honour in Kabyle Society’, in Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society, ed. by J. G. Peristiany (Worcester: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965), pp. 191–241 (pp. 204, 213–14, and 231), links the concept of gift — and challenge — to honour and power: they should be properly responded to in order to avoid shame.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

73

thank the intercessor. To appeal for the saint’s help can be seen as a social strategy; it was an intentional and conscious approach to the difficulties of daily life. Since the promises uttered in a vow were binding they were likely considered decisions. Devotion was an indispensable prerequisite for a successful invocation. Tears, kneeling, and other signs of devotion were common, while occasionally other specific rites, like bending of a coin or measuring of the patient, were also mentioned.5 The invocation can be seen as a ritual since it is a form of religious practice guiding the behaviour of men and women in the interaction with the divine intercessor. The invocation of a saint was a formalized, often collective, and repetitive symbolic action. Rituals focused attention yet might also cause disturbance. Emotional outpouring was part of the miracles, both during the invocation as well as when thanking for the miracle. The ability to arouse emotions is also seen as a source for the power of rituals.6 Public rituals are considered necessary for gaining communal cohesion — at least cohesion in those parts of society that were shared by all. Miracles were manifestations of God’s grace towards the community. They defined the community and proclaimed the power of God. Miracles were social bonds. The ritual drama surrounding the cult of a local saint helped to integrate commonly held norms and

5

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, p. 533, categorizes bending of the coin and measuring the patient as English customs, while Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 95, argues that they were in common use in medieval Europe. Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 97, gives examples of the measuring of the patient in French material. 6

The definition of ritual is very controversial. Rituals had gained a lot of scholarly interest up to the point that they can even be seen to form their own branch of scholarship, ritual studies, in which scholars working with different traditions have ended up with disparate and even contradictory definitions of ritual. A rather broad definition is used here: ritual is seen as interaction with the divine through the intercessor — the saint. The concept of ritual is applied to the interaction — to invocation, modes of gratitude, and the reminiscence of the event — even though they are not always very formalized or collective activities. On the discussion and formation of ritual theory, see Edward Muir, Ritual in Early Modern Europe, New Approaches to European History, 11 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 1–11; Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), esp. pp. 13–66; and Randall Collins, Interaction Ritual Chains, Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), pp. 9–46. On ritual as encapsulating the deepest meanings of culture, see Clifford Geertz, Local Knowledge: Further Essays in the Interpretative Anthropology, Basic Books Classics (New York: Basic Books, 1983), pp. 19–35; on ritual and social interaction, see Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (1966; repr. London: Routledge, 1984), pp. 62–72.

74

Chapter 2

values.7 Thus miracles and devotional practices were important for the whole community. The place of invocation depended on the benefit petitioned for. In a case of sudden emergency there was no time to consider the place. The invocation could not be done in the privacy of one’s home or in a sacred sphere, but the divine aid was sought at the scene of the accident. In the case of long illness the place could be selected more carefully. The actual places of invocation as well as the social sphere were significant for the commissioners since they were explicitly asked from the witnesses. However, these details most likely served as a means to verify the authenticity of the deposition and not as a mode to select the cases. As noted, the commissioners of the Cantilupe hearing chose mainly miracles with many eyewitnesses. These were usually children’s accidents which took place in a public space. The recuperations from various illnesses within the domestic sphere dominate Nicholas’s records, while children were also numerous as beneficiaries in these miracles. The disparity in the nature of miracles in these processes can partly be explained by the different methods of selecting the cases and witnesses. However, it is possible that the proportion of the accidents is not due to the diverse selecting modes alone but also reflects the cultural differences of these areas. Presumably children actually had more accidents in rural surroundings than in the cities. In urban settings there were always the eyes of the neighbours and passers-by to supervise the children. The streets were crowded since people’s activities were mainly carried out there. In rural surroundings children were often left unsupervised while parents

7

On the unifying role of the collectively experienced miracles, see especially Goodich, Violence and Miracle, pp. 23, 150–51. On rituals and communal cohesion, see Muir, Ritual in Early Modern Europe, p. 6. Nevertheless, it is also regularly claimed that rituals work the opposite way, disintegrating the community and dividing it into more and less privileged subgroups. The promotion of social solidarity can, however, be applied in the case of miracles since they usually took place within ‘a fairly homogenous group with general recognition of key symbols, where a sense of unity can be achieved through consent to forms, and where most subgroups benefit in some way from the simultaneous integration and differentiation of the social order’ (Bell, Ritual Theory, p. 216). The drama analogy in the study of ritual is stressed especially by Victor Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society (1975; repr. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), and further analysed and criticized by Geertz, Local Knowledge, pp. 19–35. The performance theorists argue that communication is the essence of ritual, hence the outcome — the intercession, for example — is not secure, but by this function rituals indirectly affect social realities and perceptions of them. See also Bell, Ritual Theory, pp. 40–44.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

75

and neighbours were occupied with their daily tasks in the fields.8 In the Cantilupe process the majority of the victims were children. The typical accident was a drowning in a body of water in a rural surrounding while the child’s parents were occupied somewhere else.9 However, the difference may also be characteristic for northern and southern Europe and depend on the family structure. In medieval miracle stories the children’s accidents were far more numerous in central and northern Europe than in the south. In central and northern Europe the household was based on a conjugal unit while the extended family structure was more typical in Mediterranean Europe. The extended family provided more care and supervision for the children, thus the accidents were fewer in the south.10 Nearly all of the witnesses in Nicholas’s process were town-dwellers, thus these assumptions may explain the small proportion of children’s accidents: they may have been better supervised by their neighbours and especially by the relatives living in the same household. However, public invocations can also be found in Nicholas’s process, yet they were more often uttered in this sphere voluntarily, not out of necessity. Community’s Interaction at the Scene of the Accident The depositions illuminate vividly the lived experiences of the witnesses. The details before the accident and invocation especially offer valuable information on the practicalities of everyday life. Moreover, occasionally a considerable amount of interaction, negotiation, and communication between the members of the community took place before the invocation. Thus before turning to the rituals of invocation — to the interaction with the intercessor — it is appropriate to consider the space, the situation, and the interaction at the scene of the accident between the members of the community. 8

Barbara Hanawalt, Growing up in Medieval London: The Experience of Childhood in History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 29 and 64. 9

Drowning was the most common of children’s accidents in the miracle collections. They were also often the most detailed incidents. Goodich, Violence and Miracle, pp. 93–97, and Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 103–09. 10

Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 163–67. Kin were more often present in the miracles of children in the records of southern Europe. For a bibliographical scrutiny of the study of childhood in the Middle Ages, see Barbara Hanawalt, ‘Medievalists and the Study of Childhood’, Speculum, 77 (2002), 440–60.

76

Chapter 2

The English custom ensured that accidents became widely known public affairs. The local custom obligated the finder to raise a hue and cry when someone was found murdered or accidentally killed. Hence other members of the community knew to come to the scene of the accident. The finder could not escape this duty without punishment. After the body was found the villagers needed also to notify the coroners who investigated such deaths. The body of the victim was not to be moved before the coroners arrived.11 The cry alarmed the people who were occupied with their daily tasks and invited lots of people to the scene.12 The gendered division of labour and spheres in late medieval rural England has been stressed by modern scholars. The responsibilities of men took them more often outside home and home villages while women’s tasks were more connected to the domestic sphere.13 Even though these notions of gendered use of space are undoubtedly valid, the depositions of the Cantilupe process do not particularly support them. Only one victim’s mother was engaged in household duties at the time of the accident while the father was working in the fields.14 In other cases the parents were together and quite often outside the domestic realm.15 However, the cases are too few to permit any clear-cut conclusions on the gendered use of space.

11

By royal order, each county elected four coroners from among its knights so that this official would arrive at the scene of a suspicious death within a day or two of the discovery of the body. Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, pp. 11–12. 12

In Nicholas’s process no official requirements were mentioned for accidents, yet in the case of Puccius Angeli, the only example of a drowned child, the mother, domina Iacobucia Angeli Benentesi, cried so much at the pain and terror of losing her child that many people having heard them appeared on the scene of the miracle. In this case many depositions can also be found. Nicholas, testis XVIII, pp. 133–34; testis XXXV, pp. 161–63; testis LXXXIX, pp. 261–63; testis XC, pp. 263–64; testis CIII, pp. 292–95; and testis CIV, pp. 295–97. 13

On the allocation of responsibilities and spheres in late medieval rural England, see Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside, and Hanawalt, Ties that Bound. 14

This is the case of Johannes Drake. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 140 r–146r. Editha, the mother of Johannes, was cleaning the house and Willelmus, the father, was digging a ditch in the fields while Johannes, aged one year and a half, drowned in a river nearby. 15

In the case of Willelmus le Lorimer the parents were in another village (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 146v –157v ); in the case of Rogerus the parents were in the church (ibid., fols 188r–203v); in the case of Galfridus both of the parents were working in the fields (ibid., fols 165v–169v); in the case of Johanna la Schirreue both of the parents were in a tavern (ibid., fols 123r–140 r); and in the case of Nicholas both of the parents were apparently at home (ibid., fols 140r–146r).

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

77

The public nature of devotional practices is also stressed in many cases in the Cantilupe process. The majority of the accidents happened in public places.16 Moreover, the hue and cry also made the scene of the accident public in a social and judicial sense since the witnesses were to testify about the event in a court of law. The participants seem to have been rather reluctant to do this, however. Quite often the wish to avoid the judicial consequences is mentioned in the depositions — instead the participant decided to invoke Saint Thomas. For example, Galfridus, the son of Robertus Russel and Leticia, was badly injured when the wheel of a wagon drove over his head. Galfridus was sleeping on the ground while the parents were working in the field, and the father accidentally drove over him. After the accident Galfridus appeared dead and the mother wanted to raise the hue and cry. The father, however, was afraid that they would be ruined if they had to go to the king’s court. Probably they would end up in prison and lose their oxen and all other goods as well.17 The legal obligation was considered onerous. Indeed, if the witnesses’ actions were found inappropriate — for example for belated hue and cry — they could be fined. Similarly the object that caused the death, in this case the oxen and the wagon, could be confiscated.18 The economic expenses are also mentioned in another case as a reason not to raise the hue and cry. Five-year-old Johanna la Schirreue drowned in a fishpond in the garden of a tavern while her parents were inside the tavern with many people ‘drinking and comforting themselves’.19 Her little playmate, Johannes, had pushed her into the pond. Since the water was deep and Johanna could not get out on her own, she drowned. Some villagers formed chorea, dances, and danced around the tavern and the garden. These cheerful dancers found out about the accident. However, the finders wanted to avoid losing the money and time that appearing in the court of law 16

According to Roberts, Making of the English Village, p. 20, the space of English villages can be divided into private, communal, and public. Private space consists of tofts and crofts and enclosures. In communal space are, for example, ponds and wells, while highways, streets, lanes, and footpaths were public. 17

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 166r.

18

Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, p. 119.

19

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 131v : ‘et erant sexaginta et amplius cum autem stetissent in dicta taberna bibendo et solaciendo’. The depositions of this miracle are in ibid., fols 123r–140r. The witnesses were Johanna la Schirreue, Adam le Schirreue, Cecilia (the wife of Adam), Radulfus de la Brok, Thomas Schonk, Johanna Wase (the wife of Thomas Schonk), Walterus de la Wyle, Johanna (the wife of Walterus de la Wyle), Stephanus de Pirebrok, and Willelmus le Pipere. For a translation of the depositions, see Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 169–206.

78

Chapter 2

would have required.20 They considered it an arduous and perilous task.21 Moreover, since they thought the victim was the daughter of a beggar and that she had drowned due to her poverty and misery none of them wanted to be the finder, the one to raise the hue and cry. After a negotiation the members of the dances decided to leave the corpse in the pond. The following night they would take it up and throw it into the nearby river.22 One participant of the dances stated that the reason for their activity was fear; they were astonished and afraid that they would be blamed. Therefore they did not publicize the drowning.23 However, the mother of the drowned girl claimed that they did not want to ruin their comfort and joy.24 In the end the participants of the dances did not raise the hue and cry or inform Walterus de la Wyle, the tavern owner. It was his duty to ensure the peace and order of his tavern. The proprietors were answerable to the king for their tavern hours and their clientele.25 In a judicial sense the sphere of the accident was private. The tavern, taberna de cervisia, was in the house of Walterus de la Wyle. However, as a social sphere the setting can be defined as public. It was accessible to the members of the community.26 Both men and women were present; the estimations vary from sixty to a hundred persons.27 The date was defined as a Sunday before the feast of Saint George, so probably it was not a specific feast day. Yet Sundays were reserved for recreation and there seems to have been a common meeting for the villagers in the tavern. The brewer’s house was a social centre of the village. Despite their domestic atmosphere the attitude towards these places was rather controversial. Taverns

20

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 127v : ‘ita quod predicta submersio non perveniret ad noticiam curialium regiorum et dominus taberne et ipsi coreantes aut alii non incurrerent inde per curiam regiam dispendium vel iacturam’. 21

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 135v : ‘multum dubitarent propter consuetudinem regnii anglie onerosam et periculosam cum casu aliqui submersi vel interfecti reperiuntur’. 22

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 131v –132r.

23

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 137v: ‘et stupefacti et perteriti ne eis imponeretur submersio illa’.

24

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 127r: ‘et quidam famulus dicti tabernarii nomine Johannes de Pirebrok, [. . .] vellet revelasse domino dicte taberne dictam submersionem, non permiserunt hoc ne perderent solacium suum’. 25

Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute’, p. 114.

26

Publicity can be defined by physical access or by access to intercourse, information, and activity. Benn and Gaus, ‘Public and Private’. 27

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 131v : ‘et erant sexaginta et amplius’; ibid., fol. 124r: ‘bene centum persone vel circiter de dicta parochia’.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

79

were seen as domestic and primarily feminine spaces, especially in the rural areas where brewing was an extension of domestic labour. However, they tainted the women working or routinely visiting there. These women easily gained a bad reputation and were suspected of lewd behaviour.28 The clerical authors stressed the dichotomy of gendered allocation of space. For a respectable woman home and its immediate environment were considered the appropriate place. Appearing in public, going out, was seen as not preferable for women since it caused a risk to their chastity. The moralists warned women about all the activity which took place outside the private domains of home. Even attending masses could turn out to be harmful. Parties, dances, and meetings were seen as particularly dangerous. Above all the combination of dancing and singing was condemned, and women participating in the dances were seen to be especially immoral.29 However, no condemnation of participation in such activities can be found in these depositions. Similarly the decision not to inform others of the accident by the hue and cry does not seem to have caused disapproval among the witnesses. The witnesses described each other as pious persons of good repute.30 This was also confirmed by the perpetual vicar of the parish. He testified that they were of free status and considered to be pious persons in the parish and among their neighbours.31 The activity of Thomas Schonk was especially important in the course of the action. He was the father of Johannes, the boy who pushed Johanna into the pond. More importantly, he was also the leader of the dancers who found the drowned girl. The dancers not only tried to evade the official procedure of the judicial 28

Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute’, p. 105.

29

Casagrande, ‘Protected Women’, p. 85; Hanawalt, ‘Medieval English Women’; Davis, ‘Geography of Gender’, pp. 19–20; Herlihy, Women, Family and Society, pp. 13–32; and Jansen, Making of the Magdalen, p. 159. 30 The father of the drowned Johanna, Adam le Schirreue, stated that the witnesses were ‘liberi et bone opinionis et fideli in sua parochia reputati’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 126v); the mother, Cecilia, claimed that ‘erat fideles et catholici ac ecclesie devoti de proprio viventes elemosinas iuxta eorum facultates largientes convicinos suos diligentes et dilecti ab eis’ (ibid., fol. 129v); Willelmus le Pipere stated, ‘Respondit esse liberos bone fidei et bone fame reputatos in parochia sua’ (ibid., fol. 140r). The opinion of Thomas Schonk was not elicited. 31

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 139r : ‘Respondit quod erant liberi, bone fidei in dicta parrochia et inter convicinos eorum reputati.’ Similarly Robertus and Leticia, the parents of the mangled Galfridus, mentioned above, were described as persons of good reputation. Ibid., fol. 167v : ‘erant bone opinionis et bone reputacionis in parochia eorundem’.

80

Chapter 2

consequences but also left the body lying unidentified. Furthermore, Thomas did not inform the parents even after his son, Johannes, had told him of the accident and of the real identity of the victim. Instead he rushed his son home. However, the depositions do not reveal any particular ill feeling between the parents of Johanna and Thomas Schonk.32 Yet, it is possible that Thomas was embarrassed to declare his actions in front of clerical authorities and felt a need to defend himself. For the routine question ‘did you testify out of request, precept, fear, hate, love, or to gain material or other benefits?’ he replied — indignantly as the notaries wrote down — no.33 However, Thomas Schonk ended up a prominent figure in the community. Later he held office in the village, which was a sign of privileged status.34 Generally official service was reserved only for the wealthiest male householders. It brought prestige since officials could use their authority to social, political, and economic advantage and exercise control over the more marginal members of society.35 Reputation and Gendered Expression of Emotions Evading one’s obligations in the raising of the hue and cry seems not to have affected the participants’ reputation among other witnesses. Moreover, good reputation and sense of shame may have been on some occasions the reason to avoid the hue and cry. Shame, in its social sense, can be defined as sensitivity to the opinion of others. Shame and its counterpart, honour, can be seen as requirements of appropriate behaviour and performance. Essential elements in the formation of

32

It should be noted that the miracle took place approximately fifteen years before the hearing, thus possible disagreements may have faded away during that time. Moreover, Johanna Wase, the wife of Thomas Schonk and mother of Johannes, was also the godmother of the drowned Johanna and pulled her namesake out of the pond even though she could not swim. The fact that Johannes, the playmate of Johanna, was already dead at the time of the hearing may have also lessened the aggravation of the Schirreue family. Johanna Wase’s testimony is in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 133v–135r. 33

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 133v: ‘Ultimo interrogatus an prece precepto timore odio amore precio lucri dati vel premissi habiti vel habendi causa deposuit [. . .]. Respondit indignanter quod non.’ 34 Thomas Schonk appears in Marden manorial court roll of 1308. He was elected village aletaster. Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, p. 193, presumes that Thomas Schonk held an acknowledged position among other peasants of the parish. 35

Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside, pp. 22–27.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

81

these sentiments were consciousness of the public opinion and the judgement of the whole community.36 Good reputation was important because communities of the fourteenth century were largely oral cultures and a general rumour about a person’s reputation could make or break his or her chances in society. Neighbourhood, the social vicinity, played a major role in the formation of reputation. To be in good repute meant living by the community norms. To be marked of bad reputation implied that the person had committed a violation of accepted social standards and stepped beyond the bounds of permissible behaviour.37 Local channels of communication, one may say gossips, spread the news of any wrongdoings or violations of the social norms. The opinion of a person’s good or ill reputation was commonly held. Women as well as men were active participants in the formation of public opinion — in defining appropriate behaviour for both men and women.38 Similarly the bounds of permissible behaviour included everyone. Even the persons of dominant position were not free to select their own ways of behaving: individuality had to be expressed in fixed and conventional forms. All members of the society had their own appropriate modes of action.39 The sentiment of shame in some of these accidents is emphasized by referring to the raising of the hue and cry as scandal. Typically in the accidents of the Cantilupe process men wanted to avoid the judicial consequences since they were considered to be perilous and expensive tasks. The legal requirements were usually men’s responsibility. The English custom limited the public presence — appearing in a court of law — of the wives, anticipating that married women would be covered by their husbands in legal cases.40 It is comprehensible that these consequences worried

36

On the concepts of honour and shame, see for example Julian Pitt-Rivers, ‘Honour and Social Status’, in Honour and Shame, ed. by Peristiany, pp. 21–77, and Julio Caro Baroja, ‘Honour and Shame: A Historical Account of Several Conflicts’, in ibid., pp. 81–137. 37

Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute’, pp. 1–17. Also Muir and Weissman, ‘Social and Symbolic Places’, esp. p. 89. 38

McIntosh, Controlling Misbehaviour, p. 24.

39

Aron Gurevich, Categories of Medieval Culture (1972; repr. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985), p. 202. 40

Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside, p. 31. In the records women were regularly identified according to their marital status. Farmer, Surviving Poverty, p. 40. The marital status affected women’s moral standing as well. A generally accepted idea was the hundredfold harvest of the seed of chastity for virgins, and only thirtyfold for wives. On marriage’s influence on women’s lives, see Angela M. Lucas, Women in the Middle Ages: Religion, Marriage and Letters (Brighton:

82

Chapter 2

men especially, since appearing in a court of law was their privilege and responsibility. Occasionally women were not eager to fulfil this duty, either. Yet women seem to have used different reasoning: only women refer the custom as scandalum.41 When Nicholas, the son of Johannes Piscator, had fallen out of his father’s boat and drowned, the mother, Lucia, did not want to raise the hue and cry for the scandal it would bring.42 Since often the neighbours living nearby were also required to appear in a court of law the incident would have caused a lot of inconvenience to the whole community. Moreover, the accident with all its details would have simultaneously become public knowledge. In children’s accidents the sense of shame may have also been connected to parental roles, to the failure to supervise a child properly.43 In this case it does not seem plausible, however. Failure in parental duties is not mentioned in the depositions. Moreover, Nicholas was already eight years old. He did not need to be watched over constantly, but rather he was required to do some tasks independently. Presumably he was already learning the tasks and responsibilities of his father. He was running his father’s errands when he fell out of the boat and drowned.44

Harvester Press, 1983), and Geneviève Hasenohr, ‘La vie quotidienne de la femme vue par l’église: l’enseignement de “journées chrétiennes” de la fin du Moyen Âge’, in Frau und spätmittelalterlichen Alltag, pp. 19–101. Cordelia Beattie, Medieval Single Women: The Politics of Social Classification in Late Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), argues that classification is a political act with value-laden choices. She has analysed the complex category of ‘single woman’ in religious and legal theories as well as in real life experiences in late medieval England. However, marriage had an effect on the masculine identity as well, since it gained men wealth and responsibility simultaneously. Marriage signified a passage in life for men as well as for women. Susan Mosher Stuard, ‘Burdens of Matrimony: Husbanding and Gender in Medieval Italy’, in Medieval Masculinities, ed. by Lees, pp. 61–71. On the medieval concepts of marriage in general, see D. L. D’Avray, Medieval Marriage: Symbolism and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). 41 The word is not used regularly, however. There can be found only two references to the scandalous aspect. One is in the case of Nicholas, cited below; the other is in the deposition of Johanna Wase when she refers to the words of Adam le Schirreue, the father of the drowned Johanna. ‘Adam patre dicte Johanne submerse rogavit quod supersederetur a dicto clamore [. . .] ne ex tali clamore inciderent in tantum scandalum’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 143v ). Adam le Schirreue himself does not mention this reasoning in his deposition. 42

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 161v : ‘quod non paterentur cum scandalo eorum levari hutesium’. The witnesses for this miracle are Nicholas, the beneficiary; Johannes, his father; Lucia, his mother; Cristina, a neighbour woman; Felicia Morker, the beneficiary’s maternal aunt; and Walterus de Caple, the rector of the church of How Caple. Ibid., fols 157v –165v . 43

For examples, see Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 134–35.

44

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 158v –162v .

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

83

Apparently failure in maternal duties was not, in this case, the reason for the sense of disgrace and motive for evading the hue and cry. Inappropriate performance in public may have been the reason for the sentiment of shame. The inquiry into the death would have opened the private life of the family to the investigators in a way that was considered undesirable. Notions of embarrassment and shame can also be found in the depositions of Nicholas’s process but in the accidents of the domestic sphere. An example can be found in the miraculous recovery of Clarucia, the infant daughter of Ceccha Berardi. Ceccha was breastfeeding two of her children at the same time. After a while she fell asleep, and when she woke up she found that little Clarucia had died. Ceccha was afraid that she would be blamed for smothering her child under her arm. She invoked Saint Nicholas to save her daughter from the peril and herself from the disgrace.45 In this case the sense of shame was closely connected to maternal responsibilities and to the failure of nurturing — and in fact nursing — a child properly. Similarly, little Sennucia also died while suckling in her mother’s arms. However, the reasoning appears to be different in this case, and the sense of shame was connected with the social position and not with the failure in gendered responsibilities.46 Manfredinus and Imilla stated that one night, nearly twenty years before the hearing, they were sitting together in their house and Imilla was breastfeeding Sennucia when suddenly the girl was trembling and after a convulsion she seemed dead. Both of the parents assumed that their daughter had died. According to the parents, the fact that the child had died in her mother’s arms was only to cause confusion. Yet, they were truly ashamed — verecundabantur multum47 — since the child had died outside Tolentino, their city of origin. Due to the local custom they 45

Nicholas, testis LXXXV, p. 243: ‘timens vero quod ne esse victuperatam quod dicta filia sua esset suffocata subtus brachium ipsius testis, incepit cum magna devotione recurrere ad beatum Nicolaum cum orationibus, rogans eum quod liberaret dictam filiam suam a dicto periculo et eam a dicta infamia’. Ceccha Berardi is the only witness to this miracle. 46

The witnesses to this case are Manfredinus, the father of Sennucia (Nicholas, testis LXXXI), Imilla, the mother (testis C), and Paulucia, the sister of Manfredinus (testis XXIX). 47

Verecundia can be defined as a concern for repute, both as a sentiment and as the public recognition of that sentiment. It is what makes a person sensitive to the pressure exerted by public opinion. In these senses it is synonymous with honour. As the basis of repute, honour and shame can be seen as synonymous, since shamelessness is dishonourable; a person of good reputation is taken to have both, while one of bad repute is credited with neither. Pitt-Rivers, ‘Honour and Social Status’, pp. 27–31 and 41–43.

84

Chapter 2

would not have been able to bury Sennucia in Tolentino but outside the city walls. Similarly both of the parents stress their position as members of the nobility.48 The place as well as other rites and gestures at the funeral were important signals of social position. Honourable burial was an obligation, especially for people of good social standing. In this case Imilla and Manfredinus were unable to display their noble status appropriately, which required public performance in the funeral rites.49 The gender of the participant may have influenced the particular role in these rituals, yet it apparently did not affect the importance of expressing one’s position in them. In this case the sense of shame seems to be closely connected with status and with failure to manifest it. Generally the concepts of honour and shame were deemed to be gendered: women’s honour was considered to be connected with their sexuality.50 Yet the previous examples contradict this point of view. The case of Sennucia stresses the importance of social position and its effect on sensitivity to the sense of shame. Some aspects of the sense of honour and shame were not gender specific.51 Indeed, in this case the sense of shame was connected to and constructed by similar features for both men and women. Both of the parents stress the sorrow of losing a child and the upsetting situation of a child found dead in her mother’s arms. Yet the strongest emotion seems to have been the shame at the inability to bury the child in Tolentino — in other words to manifest their social position as members of the nobility. Obviously different genders, social groups, and cultures have different systems for evaluating honour and shame. Moreover, the sense of shame seems to have been

48

Nicholas, testis LXXXI, p. 224: ‘ne recipirent istam confusionem quod in brachiis dicte matris sue inveniretur suffocata et plorando non cessabant rogare quia verecundabatur multum quia dicta puella erat mortua in villa, propter consuetudinem que est Tholentini quod mortui extra terram non reportantur intus sed sepeliuntur extra portam, et ipse et uxor eius predicta erant nobiles de terra’. 49

On the interconnection of funeral rites and social status, see Sharon T. Strocchia, ‘Death Rites and the Ritual Family in Renaissance Florence’, in Life and Death in Fifteenth-Century Florence, ed. by Marcel Tete, Ronald G. Witt, and Rona Goffen, Duke Monographs in Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Durham: Duke University Press, 1989), pp. 120–45. 50

Pitt-Rivers, ‘Honour and Social Status’. Similarly, the concepts of honour and shame are traditionally seen as carrying the greatest weight in Mediterranean culture. On the interconnection between honour, sexual relations, and concepts of gender in Renaissance Italy, see Michael Rocke, ‘Gender and Sexual Culture in Renaissance Italy’, in Gender and Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. by Brown and Davis, pp. 150–70. 51

The mere sexual character of women’s sense of shame is also criticized by Dubisch, In a Different Place, pp. 198–203.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

85

connected with diverse features in these examples: in the case of Nicholas to the requirements to publicize the death and in the case of Sennucia to the inability to publicize it properly. However, they both originate from the same state of mind. It was important to appear in public according to the set values, and on these occasions the participants had failed to do so. The spheres of these incidents could be described as relatively private. The accident of Nicholas actually took place in a public space, on a river bank, yet the social sphere was fairly private since only the parents and two neighbour women were present. The setting of Sennucia’s convulsion could even be described as intimate. Regardless of the privacy of these events, the public roles of the participants were constantly present. Indeed, for their part these cases demonstrate how the witnesses were simultaneously involved in diverse positions. The diverse social roles and different spheres which the participants occupied overlapped and intermingled. The control of public opinion is exercised and experienced constantly and intensely in groups whose members are well known to each other. The sentiments of honour and shame are characteristic of societies in which the relationship with others, through its intensity, intimacy, and continuity, takes precedence over the relationship one had with oneself.52 These notions are valid at least partly for rural villages and cities of rather modest size, like Tolentino, in the late Middle Ages.53 The significance given to public opinion testifies in its turn how all the members of the community participate in the public sphere — by evaluations, narrations, and memories. However, the anxiety about one’s performance in public did not diminish the significance of private, domestic relations. Diverse emotions intermingled.54 On these occasions the intimate feelings, the emotional attachments between family members, were publicly revealed. The parents of Sennucia stated how they started to cry intensely and together invoked Saint Nicholas to resurrect their daughter.55 The parents of Nicholas claimed that they collapsed on the ground and nearly lost consciousness due to the pain the death of their son had caused. Water needed to 52

Bourdieu, ‘Sentiment of Honour’, p. 212.

53

The number of the inhabitants in Tolentino is estimated to have been around 1500 in the fourteenth century. Dante Cecchi, ‘Tolentino al tempo di San Nicola’, in San Nicola, Tolentino, le Marche, pp. 127–57. 54 At the death of Iacobucius Facteboni (he committed suicide), his daughter, Planucia, stated that she was crying as much for the death of her father as for the disgrace it brought. Nicholas, testis XCIX, pp. 284–85: ‘et ploravit fortiter sicut poterat tam de morte patris sui quam de vituperio’. 55

Nicholas, testis C, pp. 287–88: ‘fortiter inceperunt plorare’.

86

Chapter 2

be sprinkled in their faces to help them recover. After this they, with many tears, invoked Saint Thomas to resurrect their child.56 The extreme sorrow and grief at losing a child was by no means unknown to the late medieval people whose testimonies can be read in the canonization processes. In many cases the parents told the commissioners about the agony the accident had caused. Indeed, the expressions of sadness, grief, and pain are a norm in hagiographic sources in the cases of the death of a child. The lamentations and tears were commonly described.57 Sometimes the agony at losing a child was so strong that the parents were dejected and could not take the initiative. For example, when Johannes, the son of Willelmus Drake, drowned, the father was in so much pain that he could not even touch his son. The mother and others tried to resuscitate the boy with no luck. None of them, however, made any attempts to invoke a saint to help the drowned boy.58 Other examples of debilitating pain can be found: Cecilia, the mother of Johanna, said she could not remember how many people were present at the scene of the accident for the great pain she had at the loss of her daughter. She was pregnant and people were afraid she would miscarry her child due to the agony and distress she suffered.59 Diomisia, the mother of Rogerus, collapsed to the ground and was nearly out of her mind after she found out that her son had fallen into the moat during the night.60 In the public accidents of Nicholas’s process a clearly gendered mode of expression of grief can be found. In the drowning of Puccius as well as in the suicide of Iacobucius, the mother and wife of the victim were described to start to cry forcibly, to tear their hair and clothing and beat their breasts.61 56 BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 161r: ‘ipsa testis videns dictum filium suum mortuum commotis maternis visceribus fuit quasi ex animis collapsa in terram’; ibid., fol. 159r: ‘ipse testis post eam dolorem facere nequintes commotis visceribus collapsi fuissent ad terram quasi ex animes et demum perfusi aquam infacie ad se ipsos redussent’. 57

On parental grief, see Lett, L’enfant des miracles, pp. 199–203, and Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 151–58. 58

The depositions to this miracle are in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 140r–146r.

59

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 126 r: ‘alii astantes dubitarent quod per dolore et angustia perderet partum suum’. 60

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 202r–v: ‘et cum per dolore corruisset ad terram et esset quasi extra mentem suam posita’. The depositions for this case are in ibid., fols 188r–203v. 61

Nicholas, testis XCVII, p. 280: ‘dicta domina Blonda uxor eius incepit fortiter plorare et excapillare et pannos et maxillas delacerare’; ibid., testis CIII, p. 292: ‘incepit fortiter plorare, stridere et sibi pannos et maxillas exquartare et delacerare’.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

87

In the clerical stereotypes femininity was closely connected with the emotions and irrationality, thus the intense manifestation of feelings was considered more appropriate for women. Masculinity, on the other hand, was connected with rationality and control, thus men were to refrain from the extreme expression of emotions.62 Hence weeping, as an expression of emotion, could have been considered a womanish activity in men. Tears held connotations of femininity because they might signify lack of control. Furthermore, the female sex was thought to be composed of wet and cold properties.63 Gender and social position affected the appropriate modes of behaviour. The generally held view was that extreme expressions of pain or sorrow were more acceptable in persons of lower status: for children, women, and members of the groups of lesser standing. Persons in authority were to remain calm and rational. The nobility was expected to avoid overtly sentimental behaviour.64 In the miracle records kept by clerics the maternal emotions were more often described as extreme while men generally manifested grief differently. Gravitas and taciturn described men’s grieving. Men often also preferred privacy in the expressions of sorrow. It is hard to conclude whether it was a reflection of reality or of the clerical image of gender roles.65 However, these gender- or status-based expectations of the clerical rhetoric were not met in real life experiences, as noted. The testimonies to the sudden accidents manifest how fathers, occasionally also of high status, felt and manifested agony at losing a child. Tears, debilitating pain, and even fainting on the ground were described in the depositions of these canonization records. Collective Ritual Activity Occasionally it is hard to distinguish between expressions of emotion and signs of devotion. Weeping, for example, is an expression of emotion, and tears may of

62

See, for example, Bynum, Fragmentation and Redemption, pp. 108–09.

63

Jansen, Making of the Magdalen, pp. 126 and 209.

64

Esther Cohen, ‘The Animated Pain of the Body’, American Historical Review, 105 (2000), 36–68. Cohen concentrates especially on physical pain, yet she admits that it was hardly distinguishable from mental grief. See also Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 91–92. 65

Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 92, 154–57; Vecchio, ‘Good Wife’, p. 123; and Lett, L’enfant des miracles, pp. 144–47 and 200–03.

88

Chapter 2

course flow naturally, especially on occasions of great distress. Yet tears were also governed by cultural conventions and often an important part of religious rites.66 In the religious context crying held positive value. Tears were a sign of contrition for evil deeds. Simultaneously they could signify baptism and rebirth; to cry for one’s sins was considered to purify the soul, thus tears could be considered as a divine grace.67 In the above-mentioned accidents the tears could have naturally been an expression of emotion, yet they seem also to have been a ritualistic act — a way to manifest piety and devotion in the invocation. Thus they were concurrently a way to communicate with the community in a public profane sphere as well as a mode to interact with the divine. According to Adam le Schirreue, Cecilia, his wife and the mother of Johanna, cried and mourned for her dead daughter as did the other people present at the pond. The father also cried, but when he remembered the miracle-working Saint Thomas he started devotionally to invoke him on his knees with much contrition and tears. Similarly approximately forty men and women invoked the saint on their knees with tears.68 Adam le Schirreue did not explain whether the reason for his contrition was the negligence of his daughter and the guilt about the accident or an expression of his sinful state in general. The tears, as he mentioned, were primarily an expression of grief. However, cum lacrimis seems also to have been an expression of proper invocation.69 Tears were apparently part of the ritual.

66

Peter Burke, The Historical Anthropology of Early Modern Italy: Essays on Perception and Communication (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 9. 67

Jansen, Making of the Magdalen, p. 209. The positive religious connotations originated from the Sermon on the Mount: Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted (Matt. 5. 3–5). The gratia lacrymarum could be defined largely as devotional weeping as contrition for sins. In this sense the gift of tears could be seen as a virtue. However, the concept was also used in a stricter sense when it became a mystical experience and could be seen as a charisma. See Piroska Nagy, Le dons des larmes au Moyen Âge: un instrument spirituel en quête d’institution (V e– XIIe siècle) (Paris: Albin Michel, 2000), pp. 22–24. 68

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 125r: ‘matrem ipsius puelle et multos astantes plangere et flere circa eam commotis visceribus paternis dolens nimium planxit et flevit et quod dictus testis audiverat quod deus operaretur multa miracula pro dicto domino Thoma flexis ibidem genibus cum multis lacrimis et cum magna compuctione et devocione rogavit dictum sanctam Thomam [. . .] et omnes alii astantes qui poterant esse circa quadraginta inter mares et mulieres flexis genibus cum lacrimis rogaverunt pro resuscitatione dicte puelle’. 69

Adam le Schirreue used this expression, cum lacrimis, when he was describing both his own activities within the invocation as well as the activities of the other participants. Similarly when

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

89

The other witnesses similarly stressed the importance of tears in the invocation. Only Johanna de la Wyle, the tavern owner’s wife, and Thomas Schonk did not mention them as part of the common invocation.70 Witnessing parental grief may have also increased these signs of devotion for other participants. In another case, in the drowning of Willelmus, the son of Johannes le Lorimer, where both of the parents were absent from the scene, tears are mentioned more rarely, and usually the witnesses stated that some of them invoked the saint with tears.71 To specifically mention the tears emphasizes their importance in the invocation. Only in one deposition is this expression of devotion mentioned to be gender based. Thomas le Frayns, testifying in the case of Willelmus le Lorimer, claimed that, while all the people present invoked the saint barefoot on their knees, only women had tears in their eyes.72 However, on other occasions it is particularly stated that both men and women took similar part in the invocation cum lacrimis.73 Thus to invoke a saint with tears cannot be seen as a particularly gendered mode of devotion. Other signs and gestures were likewise frequently mentioned as being part of the invocation for both men and women alike.74 The typical position was the kneeling which can be seen to symbolize the submissive position of the petitioner. Bare feet further stressed this feature. To take off stockings and shoes to kneel down with bare feet was an act of humility. Moreover, the humility of the petitioner was also a display of devotion. Presumably these gestures as well as the direct physical contact with the earth made the prayers more effective.75

referring to the tears and cries as an expression of emotion he apparently used different vocabulary, translated in Latin as plangere et flere. 70

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 131v –133v and 136v –137r.

71

The depositions to this case are in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 146v–157v. For example, ‘ipse et omnis astantes flexis et nudis genibus super terram et multi ex astatibus [sic] cum lacrimis rogaverunt’ (ibid., fol. 148r); ‘ipse testis et alii astantes flexis et nudis genibus super terram rogaverunt deum et dictum sanctum Thomam et multi ex eis cum lacrimis’ (ibid., fol. 151r). 72

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 152r: ‘mulieribus lacrimantibus’.

73

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 139v: ‘alii qui tunc fuerunt presentes tam masculi quam femine flectentes nuda genua ad terram et elevantes oculos et manus ad celum devote cum lacrimis rogaverunt deum’; also ibid., fol. 128r and fol. 138r. 74

On common kneeling: ‘omnis astantes flexis genibus cum lacrimis et devote rogabant dictum sanctum Thomam’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 145r). 75

The importance of bare feet and the significance given to the gesture can be found in the detailed deposition of Stephanus de Pirebrok who particularly explained that some of the participants pulled their boots down and the others took away both the socks and the boots to be able to

90

Chapter 2

Paternoster and Ave Maria prayers often also accompanied the invocation.76 These prayers were likewise uttered by all the participants. The collective prayers are stressed especially in Thomas Schonk’s deposition. According to him dominus Johannes de Tydele, the vicar of the parish at that time, old clerics, widows, and children were all asked to come to pray for the recovery of Johanna la Schirreue. And they came and prayed with the others.77 It is possible that Thomas Schonk mentioned these groups since they were the only ones absent from the tavern. However, presumably they also had extra potential in their petitions. The prayers of the churchmen were probably considered to be more effective since praying was their daily task. However, the mentions of clerical aid are rare in the Cantilupe process.78 The words and prayers of elderly women were not necessarily approved or appreciated. In the clerical rhetoric old women could be seen as vain, lustful, and leading others to sin. Yet if widows and old women were wise and virtuous, they could have held prestige at least over younger women. The church recognized widowhood to be a more pious stage than marriage: widows were chaster than wives since they were no longer engaged in sexual relations and procreation.79

bend on bare knees: BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 138r. See also Victor Turner and Edith Turner, Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives, Lectures on the History of Religions, n.s., 11 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978), p. 13, and Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 12–13. Such gestures can also be found in other processes. Yet in Nicholas’s records they are particularly connected with devotional images in the private sphere. See also Clare, testis LX, p. 318. On Scandinavian customs, see Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, p. 311. 76

For example BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 128r, 132v , 141r, 151r, 166r, and 224v. Paternoster, Ave Maria, and Credo were the principal prayers that were though to be known by all Christians. On the Church’s instructions of praying in ordaining the daily life of laywomen, see Hasenohr, ‘La vie quotidienne’. 77

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 133v : ‘fuerunt vocati dominus Johannes de Tydele tunc vicarius ecclecie parochis eorum de maurdyn primortuus et clerici senes et vidue et parvuli dicte ville ut orarent pro resuscitatione dicte puelle et venerunt et oraverunt cum aliis’. 78

There can be found only one example of a member of the clergy doing the actual rite of measuring at a sudden accident. When Margery was found dead in her cradle the chaplain of the parish measured her for Saint Thomas. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 244v–245r. However, in other areas the clerics could have been fairly active in invoking the saint or in suggesting the vow. On Scandinavian examples, see Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, pp. 281–85. 79

Casagrande, ‘The Protected Women’, pp. 75–81. Old women, especially poor ones, could also be seen as dangerous and poisonous since the venomous fluids no longer exited their bodies with the menses. Jacquart and Thomasset, Sexuality and Medicine, pp. 75–76.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

91

Children, on the other hand, were considered to be closer to God due to their innocence. Sometimes they were even seen as intercessors between God and Christians — like saints. Newborn babies especially were between these two worlds. Parvulus — the word also found in Thomas Schonk’s deposition — was typically used to describe children under eight years. Children of this age seldom took the initiative in the relationship with the divine. This does not mean that they could not participate in the common invocation. Religious practices were taught to children by example.80 In Johanna’s case the common devotion and its collective expression are particularly stressed. Many of the bystanders kept watch all night, praying by the girl who was carried from the pond first to the tavern and later to her parents’ house.81 This miracle had an obvious cohesive role in the community. However, in addition to common devotion the fear of judicial consequences may have influenced the keenness of the people present. Yet the collective enthusiasm was also clear after the recovery when Johanna was taken to the local church and later to the shrine of Saint Thomas. Many parishioners followed the Schirreue family to Hereford, and along the road many people joined them. The incident was well known in the community.82 Gender and Social Standing in Public Accidents Despite the collective rituals and the activity of the group present, there was always one person who took the initiative: persuaded others to invoke this particular saint or did the actual measuring. The measuring of the victim was an indispensable part of the invocation of Saint Thomas. The victim was literally measured in order to make a wax image to offer to the saint. The purpose of the rite was to urge the saint to act. Presumably collective petitions were thought to be more efficient. Therefore the initiators of the invocation may have requested others to participate. For example, Iacobucia, the mother of the drowned Puccius, asked the people present

80

Lett, L’enfant des miracles, pp. 45, 83, and 109.

81

For other examples of the auxiliary roles of friends and acquaintances, see Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, p. 294. 82

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 126r–v.

92

Chapter 2

to invoke the help of Saint Nicholas with her.83 Adam le Schirreue also persuaded others to invoke Saint Thomas with him.84 However, in other cases the invocation of a saint seems to have required negotiation between the participants. In the drowning of Willelmus le Lorimer the neighbours who gathered at the scene estimated that Willelmus had died and some of the women wanted to start the preparations for the funeral.85 However, Hugo de Atfortone thought that it would be appropriate to measure the boy first for Saint Thomas.86 The reason for the hesitation may have been the absence of the parents, whose responsibilities such decisions normally were. Laura Smoller argues that the act of initiating the vow was in many ways a symbol of spiritual authority; to have successfully invoked a saint increased one’s social and religious status in a community. One could become a known devotee of the saint whose assistance was sought when it was needed to turn to this saint.87 Undoubtedly the initiatory role in the invocation and the acknowledged status were interconnected. Yet in the public accidents of the Cantilupe process, the relationship seems to have worked the other way around: one needed to have a good social position to succeed in these rites. These situations emphasize the authority and responsibility of the initiator of the invocation. When divine help was sought it usually also meant abandoning other means for recovery — at least for a while. The attempts to resuscitate the victim were called off for the time of the common invocation and the measuring. The invocation of divine help could also mean the violation of a common custom and law — the shunning of the hue and cry. Presumably more marginal members of a community would not have taken up these initiatives or others would not have followed.

83

Nicholas, testis CIII, p. 292: ‘genuflexa invocavit et rogavit omnes astantes ut invocarent auxilium beati Nicholai’. 84

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 128r: ‘ dixit astantibus quod apud hereforde est quidam sanctus qui vocatur sanctus Thomas pro quo deus dicitur operari miracula et persuasit eis quod rogarent eum’. 85 BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 152r: ‘Cum autem aliqui ex astantibus specialiter Agnes ancilla Willelmus de Donigtone et Cibilla uxor Robertus Gumbald et Matilda uxor Philippus de Donigtone vellent quod manus et pedes ipsius Willelmi convingerentur et ligarentur et apponentur secundum loci illius consuetudinem propre murum et vigilarentur circa eum per totam noctem et preparentur sepultura.’ 86

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 151r: ‘Hugo [. . .] dixit astantibus non est malum si mensurentur ipsum ad sanctum Thomam de Hereforde.’ 87

Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning’, pp. 449–54.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

93

There seem to have been common characteristics of the initiators of the invocation in these public accidents. Gender was a distinguishing feature: the initiators were usually men. Other features can also be found: these men were usually mature adults. Presumably they were in good positions in their communities. Often they were also to some extent educated. Adam le Schirreue88 was of noble birth and had a hereditary title. His grandfather was a viscount and therefore he was not certain whether he was related to Thomas Cantilupe.89 Presumably the horsemen who measured Johannes Drake were also of noble rank. The means of transportation implies good status. These horsemen, equites, could actually have been knights in the feudal sense.90 However, we do not know anything specific about them. The witnesses did not know them in advance and never saw them again. In this sense this miracle deviates from the other accidents of the Cantilupe process. Usually the initiator was a known member of the community and knew the victim beforehand. Another non-family member as an initiator can be found in the accident that took place in the town of Conway near the Welsh border. Two-year-old Rogerus strayed from his home in the middle of the night and fell into the moat.91 In the morning Rogerus was discovered, found dead, and the coroners were called. The place and the social sphere of this incident were of a very public nature. Many members of the community went down to the moat with the coroners. They all pronounced Rogerus dead. However, one of the bystanders, Johannes Syward, invoked Saint Thomas and Rogerus revived. Johannes Syward was in his forties and a citizen of the town of Conway. He was also to some extent educated since he testified in French. His mother tongue was probably English.92 88 It remains unclear whether the family’s last name Schirreue had something to do with the public officer sheriff (shirereeve). The office is not mentioned in the depositions yet it may not have necessarily aroused the interests of the commissioners. However, since Johanna, Adam’s daughter, was also occasionally referred to as Johanna la Schirreue (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 123r) it is more plausible that it was family name and not an indication of Adam’s position. 89

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 124r. He testified in English, thus he probably did not know any other language than his mother tongue. However, he knew enough of religious practices to recognize the hymn Te Deum, which was sung at the shrine after the proclamation of the miracle, by name. This was a typical procedure after announcing a miracle and after a preliminary inquiry done at the shrine. Adam le Schirreue was the only witness to this miracle to know the hymn by name. 90

Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, p. 185.

91

The depositions of this miracle are in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 188r–203v.

92

Richter, Sprache und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter, pp. 187–201, argues that the language used and the social position of the witness correlated with each other. The use of French, not to mention

94

Chapter 2

Johannes le Lorimer,93 the father of Willelmus, was also to some extent an educated man. He testified partly in Latin and partly in French.94 One of the witnesses testified that the knowledge of Latin was the reason why Johannes frequented church more often than the other parishioners.95 However, his activities do not stand out in this miracle. The father invoked Saint Thomas for his son only after the others had already done so. He was not present when the body was found. The mother was absent at the time of the accident and throughout the miracle process. The initiative in this case was taken by Hugo de Atfortone. He was a young man, in his early twenties at the time of the miracle. However, the majority of the witnesses to the miracle were between twenty and thirty according to their own testimonies. Hugo de Atfortone was one of the first to reach the scene of the accident after the hue and cry. His standing was different from the other initiators since he was not of particularly good social position. He was of free status yet did not own land. He was a manor tenant: he lived by tilling the land he had gained possession of and by other labour.96 The only exception to men’s dominant roles in the public accidents can be found in the drowning of Nicholas, the son of Johannes Piscator.97 In this case the mother, Lucia, or the neighbour, Cristina, did the measuring. The activity took place on the river bank in a public space yet, as noted, the social sphere was quite intimate.98 All the participants prayed — ‘flexis genibus cum lacrimis’ — for the Latin, denoted knowledge of languages other than the mother tongue and implied good social position of the witness. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, pp. 198–200, also claims that in the thirteenth century English was usually the mother tongue for the members of nobility. Johannes Syward was also familiar with religious practices since he not only knew the hymn Te Deum by name but also claimed that he was the one to start to sing it after the miracle. The other witnesses did not confirm this. 93

Le Lorimer could have also been an indication of Johannes’s occupation (saddlemaker) or a family name. He stated that he lived by his land possessions. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 154r. 94

The depositions of this miracle are in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 146v –157v .

95

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 156r: ‘Et quod dictus Johannes le Lorimer magis frequentat ecclesiam quam alii vicini sui quia est litteratus.’ He was apparently more familiar with the religious practices since he was the only witness to this miracle to recognize the hymn Te Deum by name. 96

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 148r: ‘dixit item se esse liberum et quod vivit de proventibus terrarum alienarum sibi concessarum adfirmam usque ad voluntatem dominum et ipsius testis et de aliis qui adquirit ex industria sua’. 97 98

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 157v –165r.

In addition to the parents, Felicia Morker, Lucia’s sister, and Cristina Henrici, their neighbour, were also present. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 157v –165v .

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

95

recovery of the boy. However, the depositions are contradictory regarding the person who did the actual measuring. The mother told the commissioners that she measured Nicholas and invoked Saint Thomas to return her son to life while the others made similar requests. According to the testimony of Cristina, she herself with Felicia Morker measured Nicholas for Saint Thomas. The contradictory details were not exceptional in the depositions since usually many years had elapsed between the events and the interrogatory. Moreover, individuals tend to stress their own role when retelling memories. This may have been done on purpose because of vanity, but it was also often unintentional.99 One may assume that these two women were approximately of the same rank in their community. The rector of the church of How Caple, Walterus de Caple, stated that all the witnesses enjoyed good reputation in their parish.100 Lucia was the wife of Johannes, the fisherman. The marital status of Cristina is not mentioned. She is defined as daughter of Henricus de How Caple. Cristina said that she lived by her possessions and by her labour. She was probably unmarried. Not all the women in the Cantilupe process were identified by the name of their husbands. This was common practice, however.101 Both Lucia and Cristina were in their forties at the time of the hearing. All the witnesses, except for Walterus de Caple, testified in English.102 Presumably the comparable status of these women and the activity at the scene of the miracle allowed competition for the dominant role — at least in their memories.103 99 On similar discrepancies in the testimonies of canonization hearings, see Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning’, and Hanska, ‘Hanging of William Cragh.’ 100

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 165r.

101 In the English legal records most women were regularly identified as daughters, wives, or widows of specific men. It was important to specify accurately under whose authority a woman was at any given time. As a result, women cited as daughters were almost invariably unmarried because married women were publicly identified not as their fathers’ daughters but as their husbands’ wives. Some women were noted without any identification of their domestic status. Most of these were likely widows who, as heads of the household, were less dependent than other women. Others might have been spinsters. Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside, p. 73. On examples of single women in fiscal records, see Beattie, Medieval Single Women, pp. 62–95. Farmer, Surviving Poverty, pp. 39–40, emphasizes the means of identification as a way to stress the gendered responsibilities and expectations. Since men, in clerical literature, were connected with productive work, occupation was an important means of identification. Women, on the other hand, were connected with reproductive work, thus marital status was the essential element of identification for them. 102 103

None of the witnesses recognized the hymn Te Deum by name.

On further details of this miracle and discrepancies in the depositions, see ‘Reminiscence and the Mode of Testifying’ in Chapter 4.

96

Chapter 2

The social sphere of the majority of the public accidents of the Cantilupe process consisted of men and women of different ages. Generally men took the initiative in these situations. However, women cannot be defined as passive since they took an active part in the collective rituals of invocation. In legal matters the public presence of the wives was limited; the private dependency led to an expectation of public inactivity. English law and practice defined the heads of the household as independent in the public, judicial sphere while wives’ initiatives and activities were restricted.104 The roles, responsibilities, or activities of the judicial sphere cannot be directly conveyed to the devotional practices, even though the women’s lack of initiative in public miracles is apparent in the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe. Voluntary Public Invocations The judicial public sphere could have been relatively private in the social sense, depending on the situation. Similarly the private, domestic setting could turn out to be fairly public. For example, when Jacobucius Facteboni hanged himself, the lamentations of his wife caused many members of the community of Belforte to appear at the scene. The spreading of the news was fairly fast and efficient. The victim’s daughter, domina Palnucia, was immediately informed of the accident. Domina Blonda, the wife of the victim, invoked Saint Nicholas and others apparently fairly spontaneously followed.105 This miracle, along with the miraculous recovery of the drowned Puccius, has clear similarities to the miracles of the Cantilupe process but differs from the majority of other miracles in Nicholas’s records. On these occasions the common prayer and collective invocation are described. Most of the sudden accidents found in Nicholas’s hearing took place in private domains of the home or in the immediate vicinity. Those present were usually only relatives or friends. In the cases of Puccius and Jacobucius the initiative was taken by women. The initiatory role of these women can be explained since they were the closest family members present at the scene. However, women also invoked Saint Nicholas publicly for not such apparent reasons. One peculiar incident took place in San Ginesio (Sancto Genesio) in the church of the Franciscans. Friar Iohannes Petri Vegne was a member of the 104

Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside, pp. 31 and 100.

105

The witnesses to this miracle are Nicholas, testis XCVI–XCIX, pp. 278–86.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

97

spiritual Franciscans.106 One day in a city centre a wall fell on him. People who had heard this — among others a notary and other Franciscans — ran to the scene of the accident and cleared the ruins lying on him. They thought Iohannes had died and carried him to the church of Saint Francis to be buried. The ones to carry out the burial hesitated, however, since they were not sure whether Iohannes was dead or not. When Gregoria Gentilis, a lady of noble birth, heard about the accident, she went to the church to which Iohannes was carried. Then she invoked Saint Nicholas’s help and promised to give an image as big as the friar to the shrine if Iohannes revived. When Gregoria entered the church there were present the guardianus of the convent and many other persons. When she made the vow she was alone, however. After the vow Gregoria was expelled from the church. At the same time Iohannes revived. The recovery of Iohannes is different from the other cases in Nicholas’s process. Vicarious vows within the family were common, but vows made for a person who was not related or a member of the same household were very rare. From this point of view the vow made by Gregoria for Iohannes was exceptional. It remains obscure whether Gregoria and Iohannes were strangers to each other. Possibly they knew each other since the son of Gregoria was a member of the same convent. One of the friars who dug Iohannes out of the ruins and carried him to the church was frater Guidecto de Gregoria Gentilis de Rovellono. Children were not normally defined by their mothers; this case was extraordinary. Normal Italian practice was that the first name was followed by the name of the father and often also of his father (for example Gregoria Gentilis). So typically names were a list of masculine names, where feminine names were not to be found.107 There must have been good reasons to make an exception to the rule.108 Gregoria was a woman of

106

Nicholas, testis CV, p. 297: ‘de ordine continentium’; also n. 2. This order, also called fraticelli, was especially numerous in Camerino’s diocese and protected by the people holding ecclesiastical or political power. Angelo Antonio Bittarelli, ‘Spigolature Camerinesi nel processo di canonizzazione di San Nicola da Tolentino’, in San Nicola, Tolentino, le Marche, pp. 353–62 (p. 359). 107

Klapisch-Zuber, La maison et le nom, pp. 84–85. Klapisch-Zuber has studied Renaissance Toscans and argues that feminine names never interrupted these lists of masculine names. Naming practices varied naturally according to time and place, yet the conclusions of Klapisch-Zuber correspond with the naming pattern of the majority of people appearing in the canonization records of Nicholas of Tolentino. 108

This mode of naming Friar Guidecto can be found in the deposition of Iohannes. It is possible that he decided to use this mode of identification to stress the relationship between the friar

98

Chapter 2

high social position. She was of noble birth and presumably a widow since she was titled after her father: Gregoria nobilis vir Gentilis. Gregoria was also titled habitatrix terre Sancti Genesii. According to the testimony of Iohannes, Gregoria was living in a hospitio fraternitatis Sancte Marie. In San Ginesio there were many confraternities dedicated to the Virgin Mary. Many of them had hostels for travellers and sick people.109 At the time of the hearing Gregoria had already lived there for eight months. Yet presumably she was not a member of the religious community but rather a visitor staying there. However, Gregoria’s participation and initiative are exceptional and intriguing. Why did she take the initiative? After all, she did not witness to the accident but went to see Iohannes after she had heard of the incident. In the cases with no blood ties between the participants, the vow was often suggested by the beneficiary or the initiator made it together with him or her. Typically there was a preceding relationship between the participants. The adult beneficiary was usually held responsible for vicarious vows. The reason for the requested vicarious vows may have been an unfulfilled promise given in a previous vow; the petitioner could have been too ashamed to ask for another favour.110 Some witnesses thought that it was not appropriate to ask another favour since Saint Nicholas had already helped once. To seek help again was considered an unappreciative act.111 This was rare, however. It was typical to turn to an intercessor whose powers had already been proven efficient. Sometimes vicarious vows were made since the beneficiaries relied more on the substitute’s ability to petition a miracle.112 The power of vicarious vows — who dug him out of the ruins and Gregoria who saved him by invoking a saint. Nevertheless, as the only way to identify Guidecto it is a noteworthy exception to normal practice. However, see also Nicholas, testis CCXCVII and testis CCXCVIII where Bellabruna, the unmarried daughter of the widowed Guiducia, was defined after her mother. The mother and daughter testified one after another. 109

Nicholas, p. 298, n. 43.

110

In vicarious vows the initiator and the adult beneficiary often agreed before the invocation on the promised offering and the beneficiary’s responsibility in fulfilling it. See for example Nicholas, testis XCI, pp. 266–67; testis CXV, pp. 311–12; and testis CLVI, pp. 379–80. 111

Nicholas, testis CCLXXX, pp. 573–77. Domina Bartholuccia did not vow herself to Saint Clare even the first time since she thought she was not worth such a grace. Clare, testis CLXXV, p. 456: ‘Non tamen promixit vovere se sibi, quia non videbatur sibi esse dingna tanta gratia.’ 112

Nicholas, testis XCI, pp. 264–69. Yet, it should be noted that the depositions could vary or contradict each other; sometimes the witnesses did not agree on who made the vow or on the motives behind the vicarious vow.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

99

especially made in the first person — was in the words themselves. They were considered important, not the motives of the people pronouncing them.113 Nevertheless, the outer signs of devotion and contrition, the tears, kneeling, and bare feet, were emphasized in many cases. Presumably the saint’s powers could be accessed by correct ritual actions as well as by moral rectitude.114 In the Cantilupe records the relatives, friends, or people otherwise connected to Thomas were exceptionally active in invoking Thomas on behalf of other people.115 The commissioners were aware of the possibility that the members of Thomas Cantilupe’s familia and relatives may have been trying to promote his cult. The relatives and other people connected with the saint may have gained prestige or other benefits by the flourishing cult. The commissioners asked whether the friends or close ones of Saint Thomas had feigned miracles to gain lucre.116 However, since at least some of these miracles took place when the cult was already flourishing, other reasons — perhaps genuine veneration — than only the will to propagate the cult motivated these vicarious vows.117

113 On invocations working like other charms and incantations, see Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 93. On the power of holy words, see also Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), pp. 41–42. 114

See also Ashley and Sheingorn, Writing Faith, pp. 46–47.

115

The domicellus of the former bishop, Willelmus de Cantilupe, stated that he personally invoked Saint Thomas for Mariona de Falleye and Matilda de Lynham. They both recovered from serious illnesses. Matilda was a member of the familia of Willelmus, but there is no mention about the relationship between Mariona and Willelmus. Willelmus de Cantilupe is the only witness to mention these miracles and he does so briefly without many details. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 61v . These miracles are not mentioned in the recollectio, BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4017. The sister of Thomas Cantilupe, domina Juliana Gregos, measured Quenelda Tydihorn for Saint Thomas and led her to the shrine where she was cured of paralysis. There is no mention about the relationship between domina Juliana and Quenelda. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 244v. Domina Maria Breuse also sent her maid to measure the well-known malefactor Willelmus Cragh after he was hanged. Many details as well as the reason for this initiative remain obscure. Her deposition can be found in ibid., fols 7v–10r. On this miracle with further details, see Hanska, ‘Hanging of William Cragh’, and Bartlett, Hanged Man. 116

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 83v : ‘Item interrogatus si scit credit vel audivit dici ab aliis quod aliquam machinationem vel aliqua fraus vel dolus intervenerunt et interposita fuerunt a [. . .] propriquiis vel amicis dicti domini Thome [. . .] Ratione lucri.’ 117

The miracle petitioned by Juliana Gregos took place approximately eighteen years before the hearing, thus at the beginning of the cult. Yet the miracles petitioned by Willelmus de Cantilupe happened four and six or seven years before the hearing.

100

Chapter 2

In the case of Iohannes Venge, Gregoria seems to have taken personal responsibility for fulfilling the vow. This was peculiar, since presumably she was not close with the victim. The expense of the gift was one obvious reason for the nonrelatives not to make the vow. Life-size images, the offering promised by Gregoria, were expensive, not to mention more precious gifts. The pilgrimage to the shrine of Nicholas might have also been a demanding task due to the perils of the road. Gregoria was of noble origin, so probably she was wealthy enough to promise a lifesize figure without any economic difficulties. The poorer members of society could not do this. The people who could have afforded the offering did not want to get involved or promise something for a stranger if there was not something in it for them. The risk of humiliation if the saint failed to help may have also discouraged many. The place of the invocation in the miracle of Iohannes Venge was the church of the Franciscans. The churches themselves were public places. They were accessible to all Christians. Yet the accessibility of this particular church is ambiguous. It remains unknown whether it was a common parish church or in the monastery area.118 According to Gregoria, Iohannes was carried to the church of the Franciscans. She also mentions that after the vow she was expelled from the place of the Franciscans.119 However, the church was most probably in common use, otherwise Gregoria could not have entered it. Nevertheless, the friars and notary could have discouraged most women from taking the initiative regardless of the accessibility of the space. One should bear in mind, however, that Gregoria was alone when she actually made the vow. The Franciscans were not pleased with invocation if we are to believe Gregoria. According to her words, the friars drove her out of the church immediately after the vow. Iohannes does not mention the expulsion. Indeed, it would have been a more typical proceeding that the other friars had made the vow since members of religious orders formed a closed community with presumably emotional attachments to each other. The monastery formed a private sphere in relation to the world outside it. Thus Gregoria’s initiative may have been interpreted as intruding while it is possible that the friars were also irritated since the vow was made for Saint Nicholas. He was a member of the Augustinians, an order rivalling with the 118

Iohannes was carried to the church of the Franciscans to be buried. He was also a parishioner of the church of Saint Peter, which was situated and united with the church of the Franciscans. 119

Nicholas, testis CXI, p. 305: ‘Statim, dicto voto emisso, ipsa testis fuit expulsa de ipso loco fratrum minorum.’

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

101

Franciscans. Moreover, at the time of the miracle Nicholas’s cult was still unofficial. However, it is argued that these fraticelli actually supported the cult of Saint Nicholas due to his severe asceticism during his lifetime.120 It is possible that Gregoria was eager to promote the cult of Saint Nicholas, yet her deposition does not reveal any particular devotion for him. Gregoria had not known Nicholas during his lifetime nor experienced personally or witnessed any other miracles. Possibly Gregoria was deliberately trying to promote her own spiritual worth by invoking Saint Nicholas. After all, her actions challenged appropriate modes of behaviour and masculine authority. Yet it remains unclear whether these authority figures, the notary and other friars, acknowledged the worth of her deeds. They may have ignored the vow and its importance for the recovery. Nevertheless, the victim was convinced that Gregoria invoked Saint Nicholas on his behalf and promoted the recovery. If Gregoria’s intention was to gain noticeable spiritual authority by the invocation, she succeeded only partially. The only witnesses testifying to the miracle were the beneficiary and the initiator. This incident had every chance of becoming a widely known incident — a sudden accident in a public sphere (probably with a crowd of people present) and then a miraculous recovery. However, if it had gained great fame other witnesses would have probably mentioned it as well. Plenty of witnesses came from San Ginesio where the accident took place. Yet the only ones to mention this miraculous recovery were Iohannes himself and Gregoria. Iohannes was first summoned to the interrogatory on 17 August with two other inhabitants of San Ginesio. The depositions of these other witnesses cannot be found in the records. Presumably Iohannes also gave his testimony in Tolentino on 10 September, at the feast of Nicholas. Gregoria was also interrogated on this day, and their depositions, in addition to those of some other witnesses who testified that day, appear quite close to each other in the final records.121 The reason for the first summoning remains unknown. It is possible that the proctor or the commissioners had heard about the miraculous recovery of Iohannes and decided to scrutinize it.

120

Philippe Jansen, ‘La santitá nelle Marche nei secoli XIII e XIV e la sua spontanea affermazione’, in San Nicola, Tolentino, le Marche, pp. 55–80 (pp. 72–73). 121

The summoning of these witnesses to the interrogatory cannot be found. Apparently Gregoria was one of the pilgrims met at the shrine on the feast day. Nicholas, citationes testium, pp. 43 and 63.

102

Chapter 2

Another exceptional incident was the miraculous recovery of domina Bellaflos, the daughter of domina Iacobucia.122 This family was credited with several favourable interventions of Saint Nicholas. The miraculous recovery of Puccius, the son of Iacobucia, was mentioned earlier. Bellaflos was paralysed in her right leg and she limped badly. The doctors could not help her. She had been paralysed for over a year when her mother made a vow to Saint Nicholas for her recovery. The exceptional feature in this case was the place of invocation. The mother made the vow in via publica. No specific signs of devotion are mentioned in uttering the vow, only the devout supplication. Yet domina Iacobucia implied that the invocation gained interest. The cure was immediate: the girl started to walk without a limp at once in front of onlookers. However, it is possible that the invocation took place in their home quarter or otherwise in the vicinity of their home. Both Bellaflos and Iacobucia mention that the people present were their neighbours.123 Apparently several people were present at the scene of the miracle. Neither Iacobucia nor Bellaflos remembered their names, however. As noted before, there were plenty of witnesses from San Ginesio, yet none of them mentions this incident. Both Bellaflos and Iacobucia argued that the spectators also acknowledged the miraculous recovery. Yet no signs of common enthusiasm were mentioned. It remains unclear whether the people present actually heard the invocation and commonly accepted the cure to be due to divine intervention.124 122

The witnesses to this miracle are domina Bellaflos, domina Iacobucia, and Marchius Morci, the brother of Iacobucia. Nicholas, testis XXXV, pp. 161–63; testis CIII, pp. 292–95; and testis CIV, pp. 295–97. Domina Iacobucia was the wife of Angelucii Angeli Benetesi. She, like domina Gregoria, lived in San Ginesio. Iacobucia’s social standing is not known yet the epithet domina implies fairly high status. She had at least three children: Servedea, Bellaflos, and Puccius. The family was prosperous since they could afford to put one of their daughters to monastery: Servedea was a Cistercian nun in the monastery of Sancta Lucia in San Ginesio. Nicholas, testis XVIII, p. 133: ‘soror Servedea monialis monasterii Sancte Lucie de Sancto Genesio’; also n. 1 on that page. 123 Nicholas, testis CIII, pp. 293–94: ‘Dicta vero eius mater una die in Sancto Genesio in strata publica [. . .] vovit ipsam filiam dicto beato Nicholao supplicando devote [. . .]. Et hoc voto emisso, statim et immediate presentibus omnibus ibi astantibus incepit ambulare filia sua predicta. [. . .] Iinterrogata quibus presentibus, dixit de pluribus convicinis ipsius testis, quorum nominibus non recordatur.’ 124

The invocations could have been made privately even in the public space. For example, Nangni Ugolini argues that he invoked Saint Nicholas for his wife in platea publica. The situation differs from the recovery of Bellaflos since his wife was not present but stayed at home where the cure took place. Nangni does not argue that anyone was present at the invocation. It is possible that he made the actual vow in his mind. Indeed, other elements also stress the privacy of the event: after

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

103

When the place of the invocation could be selected, it was usually the home or the shrine. In the other cases the wish for privacy is quite obvious.125 One may presume that unsuccessful invocation with many eyewitnesses may have been a humiliation. Domina Iacobucia may have considered that the recovery of Puccius had created a special bond between her and Saint Nicholas. The miracle of Puccius was probably well known in San Ginesio. The scene of the accident attracted many people, and the memories of the event were still fresh in the community because the depositions of the miracle concurred in many details.126 Nevertheless the successful vow and the miraculous recovery of Puccius had not affected the choice of the place of invocation in Bellaflos’s case. Her recovery took place four years before the recovery of Puccius. Publicizing the Miracle The Church’s approach to the laity’s public religious acts was ambiguous. From the perspective of clerical authors public activities, even religious ones, could turn out to be harmful for women. However, at the same time they called for equal opportunities in religious practices. Masses, confessions, and prayers were available for both men and women, and the Church expected all Christians to take an active part in these practices. The laity also considered that attending masses, frequent prayers, and pilgrimages were the signs of firm faith and devotion.127

the invocation Nangni had a vision of Saint Nicholas asking God for the recovery for his wife. Nicholas, testis CXL, pp. 346–47. 125

For example, Mathiolus Angeli was paralysed and could not move but was pulled around in a carriage. One day he was lying in front of the house of Pucius Angeli. When he was encouraged to invoke Saint Nicholas for help he went inside the house to make the vow. Nicholas, testis LXXVIII, p. 215, and testis XCII, p. 270. The entrance before the vow is mentioned in both testimonies. 126

On the mode of testifying and similarities and discrepancies in the depositions of this particular case, see Mariani, ‘Racconto spontaneo o memoria construita?’. 127 These features were stressed by men and women as signs of increased devotion after the miracle. ‘Item interrogatus si ex dicto miraculo ipse testis et aliis homines dicte parochie erant effecti devociores et firmiores in fide. Respondit quod sic et quod frequencius ratione dicti miraculi clamant ad deum et visitant ecclesias et peregrinantur ad tumulum dicti domini Thome’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 133v ). ‘Item interrogata si ex dicto miraculo ipsa testis et eius convicini fuerant effecti devociores et in fide firmiores et si ex hoc glorificaverant deum et dictum sanctam Thomam. Respondit quod sic et quod propter hoc frequencius venerunt peregrini ad tumulum dicti dominum Thome et devocius et crebrius orant’ (ibid., fol. 135r).

104

Chapter 2

Moreover, publicity was an essential part of the miracle and the cult. Without publicity miracles could not fulfil their main function, namely, increase the devotion of the faithful. The public nature of the miracles, regardless of where they took place, is well seen in the depositions. After the miracle the persons involved arrived at the tomb to pay tribute to the saint and to thank for the grace bestowed. At the shrine an inquiry was usually held immediately. If the commission was convinced of the divine intervention the miracle was publicized and the bells were rung.128 However, men’s wider access to the public sphere in both the judicial and physical sense is also emphasized in the interaction with the saint. For example, the civic cults in Italian city-states demanded public participation of all the citizens and especially of the officials of the town.129 All Italian city-states had their patron saints whose cults were celebrated publicly. Men dominated these public feasts, which also often had military overtones. However, women were not excluded from the festivities since all the inhabitants were to honour the patronus.130 The men’s wider use of space is also reflected in the canonization processes. In Nicholas’s process men experienced more non-healing miracles than women. Men’s activities took them more often outside the domestic sphere. Therefore the miraculous rescues at sea and escapes from captivity or robbery in a foreign city were all experienced by men and closely linked to men’s roles in late medieval society.131

128

The miracle was announced to the whole area by ringing the church bells. Presumably the bells were rung in a particular way to publicize a miracle so that the people could recognize it. Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 186, and Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, p. 177. 129

The civic cult can be defined as a religious phenomenon — cultic, devotional, or institutional — where the action of local authorities and municipalities played a decisive role. André Vauchez, ‘Introduction’, in La religion civique à l’époque médiévale et moderne (chrétienté et islam), dir. by André Vauchez, Collection de l’École française de Rome, 213 (Rome: École française de Rome, 1995), pp. 1–5 (p. 1). 130

On Italian city-states’ relationships with their patron saints, see Diana Webb, Patrons and Defenders: The Saints in the Italian City-States, International Library of Historical Studies (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 1996). These public celebrations also had profane features. During these celebrations the gender roles and public participation were occasionally turned upside down. However, the intention of the topsy-turvy in gender roles during the festivities is usually considered to reinforce the social hierarchy not to subvert it. Natalie Zemon Davis, Society and Culture in Early Modern France (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987), pp. 124–51; on similar festivities in English parishes, see Katherine L. French, ‘“To Free Them from Binding”: Women in the Late Medieval Parish’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 27 (1997), 387–412. 131

For example Nicholas, testis XV, pp. 112–15; testis LXIV, pp. 197–99; testis LXXXIII, p. 234; and testis CXXI, pp. 320–21. Many of these miracles were not only of personal importance

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

105

The initiatory roles in the unofficial devotional practices, petitioning the favourable intervention of a saint, were not confined to the domestic settings; in sudden need they were also carried out in public. In devotional practices the public initiatives do not appear to be similar in these processes. In the public accidents the activity of the family members is stressed in both of the processes while in the Cantilupe records the public initiative was most often restricted to men of good standing. The importance of the group present and collective rituals diminished the responsibilities of the initiatory in the miracles performed by Saint Thomas. The common participation in the ritual and the shared signs of piety were frequently and meticulously described, thus stressing their significance. Women were active participants in these collective public performances, thus they cannot be defined as passive or their participation as restricted even though they did not take initiatory roles. Direct comparison of the gendered roles and positions in public accidents is difficult since the miracles recorded in Nicholas’s process were mainly recoveries from different illnesses within the domestic sphere. However, the cases indicate that women were active participants in the cult of Saint Nicholas. They could take the initiative in devotional practices outside the private sphere: in public spaces and in non-domestic relationships.

Daily Practices in the Domestic Sphere Different Levels of Privacy The original meaning of privacy was space which fell under the jurisdiction of one man. The private meant departure from common usage, referring to one’s own resources and to domesticity.132 In a social sense privacy was connected to the sphere

but reveal the political strife of the area. See also Jansen, ‘La santitá nelle Marche’, p. 72. A similar interconnection between the types of miracles and gender of the beneficiary is also stressed by Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 266–71, and Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 142–49. 132

Duby, ‘Private Power, Public Power’, pp. 3–5. Duby also stresses the importance of the nineteenth-century definitions for our understanding of concepts of public and private. While he concedes that the medieval world had its own conceptions of public and private, he cautions against anachronism in applying a strict public-private dichotomy to the medieval context. On the other hand, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Public Man, Private Women: Women in Social and Political Thought (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1981), pp. 6–11, argues that ‘distinctions between public and private have been and remain fundamental, not incidental or tangential, ordering principles in all known

106

Chapter 2

where entrance was not available for everyone. In addition to the actual physical space the private can also be defined as a social sphere where access to information, conversation, and performance was not open to all but restricted to chosen members of the community.133 In a simple dichotomy spheres outside home and family should be categorized as public. However, no clear boundary dividing the private and public spheres can be identified. Moreover, the private sphere can be considered as a continuum within which the privacy or even secrecy of the settings as well as of the performance could vary.134 Public roles and common opinion penetrated into private and intimate domestic settings. On the other hand, many domestic activities were carried out in courtyards or in gardens, opening family life to a wider gaze.135 Moreover, the activity which took place in a public space could also occasionally be defined as rather private in its social sense. If only the family members or close relatives had knowledge of the situation or witnessed it, the performance could not be defined as public even though the actual space was classified as such. Thus the

societies save, perhaps, the most simple where the categorisation goes between sanctioned and polluting’ (p. 6). Notions of public and private are prerequisites for and constitutive features of social life itself. Elshtain analyses the concepts of public and private in Western thought in general from Antiquity on. She also emphasizes the importance of nineteenth-century ideas for our conceptions. The intermingling of public and private spheres in cases where official authority was based on assemblages of private relations, like lineages, is emphasized by Giorgio Chittolini, ‘The “Private”, the “Public”, the State’, in Origins of the State in Italy, 1300–1600, supplement, Journal of Modern History, 67 (1995), 34–61. He focuses on state formation in early modern Italy outlining the reciprocal dynamic of state and family. Lefebvre, Production of Space, pp. 35, 48–49, and 358, claims that the distinction between private and public did not carry great weight in the Middle Ages, which he defines as a time of absolute space. According to Lefebvre, the absolute space was indistinguishably mental and social and comprehended the entire existence. Absolute space did not govern the private space of the family yet it was not left with a great deal of freedom. On absolute space, see ibid., pp. 229–91. 133

On access as a means to define the place’s publicity, see Benn and Gaus, ‘Public and Private’.

134

The house was private in relation to the neighbourhood, yet the neighbourhood, the home quarter or village, had more private or domestic connotations than the spheres outside it. Linda Sciama, ‘The Problem of Privacy in Mediterranean Anthropology’, in Women and Space: Ground Rules and Social Maps, ed. by Shirley Ardener, Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Women (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1981), pp. 89–111. 135

In Mediterranean towns the focus of domestic activity was in the inner courtyards. Sciama, ‘Problem of Privacy’. Similar notions are also emphasized in English rural villages: villagers did as much of their daily tasks outside as possible since the houses were uninviting. Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, p. 29.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

107

privacy and publicity of many spheres can be seen as a phenomenon of constant production and social construct.136 The domestic settings and the private sphere of the witnesses varied greatly in these processes. In general, personal privacy was relative in the late Middle Ages. Occasionally it was practically non-existent. The actual surroundings of private invocation are in most cases hard to deduce since the depositions are sporadic about the material settings. The different social spheres and levels of privacy in the miracles of the domestic sphere can be analysed in the experiences of Ranalducius Andree and his wife Alixa. The social standing of Ranalducius and Alixa is not clearly stated. Ranalducius had a house in Tolentino. Alixa is titled as domina, an epithet reserved for the nobility or the prosperous town-dwellers. Ranalducius stated that at the time of the hearing he was over forty and Alixa over thirty years old.137 They had both known Nicholas during his lifetime. According to Ranalducius, he had known him more than ten years. Alixa claimed to have known Nicholas more than six years. Both of them had seen Nicholas celebrating the Mass and comforting the sick. The first miracle happened before the death of Nicholas; Ranalducius and Alixa were among those who had experienced miracula in vita performed by Nicholas. Approximately four years before his death Nicholas was begging in Tolentino. When he arrived at the door of Ranalducius and Alixa, he asked for the love of God for bread for the Augustinian friars. Before this Ranalducius had bought an amount of grain and made flour of it. Alixa gave the first bread made of this flour to Nicholas. Nicholas thanked Alixa and said that Christ would send her benediction. Indeed, the flour lasted twice as long as the same amount usually did. After two months, when Ranalducius thought it was time to buy more grain, Alixa led him to the sack, which was still full of flour and revealed to him the incident with Nicholas. There is no actual invocation in this miracle since the benediction of Nicholas caused the multiplication of the grain. The benediction took place at the door, on

136

The importance of the space in social relations has been stressed by Lefebvre, Production of Space, pp. 35 and 48–49. On the construction of public and private spheres and performances within them, see also Shaw, ‘Construction of the Private’, and Reyerson, ‘Public and Private Space’. 137

Most likely Alixa and Ranalducius did not have their dates right; otherwise they had been married uncommonly young. According to their testimonies, they had already been married at least twenty-four years at the time of the hearing. The testimonies of Ranalducius and Alixa are in Nicholas, testis LXXVII, pp. 208–13, and testis LXXIX, pp. 218–20. They are the only witnesses to these miracles.

108

Chapter 2

the edge of the private space of the house of Ranalducius and Alixa. Yet the actual miracle took place in secret. The flour was in a sack in a chest. The chest was not locked, but the room where it was situated was. According to Alixa, their neighbours could enter the house but could not enter that room without her.138 Even more secret was the invocation and miracle in the recovery of Ranalducius. He suffered from pains in the chest. The pain was so severe that he thought he was going to die. The doctor could not help him. He invoked Saint Nicholas while lying alone in his bed. In this miracle the dialogue between the petitioner and the saint was truly private in nature: Ranalducius invoked the saint in his heart since he could not speak.139 In some cases the privacy of the event is especially stressed: the recovery took place while the petitioner was sleeping and had a vision of the saint. For example, domina Cisca suffered from paralysis and could not get out of bed — not even to defecate. Due to this her husband despised her and had abandoned her.140 One night when she was lying in her bed she invoked Saint Nicholas and petitioned for powers to move so that she would not be so paralysed. Cisca did not ask to be completely cured. Her main desire was to be able to defecate elsewhere than in her bed. The notion of health or at least the state ‘free from illness’ had different connotations than today. Often the sick people’s main desire was a functional body, yet this did not mean complete recovery or health in the modern sense.141 During the night Cisca saw in a dream an Augustinian friar and made another vow. In her dream the friar touched her with his hands and in the morning Cisca found herself recovered. She was completely cured after a month and could go wherever she wanted.142 Before the vow Cisca had been paralysed for nine months until she heard about the curative powers of Nicholas. Visions of a saint touching the infected part were fairly common. The touching alone could heal the patient,

138 Nicholas, testis LXXIX, p. 220: ‘Interrogata si alii vicini intrabant dictam domum suam, dixit quod sic sed non potuissent intrare et ire ad dictam farinam, quia ipsa farina sedebat in archa et in camera et camera erat ita clausa quod nullus potuissent eam intrare sine eam.’ 139

Nicholas, testis LXXVII, p. 211: ‘Interrogatus de presentibus, dixit quod nullus audivit, quia fecit votum in corde suo, eo quod non poterat loqui et iacebat in lecto solus.’ 140

Nicholas, testis CCLVI, p. 535: ‘quod maritus suus nomine Andreas vilipendebat eam tantum et pro derelicta habebat’. Witnesses testifying to this incident are Cisca, Catalina, and Verderosa. Nicholas, testis CCLVI–CCLVIII, pp. 535–38. 141

David Gentilcore, Healers and Healing in Early Modern Italy, Social and Cultural Values in Early Modern Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), pp. 185–86. 142

Nicholas, testis CCLVI, p. 536: ‘pergens quocumque volebat per se’.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

109

yet in some visions the saints acted like earthly doctors carrying out operations.143 This was not actually the case in the cure of Cisca. However, the process of recovery was very concrete. Cisca heard the sound of cracking nuts while the alignment of her members was in process.144 Silent invocations done in the domestic sphere were not exceptional. This was the procedure in many recoveries. The dialogue between the intercessor and the petitioner was intimate. The vow could have been made silently in a petitioner’s mind and it was nevertheless effective.145 In many cases of private invocation the personal relationship with the divine is emphasized. The connection between the patient and the saint could have been personal and arcane. The invocation did not need a third party or specific space to be effective. The invocation of Saint Nicholas could have been an informal act in which the intimacy of the dialogue between the petitioner and the intercessor was emphasized. The fixed form of activity was stressed in the miracles of Thomas Cantilupe. The invocation was a more formal and ritualistic act. The measuring of the patient was an indispensable element, thus the invocation was not usually done only in one’s mind. It required specific gestures as well, and a third participant was usually necessary to accomplish the ritual — to do the measuring. Personal devotion was a prerequisite for a successful invocation, yet the intimacy between the petitioner and the intercessor is not particularly emphasized in the cases of the Cantilupe process. The miracles in a domestic setting often reveal details about the private lives of the witnesses. Cisca told the commissioners that her husband despised her due to

143

Nicholas touched the sore tooth of Esnudus Petri de Langonibus in a vision. After a sign of the cross Esnudus was cured. Nicholas, testis CCXXVI, p. 501. See also for example BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 234v–235v. On saints’ medical operations, see Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 68. 144

Nicholas, testis CCLVI, p. 536: ‘dixit quod sicut nuces frangerentur sonabant et concordabant’. 145

For example ‘votum fecit in corde suo’ (Nicholas, testis CXXI, p. 319); ‘dixit quod nemo fuit presens: quia fecit in corde suo votum predictum’ (ibid., testis CXXV, p. 328). The vicarious vows could have also been made silently, and even the beneficiary himself did not need to know about it. For example, Zappa suffered from podagra for over a month; he recovered after the invocation by his wife, domina Bertina. Zappa did not hear the actual words, but he felt immediately better after Bertina had told him about her vow. Nicholas, testis XL, p. 172: ‘quia ipse non audivit dictum votum, sed, facta relatione per eadem dominam Bertinam, statim sensit melioratum’. However, on the importance of invocations uttered aloud as well as visible gestures, see Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, pp. 250–51.

110

Chapter 2

her illness and had deserted her. The third miracle, which involved Ranalducius and Alixa, reveals an even tenser marital relationship. Ranalducius told the commissioners that once he beat his wife so severely that Alixa fell to the ground. She did not speak and looked like an epileptic. Ranalducius was afraid she was going to die and made a vow to Saint Nicholas. He promised never to hit her again. After this Alixa recovered. The husband’s right to chastise his wife even by force was widely acknowledged both in clerical as well as in secular literature. In some degree it was assumed to be a normal feature in marriage. A wife’s duty was to be submissive and a husband’s obligation was to discipline his wife.146 It is impossible to estimate how common marital violence was. However, some couples actually separated — sometimes due to the brutality of the husband. The community also had its limits of toleration since excessive marital discord and wife beating disturbed the peace in the community.147 The examples of marital violence are fairly rare in these canonization records.148 But another miracula in vita performed by Saint Nicholas also reveals marital discord. According to the testimony of Iohanna Angelucii Pauli of Tolentino, her husband treated her badly. She does not explain the situation in detail; she only mentions her great anxiety and tribulations since her husband did not treat her the way he should have. Iohanna knew Nicholas during his lifetime and made her

146

See Shulamith Shahar, The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages (1983; repr. London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 89–90, where the author quotes several medieval law codes which ensure a husband’s right to discipline his wife, and Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, pp. 206–14, where the author gives several examples of marital strife in court cases of late medieval England. Yet the author also warns that these cases tend to stand out while the majority of cases revealing peaceful relationships are easily ignored. 147

Linda Guzzetti, ‘Separations and Separated Couples in Fourteenth-Century Venice’, in Marriage in Italy, 1300–1600, ed. by Trevor Dean and K. J. P. Lowe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 249–74, and Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, pp. 205–09. 148

The husband was disrespectful and treated his wife badly (‘indignatus fuisset contra ipsam et ipsam male tractaret’) because of the missing money in a case in the canonization records of Charles of Blois. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4025, fol. 138r. In the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe there are no examples of marital strife. Yet the absence may not automatically testify to a more harmonious relationship between the spouses but about more strict modes of selecting the miracles for the process. Curing marital discord may not necessarily have been miracles of great renown. Moreover, it would have been hard if not impossible to determine the point at which changing one’s behaviour should be defined as miraculous. Thus the cases to be found in Nicholas’s record testify for their part about the more liberal modes of selecting the cases for the hearing.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

111

confession of sins several times to him. She did not, however, make any complaints about her husband to Nicholas. Yet Nicholas knew the situation and admonished him. After this there was no strife between the couple.149 In the relatio this incident was defined as an example of the prophetic ability of Nicholas.150 Nevertheless, it may also be seen as a testimony of how the rumours of marital discord spread in the community. However, both these miracles have only one witness. Alixa does not mention the incident. It remains unknown whether she was aware of the miraculous side of the incident or the promise her husband gave. Ranalducius said that the episode happened in his house but he cannot remember who was present — implying that there may have been eyewitnesses. The husband’s right to correct his wife was recognized, so there was no special need to try to hide it. Ranalducius’s actions were not forbidden but in accordance with the public opinion. Yet there were limits to correcting one’s wife. Since Ranalducius was afraid Alixa would die of the beating, he had probably gone beyond the boundaries of customary behaviour and exceeded the rights of the head of the household. The social sphere of this miracle remains obscure. There is no mention of the children of the couple. Yet it was probable that there were some since Alixa and Ranalducius had been married for a long time. At the time of the grain miracle the younger sister of Ranalducius lived with the couple. She was, according to Alixa, so little that she could not open the chest by herself. However, since the assault happened presumably eighteen years after the first miracle, she had most likely already married and moved out of the house. In her deposition on the multiplication of the grain Alixa stated that the front door was not locked; the neighbours could enter the house. In the canonization records can be found other examples of neighbours entering the house freely, for instance after having heard cries or lamentations.151

149

Nicholas, testis CCXXXIII, pp. 510–11. Iohanna is the only one testifying to the incident. Iannis and Annucia also testify that when Iannis was ‘mente captus et furiosus’ he was strangling his wife and tried to kill her. He was cured after the invocation by Annucia. Nicholas, testis LXII, p. 195, and testis LXIII, p. 196. This is the only case where both of the participants testify. 150 151

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4027, fol. 15r: ‘de spiritu prophecie ipsius nicholai’.

For example ‘audito multo tumultu et lamentatione ingressa sunt domum dicti Radulfi’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 54v ); ‘vicini ad rumorem occurrerunt’ (Nicholas, testis XCIX, p. 284); ‘ad cuius clamorem venerunt plures vicinii propinqui’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4025, fol. 84r). It should be noted, however, that these examples are all from the urban environment. In the rural cases the crowd of spectators was usually called to scene of the accident by the hue and cry. This was usually a public place, not within the private domains of home.

112

Chapter 2

This limited the privacy of domestic settings; the social sphere within the walls of home was often comprised by persons other than family members. The examples of Ranalducius and Alixa reveal the different surroundings and levels of privacy. The situations might vary greatly even within the same household. However, on different levels of privacy there were some general categorizations that were valid in the majority of the households. For example, the birth chamber was considered to be more private than the rest of the house. It was an exclusive area where not all the members of the family could enter. Usually female family members, neighbours, and friends gathered there. The notion of privacy — in the sense of secret activity, or activity known by few — was not reserved only for the family. Men, even family members, could not usually enter the birth chamber.152 According to a generally held view, labour was not a fit object for men’s gaze. Delivery was a women’s ritual; it took place in closed feminine space. The midwife and other women, friends and kin, assisted the mother.153 When divine aid was needed the matrons assisting at the birth often invoked a saint.154 Moreover, they were also permitted to baptize the child in case of necessity.155

152

However, some households were so poor that they only had one room, thus specific exclusively feminine space could not be created for the mother in labour. This may have been the case in the birth of the child of Bertrandus Massolhi and his wife Bertranda. The father was present when Bertranda gave birth to a still-born son. Bertranda’s labour was prolonged and perhaps this was the reason for his presence. The father did not intend to be present and assist since he immediately shouted for the matrons who were outside the room. Louis, cap. XXXIIII–XXXVII, pp. 122–26. 153

Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, p. 216; Hanawalt, Growing up in Medieval London, p. 42; and Gail McMurray Gibson, ‘Scene and Obscene: Seeing and Performing Late Medieval Childbirth’, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 29 (winter 1999), 7–24. 154

Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, p. 309. See for example Nicholas, testis CXI, p. 306. However, the mother in labour might also be active herself, like Iohanna Simonis and Iohanna, the wife of Blaxius. Clare, testis LXXVI, pp. 358–59, and testis XCII, pp. 373–74. 155

The sacrament of baptism was valid even when performed by the laity. Usually the fathers were advised to do the baptizing, yet in dire necessity even women could perform it. Children who had died without baptism were in a state of original sin and could not be buried in consecrated ground. Infants who died without baptism were eternally banned from heaven. Their souls went into limbo. The idea limbus puerorum was emerging in the central Middle Ages. The infants would not suffer there but could not ever enter Paradise. Therefore the Church urged the infants to be baptized soon after birth especially if there was a risk of death. This also caused much anxiety for the parents. It was considered to be a true miracle if the child survived long enough to be baptized. Lett, L’enfant des miracles, pp. 205–18, and Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, pp. 172–73.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

113

Fathers were not totally absent from the birthing process. At least some of them were physically and emotionally involved even in the very first stages of childhood. Fathers were expected to be nearby but not to witness their children’s births. They were not only bystanders; fathers could participate on the ritual level. They could do symbolic acts like the openings of chests, doors, or windows which were expected to help the delivery. They could also perform other functions: they could petition for divine aid for the birth.156 The use of miracle accounts as a source for the birthing process has been criticized since they do not reveal the normal progress of labour. When the saint’s help was needed something had already gone wrong and the mother and child were in peril.157 On the other hand, there are no grounds to assume that the initiatory roles and the responsibilities would have been different in these moments of crises than in a more routine delivery. Moreover, resorting to saints’ help may have been a norm during labour. Relics, images, and invocations were a part of the birthing process. They were used to ease the mother’s pain, but especially in difficult situations.158 For example, one of the witnesses in the Cantilupe process mentions the

156

Louis Haas, The Renaissance Man and his Children: Childbirth and Early Childhood in Florence, 1300–1600 (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1998), pp. 40–41; Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, p. 33; and Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, p. 217. For example, according to the testimony of Thomas Bartholucii, he invoked Saint Nicholas for his newborn son. Yet the depositions do not agree on the petitioner. Witnesses to this miracle are magister Thomas Bartholucii (Nicholas, testis CCLXVII), Thomassucia (testis CCLXVIII), and Margarita de Salinguerre (testis CCLXIX). Robertus de Roklond was also present nearby since he saw his newborn son dead before the revival. The petitioner is not mentioned. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 245r. 157

Harris Fiona Stoerzt, ‘Suffering and Survival in Medieval English Childbirth’, in Medieval Family Roles: A Book of Essays, ed. by Cathy Jorgensen Itnyre, Garland Medieval Casebooks (New York: Garland, 1996), pp. 101–20. Assistance in childbirth was a common theme in the medieval miracle collections but not among the most popular. In the canonization processes the proportion of these miracles was 3.3 per cent in the later Middle Ages. Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, p. 547. The small number of the miracles of childbirth may be due to the fact that these miracles took place far away from the shrine. Women in labour could not be transferred to the church. The registrars may not have known about these incidents. See also Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 266. 158

Gentilcore, Healers and Healing, p. 191; see also Gail McMurray Gibson, ‘Saint Anne and the Religion of Childbed: Some East Anglian Texts and Talismans’, in Interpreting Cultural Symbols: Saint Anne in Late Medieval Society, ed. by Kathleen Ashley and Pamela Sheingorn (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1990), pp. 95–110, and Marianne Elsakkers, ‘In Pain You Shall Bear Children (Gen 3:16): Medieval Prayers for a Safe Delivery’, in Women and Miracle Stories: A Multidisciplinary Exploration, ed. by Anne-Marie Korte, Numen Book Series, 88 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 179–210.

114

Chapter 2

cloak of the former bishop, which women in Hereford used to wear during labour. With the help of the cloak they delivered easily.159 Despite the restricted access to the birth chamber the privacy of the space as well as the whole birthing process can be questioned: a lot of non-family members might be witnessing the situation. Indeed, childbearing was a social act. In the close quarters of late medieval cities all privacy was relative. The shouts and cries of the mother in labour were certainly heard in the neighbourhood. Some level of publicity was even needed in the birthing process: the female assistants seeing and others hearing the labour ensured that the offspring was genuine.160 Moreover, the performance within the birth chamber could become common knowledge if we are to believe Flordalisia. She delivered safely after eight days of labour when Nicholas blessed her and prayed God to help her.161 The commissioners wanted to know if there was a common renown that God had performed this miracle due to the merits of Saint Nicholas. Flordalisia replied yes, explaining that public opinion and fame was something that was commonly told by people.162 Thus the activities within this enclosed space could become well known in the wider community. Nurturing Authority — the Petitioner and the Beneficiary Devotional activity in a public realm was often connected with a sudden accident. Naturally accidents also took place within domestic settings, yet the majority of the 159

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 88v . Thomas Cantilupe and Nicholas of Tolentino were chaste men, thus not the most obvious choice for patronage during childbirth since their lives did not support expertise of this kind. Yet assistance in childbirth can be found in both of the processes. The patron saint of childbirth was Margaret. She was a virgin, another unlikely choice to comfort women in labour. It is assumed that due to the affliction and pain she suffered during her lifetime she heard especially the prayers of women in labour. In her legend there is, however, another suggestion for her expertise: she was swallowed by a dragon but emerged safely. Identification with this saint helped to concentrate the attention of the woman in labour on her own body. The legend of Saint Margaret was read to women or the book was used as a relic and put on the stomach. Elizabeth Robertson, ‘The Corporeality of Female Sanctity in the Life of Saint Margaret’, in Images of Sainthood in Medieval Europe, ed. by Blumenfeld-Kosinski and Szell, pp. 268–87. 160

Lett, L’enfant des miracles, p. 257.

161

Nicholas, testis CCXLVI, p. 524. Flordalisia is the only one testifying to this miracle. The three women attending at the birth chamber were all dead at the time of the hearing. 162

Nicholas, testis CCXLVI, p. 524: ‘Interrogata si de dicto miraculo est publica vox et fama et quod Deus meritis et precibus dicti fratris Nicolay liberaverit ipsam de dicto partu, dixit quod sic. Interrogata quid est publica vox et fama, dixit quod communiter dicitur.’

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

115

miracles of the private sphere were recoveries from different illnesses. Marital relations were in the focus of some cases, yet the majority of these miracles concentrate on the welfare of the children, thus revealing the dynamics of parental roles and domestic authority. Miracles were dramatic moments in the life of a family and could challenge the customary modes of behaviour as well as social roles.163 However, most likely the accustomed modes of behaviour can also be seen in these situations. The miracles, especially recoveries from various illnesses, took place among the daily routines. Moreover, the norms and expectations of the family and wider community guided the performance even in these extraordinary situations. The norms and expectations were gender based, and in Nicholas’s process a clear difference in the modes of invocation between men and women can be found.164 Men invoked Saint Nicholas most often for themselves and sometimes for their closest family members: especially for their sons, sometimes also for their daughters and wives. Men’s invocations outside the nuclear family were very rare.165 For women it was quite common to invoke Saint Nicholas for other relatives. Women also invoked the saint most often for their own recovery. Yet, they were also keen to petition the heavenly help for their sons, daughters, husbands, grandchildren, sisters, nephews, and mothers, thus occupying an active position in the caregiving sphere.166 This distinction reveals the gender roles in the family: women

163

See Lett, L’enfant des miracles, pp. 139–43.

164

The individual examples for both women and men are too numerous to be given here. In all, the mothers invoked Saint Nicholas for their daughters altogether twenty-three times and for their sons fifty-two times. The corresponding numbers for fathers are five and seventeen. These cases are counted according to each witness’s testimony, thus some cases are counted twice. Exact numbers of the vows are hard to express quantitatively since there were miracles with many petitioners, miracles where the testimonies differ from each other, and miracles where the person invoking is not mentioned. At best these calculations are indicative. That parents were more active in invoking saints for their sons than for their daughters is also stressed by Lett, L’enfant des miracles, pp. 165–67, and Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, p. 96. A larger proportion of boys as beneficiaries is also found in the miracles performed by John Capistran. Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, p. 256. 165

Munaldus Aldrude is the only grandfather involved in an invocation of Saint Nicholas for his grandchildren. Nicholas, testis CCCXI, p. 602. 166

On women’s invocation when the patient or the victim was not the petitioner’s child, see Nicholas, testis XXXVI, p. 164; testis XXXVIII, p. 166; testis XCI, pp. 266–69; testis CXCVI, p. 440; and testis CCXIX, pp. 474–76. On extra-kin invocations, see ibid., testis XLVI, p. 180; testis CX, pp. 304–05; testis CXI, p. 306; testis CLX, pp. 384–85; and testis CCCI, p. 594.

116

Chapter 2

were the ones to take care of the children and the sick. Women took care of and supervised them. In such situations women turned to the heavenly intercessor, especially if there was a sudden turn for worse in the illness.167 This image seems to confirm the traditional picture of loving mother nurturing her offspring.168 However, the picture is more complex: the caregiver was not always the mother, even though it seems to have been women’s responsibility.169 In many parts of Europe paternal activity is also stressed, for fathers took an active part in the miraculous cures of their children. In the canonization process of Nicholas of Tolentino the situation seems to differ from this: the presence of the fathers was not notable and the mothers supervised the sick. The reason evinced for this is the Mediterranean role of fathers, which differed from that of central and northern Europe.170 In the Cantilupe process the nurturing responsibility appears to be different. There are few miracles of the recoveries of children. The violent deaths in the public sphere stand out in the records. In such crises fathers’ activity was stressed, as noted. In the cases of illness both parents might take the initiative — the caregiving was not only women’s area of responsibility. For example, when Johannes, the newborn son of Hugo le Chandeler and Agnes, had an eye disease, both of the parents were involved and took responsibility for invoking Saint Thomas. At the time of the miracle the mother of Hugo was taking care of the newborn child and his mother. The grandmother urged the father to invoke Saint Thomas. The father and grandmother knelt and invoked Saint Thomas with tears while the mother, who was still lying-in, made similar appeals. The father did the actual rites: bent a coin and measured Johannes. Thus in this case the father was also the most active participant who took responsibility for the proper rites. However, women were also involved. The nurturing authority of the grandmother is emphasized: she took care of the infant and took the

167

For example ‘ita quod medici [. . .] pro mortuo ipsum habebant, et ipsa testis, hoc audiens et times mortem dicti eius nepotis vovit eundem nepotem suum Ciccolum Deo et beato Nicolao [. . .] stabat sola in camera sua ad custodiendum dictum eius nepotem’ (Nicholas, testis XLI, p. 173). 168

On the traditional picture of medieval mothers as well as contrasting views, see Clarissa W. Atkinson, The Oldest Vocation: Christian Motherhood in the Middle Ages (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991); Medieval Mothering, ed. by John Carmi Parson and Bonnie Wheeler, New Middle Ages (New York: Garland, 1996); and Medieval Family Roles, ed. by Itnyre. 169

On women’s predominance as caregivers in children’s illnesses especially in the early stages of life, see Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, p. 85. 170

Lett, L’enfant des miracles, p. 141, and Krötzl, ‘Parent Child Relation’, p. 36.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

117

initiative to turn to a heavenly intercessor when it seemed necessary. Next morning they found Johannes cured.171 However, the gender of the child and the caregiving role may have been interconnected: fathers could have been more concerned about the welfare of their male descendants.172 Yet, in the Cantilupe process there are also examples of paternal nurturing of their daughters. This is clearly seen in the case of Alicia de Lonesdale. At the age of five Alicia was injured so badly that she could not walk for ten years. Her father carried her on his back, sought for remedies, invoked saints, and finally took her in a cart from London to Hereford, where she was cured. Possibly the attendance of the father was so marked since the mother of Alicia was dead.173 In clerical teachings fathers were the ones to rule, guide, and discipline other members of the household. Their power was considered unlimited within the walls of the home. The relationship between the spouses was to be based on mutual friendship and affection. Yet its basic nature was unequal: the husband was the head of the household and the wife’s duty was to be submissive.174 However, women’s authority in domestic affairs was also occasionally seen in a positive light. Propertied women were especially seen as capable or even obliged to enhance the moral well-being of others. It was their duty to govern the household.175

171

The depositions to this miracle are in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 71v –73v . This case is not very typical since the grandmother played a crucial role in the recovery. The presence of the grandparents is not noted in the miracles performed by Saint Thomas. They were not the ones to invoke the saint. They are not commonly mentioned in the depositions, either. 172

Barbara Hanawalt came to this conclusion after analysing English coroners’ rolls of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The father was more often the first finder after the accident when the victim was his son than his daughter. Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, p. 184. 173

The depositions to this miracle are in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 64v –71v . Paternal caregiving is also emphasized in the case of Rogerus. The mother stayed in the church at the vigil while the father went twice to look for their missing son. The depositions to this miracle are in ibid., fols 188r–203v. 174

The Church insisted on men’s supremacy in domestic matters. Vecchio, ‘Good Wife’, pp. 110–21. See also Farmer, Surviving Poverty, pp. 105–06. On the clerical rhetoric of man as head of woman, see Alcuin Blamires, ‘Paradox in the Medieval Gender Doctrine of Head and Body’, in Medieval Theology and the Natural Body, ed. by Peter Biller and A. J. Minnis, York Studies in Medieval Theology (Bury St Edmunds: York Medieval Press, 1997), pp. 13–29. 175

Farmer, Surviving Poverty, pp. 108–13. A matron’s principal duties also included the guarding of the chastity of her servants. Women of good social standing were not so often associated with illicit sexuality and the body, like the less propertied men and women.

118

Chapter 2

The lived experiences of late medieval men and women both agreed and disagreed with these models. For example, many modern scholars studying peasant families in late medieval England stress companionship in marriage. The husband was the uncontested head of the household in a judicial and usually also in a social sense. Yet the collaboration of spouses is emphasized, since the union was guided by mutual interest.176 This image seems to concur with the miracles of the Cantilupe process: the parental collaboration was evident while the father often took the initiative in the interaction with the divine.177 However, the nature of the miracles, public accidents, may have affected the way the gender roles appear in these miracles. If more recoveries within the domestic sphere had been examined the gendered caregiving role may have turned out to be different.178 The prevalence of boys as beneficiaries may have also stressed the paternal nurturing role in these cases. The gender roles as well as the nurturing responsibility are generally deemed to be different in the late medieval Italian context. Women in Italy were generally married young, and they were often considered to serve as intermediaries between their older spouses and their children as well as between different lineages; between their natal and marital families. This is considered to emphasize the acknowledged position of women within the private sphere.179 However, occasionally women’s 176

See, for example, Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, pp. 205–91, and Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside, pp. 100–41. Similarly Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 164–65, emphasizes the role of the nuclear family, mothers and fathers, in children’s miracles of central and northern Europe, stressing the prevalence of the conjugal family. 177

Parental collaboration is further stressed in collective pilgrimages after the miracle. On parental roles in these processess, see also Sari Katajala-Peltomaa, ‘Parental Roles in the Canonization Processes of Saint Nicolas of Tolentino and Saint Thomas Cantilupe’, in Hoping for Continuity: Childhood, Education and Death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, ed. by Katariina Mustakallio, Jussi Hanska, Hanna-Leena Sainio, and Ville Vuolanto, Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae, 33 (Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2005), pp. 145–55. 178

For example, in the revival of Gilbertus which took place in domestic, and moreover in urban, settings, the scene of the miracle was dominated by women. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 51v –55r. 179

David Herlihy, Medieval Households (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), p. 121, sees the maternal role as an intermediary in a rather idyllic light and stresses the more intense emotional commitment of mothers to their children’s welfare. On women as healers, see David Herlihy, The Black Death and the Transformation of the West, European History Series (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 80. Stanley Chojnacki, ‘“The Most Serious Duty”: Motherhood, Gender, and Patrician Culture in Renaissance Venice’, in Refiguring Woman: Perspectives on Gender and the Italian Renaissance, ed. by Marilyn Migiel and Juliana Schiesari (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), pp. 133–54, emphasizes the acknowledged position the

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

119

position between different lineages is interpreted completely differently: as an expression of gender inequality and women’s subordinate position.180 The evident nurturing role of women in Nicholas’s records could naturally stress their subservient role in relation to the patient, especially the wife’s position in relation to her husband if she ‘stayed all the time with her husband while he was ill serving all his needs’, as one wife declared her actions.181 However, quite often the situation was the opposite. The nurturing responsibilities gave women authority in domestic affairs. They enjoyed independence and took the initiative in this field. The nurturer could decide the mode of remedy she was going to seek for the patient: earthly doctor, heavenly intercessor, or magical incantations, for example. Medical pluralism was a common feature. Different levels of practice and types of healing, learned, magical, and religious, were not mutually exclusive. In practice most sick people called on the powers both of saints and of trained physicians. The different modes of healing were not divided according to the gender or the status

mothers held in caregiving and in raising the children as well as their intermediary role between different lineages. Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, p. 256, explains the greater activity of mothers in searching for divine help by the stronger devotion of mothers — to the saints in general and to their children. 180

This aspect in gender relations is stressed by Klapisch-Zuber, La maison et le nom, esp. pp. 249–61. An expression of gender inequality was the widows’ vulnerability: women claiming their dowry after the death of their husbands were seen as greedy and avaricious. Moreover, children belonged to the lineage of their fathers, and women were forced to leave their children to the care of their former husbands’ relatives in cases of remarriage. For opposite examples, see Chojnacki, ‘“The Most Serious Duty”’. Another point of controversy is the inflation in the value of the dowry. Klapisch-Zuber, La maison et le nom, pp. 185–213 and 249–61, deems it as a reflection of women’s weak position since it emphasized the marriage as an exchange between men of different lineages, while Stanley Chojnacki, ‘Daughters and Oligarchs: Gender and the Early Renaissance State’, in Gender and Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. by Brown and Davis, pp. 63–86, also emphasizes other interpretations: concurrently it increased the wealth of women since the dowries were their personal property after the death of the husband. It also weakened the position of sons since families were required to pay huge dowries for their daughters and be prepared to pay back the dowries of their daughters-in-law in the event of the death of a married son. However, undoubtedly geographical differences and not only scholars’ reading of the sources had also affected their interpretations. Christiane Klapish-Zuber studied Florence and Stanley Chojnacki Venice. On local differences in the economic status of women in Renaissance Italy, see Samuel K. Cohn Jr, ‘Women and Work in Renaissance Italy’, in Gender and Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. by Brown and Davis, pp. 107–26. 181

Nicholas, testis CCXIX, p. 476: ‘quod ipsa semper stetit cum predicto suo viro quandiu fuit infirmus ad serviendum ei in omnibus necessitatibus suis’.

120

Chapter 2

of the patient. Popular, ecclesiastical, and medical modes of healing were partly limited and occasionally hardly distinguishable from each other. The sick could try all the available remedies. For some patients the intercession of a saint was the first way to seek a cure; for others it was the last resort.182 Sometimes parents could do little for their ailing children but pray for them. This was not only an act of despair, since invocations were thought to be efficacious in the cure of diseases. The invocation and vow constituted a close relationship between the petitioner and the saint. The miracle also bound the petitioner to the cult since it required a counter-gift and veneration of the saint. The offering, as well as the vow, had economic and social motivation as well as consequence. Therefore the devotional act of invoking a saint was not a marginal or inconsequential part of life but most likely a considered approach to difficulties. Moreover, the symbolic activity was significant in itself. The instrumental efficacy, the cure, was not the only important thing in these rituals. The invocation itself, the experience, impression, and statement, was substantial. Taking the initiative and invoking the saint was significant in fulfilling the nurturing role, being active, and creating a sense of controlling the event.183 The alternatives in the search for a cure emphasize the authority of the caregiver. The individual initiative and responsibility of the mother are stressed on many occasions in Nicholas’s records. Mothers often made crucial decisions about the welfare of their offspring. For example, when Bartholonucia suffered from

182 Katherine Park, ‘Medicine and Magic: The Healing Arts’, in Gender and Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. by Brown and Davis, pp. 129–49 (p. 130), and Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 68–69. Burke, Historical Anthropology of Early Modern Italy, p. 213, goes even further, arguing that the distinction between rational and irrational, natural and supernatural, religious and superstitious was in formation and cannot be applied to the years before 1650. The intermingling of different modes of healing can be seen especially clearly in the case of Dunzella, who suffered from haemoptysis. Since the doctors or incantations could not help her she visited Saint Nicholas in his cell. She was cured after his benediction and a sign of the cross. Nicholas, testis LXXX, p. 221: ‘non poterat liberari adiutorio medicorum nec per aliquas incantationes’. Usually religious remedy did not compete with professional medicine; it was more likely its complement. However, occasionally witnesses stated that they were so devoted to Saint Nicholas that they refused other modes of treatment. For example, ‘Item dixit quod propter devotionem quam habuit ipsa domina [. . .] semper cum fuit passa aliquam infirmitatem recurrit ad dictum beatum Nicholaum et non vult alium medicum’ (Nicholas, testis LXXXIV, p. 241). 183

Douglas, Purity and Danger, p. 68, stresses the importance of the rituals regardless of their instrumental efficacy. The efficiency — re-creating order — was achieved in the action itself.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

121

spasms the doctor taking care of her suggested a surgical operation.184 Her mother, domina Imilla, agreed. However, while the doctor was preparing the knife the mother started to hesitate. Instead of resorting to the doctor’s advice she decided to invoke Saint Nicholas.185 This was probably due to the dangers of the operation. Indeed, even if the surgery was successful an ugly scar would remain — an important detail considering the girl’s future. The motives for resorting to the saint’s help in the cure were not always religious or devotional. Reason for refusing a surgical operation could have been the fear of pain, the danger of the operation, or the fact that a girl with a scar would have been impossible to marry off. All these reasons — in addition to devotion — were mentioned in the depositions.186 After the vow Bartholonucia was cured immediately. The father was not present at the scene of the miracle, but in his deposition he confirmed the dominant role of the mother.187 In some cases the caregiving role of women challenged masculine authority. For example, Manfredus, at the age of two, fell into boiling water and was badly injured. His right arm was paralysed. Boniacobus, the father, was also a doctor and tried to cure his son, but his efforts were in vain. He could not help Manfredus, and the illness lasted for a year. At this point the mother, Angelucia, took the initiative and invoked Saint Nicholas. After this Manfredus was cured within a month. Angelucia was certain that God cured her son due to the merits of Saint

184

The word doctor is used here as a translation for medicus. In practice medicus referred to officially recognized healers, including physicians, surgeons, and empiricists. Yet the physicians with a university degree were the only qualified doctors. Park, ‘Medicine and Magic’. The term surgeon (sirurgitus) is also used in the records. See BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 27r and fol. 66v. 185 The witnesses to this miracle are the parents of Bartholonucia: Manfredinus (Nicholas, testis LXXXI) and Imilla (testis C). 186

As examples of the shame of a deformed child: ‘Quod medici volunt incidere in guttore filiam mean Ceccham: remanebit ibi cicatrix ita quod erit vituperata’ (Nicholas, testis XVI, p. 126); ‘Nos sumus victuperati de ista filia nostra et potius vellem quod mortua esset quam viva’ (Clare, testis CLVI, p. 431); of the fear of pain and danger: ‘ita quod dictus filius eius non incideretur cum ferro, quia non posset pati hoc’ (Nicholas, testis LXXXIV, p. 238). For an explicit example of parental fear for a daughter’s position in the marriage market, see Clare, testis CXCIC, p. 480. 187

The active role of the mother in a similar situation is also stressed in the miraculous cure of Ceccha, daughter of Margarita and Berardus Appillaterre. The mother had called the doctors to see her daughter and they wanted to cut her with the knife. The mother hesitated and took her daughter to Saint Nicholas instead, and afterwards she was cured. The father did not see Ceccha ill or take part in making the decision. In all the details he referred to the words of his wife. Nicholas, testis XVI, p. 127.

122

Chapter 2

Nicholas.188 It remains unknown, however, whether her husband acknowledged the divine intervention and her dominant role in the recovery. Angelucia is the only one to testify to the miracle. However, presumably a doctor’s advice was not seen as rivalling divine healing. More likely they were considered to be mutually complementary, not contestants. Even doctors themselves might resort to divine help when their skills were not enough to cure the patient. Dominus Amadasius, medicus, stated that when he and three other doctors were taking care of a nobleman named Buctius of Sancto Maroto they were desperate since no medical help could cure him. Amadasius invoked Saint Nicholas for help. Buctius was cured, and Amadasius was certain it was due to the divine intervention and not to the medical treatment.189 The doctor’s help was not seen to lessen the value of the intervention of Nicholas. Indeed, sometimes the doctor’s unsuccessful attempts may have only served to accentuate the curative powers of Nicholas. The earthly doctors’ ineffective efforts and the hopeless situation may have stressed the saint’s ability to heal.190 It is impossible to know how many of the beneficiaries had sought a doctor’s help. Some of the witnesses mention that they were not cured by the doctors thus they invoked the help of Saint Nicholas.191 The witnesses do not very often mention any other medicaments. However, when the illness had lasted several years it is possible or even probable that the patients had had medical advice. Medical care was more readily available to the people of southern Europe, especially those living in an urban centre. This is also seen in the miracles experienced by children: the doctor’s care was sought for children twice as often in the southern parts of Europe as in the north.192 Mentions of doctor’s care are rare among the witnesses in the Cantilupe process.193 Yet the commissioners seem to have been rather interested in this kind of activity. The witnesses were routinely questioned about the medical help the 188

Nicholas, testis CCXCIV, pp. 585–86.

189

Nicholas, testis CCLXXXIV, p. 579: ‘et potius divino miraculo quam humano, ut ipse certus est, secundum eius conscientiam, liberatus fuit de dicta infirmitate’. 190

See also Gentilcore, Healers and Healing, p. 182.

191

For example, Sanus Scambii — after the doctor had failed — promised to offer Saint Nicholas the same amount of money as the doctor would have required if he had cured him. Nicholas, testis CCCV, p. 597. 192 193

Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 95–96.

The doctor’s care is mentioned, for example, in the miraculous cures of Hugo le Barber (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 27 r–28r) and Alicia de Lonesdale (ibid., fol. 66 v).

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

123

patient had received.194 The concern for illicit means of remedy was also obvious, especially for the possible use of magic in the cure. The witnesses were asked whether magical incantations, stones, or herbs were used in the course of the healing.195 The commissioners scrutinizing the sanctity of Nicholas were not apparently concerned about the superstitious remedies; no such questions were written down in the records. As noted, gender or status did not dictate the mode of remedy the patient sought. However, the economic situation may have prevented the poorest members of the community from seeking a doctor’s aid. Yet it was possible for everyone to appeal to a heavenly intercessor. The prayers and promises given secretly in a private space were considered an efficient and proper way to appeal to the saint. It remains unclear whether the higher activity of mothers in searching for heavenly help for their offspring can be interpreted as greater devotional attachment of mothers to their children. Even though mothers’ emotional involvement is clear, these cases may more profoundly testify to the gendering of the caregiving role. The fathers’ concern for their children’s welfare may have been manifested differently. The nurturing role appears to be a feminine duty in Nicholas’s process. Moreover, these cases seem to confirm the acknowledged position of women within the domestic sphere in raising and taking care of their children. Authority or a decisive role within the domestic realm was not a prerequisite for devotional activity. Yet often the initiative role in the invocation reflects the position, possibilities, and responsibilities within the family on a wider scale, too. The activity of women in Nicholas’s process reflects the combining of nurturing and devotional roles. Women set the tone of domestic culture and took leading roles in private devotions. Moreover, they had prestige in educating their children in devotional and religious matters. Although these activities were firmly 194

For example, ‘Subiciens interrogatus quod medicinalia vel res naturales non profuerant dicto hugo ad recuperationem visus sui predicti’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 30r). 195

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 4v : ‘Item quinto si in operacione dictorum miraculorum fuerunt apposite herbe vel lapides vel alique alie res naturales vel medicinales et si incantationes vel superstitiones vel fraudes alique intervenerunt in operacione ipsorum miraculorum.’ Direct questions about sorcery or demonic help were also posed; see ibid., fol. 191r. The commissioners also wanted to know whether the illnesses were attributable to the acts of malign people or sorceresses. Ibid., fol. 177v: ‘Item requisita si in dicta parochia vel circumviciniis sunt alique persone sortiscirie vel malifice aut sortilege ea quarum maleficiis credat dictas egritudines Juliane et Margerie processisse.’ The witnesses did not see such actions or persons to be behind the illness or the cure. From the clerical point of view it was considered to be superstitious to put a magical stone on the infected part, but to put a relic on it was an act of piety. Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 63.

124

Chapter 2

established in the domestic sphere, they sometimes opened access to a wider world for women.196 This can also be seen in Nicholas’s process: knowledge of the veneration of the saint and the devotional practices performed in the private sphere within domestic responsibilities often spread to the community, to the public sphere — and occasionally acquired women the status of known devotee. Private Invocation — Public Renown For a miracle to be written down in the canonization process the intimacy or the privacy of the event had to be broken at some point. If the miracle did not gain renown it is difficult if not impossible for posterity to find out about it. The canonization processes contain basically miracles which were already well known in their community. Some of them were also registered at the shrine. However, if the saint was invoked at a distance from the sacred place and the vow did not include an oblation to the shrine, the officials at the shrine did not become aware of the incident. Hence the miracle was not registered. Nevertheless, the invocations and miracles which took place in private domains of home could gain fame in the community. The invocation was often revealed to the neighbours after it had worked — after the miraculous cure. If the neighbours knew about the accident or illness, this did not usually raise suspicions or at least they are not mentioned in the depositions. The miracles with only one witness do not seem to cause problems of verification in the process of Nicholas. In the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe there are several depositions for each miracle and eminence was given to eyewitnesses.197 The fame of the miracle or the petitioner did not need public activity to spread. A good example of this is Margarita, the wife of Berardus Appillaterre.198 Both

196

On combining of nurturing and devotional roles, see Élisabeth Antoine, ‘L’Image d’un Saint Thaumaturge: les ex-voto de Saint-Nicholas de Tolentino (XV e–milieu XVIe siècle)’, Revue Mabillon, n.s., 7 (1996), 183–208 (p. 185). On women educating their children in the field of religion, see Herlihy, Women, Family and Society, p. 17, and also Daniel Bornstein, ‘Spiritual Kinship and Domestic Devotions’, in Gender and Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. by Brown and Davis, pp. 173–92. 197

However, in the accident of Galfridus there were only two eyewitnesses, the parents, yet the miracle became well known in the parish. The miracle was publicized in the parish church and later in Hereford cathedral. Depositions to this miracle are in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 165v–169v. 198

Berardus was a notary in Tolentino. He had been an official in many other Italian cities as well. The witnesses testifying to the miracles of the Appillaterre family are Berardus (Nicholas, testis

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

125

Margarita and Berardus knew Nicholas during his lifetime and they had had many conversations with him. Berardus had experienced a miracula in vita performed by Saint Nicholas: he cured the fever of Berardus by putting his hands above his forehead. Yet in cases concerning the welfare of their children Margarita was always the one to take the initiative. She sought Nicholas’s help many times during his lifetime and also after his death. The miracles experienced by the Appillaterre family stress the connection between Margarita and Nicholas. Two miracles involve the prophetic ability of Nicholas. In cases of a stillborn child and an ailing daughter Nicholas knew the difficulties of Margarita without anyone telling him and he solved these problems. It should be noted, however, that in these miracles the only one to know was Margarita. Nicholas also forbade her to tell anyone about these incidents. According to her husband, she revealed the details only after the death of Nicholas. Margarita does not testify herself since she was dead at the time of the hearing.199 Petitioners seeking for help came to Nicholas when he was still alive. This does not exclude the possibility that Margarita, or at the time of the hearing her husband, was exaggerating her role. Yet other evidence also supports the close connection between Margarita and Nicholas. Domina Margarita regularly sent food to Nicholas when he was ill. According to Berardescha, the daughter of Margarita and Berardus, Nicholas spent much time in their house. Once he saved the life of another son of Margarita and Berardus by suggesting a vow to Saint Anthony.200 When invoking Saint Nicholas after his death Margarita especially pleaded for the love she had for him during his lifetime.201 XVI) and the daughters of Margarita and Berardus: Berardescha (testis LXXXIV) and Ceccha (testis LXXXV). 199

In the case of a stillborn child the matrons assisting in the delivery were not sure whether the child was alive or not. They baptized him but later he appeared dead. Next morning Nicholas came to see Margarita and encouraged her to bury the child in the church and not in the garden of their house. Then Margarita told Nicholas the vision she had had the previous night: she had seen her newborn child in the hands of Saint Nicholas and demons trying to catch the child in vain. In the other case Ceccha’s throat was seriously infected. Nicholas knew this without seeing her or hearing this from anyone. Nicholas suggested a vow to Saint Blaxius. Margarita made the vow and Ceccha was cured. Nicholas, testis XVI, pp. 126–28. Saint Blaxius was a saint especially known to cure throat aches. His cult was popular in the area. Edith Pasztor, ‘Pietá e devozione popolare nel processo di s. Nicola da Tolentino’, in San Nicola, Tolentino, le Marche, pp. 219–41 (pp. 231–32). 200 201

Nicholas, testis LXXXIV, pp. 239–40.

Nicholas, testis XVI, p. 125: ‘dicta domina Margarita uxor ipsius testis vovit eum dicto beato Nicolao quod liberaret eum amore servitiorum impensorum sibi per eam tempore vite sue et amore quem habuit erga eum’.

126

Chapter 2

The devotion to the saint culminated in the death of Saint Nicholas. Domina Margarita washed the feet and hands of the corpse and preserved the water.202 Apparently the death of Nicholas did not raise a religious fervour in the community despite the reputation of sanctity he already had during his lifetime. Otherwise the laity would not have been permitted to touch the corpse for fear of dismemberment to acquire relics.203 However, the fact that Margarita as a laywoman was allowed to enter the cell of a dead friar and wash the corpse testifies to her elevated social position in the community as well as to the acknowledged close relationship between her and the saint.204 Afterwards Margarita used the water to cure the illnesses of family members and friends. Her husband and their daughters imply that the water was also frequently used for non-family members. They can mention only one name, though. Flordalixa, the wife of Franciscus, was healed by the relic water. She was cured from stomachache by putting the water on her stomach.205 The clothes of Saint Nicholas as well as of Saint Thomas were also used as relics immediately after their deaths.206 The relics are mentioned rarely in the depositions thus no firm conclusions of their gendered use can be drawn. Yet the rare remarks imply that these secondary

202

On similar practice in the case of Saint John Capistran, see Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, p. 67. The water which had been used for washing the saint’s corpse was a popular healing substance all around Europe. See Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, pp. 223–24, and Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 90; on the practice of washing the relics to produce more miracle-working items in late antiquity, see Herrmann-Mascard, Les reliques des saints, p. 48. 203

On this practice at the death of a saint, see Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 503–04. On thefts and rivalry over relics in general, see Geary, Furta Sacra. 204 Obviously the friars acknowledged the propaganda value of this kind of relic, and Margarita’s activities may have been approved for this reason. The friars were promoting the cult of Saint Nicholas after his death by preaching of his miracles. See for example Nicholas, testis CCLXXX, p. 576. 205 206

Nicholas, testis XVI, p. 129. Flordalixa does not testify herself.

Thomas Cantilupe’s clothes were used for women in delivery. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 88r–v. The use of Nicholas’s cloths as relics took place immediately after his death. Nicholas, testis CCLXXX, p. 576. The devotees could ‘make’ their own relics even after the death of the saint. For example, Angnes put a piece of bread on the tomb of Saint Clare and then gave it to her ailing daughter to eat. Clare, testis LXXIV, p. 357. The laity’s use of personal relics originated in late antiquity and was usually supported by the clergy, yet the clerical attitude became more unsympathetic towards the practice during the Middle Ages. Herrmann-Mascard, Les reliques des saints, pp. 313–28. However, in these cases the laity did not actually use official relics since Clare’s, Nicholas’s, and Thomas Cantilupe’s sanctity was not yet confirmed.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

127

private relics were used especially by women. This may be connected to the use of space: since women’s daily duties and responsibilities were connected to the private space, access to the vicinity of the primary relics, to the shrine, may have been more difficult for them than for men. Devotion played a major role in daily life. As noted, the physical outcome of a miracle, the petitioned cure and a saved child, was an important motivation for the miracle. Yet devotion to a particular saint may have been an important element in a family’s spiritual and emotional life as well. The whole family may have been devotees of Nicholas. Collective family devotion is stressed especially in the case of the Appillaterre family. The daughters of Margarita and Berardus had also experienced miracles performed by Saint Nicholas. The husband of Berardescha had also invoked Saint Nicholas in moments of despair.207 Philippe Jansen argues that the initiator for the family devotion was the paterfamilias, who had personally known Nicholas. In this case he argues that Berardus was the prime mover of the devotion of the Appillaterre family.208 Yet the depositions do not support this conclusion. Both Margarita and Berardus had known Nicholas during his lifetime and had had close contacts with him. Both of them were stated to be devotees of the saint. However, Berardus was the initiator only in his own miraculous recovery. In all the other miracles — performed during the lifetime or after the death of Nicholas — the initiator was Margarita. All the witnesses agree on her dominant role in petitioning for cures as well as in commemorating these events.209 Moreover, on some occasions the contact between Berardus and Nicholas was due to the urging of Margarita.210 The private activity of domina Margarita had gained her an acknowledged status as a known devotee of Saint Nicholas. However, the reason for this may not have been only her successful invocations but more likely her close connection with the saint.211 Members of her family often refer to domina Margarita as a source of knowledge concerning the life, merits, and miracles of Saint Nicholas. It is 207

Nicholas, testis LXXXIV–LXXXV, pp. 235–47.

208

Jansen, ‘La santitá nelle Marche’, pp. 68–69.

209

On the commemoration of miracles and especially on Margarita’s performance, see ‘Reminiscence and the Mode of Testifying’ in Chapter 4. 210

The friars informed Margarita of the diabolic attack which Nicholas had suffered. Margarita urged her husband to go to see Nicholas. Nicholas, testis XVI, p. 121: ‘Et tunc ipsa domina dixit ipsi Berardo et narravit omnia supradicta dicendo: Vade ad visitandum fratrem Nicolaum.’ 211

On interconnection of successful invocation and increased spiritual worth, see Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning’, pp. 449–54.

128

Chapter 2

noteworthy that non-family members also mention her as a source of knowledge. Dina Angeli stated that she had heard many times of the fama sanctitatis of Nicholas from Margarita, who was a devotee of his.212 Even more important is the testimony of Augustinus de Tholentino. He was an Augustinian friar and had known Nicholas personally. When questioned on the details of the life of Nicholas, he referred to Margarita as a source of knowledge. He also mentions other friars of the order and the friends of Nicholas as informants. Margarita, however, was the only one mentioned by name.213 Thus even though the performance of domina Margarita took place in private it was widely known and acknowledged. Activities and performances could also become public when shared by common conversation, narration, and memories. For example, the miraculous recovery of the paralysed Cisca was known especially in her neighbourhood even though the invocation and divine intervention took place in the private domain of home, in the secrecy of her bed.214 In the case of Cisca the miracle was probably easily accepted due to her miserable condition. The case of Cisca also exemplifies how knowledge of private invocation could spread within the community. Yet simultaneously it reveals the way public opinion entered into the private sphere: Cisca had been completely paralysed for nine months, yet the news of a local thaumaturge had reached the ears of the sick woman. The neighbours often took an interest in the case especially if the illness had lasted long or the accident was widely known. Neighbours could visit the sick person and often appeared on the scene immediately after the word of a miraculous cure had spread.215 Moreover, the sickbed or deathbed scene could turn out to be 212

Nicholas, testis XCII, p. 270: ‘audivit dici pluries ab uxore Berardi Appillaterre, que faciebat cometionem dicto fratri Nicolao et erat multum sua devota’. 213

Nicholas, testis CCLXXI, p. 562: ‘dixit quod audivit a domina Margarita uxore Berardi Appiliaterre, que mortua est, et a fratribus dicti ordinis pluribus et pluribus vicibus et cognoscentibus eum’. Friar Iohannuccius de Tholentino mentions the involvement of Berardus and the daughters of the Appillaterre family in spreading the fame of sanctity of Nicholas. Nicholas, testis CCXXI, p. 478. 214

Nicholas, testis CCLVIII, p. 537: ‘Interrogata si de dicto miraculo est publica vox et fama, dixit quod sic et specialiter in illa contrata ubi dicta Cisca habitabat et ipsa testis.’ 215

For example, Cola, the son of domina Milucia, was severely injured after he had fallen from the second floor, plancatio domus. The mother invoked Saint Nicholas alone; nobody else was present. However, after Cola had recovered, many neighbour women came to the scene of the miracle to see the boy. Nicholas, testis XXXIX, p. 169: ‘dixit quod, quando fecit votum, nullus interfuit, sed quando fuit factum miraculum multe eius vicine interfuerunt, que occurrerunt ad predicta’.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

129

of great interest to the community even before any miraculous occurrences. Illness and especially death were social occasions. Family, relatives, and neighbours gathered around the dying person. This is clearly seen in the miraculous recovery of ser Ventorinus.216 According to the testimonies, present at the deathbed were the father, ser Giliolus, and domina Nicolucia, the wife of the patient, as well as a servant of the household. Other citizens of the city of Macerata were gathered to see ser Ventorinus. Officials of the governor of Marche were present, since ser Ventorinus was also a governor’s official.217 Yet the reason for their presence remains unclear. It is possible that they did not appear on the scene to express their condolences but as their duty.218 There were also Franciscan friars who had come to officiate at the vigil for the funeral. One of them was Petrus, future Bishop of Macerata. The witnesses stated that many others, whose names they did not remember, were also present. The crowd of spectators was important since there were no generally accepted signs of death. Public opinion often pronounced whether one was considered to be alive or deceased. The spectators took an active part in this definition of the state of the patient. In this sense dying was also a public event.219 The vacillation between life and death can also be seen in the case of ser Ventorinus. The doctors had already declared him dead. However, according to the testimony of ser

216

The witnesses to this miracle are ser Giliolus (Nicholas, testis XXXII), ser Ventorinus (testis XXXIII), domina Annese (testis XLII), domina Bertina (testis CLII), dominus frater Petrus, Maceratensis episcopus (testis CLXXI), and domina Nicolucia (testis CCXIX). Frater Victor also mentions the incident, but very briefly (testis CXLVIII). 217

Ser Ventorinus had been a notary in the service of dominus Amelio di Lautrec (d. 1337) who was governor general of the Marches of Ancona at that time. See Nicholas, pars I, p. 2; especially nn. 18–20. The appellative ser was reserved for notaries, advocates, and minor judges. Pier Luigi Falaschi, ‘Società e istituzioni nella Marcha attraverso il processo di canonizzazione di San Nicola da Tolentino (1325)’, in San Nicola, Tolentino, le Marche, pp. 97–126 (p. 101). 218 Nicholas, testis CCXIX, p. 474: ‘venerunt tunc familiares domini marchionis Marchie Anconitanie, cuius ser Ventorinus erat officialis, et sigillaverunt libros ipsius ser Venturini’. See also Falaschi, ‘Società e istituzioni nella Marcha’, p. 117. 219

Christian Krötzl, ‘Evidentissima signa mortis: Zu Tod und Todesfeststellung in mittelalterlichen Mirakelberichten’, in Symbole des Alltags, Alltag der Symbole: Festschrift für Harry Kühnel zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Gertrud Blaschitz, Helmut Hundsbichler, Gerhard Jaritz, and Elisabeth Vavra (Graz: Akademiche Druck.- u. Verlagsanstalt,1992), pp. 765–75. In the canonization process of Nicholas there is also another example of a wrongly assumed death. Philippa Baracha had died and was being carried to the church to be buried when she revived. Nicholas, testis CLXXVII, p. 418.

130

Chapter 2

Giliolus, the father and the wife prayed Nicholas that if Ventorinus was alive he would not die, and if he was dead he would be revived.220 Domina Bertina told the commissioners that Ventorinus had lost his speech, sight, and senses of hearing, taste, and touch. He had no pulse, and his nose, hands, and feet were cold like ice. Bertina knew this since she touched his face, hands, and feet. The people present were involved in the course of events and they assumed that Ventorinus had died. Bertina was present probably because she lived nearby. The wax for the funeral was bought from her husband, and she personally gave the black funeral clothes to the newly widowed Nicolucia.221 The black clothes marked ‘deep mourning’ and were usually reserved for the closest kin. At the same time the luxurious cloth could stress the family’s position.222 The funeral clothes had strong social significance which is emphasized by the fact that all but one of the witnesses mentioned them in their depositions. Other funeral preparations were also mentioned. The place of the grave, the church of the Franciscans, further stressed the status of Ventorinus, since only the powerful and rich laymen were to be buried inside the church. Others had to settle for the churchyard.223 The place of burial, the crowd of participants, as well as other rites in the funeral signalled the social position and prestige of the deceased.224 This miracle was probably well known; altogether six witnesses testified to this incident. As noted before, the majority of the cases in Nicholas’s process contain only one or two testimonies. The widespread fame of this miracle may be due to the large crowd of eyewitnesses. The high social status of the spectators as well as the patient may have also increased the renown: ser Ventorinus was an official of the governor, and other officials were present at the scene of the miracle. Another possible explanation is the funeral preparations. Ser Ventorinus was truly believed to be dead since a grave had been prepared for him, friends and other

220 Nicholas, testis XXXII, p. 153: ‘supplicando et rogando [. . .] quod, si non erat mortuus, non moriretur, et, si esset mortuus, resuscitaretur’. 221

Nicholas, testis CLII, pp. 368–69.

222

Strocchia, ‘Death Rites and the Ritual Family’.

223

The Church prohibited church burials several times, but in vain. The dead also had different social ranks. Ronald C. Finucane, ‘Sacred Corpse, Profane Carrion: Social Ideas and Death Rituals in the Later Middle Ages’, in Mirrors of Mortality: Studies in the Social History of Death, ed. by Joachim Whaley, Europa Social History of Human Experience, 3 (London: Europa Publications, 1981), pp. 40–60 (p. 43). 224

Herlihy, The Black Death, pp. 60–61. This feature is also stressed in the case of little Sennucia where the customary procedure was disturbed.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

131

officials were invited for the funeral, a vigil was held, and clothes for a widow were prepared for domina Nicolucia. A recovery after these preparations must have raised enthusiasm in non-eyewitnesses, too. However, no mention of the official publication of the miracle can be found in the depositions. The proclamation at the shrine ensured that the renown of God’s work was spread. This ensured that the incident and people involved were known regardless of the space in which the activity took place in the first place. After the miracle, the church bells were rung, and clergy and laity gathered at the shrine. Customarily an investigation of the authenticity of the miracle was held at the shrine, and afterwards the miracle was made known to the community. This was the common procedure in the miracles performed by Thomas Cantilupe. In the canonization process of Nicholas of Tolentino there are no mentions of the examination of the authenticity of miracles, but the ringing of the bells is mentioned as a sign of a miracle.225 However, some miracles were proclaimed at the shrine of Saint Nicholas. Thus presumably a preliminary inquiry was also held. Some petitioners stated in front of the congregation of the miraculous cure they had experienced. For example, when Anfelixia, the wife of Mercatante Adambi, was cured of blindness in her home, she went to the shrine and told everyone about the grace bestowed on her.226 Sometimes the Augustinian friars also told publicly about the miracles Nicholas had performed, thus propagating the cult and spreading the fama sanctitatis of Nicholas.227 On these occasions the private experiences were turned into public knowledge. Private, Public, Sacred — Fluidity of the Spheres As noted, even the division of actual physical places — not to mention the social sphere of the events and performances — into private or public was controversial. The scene in the public space could have been rather intimate and, on the other hand, a miracle petitioned by private or even silent invocation could become public knowledge. Similarly the domestic devotional practices were important for family life and cohesion. Yet they might entail a collectively acknowledged status as firm devotees of a saint.

225

Nicholas, testis XCV, p. 276.

226

Nicholas, testis LXXXIII, p. 233: ‘ipsa domina Anfelixia liberata publice coram omnibus astantibus confessa fuit et narravit miraculum predictum’. 227

Nicholas, testis CCLXXX, p. 576.

132

Chapter 2

However, the public-private dichotomy was not the only means to define the space. Sacred and profane were important modes of classification as well. The sacred space of a shrine was situated in churches, which were public places accessible to all Christians. Yet the sacred space could also be created within the private domains of the home by devotional images, for example. These images formed a sacred sphere around them, which was further stressed by particular rites. The use and veneration of icons are mentioned in Nicholas’s records while no examples of private sacred images can be found in the Cantilupe process. One of the icons mentioned in the records was in the house of Zappa Carracci. It was owned or at least used and venerated by his daughter-in-law domina Indiola, the wife of Nuczarellus Zappe.228 The first invocation in front of this image took place when Nuczarellus was ill and Indiola was taking care of him. Nuczarellus had suffered from continuous fever for over a month, and Indiola was afraid he was going to die. One night while nursing her husband she knelt bareheaded and barefoot in front of this icon and invoked Saint Nicholas to cure her husband.229 In the morning Indiola recounted the incident to her mother-in-law, Bertina. Bertina did not doubt this since she saw that Nuczarellus had recovered. The second incident involving this image took place when Gentelucia, the infant daughter of Indiola and Nuczarellus, was ill. She suffered from a disease called reuma; her face was so infected she could not open her eyes. Once again Indiola approached the icon with reverence and invoked Saint Nicholas with tears.230 The exact place of the icon remains unclear. When Nuczarellus was ill, Indiola took care of him in the same room where the icon was. Presumably it was in the bedroom of the younger couple, Nuczarellus and Indiola.231 Apparently the family was well off since Indiola and Bertina were both titled domina.232 228

Witnesses to these miracles are Zappa Carracci (Nicholas, testis XL), Indiola (testis CL), and Bertina (testis CLII). 229 Nicholas, testis CL, p. 364: ‘dixit quod ipsa sola stabat in camera ad custodiendum dictum maritum suum, et stabat coram quadam cona scapillata, scalciata et genuflexa’. 230

Nicholas, testis CL, p. 364: ‘cum magna reverentia et lacrimis vovit eam Deo et beato Nicolao’. 231

The depositions imply that it may have been Indiola’s personal room: ‘intravit sola cameram ipsius testis ubi sedebat dicta cona’ (Nicholas, testis CL, p. 364); ‘vovit eam beato Nicolao cum magna devotione et reverentia et lacrimis coram cona, quam habebat in camera’ (ibid., testis CLII, pp. 370–71). 232

The use of a wet-nurse was also implied. Wet-nurses were common in Italy, especially in the upper levels of society. In the case of Gentelucia, Zappa indirectly argued that the girl was staying at a wet-nurse’s house. Nicholas, testis XL, p. 171: ‘omnibus aliis presens fuit tamquam homo qui

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

133

Bertina had also invoked Saint Nicholas several times: to cure her husband Zappa and her stepson Lipparellus. The dialogue between the petitioner and intercessor in all these miracles was conducted in personal privacy. This was possible even in a household of several generations. Presumably the devotion for Saint Nicholas was an essential element in the routines of this household. Having recourse to Saint Nicholas’s help seems to have been a customary procedure in the adversities of daily life in this family. Both of these women had successfully petitioned the help of Saint Nicholas and both of them were willing to admit the help received through the other’s invocation. All three witnesses, Zappa, Bertina, and Indiola, also mention miracles experienced and invocations uttered by others.233 Indiola and Bertina are both referred to as devota of Saint Nicholas. The devotion of these two women was presumably mutually reinforcing. Possibly the collective devotion also helped to create a sense of unity between these women and within the whole family. Concurrently, the depositions stress the caregiving role of women: Indiola and Bertina were the ones to petition the help of Saint Nicholas for themselves, for their husbands, and for their children. The devotional practices were significant for the private life of the household, yet they also linked these women to the public sphere: Indiola and Bertina promised pilgrimages to the shrine as an offering for the grace gained.

continue morabatur in domo ubi stabat dicta puella’. Haas, Renaissance Man and his Children, pp. 115–19, argues, contrary to the previous view, that the parents visited their children, who stayed at the wet-nurse’s house. Thus Indiola could have been aware of the illness of her daughter. However, the use of a wet-nurse is not likely in this case since after the recovery the mother started to breastfeed the infant. ‘Et emisso dicto voto, dicta eius filia incepit meliorare et sugere mammillam dicte eius matris’ (Nicholas, testis CL, p. 364). The remarks on wet-nurses are scarce in the canonization processes so it is hard to affirm or depose Louis Haas’s claim. Yet the example of Ventuructia shows at least that some parents did not see their children for a long period of time. The father stated in his deposition that he did not know for how long his daughter had been ill since he had not seen her for two years while she was staying at the wet-nurse’s house. ‘Quia steterat bene per duos annos quod non viderat eam’ (Clare, testis CLVI, p. 431). 233

This is noteworthy since in many cases the witnesses mention only the cures they had personally petitioned even though they were apparently aware and occasionally even present in successful invocations uttered by others. For example, domina Clarendina claimed that domina Riccha was present in the miraculous revival of her son. Yet Riccha does not mention the case in her deposition. She testifies only to her own miraculous cure. Nicholas, testis CLXIII, pp. 387–88, and testis CLXV, pp. 389–90. Similarly domina Annessucia mentions only the miraculous cure of her own son even though her mother, domina Caradruda, claims that she was also present at the miraculous cure of her nephew which was petitioned by domina Caradruda. Nicholas, testis CXCVI–CXCVII, pp. 439–41.

134

Chapter 2

The nurturing role of women and collective devotion are also stressed in the recovery of Mendina, the daughter of domina Andriola. Gentelucia, the grandmother, and Angelescha, the maternal aunt, were taking care of the ailing child when they petitioned heavenly help to save the child from permanent blindness. Gentelucia and Angelescha invoked Saint Nicholas with tears and great devotion kneeling in front of a sacred image.234 The place of the image is not clearly stated. It was said to be in a room in the house of dominus Petri, the husband of Andriola. The deposition of Angelescha cannot be found. Yet the mutual devotion for Saint Nicholas was also stated in this case. Both Andriola and Gentelucia, the mother and grandmother of the patient, were devotees of Nicholas: both of them stated that they were always heard when in their need and peril they turned to him.235 The contents of the images of Indiola or Andriola are not stated. Presumably they were similar to the image in front of which Nicolucia prayed for the recovery of her husband, ser Ventorinus. This icon represented Jesus Christ with the Virgin Mary.236 When praying in front of the icon the liberal modes of invocation found in other cases turned into a more formal mode of praying. As has been noted before, it was an approved way to invoke Saint Nicholas in one’s mind without any particular gestures. Yet, in these cases the humility of the petitioner and specific gestures are stressed, thus emphasizing the sacred space created by the icon. All the invocations in front of a sacred image were performed on one’s knees, also bareheaded and barefoot. The depositions stress that these invocations were done with tears, reverence, and devotion.237

234

Nicholas, testis CLX, p. 384: ‘cum magnis lacrimis, coram quadam cona genuflexa cum magna devotione’. The witnesses to this case are domina Andriola and domina Gentelucia: testis XXXVI, pp. 164–65 and testis CLX, pp. 383–84. 235

Nicholas, testis XXXVI, p. 165: ‘dixit quod semper in suis necessitatibus et periculis, quando invocat dictum beatum Nicolaum, exauditur’; ibid., testis CLX, p. 384: ‘et semper in suis necessitatibus et periculis dum invocavit dictum beatum Nicolaum fuit exaudita’. 236

Nicholas, testis XXXIII, p. 158: ‘coram quadam tabula, in qua erat depicta ymago domini nostri Iesu Christi et beate Marie virginis matris eius’. At the time of the hearing there were also devotional images of Saint Nicholas, but they were situated in the churches. See Nicholas, testis CLXXV, p. 412, and testis CCXII, p. 455. 237

Nicholas, testis XXXIII, p. 158: ‘staret genuflexa cum magna devotione’; ibid., testis XXXVI, p. 164: ‘cum magnis lacrimis coram quedam cona genuflexa cum magna devotione’; ibid., testis CL, p. 364: ‘stabat coram quadam cona scapillata, scalciata et genuflexa’; ibid., testis CL, p. 364: ‘coram ea [cona] cum magna reverentia et lacrimis’.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

135

The similarities between these private invocations and those of public miracles of the Cantilupe process are apparent. They stress the same features: kneeling, tears, and devotion. In the majority of other cases no exact gestures are mentioned while invoking Saint Nicholas. Yet in the public accidents the importance of the group present was emphasized while the invocations in front of a private sacred image seem to have been moments of personal piety. They were performed in solitude, and the dialogue with the intercessor was essentially intimate. The private icons represent the privatization of religion and the detachment of cults from the relics. The curative powers of the saint did not concentrate only in the vicinity of the relics. They were potent everywhere. The sacred space of a shrine was not necessary to invoke a saint. At the other end of this process a sacred space could be created within one’s home and chamber. In Nicholas’s records the signs of devotion and the use of private icons were mentioned by women.238 To pray in front of the sacred images was generally considered to be especially women’s practice. Young girls particularly were encouraged to pray in their own homes, in front of small altars decorated by sacred images. Church remained a privileged place for prayer, but personal rooms also tended to turn into oratories.239 Naturally icons were not to be found in every household. Most likely they were the privilege of wealthier families.240 238

The men’s privately expressed devotion is stressed in Clare’s process. When Angeluctius Iannis was gravely ill and continuously in fever he invoked Saint Clare with humility: he got up from his bed in the middle of the night and knelt naked on the floor. He humbly invoked the saint. Clare, testis LX, p. 318: ‘ipse nudus lectum exiens genuflexit se in terram et reconmendavit se devovit humiliter et instanter Deo et Beate Clare de Montefalco’. There is no mention of a private icon in this case, however. On several similar occasions the invocation was performed silently in the petitioner’s mind while lying in bed. The kneeling position as well as the nakedness of the petitioner emphasize the humility of the invocation, especially since the supplicant was a man. The naked female body held, in addition to humility, implications of sin, lust, and temptation. It is possible that on a similar occasion women may not have stressed the nakedness of their bodies in their testimonies. On the signification of nakedness especially in the case of women, see Katherine L. French, ‘The Legend of Lady Godiva and the Image of Female Body’, Journal of Medieval History, 18 (1992), 3–19. 239

Dominique Rigaux, ‘Dire la foi avec des images, une affaire des femmes?’, in La Religion de ma mère: les femmes et la transmission de la foi, ed. by Jean Delumeau (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1992), pp. 71–90 (pp. 71–74); on private altars in fourteenth-century Italy, see Bornstein, ‘Spiritual Kinship and Domestic Devotions’, p. 191. 240 All these women were referred to as domina. Andriola and her mother Gentelucia were probably married to men of noble status. Andriola’s father was referred to as Richardus, son of dominus Petri. Her husband was nobleman Mallus Raynalduci. The husband of Nicolucia, ser Ventorinus, was referred to as discretus vir; he was civis in Perugia and had been an official in Marche.

136

Chapter 2

Mediterranean culture was strongly prejudiced against women’s participation in public life. Especially during the Renaissance the public spheres were seen as essentially masculine while private and domestic defined places appropriate for women. The feminine sphere allotted to women was the household, local neighbourhoods, and parish churches. The division of urban space in Italian city-states was not based only on gender; social status affected the use of the spheres, too. The women of the nobility and the merchant elite in particular were mostly confined to their homes. The definition and construction of gendered spaces was a constantly ongoing process.241 Indiola, Andriola, Gentelucia, and Nicolucia were all of high social standing. It would be hasty, however, to conclude that the spatial freedom of these women was especially restricted and that they were confined to their homes. It does not explain the use of and need for icons in these cases. More likely the private icons reflect the religious zeal of these women. Their devotion to Saint Nicholas as well as various penitential practices were emphasized in the depositions testifying to their religious activity. Moreover, Indiola, Andriola, Gentelucia, and Nicolucia all promised Saint Nicholas to visit his shrine — some of them even annually in a penitential mode — thus associating themselves with the public display of devotion and the spheres outside home.

The Sacred Sphere Relics and Miracles The spiritual significance of a place was important. Sacred and profane were essential qualities in categorizing spaces during the Middle Ages. The medieval town was a mosaic spotted with sacred space amidst the profane world. Shrines and churches as well as images and statues of saints created an atmosphere of sanctity around them. In rural areas the sense of the sacred might be attached to natural formations like springs or hills.242 Sacred spaces were important in the community’s life.

241

Davis, ‘Geography of Gender’. See also Chojnacki, ‘Daughters and Oligarchs’, pp. 68–69, and Herlihy, Women, Family and Society, pp. 13–32. Moreover, women themselves may have also considered staying inside the walls of the home to be more beneficial to their spiritual well-being. See Bornstein, ‘Spiritual Kinship and Domestic Devotions’, p. 190. 242

Muir, ‘Virgin in the Street Corner’, p. 25. Moreover, sacred spheres were not rigid but could move around the city in the procession of relics, for example.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

137

The sacred sphere was not usually defined in gender-specific terms. Access to the churches was regularly open to all Christians. Occasionally the actual use of space within churches was divided according to gender.243 Moreover, in some shrines a hierarchy of pilgrims was formed and only men were allowed to approach the vicinity of the relics.244 At famous pilgrim sites both men and women were generally permitted to approach the shrine. In the cases of Nicholas of Tolentino and Thomas Cantilupe the essential sacred spaces were the shrines or sepulchres of these saints.245 Saint Nicholas was buried in the church of the Augustinian friars in Tolentino, and the relics of Saint Thomas rested in Hereford cathedral. Both of these shrines could be approached by both men and women and by pilgrims from all levels of society. At the time of the hearings both of these cults also centred on other locations, not only the shrine. For example, the birthplace of Thomas Cantilupe in Hambleden seems to have been a centre of veneration. There was a picture of Saint Thomas in Hambleden; people made pilgrimages, and miracles were reported to have taken place there.246 Images seem to have been especially important in the veneration of Saint Nicholas. At the time of the inquiry the cult also focused on the pictures in Macerata and in Nursia.247 In 1325 a picture of Saint Nicholas could also be found in Florence.248 243

Adrian Randolph, ‘Regarding Women in Sacred Space’, in Refiguring Women in Renaissance and Baroque Italy, ed. by Geraldine A. Johnson and Sara F. Matthews Grieco (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 17–41, argues for the gendered allocation of the space of the church: men and women may have been separated from each other by a screen during masses or sermons. However, he admits that this ideal was not put to practice at the famous pilgrimage sites where the shrine was accessible to all; see ibid., p. 34, n. 55. 244 Morrison, Women Pilgrims, pp. 86–93; Cynthia Hahn, ‘Seeing and Believing: The Construction of Sanctity of Early-Medieval Saints’ Shrines’, Speculum, 72 (1997), 1079–1106 (p. 1090); and Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 87. 245

At the time of the inquiries the cults of these saints were obviously unofficial, thus their sepulchres could not be defined as official shrines. Yet apparently both of these tombs were shrinelike in their appearance and also centres of veneration. 246

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 18r–v. When Hugo le Barber became blind he sent wax eyes to Hambleden: ibid., fol. 27v . See also Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, p. 206. 247

Nicholas, testis CCXII, p. 455: ‘in dicta terra Nursie, in loco Sancti augustiniani, est quedam cona qua est depicta ymago dicti fratris Nicolai: coram qua cona et ymagine ponuntur continue, et offeruntur multe ymagines cere ab hominibus et mulieribus dicte terre’; on the image in Macerata, see ibid., testis CLXXVI, p. 412. 248

Fabio Bisogni, ‘Gli inizi dell’iconografia di Nicola da Tolentino’, in San Nicola, Tolentino, le Marche, pp. 255–196 (p. 257).

138

Chapter 2

The votive offerings brought to the devotional images can be seen as testimonies of the public cult of Nicholas that flourished already at the time of the hearing, before the official canonization.249 The images as a core of the veneration were fairly common, and examples can also be found in other cults.250 The devotional images also introduced the new intercessors to the petitioners.251 The power of a saint was universal. It could work anywhere; direct contact with the relics was not a prerequisite for a miracle. The interconnection or absence of connection between relics and miracles has long been a focus of interest and dispute among scholars.252 The increase of devotional images is connected to the multiplication of distance miracles.253 The importance of the images is emphasized in the depositions of these processes, yet they were more significant when showing gratitude after the miracle. The images did not play an important role in the invocation.254 249

Nicholas, p. 412, nn. 46–47, and p. 455, nn. 8–11.

250

The importance of sacred images was especially stressed in the cult of Charles of Blois. His veneration focused on images in the churches of Le Mans and Angers. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4025, fol. 89r–v and fol. 83r–v . The reason for this may have been the Hundred Years War, which ravaged the area at that time. Travelling was not easy and veneration focused on the pictures in the nearby churches. 251

Flore Nicholas had a vision of Saint Clare. She recognized the saint although she had never seen her during her lifetime; the appearing saint was similar to the image pictured above her sepulchre. Clare, testis CXIX, p. 398. Venutula also claimed that she had seen Saint Clare in a vision as she was pictured in this image; ibid., testis CXXVIII, p. 405. 252

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 524–29, argues that detachment of cults and relics were especially typical in Mediterranean Europe in the later Middle Ages. On the other hand, Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, pp. 201–07, has shown that in the case of Thomas Cantilupe the petitioners came first from the vicinity of the shrine, thus the cures took place close to the relics. The more time elapsed the further the cult spread and the pilgrims came from a greater distance. Thus they had usually waited for the cure at home and only afterwards expressed their gratitude at the shrine. He also argues that an important aspect in this phenomenon was the decrease of enthusiasm in the vicinity of the relics. Other scholars have also argued that the place of the miracle had more to do with the age of the cult and nature of the miracle than with the cultural area. Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, pp. 21–22, 244, and Ashley and Sheingorn, Writing Faith, p. 103. 253

This feature is especially stressed by Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, p. 524, while Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, pp. 21–22, sees this phenomenon as parallel and not interrelated. 254

The interchangeable roles of the different centres of the cult are stressed in the testimony of Angelucius Nerii. He promised to visit the shrine or some other place where Nicholas’s feast was celebrated each year. The miraculous cure of Angelucius took place only six months before the hearing, thus at that time the feast of Nicholas was probably celebrated in several places, at least among the Augustinians. In this case the role of the sacred sphere, or the sphere connected to the saint, was also stressed, especially when showing gratitude to the saint. The sacred space was not a

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

139

In these processes the difference is clear: the distance miracles dominate Nicholas’s records while the majority of the recoveries from illnesses examined in the Cantilupe process took place at the shrine. However, the difference illuminates primarily the attitudes of the inquisitorial committees, not necessarily the practicalities of each cult. Thus a reliable quantitative analysis of the importance of the sacred sphere in the interaction with the saint cannot be achieved by analysing the depositions in the canonization processes. Despite the apparent detachment of relics and cults and the increase in distance miracles, the relics were still inextricably associated with the saint. Many petitioners thought it was essential to seek a cure at the shrine, in close contact with the earthly remains of the holy dead. Moreover, the earthly remains were personified as the saint himself. Both of these shrines were famous healing centres, and the supplicants rushed to the sacred space claiming occasionally that they were going to Saint Nicholas or to Saint Thomas — not to the shrine or to the vicinity of the relics but to these particular persons.255 The Sacred Sphere in a Continuum The sacred spaces had their inner hierarchy: they can be seen as a continuum. The Christians’ reverential behaviour and veneration were supposed to intensify at the core of the sacred sphere, close to the relics. Further away from the shrine the behaviour could lean towards the profane. Indeed, the reverence for the sacred sphere was not always seen in the behaviour of the congregation. Proper conduct around these holy places needed to be covered by law.256 But presumably the situation was

prerequisite for the supplication. Nicholas, testis CCLX, pp. 538–39: ‘promixit [. . .] ire sine capudeo omni anno ad tumulum, ubi iacet corpus ispius fratris Nicolay, vel ad alium locum, ubi eius festum celebraretur’. 255 For example ‘Volo ire ad sanctum Nicolaum qui me adiuvet de ista infirmitate’ (Nicholas, testis LXXIX, p. 220); ‘ad ipsum ut ad sanctum recurrebant’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 33r). On this mode of thought, see also Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 35–36, and Geary, Furta Sacra. 256

For example, in Renaissance Florence profane behaviour in the vicinity of churches was forbidden. Gambling, prostitution, and drinking were outlawed thereabouts, and the costumes should have also been accustomed to the sacred place. It was not appropriate for women to enter the church heavily painted or in lewd dress. Richard C. Trexler, Public Life in Renaissance Florence (New York: Academic Press, 1980), pp. 47, 51–54, and 69. Proper conduct was also the concern of the clerical authors: condemnation of chattering and gossiping women in the masses can be found in the moral teachings. See for example DM IV, cap. 22.

140

Chapter 2

different when entering the sacred sphere on purpose to make contact with the holy dead and petition a favour. Eye contact seems to have been an important turning point when approaching the saint. Many petitioners promised to make the journey in an ascetic manner from the moment they saw the church of Saint Nicholas.257 However, sight as a transition to sacred space played a more important role in the rites of gratification than in the actual supplication. Yet the sight of the sacred place could help the petitioner to contemplate during the invocation. Sight as a passage between the spheres is stressed in the miraculous revival of Yvo, the son of Johannes and Johanna Traquenart.258 When the parents found their ten-month-old son dead, they — advised by a neighbour — invoked Charles of Blois for help. They exited the house in order to be able to see the church of Angers in which an image of the saint was placed. The parents invoked Charles in their garden simultaneously contemplating the church.259 In this case the petitioners’ reverential manners are especially stressed. The father and the mother stated that they made the vow on their knees with clasped hands. They made abundant petitions with tears.260 One may assume that this kind of behaviour was a norm at the sacred sphere. However, the references to specific forms of veneration, kneeling or tears, are rarely mentioned when describing the activity at the shrine. These signs of devotion are most often mentioned when the saint was invoked at a distance. The invocation at the shrine usually included only praying or making the vow. External gestures of devotion are not regularly stressed.261 257

For example, Nicholas, testis CXIX, p. 316. For others the entrance through the city gate of Tolentino was an important point. See Nicholas, testis CIII, pp. 293–94; testis CXI, p. 306; and testis CL, p. 364. On similar signs of devotion, see Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 122. 258

The witnesses to this miracle are Johannes Traquenart, Johanna (his wife), Johanna la Charbonniere, and Guillemeta (the wife of Petrus Rigandi). BAV, MS Vat. Lat 4025, fols 83r–84 v. On the power of sight in the construction of sacred spheres, see also Hahn, ‘Seeing and Believing’. 259

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4025, fol. 83r: ‘Et postmodum iste et eius uxor predicta, exivunt domum propriam, ut ecclesiam fratrum minorum Andegavensis in qua depicta est ymago dicti domini Caroli possent intueri.’ 260

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4025, fol. 83v : ‘Ipsi iunctis manibus flexibusque genibus versus dictam ecclesiam, ipsi deo et domino Carolo votum fecerunt fundendo preces cum lacrimis.’ The praying position of clasped hands came in use only in the later Middle Ages. The position with eyes and arms lifted to the heavens originated in Antiquity and remained in use during the Middle Ages. Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 127. For an example of this position, see BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 67r. 261

For example ‘fuit per ecclesiam portata ad tumulum dicti Domino Thome et oravit ibi per magnum tempum’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 171 r ); ‘Et ipsa testis tunc ivit ad locum Sancti

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

141

Naturally in the case of paralysis, for example, the possible gestures and performance were limited. Moreover, it is possible that kneeling at the shrine was so customary a gesture that the witnesses did not need to mention it.262 However, the depositions do not particularly emphasize the humility of the petitioner at the shrine or the desperate situation and submissive position of the supplicant.263 Obviously the journey itself required as well as signified devotion. The petitioners’ presence at the shrine and the patient waiting for the cure seem to have been the essential elements in the cases when the cure was petitioned at the sacred sphere. The curative rites performed at the shrine were quite different from the ritual activity of invocations, which were uttered in a profane sphere. At the shrine the closest possible vicinity of the relics seems to have been the most important feature. Many petitioners not only approached the shrine but actually penetrated it. The shrines commonly had a sort of opening or hole through which the patients could put the afflicted body part inside — at the most sacred centre of the holy place.264 The shrine of Saint Nicholas also had this kind of opening. For example, Gualterius Iacobucii claimed that he was miraculously cured by Saint Nicholas after he had put his head and hand inside the tomb and said a prayer to Saint Nicholas and the Virgin Mary.265 Similarly some petitioners at the shrine of Thomas Cantilupe put the afflicted member through some kind of opening into the grave.266

Augustiniani ubi iacet sepultus dictus frater Nicholaus, et vovit ante archam suam’ (Nicholas, testis XCI, p. 266). The lack of information of performance at the shrine is also emphasized by Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, p. 252. 262

It is argued that kneeling, in addition to the clasped hands, became typical as a praying position in the central Middle Ages. Jean-Claude Schmitt, La Raison des gestes dans l’Occident médiéval, Bibliothèque des Histoires (Mayenne: Éditions Gallimard, 1990), pp. 299–300, and Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 127. 263

Cohen, ‘Animated Pain of the Body’, p. 59, argues that the behaviour was required to alter at the shrine: the pain was to be expressed more clearly since expressing pain was showing need, begging a favour. Restraining expressions of pain could be regarded as a virtue in domestic settings, yet the sacred space required a submissive attitude which could be performed by stressing one’s pitiful situation. 264

Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 36–37.

265

Nicholas, testis CCLXXIII, p. 567: ‘et caput et manus posuit intra tumulum predictum, et rogavit Beatam virginem Mariam et beatum Nicolaum, quod iuvaret eum’. On other examples of penetration into the shrine, see ibid., testis CLXIV, p. 388; testis CLXXV, p. 411; and testis CCLXIX, p. 557. 266

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 209r: ‘extrahens capud per foramina lapidea [. . .] dicti tumuli exsistentia’; ibid., fol. 184r : ‘per quoddam, foramen lapideum aplicuit caput super dictum tumulum’.

142

Chapter 2

Sometimes it was enough to touch the shrine with the afflicted limb. However, many patients wanted to stay as close to the shrine as possible. Johannes de Burtone received a new tongue after he had three times kissed the tomb of Thomas Cantilupe and then slept on it. He also put his head inside the shrine through the opening.267 To embrace the relics was a common procedure especially in the previous centuries, while the intimacy and its expression in kissing — done by the devotee or by the saint in a vision — is claimed to have been a more significant form of veneration in Eastern Christianity.268 In Johannes’s case the reason may have also been the closest possible contact with the afflicted part, the mouth, to the holy relics.269 Sleeping at the shrine was a common ritual when petitioning for a cure at the sacred sphere. One might fall asleep naturally, of course, due to the laborious journey and the pain caused by the illness. However, it may have been a conscious choice since the curative power of the saint was thought to be most effective while the petitioner was sleeping in the vicinity of the relics.270 Ritual sleeping, the rite of incubation, to receive a cure was practised in pagan Antiquity. The ritual included sleeping at the shrine; the deity or the saint was supposed to appear in a dream and heal the patient. After the treatment in a vision or dream the cure was received. Naturally, the pagan practices were different from Christian ones in many aspects. Yet the essence of the ritual was similar as it was communication with the divine.271

267

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 209r: ‘quod dictus johannes ipso teste vidente fuit bis vel ter osculatus dictum tumulum et post dictam osculationem cum aliquantulum reclinasset capud super dictam tumulum [. . .] et obdormisset super dictum tumulum’. 268

The kissing of the relics was an ancient custom of which the clergy approved. Occasionally the manifestation and possibility to kiss the relics raised a real fervour among the devotees. Herrmann-Mascard, Les reliques des saints, pp. 213–16. Yet the manifestation of ‘naked’ relics without their reliquiarium was forbidden in the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. I: From Nicea I to Lateran V, ed. by Norman P. Tanner (London: Sheed and Ward, 1990), p. 263. On kissing as a mode of veneration in Eastern Christianity, see Hahn, ‘Seeing and Believing’, p. 1089. 269

Johannes Holarton also had a kind of affliction in his head. He put his head into the tomb yet apparently could not touch it with his head; he touched the sepulchre with his hand and then the afflicted part. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 184r : ‘et cum manu cum quam tangebat tumulum ter ipso teste vidente tetigit dictum gibbum et in tertio tactis disparuit dictus gibbus’. 270 271

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 519–20.

Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 134–44; Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 519–20; Patrick Geary, ‘Humiliation of Saints’, in Saints and their Cults, ed. by Wilson, pp. 123–40 (p. 136); and Kathryn Lynch, The Medieval Dream Vision: Poetry, Philosophy, and Literary Form (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), p. 55.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

143

Notions of this custom can be found in the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe. For example, the paralysed Alicia de Lonesdale was taken to the shrine by her father. She stayed there three days and three nights. The ritual bending of a coin was done beforehand. The third night while Alicia was sleeping close to the shrine of Saint Thomas she saw a vision of the saint. In Alicia’s vision an old and venerable man with white clothing stroked her body all over with milk-like liquid, concentrating especially on the infirm legs.272 Customarily in the visions the saints touched the patient’s afflicted limbs or blind eyes thus curing them. Actual medical practices could also be done in a vision.273 The saints’ activities in a vision were often crucial elements in the recovery. For example, Adam de Kylpek regained his sight when Thomas Cantilupe touched his eyes with his clothing.274 Similarly Johannes de Burtone had a vision at the shrine of Saint Thomas strangulating him. After the saint had removed his hand Johannes found that he had a proper tongue.275 The officials of the shrines seem to have been fairly favourable for petitioners spending the night and sleeping at the shrine. The above-mentioned Adam de Kylpek was sleeping in a bed prepared by Gilbertus, the custodian of the shrine, when he had his vision.276 However, the devotees themselves seem to have taken the initiative in this practice. Gilbertus claimed that he heard how Johannes de Burtone climbed up and slept above the sepulchre but he did not want to make him rise and leave since he had witnessed how others sleeping at the shrine had received a cure.277

272 BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 66v–67 r. On further details of this vision, see ‘Narrations and the Sphere of Recollection’ in Chapter 4. 273

The actual medical practices were typical in the pagan rites but can also be found in the Christian examples throughout the Middle Ages. Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 134–44; Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 67–68; and Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, pp. 235–38. 274

This case emphasizes the importance of the relics and ritual sleep at the shrine yet simultaneously sheds light on the universal powers of the saint: Rogerus, the infirm brother who stayed at home, recovered at the same time as his brother at the shrine. The depositions to this miracle are in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 234r–238r. 275

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 208r.

276

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 237v : ‘dicto Adam dormiente iuxta tumulum in quodam lecto per ipsum dominum Gilbertum commodato’. 277

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 209r : ‘ipso teste audiente stetisset super ipsum tumulum et ipsa testis nollet eum excitare quia viderat quod alii obdormiverant super dictum tumulum in quorum personas contigerant ubi miracula meritis dicti sancti thome’.

144

Chapter 2

Sleeping at the shrine of Saint Nicholas seems to have also been a fairly typical practice. However, no visions are reported from the shrine. Nicholas also performed gestures of medical treatment in visions, yet they are not connected with the sacred sphere. All the visions took place in a profane space, far from the relics.278 However, the shrine was a famous curative centre. For example, domina Fina claimed that during one night forty-five petitioners were cured and the church was nearly full of people lying there.279 The petitioners, both men and women, regularly described the activity at the shrine as lying.280 It remains unclear whether the people at the shrine were sleeping or praying by prostrating themselves. Not all the petitioners slept at the shrine. To spend the night at the shrine praying was also a common Christian habit.281 Prostration, praying by lying on the ground, implies humility yet it simultaneously offers an opportunity to be in closer contact with the sacred space. Thus the prostrate position of the petitioner can be interpreted as a manifestation of humility or carrying notions of the rite of incubation. However, in either case it can be comprehended as a mode of interaction with the divine.282 278 For example, Nicholas cured dominus Esnudus Petri’s tooth by touching it and making a sign of the cross in a vision. Nicholas, testis CCXXVI, p. 501. Benediction, making the sign of the cross, touching, and praying were the most common acts of the saints when healing patients. The gestures performed in a vision were essentially the same as in miracula in vita performed by a living saint. Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 20–24, and 34, and Schmitt, La Raison des gestes, pp. 321–22. On miracula in vita, see Nicholas, testis LXXX, p. 222; testis CCLXXX, p. 576; and testis CCCXII, p. 602. Thomas Cantilupe did not perform miraculous cures during his lifetime. On miracula in vita, see BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 106r–v and 239v –240r. 279

Nicholas, testis CXXIX, p. 335: ‘Et dixit etiam dicta testis quod illa eadem nocte, qua iacuit ibi, dictus beatus Nicholaus fecit XLV miracula in dicta ecclesia [. . .]. Interrogata de presentibus, dixit quod multe persone, ita quod ecclesia ipsa erat quasi plena de personis ibi iacentibus.’ Also ‘et multi et de diversis partibus, qui iacuerunt in dicta nocte in dicta cappella, quorum nomina ignoran’ (ibid., testis CCIX, p. 453). 280

Many of the witnesses defined their performance as iacere; see, for example, Nicholas, testis XIII, p. 106; testis XXIV, p. 144; testis LVI, p. 189; testis CVII, p. 302; testis CVIII, p. 303; and testis CCCXXXVIII, p. 623. 281

Sigal , L’homme et le miracle, p. 129, claims that there were contradictory attitudes towards vigils at the shrine. While the laity preferred liberal forms of praying the clergy favoured a more liturgical character to the vigil. 282

Geary, ‘Humiliation of Saints’, pp. 132–36, argues that in the central Middle Ages similar or even the same rituals held different meanings depending on the social background of those performing them. The prostration of monks was a sign of self-humiliation while for peasantry it was more likely a form of incubation.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

145

Sometimes it may have been difficult to fall asleep in the crowded atmosphere of the shrine. Presumably for each miraculously cured petitioner there were many others who sought a cure in vain. Patients often had assistants, family members, and friends with them. For example, the aforementioned domina Fina went to the shrine to seek recovery for her son, Anthonius. Her husband, Thomaxinus Cimarelli, and Iordanus Adginate accompanied them from Monticulo to Tolentino and stayed with the mother and child at the shrine.283 The Social Sphere at the Shrine The atmosphere at the famous healing centres must have been peculiar. Many people who were crippled, blind, or suffering from demonic possession sought recovery at the shrines. The moaning of the patients as well as invocations recited aloud were undoubtedly common. The praying may also have been accompanied by tears and cries. The rejoicing after the cure and the ringing of the bells must have attracted attention. People sang songs during the night — some of them may have been profane. Even professional musicians were reported to have played at the shrines.284 The sacred space was collectively shared. The social sphere at the shrine might include several people of different status, gender, and age. The churches themselves were of the public domain and they were at the focus of rituals that were shared by the Christian community.285 Moreover, the publicity of the sphere was emphasized by the presence of the custodians. Their responsibility was to supervise the pilgrims.286

283

Nicholas, testis CXXIX, p. 335.

284

Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 126 and 129; also Ashley and Sheingorn, Writing Faith, p. 29. However, the examples of musicians are reported from the earlier centuries. 285 However, in the depositions the public space and the church could have been considered as two separate spaces when defining the place of the invocation. Nicholas, testis LXXX, p. 222: ‘in publico et in ecclesia fecit votum dicto beato Nicolao’. 286

On the role of custos, see Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 123–26. In addition to supervising, the custodians also helped the pilgrims and played an intermediary role between the saint and the petitioners. It remains unknown whether the gender of the custodians and petitioners was considered significant — were male custodians allowed to help the sick women in similar ways to men? Conversely the gender of custodians could create problems, for example, in the verification of the miracle process. For instance, the nuns guarding the shrine of Saint Margaret were not aware of all the cures and activities at the shrine since they supervised the shrine through a window and

146

Chapter 2

Nevertheless, inner spirituality and personal devotion were prerequisites for a miracle. The spiritual meaning of the sacred sphere, the vicinity of the relics, as well as the dialogue with the saint, may have stressed the personal, private significance of the event. The devotees could have been engrossed in their own practices of piety at the shrine.287 The inner spirituality and certain rites like sleeping may have made the petitioners indifferent to gazes and spectators. Rituals and inner motivation may have created a sense of privacy in the sacred sphere. The social sphere could change during the miracle process. The relative privacy of the invocation was turned into a public act after the miracle. This is clearly seen in the miraculous recovery of the blind Agnes de la Broke. When God started to perform miracles for Saint Thomas, Agnes was measured and she went to the shrine to pray for the recovery with an offering of wax eyes.288 She stayed there three days and three nights and then her sight was restored. At the beginning of the cult of Thomas Cantilupe there was immediately an abundance of miracles.289 Moreover, since the recovery of Agnes took place during Easter the church was probably full. However, the praying at the shrine was presumably done in relative privacy. Despite the curious gazes, petitioning and waiting for the cure were fairly private events. Praying required contemplation, for the speech of the supplicant was directed towards the divine, not to the congregation. The case of Agnes was widely known and well remembered. Some of the inhabitants of Hereford testifying approximately twenty years later mention that they saw her close to the shrine or leaning on the shrine.290 However, the situation changed rapidly after the recovery. The personal prayer was altered into a public interaction with the congregation. Agnes immediately proclaimed the miracle and

did not dare to look too intensively. See Gábor Klaniczay, ‘Proving Sanctity in the Canonization Processes (Saint Elizabeth and Saint Margaret of Hungary)’, in Procès de canonization au Moyen Âge, ed. by Klaniczay, pp. 117–48 (p. 145). 287

The sense of privacy is stressed in the deposition of domina Calamita. She invoked Saint Nicholas to cure her mother silently in her mind, in a private manner. Many people were present at the shrine, yet they did not and could not hear her prayers. Nicholas, testis XXXVII, p. 166: ‘Iterrogata de presentibus, dixit quod ipsa fecit votum predictum in oratione, quam privato modo faciebat ante archam dicti beati Nicolay, licet multe gentes essent presentes, sed non audiebant, nec poterant audire.’ 288

The depositions to this miracle are in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 227v –230v .

289

Several miracles were registered on the same day. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 265v . See also Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 182. 290

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 230r: ‘vidit ipsam applicare ad tumulum circa horam tercie’.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

147

word spread rapidly in the church. People came to see Agnes, and the cure was verified since she recognized coins, light, colours, and other things that were shown to her. She also greeted some of the people by their names.291 It was common in cases of blindness to ensure this way that the cure had actually taken place.292 In the case of Agnes there was no doubt of the miracle since she was commonly known to have been blind for several years. An official investigation about the authenticity of the miracle was done by the officials of the cathedral. After this the church bells were rung and a Te Deum sung. People, clergy as well as laity, gathered in the church when the miracle was proclaimed. At least at this point the private religious experience turned into a public performance. It was no longer a question of personal piety alone since the good deed of God needed to be publicized. Demonic Possession, Gender, and Relics The closeness of the relics healed diverse ailments, yet the importance of the sacred sphere was stressed especially in cases of demonic possession. The holy power of the relics was thought to force the malevolent spirit out of the possessed. The exorcizing powers of saints’ relics were acknowledged already in late Antiquity, and the custom of bringing possessed persons to the shrine continued in use during the Middle Ages.293 The prototype of these miracles can be found in the Bible: Christ cast seven demons out of Mary Magdalen (Luke 8. 2).294 The polarity of good and evil was an essential element of the medieval mode of thought. In the miracles of demonic possession both ends of supernatural forces constructing the unseen world of medieval Christians were present.295

291

BAV, M S Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 228r and 228v . On similar practices, see Nicholas, testis III,

p. 77. 292

See also Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 70–71.

293

Brown, Cult of Saints, pp. 106–13; Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 238; and Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 107–08. The cure could also be sought by exorcism done by the priest or by the laity. See Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, pp. 257–58. 294 295

Jansen, Making of the Magdalen, pp. 22–23.

On demons and popular religion in the Middle Ages in general, see Gurevich, Medieval Popular Culture.

148

Chapter 2

Demonic possession can also be seen as a gender-specific feature since in clerical teaching women were in general seen to be closer to the Devil; they were the Devil’s gateway. Moreover, the female body being more open was seen as more suitable for spirit possession.296 It has even been argued that some women used their reputation as possessed to overstep the bounds of permissible behaviour or to gain wider opportunities in the field of religion. Since the possessing spirits, and not the demoniacs themselves, were held responsible for the performance, the possessed could do things that were generally forbidden for the laity or for women — and they were not held accountable for them.297 However, these literary themes do not concur with the cases of miracle records. The victims of demonic possession are not usually described as having any religious motivation or ambition but rather as raving mad. Indeed, the contemporaries often confused the mentally ill with demoniacs and sometimes even with epileptics. Demonic possession and furious insanity had many similar symptoms: the patients

296

However, possession was not generally seen as a sin of the possessed. They were deemed innocent victims since evil spirits could possess only the body, not the soul. See, for example, DM V, cap. 11, 12, and 15; Nancy Caciola, ‘Mystics, Demoniacs, and the Physiology of Spirit Possession in Medieval Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 42 (2000), 268–306 (pp. 289–90); and Dyan Elliott, ‘The Physiology of Rapture and Female Spirituality’, in Medieval Theology and the Natural Body, ed. by Biller and Minnis, pp. 141–73. The attitude to the possessed became harsher only at the beginning of the early modern era when the demoniacs were more often accused of having willingly submitted to the Devil. 297 According to medieval definitions, demons were spiritual creatures and had once been angels. Therefore they had better knowledge than humans on many religious matters. Occasionally they also had the gift of prophesy, of clairvoyance, or of speaking in tongues. Thus the demoniacs could use the knowledge of the possessing spirit for preaching, for example. Preaching demoniacs were not only a literary theme but known historical figures, too. Barbara Newman, ‘Possessed by the Spirit: Devout Women, Demoniacs, and the Apostolic Life in the Thirteenth Century’, Speculum, 73 (1998), 733–70 (pp. 753–62), claims that possession could have been knowingly used by women to gain respect and wider opportunities in the field of religion. Caciola, ‘Mystics, Demoniacs, and the Physiology of Spirit Possession’, on the other hand, argues that these women considered themselves as being possessed by the spirit of God. Demonic possession was a negative interpretation of the community which saw the religious practices of these women in a pejorative light. Good and evil, possession of malevolent spirit or spirit of God were not close or interrelated phenomena, yet the symptoms could have been fairly similar. Moreover, the doubt of the nature of the inspiration could have also been real in the minds of the particular persons. The ambivalence of society could be internalized. Richard Kieckhefer, ‘The Holy and the Unholy: Sainthood, Witchcraft and Magic in Late Medieval Europe’, in Christendom and its Discontents: Exclusion, Persecution, and Rebellion, 1000–1500, ed. by Scott L. Waugh and Peter D. Diehl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 310–37 (p. 318).

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

149

were out of their minds, ripped their clothes and hair, screamed, and acted violently. On many occasions possession and insanity were overlapping, yet not equivalent, categories.298 Moreover, the alleged gendered interpretations of these events are not especially confirmed in the miracle records.299 The intermingling of different diagnoses can be seen in the relatio of Nicholas’s hearing. Possession by demons and furies are gathered together under one heading.300 The hesitation of the diagnosis can also be found in the Cantilupe process. There is only one case of a mentally disturbed patient in the actual canonization hearing: Editha, the wife of Robertus.301 The witnesses were uncertain whether she was mentally ill or possessed by a demon. The witnesses used the word furiosa when describing Editha’s situation: violent behaviour and screaming.302 However, Gilbertus, the official of Hereford cathedral, assumed that possession was the reason for her fury.303 Her husband also thought that she was possessed by a spirit, yet he did not report seeing her doing anything by the power of malevolent spirits.304 The others stated that they did not know whether she was possessed or raving mad.305

298

Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 107.

299

During the central Middle Ages 62 per cent of the patients of mental illnesses or demonic possession were men. Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 236–37. However, since these types were usually classified under one heading it remains unknown whether the gender of the patient had affected the interpretation of symptoms within this category. 300

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4025, fol. 27r : ‘de demoniacis invasacis seu evanitis et adrabicis liberatis’. The epileptics are listed separately. 301

The witnesses to this case are in BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 211r–219v . There can also be found other cases in the registers recorded at the shrine. The disturbed were described as ‘demens’ or ‘freneticus’ or ‘furiosus’ (ibid., fol. 255v ). 302 Editha did not eat or drink anything for several days. She screamed constantly, mindlessly and was so aggressive that she needed to be tied down. 303

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 212v : ‘sed credit quod esset arepticia’. He also uses the word

‘furia’. 304

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 215v : ‘credit quod fuit arepticia sed tamen non vidit quod portaretur nec mutaretur de loco ad locum nec quod fecerit aliquem actum ex potencia malignorum spirituum’. Moreover, the husband suggests a rather down-to-earth explanation for the episode: it took place when Editha had not eaten much yet drunk a lot. Ibid., fol. 215r: ‘dicta furia accidit sibi ut estimat quia parum comedebat et multum bibebat’. 305

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 214r: ‘Item requisitus si dicta mulier erat arepticia sive demoniaca dixit se nescire nec ex qua causa paciebatur furorem.’ Others assumed that Editha was not possessed: ‘nec erat arepticia sed frenetica’ (ibid., fol. 216v ).

150

Chapter 2

The number of demonic possessions decreased in the canonization processes in the late Middle Ages.306 Fury became a medical condition. The reason for the decrease could have been the clerical authorities’ intention to clarify the distinction between demonic possession and mental disturbance. Thus possessions are absent, especially in processes of strict clerical control.307 Presumably the more liberal modes of carrying out the hearing explain the number of cases and fairly free interpretation of symptoms of demonic possession in Nicholas’s process. In Nicholas’s records the beneficiaries of these miracles were mainly women.308 It remains unknown whether the gender of the patient affected the interpretation of the condition since only men were diagnosed as raving mad.309 However, in cases clearly identified as possession the description of the symptoms had similar features: all these women slandered and insulted their neighbours.310 The only man identified as possessed was mute: he lost the power of speech and could not move his limbs after the possession.311

306

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 547–48.

307

Boureau, ‘Saints et démons dans les procès de canonisation’, pp. 203–09 and 220–21. However, Nicholas himself was also associated with confrontations with demons. Boureau claims that this kind of religiosity may have raised questions and uncertainties in the minds of the papal curialists. Furthermore, this may have been one of the reasons why the official canonization took place more than a century after the inquiry. 308

There are altogether thirteen cases in the relatio under the heading ‘de demoniacis invasacis seu evanitis et adrabicis liberatis’. One is about a demon appearing to a woman; two men are diagnosed as furious. On one occasion there is only a mention of demoniacs in general. Of nine cases of possession only one victim is a man. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4027, fols 27r–29 r. 309 Cicchus, the son of domina Fina, lost sight, speech, and hearing. He bit himself in the tongue and hurt anyone trying to approach him. He needed to be tied down. The interpretation of his condition was furiosus. Nicholas, testis CXXIX, p. 336. On the other hand, Philippucia, the wife of Vannucius Iohannis, suffered from illness that made her tremble. She was diagnosed as ‘quasi demoniaca cum maximo tremore’ (ibid., testis CCLXIII–CCLXIV, pp. 541–42). 310

In the case of sister Philippucia: ‘dicebat ipsa soror Philippucia dictis monialibus verba vituperosa et meretriculosa ad bonas et honestas mulieres et religiosas non spectantia’ (Nicholas, testis XXII, pp. 141–42); sister Anthonia: ‘die noctuque cantabat et tripudiabat et mala et inconvenientia ac vituperosa verba dicebat’ (ibid., testis XXI, p. 139); Salinbena Vissanucii: ‘Ipsa dicebat turpissima verba ad bonam mulierem non spectantia’ (ibid., testis CCII, p. 445); Zola, the wife of Massius: ‘dicebat gentibus multa turpissima et vituperosa verba’ (ibid., testis CVIII, p. 303). 311

Nicholas, testis LXXXVIII, pp. 259–60. The only testimony of the event was given by Mancinus who saw how the friends and relatives brought the possessed man, hands tied, to the shrine. He spent the night there and was cured.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

151

Bending of the accustomed modes of behaviour and disturbing the social order may have been the reason these occasions were interpreted as spirit possession. Yet other explanations can also be found. In the case of soror Philippucia the conclusion may have been fairly unproblematic since she called Belial and other demons.312 Philippucia, Zola, and Salinbena could all name the spirits tormenting them. In Zola’s and Salinbena’s cases they were not actually demons but known malefactors of the area who had died without confession.313 According to Nancy Caciola, the clerics disapproved of the idea yet the laity firmly believed in possession by spirits of deceased people. The ghosts had usually suffered a bad, violent, and sudden death and led a sinful life. Even though the possession put the possessed in a marginal position, he or she may have had an important role in integrating the community. The victim, by the exorcizing powers of the saint, should put the restless spirit to final death.314

312

Nicholas, testis XXI, p. 140: ‘O Bellial, veni, veni ad me’. Philippucia herself admits that she was ill and had used opprobrious words yet does not mention demons: ibid., testis XX, p. 137. In Philippucia’s and Anthonia’s cases the diagnosis was clear: all the nuns testifying state that they were possessed. The witnesses to these cases are testis XX–XXII and testis CXXIII–CXXVI. 313

Philippucia also called these spirits of deceased people in addition to demons ‘calamabat dominum Iohannem domini Vivibene de Esculo et dominum Raynaldum de Burunforte mortuos [. . .] qui temporibus eorum vite commiserant multa prelia, homicidia, derobbationes et mala’ (Nicholas, testis CXXV, p. 328); Zola: ‘a maledictis spiritibus temptata et molestata sepe sepius et a quibusdam nomine Lardo et Traverso de dicto castro Camori, qui fuerunt mali homines et commiserunt multa mala in eorum vita, et qui propter partialitates fuerunt sine sententia et confessione aliqua de facto combusti’ (ibid., testis CVIII, p. 303); Salinbena: ‘Et dixit quod iam est diu quod ipsa fuit tentata et invasata a diabolis et maledictis spiritibus V, scilicet: Scambio Raynaldi, Vectesalvo de Podiovallis, Nicolecta de Paterno et duobus aliis quod non cognovit, qui dum visserunt fuerunt mali homines habiti et qui fuerunt combusti’ (ibid., testis CCII, p. 445). Rinaldo di Brunforte, mentioned by Philippucia, was a member of a feudal family and connected with the political strife of guelfi and ghibellini in the thirteenth century. See Falaschi, ‘Società e istituzioni nella Marcha’, pp. 119–23. 314

Caciola, ‘Spirits Seeking Bodies’. Falaschi, ‘Società e istituzioni nella Marcha’, p. 123, argues that in the cases of possessed women in Nicholas’s records the reason was personal sensitivity: tragic deaths continued to distress the minds of these fragile women. According to Jean-Claude Schmitt, Les revenants: les vivants et les morts dans la société médiévale, Bibliothèque des Histoires (Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1994), pp. 13–16, the dead do not have any other existence than the one the living imagine for them, while the beliefs and imagination about the dead depended on the structures and functions of the society and the culture of the given era. Schmitt; on apparitions in general, see ibid., passim.

152

Chapter 2

In the cases of Nicholas’s process the victims — when interrogated — admitted their infirm state and acknowledged the disorder they had caused. In a more lucid moment they could have also sought for the cure by themselves. The definition of their state or the decision of the mode of remedy was not made only by others. All the possessed were cured at the shrine in Tolentino. Usually the invocation was made beforehand, yet the cure was sought and took place in the sacred sphere. The importance of the sacred sphere in the cure is especially obvious in the cases of nuns of the Cistercian monastery of Santa Lucia in San Ginesio.315 The nuns were cured at the shrine even though the journey was more difficult for them to accomplish. They had to ask their abbess permission to leave the convent. One of the nuns mentioned that she had also asked permission to leave from the abbot of the monastery of Clairvaux, the head monastery of the Cistercian order.316 No particular rites or gestures performed at the shrine were described in the depositions of these cases. Moreover, even though these miracles signify the triumph of sacred power over the demons and sinful people they do not particularly stress the unifying role or the integration of the community. The patient could have made the choice to petition divine help independently. Furthermore, testifying to these events seems to have also been a fairly personal responsibility.317

315

The situation in this convent must have been rather peculiar for quite some time. Philippucia claimed that she was possessed for five years. After her recuperation sister Anthonia became possessed. She was cured after approximately one year of possession. The third possessed nun was Estephanucia, but her case is mentioned briefly without any detail or time references. A hallucinogenic substance is suggested to have been the reason for these illnesses as well as diverse forms of schizophrenia. Michael E. Goodich, ‘Sexuality, Family, and the Supernatural in the Fourteenth Century’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 4 (1994), 493–515 (p. 513), and Giulio Marinozzi, ‘Le malattie nel processo di canonizzazione di San Nicola da Tolentino’, in San Nicola, Tolentino, le Marche, pp. 339–50 (pp. 344–45). It was common for mental illnesses to last several months or even years before the saint’s help was sought. Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, p. 248. 316

Nicholas, testis XX, p. 137: ‘obtempta licentia ab abbate monasterii Claravallis de Clente ordinis cisterciensium et ab abbatissa dicti monasterii Sancte Lucie’. 317

Zola is the only witness to the miracle she had experienced. Nicholas, testis CVIII, p. 303. In Salinbena’s case there are also three other witnesses, yet this was presumably because they were already conveniently at the shrine. Salinbena was cured at the feast of Saint Nicholas when the commissioners were interrogating witnesses in Tolentino. However, only Gentile Nugarelli and Mathiola Corraducii accompanied Salinbena to the shrine even though a more collective pilgrimage would have been comprehensible on a feast day. Witnesses to this case are Nicholas, testis CCII and testis CCIX–CCXI. The other witnesses from Visso do not mention the case: ibid., testis CXCIV–CXCV, pp. 437–39, and testis CCXIII–CCXIV, pp. 456–57. They were all summoned to testify on the same day, 10 September. Nicholas, citationes testium, pp. 65–66. It is possible that

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

153

The contact with the relics was also important in the miracle of Editha, who was cured at Hereford cathedral. After her recovery she went to the relics of Saint Thomas, which had not yet been transferred to the shrine. The cure of Editha held great importance for the cult since it was the first miracle that was claimed to be performed by Saint Thomas.318 Thus the closeness of the relics was essential for the identification of the performer and validation of the miracle.319 The news of the miraculous recovery of Editha spread rapidly and soon other miracles occurred in the cathedral. The cure of raving or possessed Editha increased devotion and initiated the cult of Saint Thomas — thus holding an integrating role in the community. The Sacred Sphere and Lay Imagination In addition to demoniacs, many other petitioners sought for a cure in the sacred sphere after the invocation had been done at home. Regardless of the increase in distance miracles, the sacred sphere in the vicinity of the relics held significance in seeking a cure in the Italian as well as in the English context. Domina Riccha was one of the supplicants who invoked Saint Nicholas at a distance but decided to seek the cure at the shrine. She made a vow in her home in

they had actually made the journey together. In the cases of the Cistercian nuns the other nuns of the convent did not take part in the invocation or in the pilgrimage. 318 The officials of the archbishop were not pleased with the event. One of them claimed that the miracle was performed by another former bishop, Robertus de Betonia. He pointed out the controversies Thomas Cantilupe had had with the archbishop and suspended dominus Gilbertus from his office. At this point, if we are to believe the testimony of the said Gilbertus, Editha took an active role in the proceedings and stood up to the clerical authority, insisting that the cure was performed by Saint Thomas. She had recognized the former bishop in her vision. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 212 r. However, Ronald Finucane argues that the miracle was, if not orchestrated, at least interpreted favourably by the cathedral clerics since it took place a little too conveniently just before the planned translation of the former bishop’s remains. See Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 181–82, and Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, p. 169. Regardless of whose interpretation the event was, it was convincing: many witnesses mentioned the recovery of Editha as the initiator of the fame of sanctity of Saint Thomas. On other mentions of this miracle, see also BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 85v and 88v . 319

Moreover, the sacred sphere and the closeness of the relics were presumably more important in the beginning of a cult. See Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, pp. 201–07, and Ashley and Sheingorn, Writing Faith, p. 103.

154

Chapter 2

San Severeno and then left for Tolentino for the shrine of Saint Nicholas.320 She was not cured, however, and returned home. She continued to pray to Saint Nicholas. The following night she had a vision of the saint who urged her to go back to the shrine. Therefore she returned to the church, put her afflicted arm into the shrine, slept a little while, and afterwards she was cured. Riccha had tried other means of healing, but the doctor’s medicaments failed to cure her. She had already suffered from paralysis in her right arm for five years when she — finaliter — made a vow to Saint Nicholas. Riccha is one of the few petitioners whose promise did not include a pilgrimage or typical wax oblation to the shrine.321 From this point of view the sacred sphere did not play an important role: the invocation was made at a distance and the offerings were not given to the shrine. Nevertheless, Riccha thought the recovery was more certain close to the holy dead. Presumably she had her doubts about the efficacy of the relics since she returned home before the cure. Apparently Riccha was not hesitant about the curative powers of Nicholas only about the importance of closeness to the relics in the recovery since she continued petitioning at home. However, the nocturnal vision of Saint Nicholas saying, ‘Do not doubt! Return to my church’,322 can also be interpreted as a testimony of the importance of the presence of the relics in the recovery process in the lay mentality. The curative powers of the relics were also stressed in the vision experienced by domina Natasia. She invoked Saint Nicholas to cure her paralysis. After the vow she fell asleep, and in a vision an Augustinian friar spoke to her: ‘Come to Saint Nicholas of Tolentino if you want to be liberated.’323 The visions of saints urging the petitioner to visit the shrine were a common hagiographic theme throughout the Middle Ages.324 However, in Nicholas’s process it seems to be an especially

320 Witnesses to this miracle are domina Riccha (Nicholas, testis CLXIII), domina Chittania Gilii (testis CLXIV), and Alifandus, the husband of Riccha (testis CLXXIX). 321

As a votive offering she promised to celebrate the anniversary of his death by not working: ‘custodiare diem migrationis sue annuatim et nil facere’ (Nicholas, testis CLXIII, pp. 387–88). 322

Nicholas, testis CLXIV, p. 388: ‘Noli dubites! Revertere ad ecclesiam meam.’

323

Nicholas, testis CXLVIII, p. 356: ‘Venias ad Sanctum Nicolaum de Tholentino, si vis liberari’; another exhortation to visit the shrine can be found in ibid., testis CXLVIII, pp. 357–58. 324

Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 146, and Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 83–85. The shrines were also important places for promoting the cult by proclaiming the miracles. Thus not only the relics but also the officials could have made the presence at the sacred sphere important. See Christian Krötzl, ‘Fama Sanctitatis: Die Akten der spätmittelalterlichen Kanonisationsprozesse

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

155

gender-specific feature: only women report visions of Saint Nicholas urging the patient to visit the shrine.325 Men also report conversations between the visionary and the saint, yet if any exhortation was given it concerned only the vow.326 Pierre-André Sigal argues that such visions were most typical among the ordinary visitors to the shrine. According to him, the medieval peasants could not have dreamt of any other mode or suggestion to resolve the problem.327 This was not the motivation for the usually better-off devotees of Saint Nicholas. As noted, many of them had resorted to doctors’ advice before turning to the heavenly intercessor. For example, domina Natasia had visited baths several times and done other things recommended to her to cure the paralysis.328 Domina Riccha also stated that consulting with doctors had not given her relief from the disease. Both of these women had access to other means of remedy as well. Since both of them had already tried other ways of healing, the pilgrimage was not the only mode of liberation they could have imagined. It is also noteworthy that persons who were widely recognized as devotees of Saint Nicholas or who had experienced several miraculous recoveries did not usually report any visions — and never an exhortation to visit the shrine. Thus people who probably would have thought of invocation as the first means for recovery did not need any supernatural encouragement to visit the shrine. This is reasonable, since many of the devotees had already engaged with annual pilgrimages, thus they visited the shrine frequently in any case.

als Quelle zu Kommunikation und Informationsvermittlung in der mittelalterlichen Gesellschaft’, in Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge, ed. by Klaniczay, pp. 223–44 (pp. 239–44). 325

On other visions including exhortations to visit the shrine — experienced also by men — see Krötzl, ‘Fama Sanctitatis’, pp. 238–40. Other types of visions of Nicholas seem to have also been rather gender specific. The majority of the visions experienced by men were connected to the liberation miracles. In these situations Nicholas loosened the bonds of the captives and opened the door or consoled the prisoners by promising a quick liberation. Typically men were carrying out their businesses outside their hometown when captivity took place. See, for example, Nicholas, testis VII, p. 85; testis XLIX, p. 183; testis CCLII, pp. 531–32; and testis CCLXII, pp. 540–41. The only liberation miracle reported by a woman is the rescue of Lucia Scambii. She was saved from a well where her brothers had pushed her. No vision was connected to this miracle; ibid., testis CCXL–CCXLII, pp. 518–21. 326

For example, Forensis had seen a vision of Saint Nicholas in which a friar told him: ‘If you vow yourself to Saint Nicholas of Tolentino you will be cured.’ Nicholas, testis CCCXXII, p. 611: ‘Sic voveas te beato Nicolao de Tholentino, et eris sanatus de infirmitate predicta.’ 327

Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 147.

328

Nicholas, testis CXLVIII, p. 356.

156

Chapter 2

Indeed, it is plausible that these women, Natasia and Riccha, actually needed a supernatural support to make the unpleasant and even hazardous journey to the relics. The vision of the friar urging them to visit the relics can be seen as a testimony of the importance of the relics in the minds of the laity yet also as reflecting the difficulties women had travelling from one town to another. Undoubtedly these women considered their experience of the appearance of the saint to be genuine. Yet the need to justify the journey for themselves and for their close ones may lie behind such visions.329 Men do not report this kind of vision, which may reflect their easier access to the spheres outside home and hometown. The visions appear to be different in the Cantilupe process. As noted, the visions at the shrine usually included a gesture of the appearing saint that can be interpreted as a medical treatment. It was an essential part of the cure. The visions, which took place at a distance, usually included an encouragement to measure oneself for Saint Thomas and to visit the shrine. These exhortations were reported by men and women alike.330 Particular gestures could also be interpreted as a suggestion to visit the relics. For example, the paralysed Margeria de Hoymer had for several nights a vision of Saint Thomas offering her his arm as if wanting to help her.331 Her daughter, Johanna, claimed that Saint Thomas had only offered his hand to be kissed.332 Nevertheless, the interpretation was the same: the paralysed women wanted to travel to the shrine to be cured.333 In Margeria’s case the encouragement to undertake a pilgrimage was essential. Since she was severely paralysed she could not have made the journey by herself.

329

Riccha succeeded in the justification since her husband remembered the vision nearly verbatim eighteen years after the miracle. He accompanied her both times to the shrine. Nicholas, testis CLXXXIX, pp. 431–32. 330

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 179v and 242v.

331

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 175v : ‘quod dictus sanctus Thomas de Hereford [. . .] apparens ei multis noctibus videbatur porrigere manum et umerum quod volebat iuvare eam exquibus visionibus accensa petebat quod portarent eam ad tumulum dicti sancti Thome’. 332

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 174r: ‘apparens sibi porrigeret ei manum ad osculandum et quod ipsa oscularetur eius manum circa iuncturam manus et brachium et ex tunc dicta Margeria defideravit et affectavit portari ad ecclesiam Herefordensis ad tumulum dicti sancti Thome quia sperabat curare ibidem’. 333

In Margeria’s case a local role model, Iuliana Kock, another paralysed women who was cured at the shrine ten years before Margeria, may have increased her motivation and influenced the vision she saw. See also Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, pp. 174–75.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

157

Her daughter and son were reluctant to take their mother to the shrine, however. They were afraid she would die on the road of her tribulations. They also needed time to collect enough money, even though the journey to the neighbouring city was not long.334 Indeed, in Margeria’s case the journey to the nearby shrine may have been the only aid possible. She had been paralysed for years, and other means of remedy were not apparently available or economically possible. This must have been true for other seriously ill pilgrims, too. The difficulties of travel were not based only on gender. They also depended on the health and economic position of the petitioner. Gender and Performance at the Shrine In the canonization processes of Thomas Cantilupe and Nicholas of Tolentino pilgrimage to the shrine was most often a rite of satisfaction, not an act to petition a miracle. However, when the recovery was petitioned in the sacred sphere the curative rites at the shrine were quite different from those performed in a profane sphere. Similar manifestations of devotion or humility, tears or kneeling, were not stressed. The aim of the rites performed at the shrine was to urge the relics to work.335 In many cases the oblation was offered when entering the sacred sphere. It fulfilled the petitioners’ part of the pact.336 However, the performance at the shrine seems to have been similar whether the oblation was offered before or after the recovery.

334

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 173v –176v .

335

The relics could have been tried to force to work by humiliation. The ritual of humiliation of relics was especially practised in the central Middle Ages. Performed by the clergy it was a symbolic act trying to provoke the relics to take action — to protect the community and honour of its patron. When practised by the laity it took more violent forms, yet the essence of the ritual was the same. Geary, ‘Humiliation of Saints’, pp. 134–37. However, in the canonization processes this kind of activity should be defined only as urging — not coercing or humiliating. 336

In the cases of the Cantilupe process the oblation was usually offered when entering the sacred sphere. See, for example, BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 174v , 183r, 229 v, 235 r, and 238v . In Nicholas’s records, however, the situation was different: some petitioners offered the oblation when entering the church (Nicholas, testis CXLIV, p. 351; testis CCXVIII, p. 465; testis CCXCII, p. 584; and testis CCXCVI, p. 587); others promised to offer it later (ibid., testis XCI, pp. 267–69; testis CXLII, p. 348; and testis CLXXV, p. 411); while some witnesses do not mention the offering in their deposition at all (ibid., testis LXXIX, p. 220, and testis CI, pp. 289–90).

158

Chapter 2

Moreover, the rituals performed in the sacred sphere appear to have been fairly similar in these cultural spheres. The passivity of the petitioner is commonly emphasized in both of the processes. It is especially stressed in the case of Editha since she lay tied up in the church.337 However, the passive lying or sometimes sleeping seems to have been the essential mode of communication with the saint. It was performed by men and women alike. Women could, presumably properly escorted, also enter the sacred sphere, penetrate the shrine, and sleep in the vicinity of the relics or spend the night praying in the church — in mixed company. The most active urging, penetrating the shrine, seems to have been more favoured by men. No woman was reported to have penetrated the shrine in the Cantilupe process.338 In Nicholas’s process this custom was also practised by women. In both of these cases the husbands of the women were active in the performance.339 However, the cases are too few to permit any clear-cut conclusions. Similar conduct seems to have been appropriate for both men and women at the sacred sphere. The position of the supplicant was not constructed differently according to gender. Most likely the illness was the determining factor dictating the actions at the shrine. It was easiest to put an afflicted arm or leg into the shrine. Yet, in cases of complete paralysis the patient was just put next to the shrine — as close as possible as in the case of Iuliana Kock.340 The majority of the cases emphasize the passivity and submissiveness of the supplicant. Both men and women

337

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 211r–219v .

338

In the Cantilupe process only two cases of the practice can be found. See note 267 in this chapter. The social status of these performers was low: Johannes Burtone was a beggar and Johannes Holarton a servant of a miles. 339

Alifandus took the infirm arm of Riccha out of the shrine after the cure. Nicholas, testis CLXXXIX, p. 432. The other woman is not mentioned by name. Her afflicted leg was kept in the shrine by her husband and her brother; ibid., testis CCLXVIII, p. 557. There are altogether six cases in Nicholas’s process. Four penetrations were performed by men. See ibid., testis LVI, p. 189; testis CLXXV, p. 411; testis CXCII, p. 435; and testis CCLXXIII, pp. 567–68. All the cases involve an infirm arm or leg even though occasionally the head could have been put inside the shrine in addition to the afflicted limb. One of the witnesses was titled dompnus and cappellanus and a woman domina. The others plausibly were not of high standing since they were defined as secularis or had no epithets. 340

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 172v : ‘et cum esset prope tumulum in ecclesia extraxerunt eam de dicta sporta et posuerunt eam in loco magis propinquo tumulo’; ibid., fol. 172r: ‘et extracta de dicta sporta seu cophino applicuerunt ad tumulum’.

VAGARIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE

159

received the cure only by being present close to the relics, praying341 and patiently waiting for grace in the sacred sphere.342 Similar conduct was emphasized in both of the processes, yet the patience of the petitioner seems to have been the decisive element. It was quite common for the petitioners to stay at the shrines for days and even weeks.343 However, in Nicholas’s records the cure was often achieved immediately on entering the sacred sphere.344 Many of the supplicants were also reported to have stayed a night at the shrine and the cure was received in the morning.345 Longer stays were not reported. In the Cantilupe process the patients often spent some days in the vicinity of the relics.346 The paralysed Agnes was reported to have stayed at the shrine a fortnight.347 The tough competition between saints and shrines in medieval Italy may have made the clientele of Saint Nicholas more impatient and demanding. Moreover, the prosperous town-dwellers had many modes of remedy to choose from, not only various saints and shrines. The economic situation and health of the petitioner may have also been the most decisive factors in the length of the stay. The beneficiaries of the miracles in the Cantilupe process were mainly peasants; the doctors’ medical treatment was not easily accessible economically or otherwise to many of them. Moreover, if the oblation was offered beforehand — as in many cases in the Cantilupe process — the supplicant may have been more persistent in his or her petitions. The health of the petitioner may have also made the supplicant more 341

For example ‘oravit ibi per magnum tempum’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 171r); ‘et cum orasset dicta Iuliana diu propre dictum tumulum’ (ibid., fol. 172r); ‘staret genuflexa coram altari seu archa’ (Nicholas, testis III, pp. 77–78). 342 BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 170r: ‘et stabat in quandam aliqua sporta in dicta ecclesia herefordensis expectans in ibi miraculose meritis dicti santi thome beneficium recipere sanitatis’. 343

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, p. 520; Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 69–70; and Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, pp. 217–18. 344

For example ‘iacuerit per horam, subito liberatus est’ (Nicholas, testis XVII, p. 131); ‘ibi iacuit donec fuit dicta missa’ (ibid., testis LXXVII, p. 212); ‘statim cum intravit ecclesiam [. . .] fuit subito liberata’ (ibid., testis LXXIX, p. 220); ‘statim, facto voto et posita oblatione supra archam predictam fuit liberatus’ (ibid., testis CXLIV, p. 351); ‘et immediate cum fuit extra civitatem, incepit meliorari; et antequam esset in Tholentino fuit liberata’ (ibid., testis CXLVIII, p. 356). 345

For example, Nicholas, testis XIII, p. 106; testis XXIV, p. 144; testis LVI, p. 189; testis CVII, p. 302; testis CVIII, p. 303; and testis CCCXXXVIII, p. 623. 346 Paralysed Alicia (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 66v –67r), blind Adam (ibid., fols 234r–238r), and blind Agnes (ibid., fols 227v–230v) stayed three days and three nights at the shrine. The second cure of Iuliana Kock is said to have taken two days at the shrine: ibid., fol. 170v . 347

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 238v .

160

Chapter 2

persevering in the wait: if the journey to the nearest shrine was difficult and nearly impossible to accomplish there were not many other modes of healing practices to choose from. Thus the gender of the participant did not dictate the conduct in the sacred sphere but it was connected with the diverse ailments from which the petitioners suffered. Moreover, it influenced their interpretation of the situation and the need to be close to the relics in the search for a cure.348 Furthermore, the gender of the patient may have been an important factor in the difficulties and possibilities in approaching the shrine. Economic position and health also affected the possible healing practices and places occupied during the search for a cure. Age, health, gender, and status influenced the modes of interaction with the intercessor.

348

For example, the abovementioned Iuliana Kock was said to have been paralysed after a particularly difficult childbirth. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 173r. Moreover, the gender of the patient affected the way the symptoms were interpreted, for example, as demonic possession which, in turn, influenced the need for the sacred sphere in the recovery.

Chapter 3

A FTER G RACE W AS G AINED : E XPRESSIONS OF G RATITUDE

Pilgrimages as Votive Offerings Gender, Pilgrimage, Gratitude

A

fter the successful invocation and received cure, the petitioners’ obligation was to fulfil the promise given in the vow. Promises to the saint varied greatly from precious material offerings to personal penitential practices. However, nearly all of them entailed a personal visit to the shrine. The pilgrimage was an act of gratitude, a way to thank the saint for the grace gained. The journey itself was a meaningful act and a way to render homage to the heavenly intercessor; it had spiritual significance for the devotees. It was important for the petitioners to personally honour the relics.1 The rites of thanksgiving were a means for the petitioner to achieve direct contact with the heavenly intercessor. The vow was the first turning point in the relationship of the petitioner with the saint. The pilgrimage was another important element in the interaction.2 The primary dialogue in this performance was between the petitioner and the intercessor, yet since pilgrimages took place in the public sphere they were also significant in a social sense. Here attention is paid to the collective nature of the ritual as well as to its significance to the pilgrims’ private roles.

1 Veneration is especially stressed by some witnesses. Clare, testis LVIII, p. 315: ‘Et dixit quod propterea yvit et duxit ipsum puerum ad visitandum corpus eiusdem s. Clare [. . .] et veneratus est corpus ipisus et habet in eadem s. Clara devotionem magnam.’ 2

Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 117.

162

Chapter 3

The actual progress of the pilgrim did not interest the commissioners. The particular circumstances of the journey can rarely be found in the depositions. Usually only the intention and accomplished deed are mentioned. Pilgrimage was an ordinary element in religious life yet out of the customary course of an individual’s life so that it would be remembered, a memorable event.3 There were many grounds for medieval pilgrims to embark on a journey to the sepulchre of the holy dead: assistance, gratitude, devotion, a wish to see new areas, for example.4 For some petitioners the pilgrimage was only an obligatory and perhaps unpleasant or at least difficult way to take the intended gift to the shrine, to pay one’s dues. For others it was an essential element in the interaction with the saint and a way to manifest gratitude. Occasionally the petitioner wanted to further stress the significance of the journey as well as the importance of the sacred sphere by adapting ascetic modes of travel. Naturally the miracle to thank for, geographical origin, health, gender, age, and social position had an effect on the motivation and the inner as well as the social meaning of the act. The generally held prejudices regarding women’s public performances are also relevant in the practices of pilgrimage. Pilgrimages were a gender-specific mode of

3 Morrison, Women Pilgrims, p. 50. The longer pilgrimages were significant turning points to be remembered later and to help to put other events of life into chronological order. However, the pilgrimages to the local shrines were not important aspects in recollections. Bedell, ‘Memory and Proof of Age’, p. 19. 4 Pilgrimages have been categorized in several manners. According to the distance travelled pilgrimages have been classified as long-distance (Fernpilgerfahrt), over-regional (Überregionale Pilgerfahrt), and local pilgrimages (Lokalen Wallfahrt). Ludwig Schmugge, ‘Die Anfänge des Organisierten Pilgerverkehrs im Mittelalter’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 64 (1984), 1–83, esp. p. 2; see also Paolo Caucci von Saucken, ‘Le distanze nei pellegrinaggi medievali’, in Spazi, tempi, misure e percorsi nell’Europa del bassomedioevo, Atti del XXXII Convegno storico internazionale (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 1996), pp. 297–315. Or they are classified according to the motivation of the pilgrim as Bittpilgerfahrt to petition a favour and Dankpilgerfahrt to thank for the grace gained. Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, pp. 27–28. On categorization according to the goal or motivation, see Robert Plötz, ‘Peregrini – Palmieri – Romei: Untersuchungen zum Pilgerbegriff der Zeit Dantes’, Jahrbuch für Volkskunde, n.s., 2 (1979), 103–34, and Pierre-André Sigal, ‘Les différents types de pèlerinage au Moyen Âge’, in Wallfahrt kennt keine Grenzen: Themen zu einer Ausstellung des Bayerischen Nationalmuseums und des Adalbert Stifter Vereins, München, ed. by Lenz Kriss-Rettenbeck and Gerda Möhler (München: Verlag Schnell & Steiner, 1984), pp. 76–86. On classification of pilgrimages in general, see Robert H. Stoddard, ‘Defining and Classifying Pilgrimages’, in Sacred Places, Sacred Spaces: The Geography of Pilgrimages, ed. by Robert H. Stoddard and Alan Morinis, Geoscience and Man, 34 (Baton Rouge, LA: Geoscience Publications, Louisiana State University, 1997), pp. 41–60.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

163

devotion: the preponderance of men among pilgrims is a common feature throughout late medieval Europe. Ronald Finucane has shown that women visited the shrine eagerly when the journey did not take more than one or two days. When the cult spread, the pilgrims came from further afield and the relative number of women decreased.5 Similar features are also emphasized in other studies on various parts of Europe.6 However, exact numbers and proportions of pilgrims should be regarded with caution. Many of the pilgrims remained unregistered. This can be clearly seen in the Cantilupe process. The list of offerings found at the shrine of Saint Thomas reveals that several thousand gifts were left there. Not all the pilgrims offered a material donation, thus the actual number of pilgrims must have been much higher. However, only 455 miracles were registered in the records kept at the shrine.7 The registrars must have selected the miracles written down in the records. The verification of the miracle was the principal selection criterion, but what were the ground rules for the verification? Likely many of the miracles that took place at the shrine were also registered. Yet when pilgrims only informed the officials of the miracle after the cure, the status of the pilgrim may have been an important element in the validation. When the cult spread and more pilgrims came to the shrine the registrars could have selected the miracles more carefully. It was no longer necessary to write down all the possible events to gain firm grounds for the cult. Probably clerical officials preferred miracles with witnesses of good social position. The proportion of upper-class men as pilgrims at the shrine of Saint Thomas rose as time elapsed and the cult spread. Presumably the interests of the registrars

5

Ronald Finucane has studied approximately 2300 miracles and pilgrimages connected with them in England: Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 9–11, 143, and 184–86, and ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, pp. 198–99 and 213–14. 6

According to Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 259–61, women were less numerous as beneficiaries in the French miracle stories of the years 1000–1100. In the Swedish miracle collections the proportion of registered female pilgrims varied from 35 to 41 per cent in the late Middle Ages. Fröjmark, Mirakler och helgonkult, p. 83. Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, pp. 333–43, has also reached similar conclusions, that men were more numerous among the pilgrims at the shrine of John Capistran, while he also stresses the correlation of the length of the journey with the gender of the pilgrim. 7

The pilgrims and miracles were also registered after the hearing, in the years 1307–12. Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, pp. 165–66.

164

Chapter 3

also influenced the change in clientele as seen in the registers.8 The words of lowerstatus pilgrims could have been ignored in favour of the better-off witnesses. The cures of the poor were usually recorded only if they had suffered the illness for a long time and it was well known in the neighbourhood. Poor people were also usually subjected to physical examinations at the shrine before their experiences were written down.9 Miracles experienced and reported by women may have also been ignored due to their lower credibility in the eyes of clerical authors in general and their inferior status in secular and canon law. Numerous must have also been the pilgrims who sought a cure at the shrine in vain. They were not registered, and their gender or social status hence cannot be analysed. The social position of pilgrims who had made the journey out of devotion and not in order to proclaim a miracle at the shrine likewise cannot be known. A pilgrimage for devotion may have been quite common a practice but it is impossible to analyse how many pilgrims actually travelled to the shrine only to pray there and to venerate the saint.10 The commissioners found a multitude of pilgrims making for the shrine on the feast of Saint Nicholas. Many of them had come to the shrine only due to the devotion and due to the custom of the feast day. Some of them were making good a vow, yet many came only out of reverence for Saint Nicholas.11 The flow of pilgrims to the shrine of Saint Thomas was more abundant around Easter and Pentecost and in the autumn after harvest, when peasants had free time from their agricultural work.12 8

Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 102–03, 136, and 186, and Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, p. 195. Fröjmark, Mirakler och helgonkult, pp. 80–84, has also emphasized similar conclusions in Swedish material. 9

Farmer, Surviving Poverty, pp. 52–56. Ward, Miracles and the Medieval Mind, p. 96, also emphasizes the feature that the poorest members of society were less frequently recorded as benefiting from the powers of saints since they could not afford to offer a gift to the shrine. 10

This is also stressed by Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, p. 207.

11

For example ‘ad sui reverentiam et devotionem ipsa venit hodie, die lune IX septembris in vigilia universalii ipsius fratris, ad tumulum, ubi iacet corpus ipsius fratris Nicolai’ (Nicholas, testis CCCXLVII, p. 627); ‘Interrogata quare ipsa venit Tholentinum, dixit quod ad honorem et reverentiam dicti fratris Nicolai in vigilia universalis dicti fratris Nicolai’ (ibid., testis CCCXXXV, p. 622). See also ibid., citationes testium, pp. 58–60. 12

Two witnesses mention these periods as primary pilgrimage seasons. According to Prior Robertus and Johannes Dute, masses of pilgrims still sought the shrine of Thomas at the time of the hearing. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 87r: ‘concursus fuerat continuatus usque ad presentem diem et specialiter in septimanas pasche et pentecoste et post autumpnum quia tunc homines

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

165

Regardless of the uncertainties in the registers a generally held view deemed women to be more hearth-bound than men. Men’s daily tasks took them outside the domestic sphere and home village or city more often while women’s duties, small children, for example, were not easily left behind.13 Nevertheless, the pilgrimages can be interpreted as strengthening the traditional gender system. The journey to the sacred space was women’s commitment to structures of religious life that were ordained by men. On a personal level gender was always at stake, especially on the longer journeys. Women faced threats during the pilgrimages, such as rape, only due to their gender.14 The journey to the shrine was not possible for everyone. Health, age, or social condition may have prevented some from travelling. Even a short journey required careful planning and economic sacrifice. A pilgrimage was never only a question of personal devotion. For all the witnesses a pilgrimage itself was not a gift. For some petitioners it was only a means to get the intended offering to the saint. When the journey was impossible or difficult for the supplicant to accomplish vicarious pilgrimage may have been the solution: the vow was solved and the saint received the promised offering.15 Vicarious pilgrimages were equally efficient. They were an appropriate mode of interaction with the intercessor, like vicarious invocations. The gratitude could have been shown in this way, too.16 Sometimes the vow included a potential promise to visit the shrine if the journey was not too difficult. When Alicia invoked Saint Thomas for her drowned

vacantes ab operibus suis possunt liberius peregrinari’ (see also ibid., fol. 107r); on pilgrimages only for devotion, see ibid., fols 69v and 72v . 13

Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, p. 198, argues that gendered tasks may have been a reason for women to take part in a pilgrimage. Women used the pilgrimages as a pretext to escape at least temporarily from the gendered behaviour modes. 14

Generally all widely travelled women were suspect, regardless of the reason for their journeys. Such women were often considered promiscuous: the image of women as pilgrims in literature was especially sexual, thus representing disorder threatening the social order of the community. Morrison, Women Pilgrims, pp. 34–35, 57–58, and 110–19. Terence N. Bowers, ‘Margery Kempe as Traveler’, Studies in Philology, 97 (2000), 1–28, goes even further by arguing that in the medieval context the actions of travelling women went against the very idea of what it meant to be a woman. 15 16

On vicarious pilgrimage, see Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 46–47.

The son of domina Symoneta was cured when the neighbour who was sent to the shrine with offerings reached the sacred sphere. Nicholas, testis CLIV, p. 374: ‘ipsa domina mater eius vovit eum beato Nicolao et misit quamdam vicinam suam cum oblationibus Tholentinum ad Archam’. On a vicarious pilgrimage for petitioning a cure, see BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 234v–235r.

166

Chapter 3

son she promised to visit the shrine or send her offerings there if she could not conveniently visit it.17 Domina Catalina also made a vow to Saint Nicholas to rescue her son Nicolaus. Catalina’s son suffered from continuous fever and the doctors told her he was about to die. Catalina promised that she would visit the shrine dum poterit. It is interesting to note that she also promised a golden filament to the shrine.18 Presumably she felt that material oblation was more important and valuable in the bargaining with the saint. Domina Catalina may not have perceived the pilgrimage as an obligatory part of the interaction. However, the deposition also testifies to the difficulties of fulfilling the promise of pilgrimage to the neighbouring city. The dangers of the road were not stressed only by women. For example, Berardus, the Bishop of the Diocese of Camerino made a vow to Saint Nicholas. He promised to send a wax foot to the shrine if Nicholas cured his podagra. Berardus added that he would personally visit the shrine when he could. He also stated that he did not know about the fama of Saint Nicholas in all parts of the diocese. Due to his illnesses and the state of war he could not have visited the whole of his bishopric.19 The dangers of the road are clearly stated in many cases of miraculous liberations from capture or escapes from robbers.20 Viarum discrimina may have stressed the involuntary marginal position of the pilgrims. The captures or robberies could change the position of the pilgrim permanently. Yet, it should be noted that the miraculous escapes from captivity did not take place while participating on a pilgrimage. The dangers of the road were met when taking care of daily tasks and gaining one’s livelihood.

17

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 54v.

18

Nicholas, testis CCLV, p. 534: ‘ipsa promixit quod, dum poterit, ibit ad locum ubi iacet corpus dicti fratris Nicolay tumulatum: ibi offerret unam bindam de auro’. 19 Nicholas, testis CCCXXVII, p. 616: ‘Et dixit quod propter infirmitatem, quam patitur, non potuit visitare totam diocesim suam et propter guerrarum discrimina [. . .] ipse mitteret ad archam suam unum pedem de cera, et nichilominus, quando posset, personaliter visitaret eandem.’ Lella also stated that she had come to the shrine to resolve the vow on that particular day since she could not have come earlier because of the war. The vow was made nine years earlier. Ibid., testis LXXVII, p. 209. On the conflict and warfare in the area, see Cecchi, ‘Tolentino al tempo di San Nicola’. 20

Such miracles were all experienced by men. For example, Vannolus Bonfilii with his friend escaped from robbers. Afterwards his companion was captured again but Vannolus came directly to the shrine of Nicholas, to pay his homage for his rescue. He gave his testimony at the shrine. Nicholas, testis CLXXVI, pp. 412–14.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

167

Pilgrimage — A Liminal Situation? Physically pilgrimage demanded segregation from the daily routines and from the normal physical sphere of an individual. Therefore the boundary-breaking nature of pilgrimage has also been seen as a rite of passage. Such transition rituals and their three stages — separation, margin, and aggregation — marked the social change and altered the person’s position in society. The transition was permanent.21 According to Victor and Edith Turner, the idea of margin or liminality cannot be confined to the traditional transition rites but applies to all phases of decisive cultural change, including transition. They have applied these concepts of transition rituals to the study of pilgrimage, concentrating on the liminal or marginal state of the pilgrim. According to them, the nature of pilgrimage is liminoid or quasi-liminal since it was voluntary and marked the transition of an individual from one state to another. The essential element in the Turners’ analysis of pilgrimages is the freedom from social structures and the hierarchies of secular roles during the pilgrimages.22 The Turners claim that ‘on pilgrimage, social interaction is not governed by the old rules of social structure’.23 Concepts like equality, anonymity, and simplicity are essential for the liminal state of a pilgrim.24 The Turners’ thesis has met a lot of resistance. The liberating effects of pilgrimages have especially been criticized. Many scholars argue instead that the hierarchies of the social structure followed pilgrims to their journey and the social boundaries were reinforced.25 The Turners’ gender-blind approach has also met 21

The concept of rites of passage was originally presented by Arnold Van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (1908; repr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960). These rites marked and assisted the biological and social transitions. On translation of relics as a rite of passage, see Geary, Furta Sacra, pp. 154–57. 22

Turner and Turner, Image and Pilgrimage, pp. 2–35. Douglas, Purity and Danger, pp. 94–98, also concentrates on the limits of society’s structures. She sees marginal people and disorder in general as destructive to — or on some occasions thus reinforcing — existing patterns. Yet, she also agrees with the Turners in deeming disorder to have potentiality: it symbolizes both danger and power. The Turners, however, see the liminal position as a source of creativity — not dangerous or polluting due to its formlessness: Turner and Turner, Image and Pilgrimage, p. 3. 23

Turner and Turner, Image and Pilgrimage, p. 31.

24

Turner and Turner, Image and Pilgrimage, p. 250, use the concept of communitas or antistructure to define the essence of the state of the pilgrim. This concept was defined by Victor Turner in his earlier studies. Communitas is a liminal phenomenon, an essential human bond which is spontaneous, undifferentiated, and concrete. 25

Johan Eade and Michael J. Sallnow, ‘Introduction’, in Contesting the Sacred: The Anthropology of Christian Pilgrimage, ed. by John Eade and Michael J. Sallnow (London: Routledge,

168

Chapter 3

criticism. According to Caroline Walker Bynum, liminality is not a valid concept for the analysis of feminine religiosity since women’s stories tend to emphasize more the continuity than the turning points. In this sense women’s religious position could be seen as permanently liminal or as never becoming so.26 However, this notion is not necessarily valid for pilgrimages since they are in themselves dynamic processes with climaxes — also when performed by women. Jill Dubisch, on the other hand, claims that pilgrimages attract people that are already liminal, like women. She admits that the pilgrimages may have been an attempt to overcome liminality but emphasizes more the pilgrimages as an opportunity for women to create performative space for themselves.27 The concept of liminality can be approached from several different perspectives: different roles and spheres intermingled during the pilgrimages. In the following, attention is paid to the manifestation of public and private position and to the spiritual communication: the interaction with the intercessor and its significance to the performer and to the onlookers interpreting and evaluating the pilgrimage. Pilgrimages as Collective Rituals Some aspects of liminality, especially the detachment of an individual as well as the freedom from the obligations of the social structure, can be questioned since pilgrimages were seldom performed alone. Pilgrimage was a social act. Family members usually took part in the journey. A common group was also constituted of neighbours and fellow villagers, especially if they had witnessed the recovery.28

1991), pp. 1–29 (pp. 4–5). Some scholars agree, at least partially, with the Turners. René Gothóni, ‘Pilgrimage = Transformation Journey’, in The Problem of Ritual, ed. by Tore Ahlbäck, Donner Institute for Research in Religious and Cultural History (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1993), pp. 101–16, sees pilgrimages as personal transformation even though they do not mark permanent transition. Michael Garcia, ‘Medieval Medicine, Magic, and Water: The Dilemma of Deliberate Deposition of Pilgrim Signs’, Pelegrinations: International Society for the Study of Pilgrimage Art, 1 [accessed 17 October 2005], also sees pilgrimages as liminal states which were created and resolved by particular rites. Bowers, ‘Margery Kempe as Traveler’, seems to accept the Turners’ concept of ‘communitas’ during the pilgrimages. 26

Bynum, Fragmentation and Redemption, pp. 32–33; on women as outsiders, see ibid., p. 77.

27

Dubisch, In a Different Place, pp. 95–97 and 218.

28

Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 118–19.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

169

Miracles and pilgrimages may have actually attached the pilgrim more closely to the community.29 Collective pilgrimages were common, especially to the local shrine. Thus even though the accustomed physical sphere was left behind, the social sphere was not. The social pressure may have made collective pilgrimages to the local shrine virtually obligatory.30 The collectively performed journey can be seen as a confirmation of belonging to a certain community — as a confirmation of one’s position.31 Moreover, the pilgrimages to the local shrine to absolve a vow were not significant ruptures in daily life. Thus for an individual they were not moments of liminality — often quite the contrary. The collective significance of the miracle as well as the pilgrimage is especially stressed in the case of the drowned Johanna la Schirreue. The fervour shook the whole community: many villagers participated in the pilgrimage to the shrine of Thomas Cantilupe after the miracle. Adam le Schirreue estimated that they amounted to a group of thirty persons. Many people joined the pilgrims along the road to Hereford. In Hereford the group had difficulties in approaching the cathedral since many wanted to greet and embrace the miraculously rescued Johanna.32

29

Goodich, Violence and Miracle, pp. 150–51, argues that miracles were bonds uniting the community. The social control of the miracle is also stressed by Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, p. 340: the vows were said aloud and pilgrimages performed together. 30 The pressure could have been internalized as in the case of domina Iohanna. She told the commissioners that her neighbours asked her to travel with them to the shrine of Saint Nicholas, on his feast day. Domina Iohanna was not planning to go on a pilgrimage since she was not ill, as she told the commissioners. Immediately all her left side was in pain and it was not relieved until she agreed to go on a pilgrimage and reached Tolentino. Nicholas, testis CLIX, p. 383. 31

On the influence of pilgrimage on a person’s standing, see Jan Van Herwaarden, ‘Pilgrimages and Social Prestige’, in Wallfahrt und Alltag in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. by Jaritz and Schuh, pp. 27–79 (pp. 63–65); on social pressure, see ibid., p. 79. The social pressure to participate in religious activities was also strong in other modes of piety: for example, participation in the flagellant processions was also often due to political reasons and not only to religious motivation or personal piety. See John Henderson, ‘The Flagellant Movement and Flagellant Confraternities in Central Italy, 1260–1400’, in Religious Motivation: Biographical and Sociological Problems for the Church Historian, ed. by Derek Baker, Studies in Church History (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978), pp. 147–60 (pp. 152–53). On pressure to participate in religious procession, see Hanska, Strategies of Sanity and Survival, pp. 62–63. 32

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 126r: ‘et aportavit eam ad ecclesiam herefordensis et multi ex vicinis suis tam ex hiis qui oraverant pro resuscitatione dicte puelle quam ex aliis circa triginta numero venerunt cum eo et aliqui ex ipsis nudis pedibus et multi de villis circumpositis [. . .] in via ratione dicti miraculi occurrerunt eidem. Et etiam multi de civitate Herefordensis a quibus vix poterat tueri dictam puellam quia ex devocione miraculi volebat videre et osculari eandem’.

170

Chapter 3

The miracle was a manifestation of divine grace and Johanna was a personification of this blessing. The miracle and the following pilgrimage were unifying elements stressing especially communal cohesion. Most likely the participants did not perceive themselves as marginal figures — quite the opposite. The wide participation in this case can partly be explained by the public nature of the miracle itself. Many people were present at the scene of the accident and many members of the community were involved in invoking the saint. Thus the grace gained touched the whole community and it also served as a means to intensify solidarity. However, the miracle itself could create a liminal status for the beneficiary. The fame of the miracle lived with Johanna years after the event since at the time of the hearing, nearly twenty years after the miracle, she was still called ‘virgine sancti Thome’.33 It is plausible that Johanna also took this reputation seriously. She was still unmarried and she testified that due to the miracle she refused to marry despite the urging of her parents.34 Among the late medieval English peasantry adult celibacy was not unknown, yet it was uncommon. The age of marriage among pre-plague peasants was presumed to be around twenty.35 Thus at the time of the hearing Johanna had not yet passed the accustomed age of marriage. It is unknown whether she remained a virgin of Saint Thomas for the rest of her life. The miracle also had long-lasting effects on other family members. The whole family made a pilgrimage once or twice a year to the shrine of Saint Thomas, thus emphasizing the collective role of the veneration of the saint.36 In the Cantilupe

33 The status of Johanna as an extraordinary figure is also emphasized in the statement of her father that, at the time of the hearing, many noble persons from remote places still came to see Johanna due to her recovery. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 126r–v: ‘multi nobiles de partibus remotis in accestacionem dicti miraculi venirent ad huc videndum dictam puellam’. 34

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 123v: ‘quod ipsa ex dicta devocione usque ad presens tempus noluit accipere virum licet a parentibus et ab aliis excitata fuit ad accipiendum virum convenientem sibi’. 35 Despite the noble title Adam le Schirreue possessed, the Schirreue family lived by their land and animals. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 123v : ‘viunt de terris possessionibus et animalibus suis’. On marriage age, see Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside, pp. 71–72. 36

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 123 v: ‘Item interrogata si ex dicto miraculo ipsa est effecta devocior et parentes eiusdem et eorum convicini si ex hoc laudaverunt et glorificaverunt deum et dictum sanctum Thomam? Respondit quod sic et quod ipsa et pater et mater eiusdem veniunt bis in anno ad tumulum dicti domino Thome nudis pedibus peregrini et intendunt venire quamdiu vivent.’ Other witnesses also mention pilgrims as a result of the increased devotion after the miracle. Ibid., fol. 135r: ‘quod propter hoc frequentius veniunt peregrini ad tumulum dicti domini Thome’; see also fols 133v and 137r.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

171

process the annual pilgrimage performed by the whole family was a common feature in miraculous recoveries from death. For example, Lucia stated that after the miraculous recovery of her son, Nicholas, she, her husband, and their son visited the shrine annually and intended to do so as long as they lived.37 Robertus Russel also mentions that he, his wife, and their son had made a pilgrimage to the shrine since Saint Thomas had miraculously revived Galfridus. He claimed that they intended to continue the habit of annual pilgrimage for the rest of their lives.38 Promises of annual pilgrimages were not uttered aloud while invoking the saint, yet they seem to form an essential element in the interaction with Saint Thomas. The miracle created a perpetual bond between the petitioner and the intercessor. The manifestation of gratitude seems to have required and united the whole family; the collective role of the pilgrimage is emphasized. Similar features are stressed in invoking the saint as well as in thanking for the miracle. The parental collaboration was important in the miracles performed by Thomas Cantilupe. The familial cohesion is especially emphasized when compared to the cases of Nicholas’s records. The independent initiative of the petitioner — in children’s recoveries usually the mother — is further stressed in the rites of thanksgiving. The interaction with Saint Nicholas required only personal engagement. The invocations were usually uttered privately or even secretly, and the reciprocal obligations of counter-gift bound solely the supplicant. The promises of pilgrimages were usually uttered aloud while invoking the saint — contrary to the custom of the miracles performed by Thomas Cantilupe. Yet only the supplicant’s performance is stated in the depositions. On the rare occasions when both of the parents were present in the scene of the miracle and involved in the invocation, the collective pilgrimage is not mentioned in the depositions — let alone especially stressed, as in the Cantilupe process. The miraculous recovery of Nanczus, the son of domina Cathalina and Cognugius Andree, is the only example where a pilgrimage performed together is clearly stated. Both of the parents promised to together take their son to the shrine

37

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 162v : ‘quod ipsa et eius vir et prefatus Nicholaus eorum filius omni anno venerunt semel et quamdiu vixerunt venire intendunt peregrini ad tumulum dicti domini Thome’. 38

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 167v : ‘non venerat cum proposito testificandi sed peregrinus cum uxor et filio ad tumulum dicti domini Thome et proponebat venire quamdiu viveret semel in anno’. The family were on a pilgrimage when they were questioned in Hereford.

172

Chapter 3

of Nicholas.39 Not all petitioners promised to take the recovered child with them to the shrine. At least the child’s presence at the shrine is not clearly stated in the depositions. The rites of thanksgiving required only the supplicant’s pilgrimage. Furthermore, the practice of taking the recovered child to the shrine of Nicholas seems to have been a fairly gender-specific feature. The supplicants seem to have favoured especially the girls’ presence at the shrine even though the parents were more eager to turn to Nicholas’s help for their sons.40 It is noteworthy that the vocabulary also differs according to the gender of the beneficiary. The girls were usually led, described as ducere, to the shrine while the word used in the majority of the cases of boys was portare.41 It is possible that, in general, the boys taken to the shrine of Nicholas were younger than the girls and they needed to be literally carried there.42 If this was the case, the parents would have especially appreciated the presence of girls older than toddlers at the shrine. The difference is significant

39

Nicholas, testis CXII, p. 309: ‘voverunt ipsum eorum filium [. . .] quod ducerent eumdem Tholentinum ad tumulum dicti fratris Nicholai’; ibid., testis CXLVI, p. 354: ‘voverunt ipsum eorum filium [. . .] quod ipsi ducerent Tholentinum’. 40

The difference is apparent: in sixteen cases out of twenty-two the girl was especially mentioned to be taken to the shrine in the promises uttered in the vow. The corresponding numbers for boys are twenty-three cases out of fifty-eight. In six cases for girls and eleven for boys only the invocation is mentioned; no particular counter-gift is specified in the deposition. Furthermore, these calculations are indicative since the depositions seem to differ from each other especially in votive offerings. These numbers are not equivalent to those presented in ‘Daily Practices in the Domestic Sphere’ in Chapter 2, note 164, since here the focus is on the beneficiary, not on the petitioner. Other relatives, not only the parents, could also have been active in petitioning for the cure and promising a pilgrimage to the shrine. 41

For example ‘ipsa testis vovit eam dicto sancto Nicholao: quod si liberabatur de dicta infirmitate, ducebat eam Tholentinum ad tumulum ipsius, manibus ligatam et pedibus discalciatam, et portare unam candelam cere ita longam sicut ipsa puella erat’ (Nicholas, testis CXIII, p. 309); ‘promittens portare dictum puerum, si liberaretur, et offerre apud archam suam unam ymaginem de cera ita logam sicut erat dictus Anthonius filius eius’ (ibid., testis XXXIX, p. 168). The girls were carried six times out of sixteen cases to the shrine while the corresponding numbers for boys are fourteen times out of twenty-three. 42

The ages of the children are not regularly recorded, thus no firm conclusions can be drawn. However, the depositions imply that the age of the child may have been behind the choice of the vocabulary. For example, eight-year-old Genuamus was led (ducere) to the shrine (Nicholas, testis CCXCVII, p. 590) while one-year-old Cola was carried (portare) there (testis CCXCV, p. 587). Similarly the infant Gentelucia who was still being breastfed was carried (portare) to the shrine (testis CL, p. 364) while eight-year-old Lucia was led (ducere) to Tolentino (testis CCCLXV, p. 634).

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

173

since it was a greater oblation to make the journey to the sacred sphere with the child than to travel alone. Parents were presumably not willing to show special effort only for the welfare of their daughters, but the reason for the difference lies elsewhere. The pilgrimage performed together to the shrine of an intercessor can be seen as a mode of education and a way of introducing a child into this sphere of activity.43 It is argued that the mother’s educational role was important, especially in the cult of saints.44 Furthermore, women’s activity in the cult of Saint Nicholas has been emphasized on several occasions. This distinction may illustrate the gendered roles within the family. In this cultural sphere domestic and private devotion with its interconnection to the nurturing role was presumably gendered as feminine and as being part of the girls’ future responsibilities. The girls were more often required to personally take part in the thanksgiving and their presence at the shrine was valued while it was more important to introduce boys to other responsibilities and duties.45 Thus the practicalities in performing pilgrimages reveal a way the gender roles were constructed. Even though the witnesses in Nicholas’s process emphasize personal engagement and individual responsibility in fulfilling the vow, it is safe to assume that the majority of the pilgrims, especially the women, did not travel alone. Unfortunately the names of the travelling companions are only rarely mentioned in the depositions. However, the conjugal unit does not seem to have formed the most important basis for the group of travellers. Presumably this collective rite of devotion was performed in rather gendered groups. The devotional collaboration between women is stressed in the recovery of Cathalina Boniscambii. Cathalina was blind in her left eye and doctors could not help her. Her mother, domina Caradompna, made a vow to Nicholas: she promised to make a pilgrimage with her daughter to the shrine and offer a wax image. Soon

43

On examples of collective pilgrimage as a way to introduce a child to the cult of a saint, see Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, pp. 235 and 270. 44

The clerics insisted on the paternal authority in educating children. However, mothers of the nobility especially often taught their children basic religious manners and beliefs. For example, the major prayers Credo and Ave Maria, the gestures of praying, as well as the sacred images of saints were taught by mothers. Danièle Alexandre-Bidon, ‘Des femmes de bonne foi: la religion des mères au Moyen Âge’, in La Religion de ma mère, ed. by Delumeau, pp. 91–122, and Rigaux, ‘Dire la foi avec des images’. 45

On mothers’ responsibilities in religious education and diverse spiritual role models for sons and daughters, see Bornstein, ‘Spiritual Kinship and Domestic Devotions’, p. 188.

174

Chapter 3

afterwards Cathalina was cured, yet the mother did not fulfil the promise. The girl was healthy for ten months and then she went blind again. The mother was afraid that the renewed blindness was due to the neglected vow. She asked her sister, domina Marella, to invoke Saint Nicholas once again. Marella made the vow, Cathalina was cured, and both the mother and the aunt of the patient stated that they fulfilled the promise and all three of them made a collective pilgrimage to the shrine.46 The names of pilgrims appearing at the shrine on the feast of Nicholas also offer some information on the companions on the pilgrimage.47 For example, two noble ladies, domina Caradruda and her daughter domina Annessucia, gave testimony in Tolentino on 10 September, on the feast of Nicholas. They both lived in Matelica and had apparently stayed in close contact with each other after the marriage of Annessucia.48 Furthermore, a third woman from Matelica who was interrogated on the same day, domina Iohanna Mulucii, testified to the recovery of Luccius, the son of domina Annessucia.49 Thus these women had apparently made the pilgrimage to the shrine together.50

46

Nicholas, testis CXV, p. 311: ‘et postmodum portaverunt eam Tholentinum et fecerunt quod promiserunt’; ibid., testis CLVII, p. 380: ‘et postmodum tam quam dicta eius soror iverunt Tholentinum et portaverunt dictam puellam’. Women’s collaboration in the field of devotion is also stressed in the deposition of Aldisia. She invoked Nicholas for her nephew, for her neighbour’s husband, and for her sister at their requests. But she is the only one testifying to these events, thus the verification of the collaboration by the other parties cannot be found. Aldisia, as well as these relatives, lived in Tolentino, thus a collective pilgrimage is not involved in these cases. Nicholas, testis XCI, pp. 264–69. Didier Lett, ‘Brothers and Sisters: New Perspectives on Medieval Family History’, in Hoping for Continuity, ed. by Mustakallio, Hanska, Sainio, and Vuolanto, pp. 13–23 (p. 17), emphasizes the relationship between Aldisia and her neighbour, Salvasia, arguing that it is an example of a relationship of equality and bonding between women neighbours. 47

The commissioners were in Tolentino on 9 and 10 September and found a multitude of pilgrims at the shrine on the day before the feast and on the feast day. The names of some of the pilgrims were listed, and some of them were interrogated while others stated that they could not stay longer in Tolentino. Nicholas, citationes testium, pp. 58–67. 48

Caradruda claims that Annessucia was an eyewitness to the recovery of her grandson which Caradruda had evoked. Annesucia does not mention the recovery. Nicholas, testis CXCVI, pp. 439–40; testis CXCVII, pp. 440–41; also citationes testium, p. 66. 49

These women were related through the marriage: domina Annessucia was entitled ‘uxor quondam Carlucii Gentelucii de Muluciis’ (Nicholas, testis CXCVII, p. 440, and testis CXCVIII, pp. 441–43). On the prominent role of the Mulucci family, see Lett, Un procès de canonisation, pp. 38 and 44. 50

The stepson and the brother-in-law of Iohanna Mulucii testified on another day, even though they all testified to the miraculous recovery of Anfelixia, the step-daughter of Iohanna. Both

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

175

Similar features are stressed in the men’s depositions. For example, Cicchus Benetengni and Angelucius Fortis, both of Matelica, were interrogated on the feast day at the shrine.51 Cicchus also testified to the miraculous recovery of Angelucius. It is of course possible that all these witnesses from Matelica — domina Caradruda, domina Annessucia, domina Iohanna Mulucii, Cicchus Benetengni, and Angelucius Fortis — actually made the journey to the shrine together. However, the mode of testifying, the miracles that were mentioned, emphasizes the importance of interaction between the same gender in devotional matters.52 Women’s interaction in the devotional sphere is also illustrated in the depositions of nobilis domina Annese and her companions. They were all from Perugia and visited the shrine of Nicholas on the feast day. In addition to domina Annese, domina Olivella Buti, domina Lucola Venture, and domina Mathiola Luce were also interrogated on the feast day.53 None of them was absolving a vow or had personally petitioned for a miracle from Nicholas. Thus they had made the journey apparently only for devotion. Furthermore, they all testified to a miraculous liberation they had witnessed when they were going for church together in Perugia. Most likely the practicalities in the interaction with Saint Nicholas also required and emphasized collaboration, even though the witnesses do not regularly stress it. As noted, the witnesses quite often testify only to the miracles they had

Luctius Nuctii Taddei, the brother of the beneficiary, and Rogerius Taddei, the uncle, testified to the cure the late husband of Iohanna had evoked. However, at the time of the inquiry they lived in another town, thus a common pilgrimage was not apparently possible. Nicholas, testis CCVII, pp. 449–50; testis CCVIII, pp. 450–51; testis CXCVIII, pp. 442–43; also citationes testium, pp. 66 and 69. 51

Nicholas, testis CXCIC–CC, pp. 443–44; also citationes testium, p. 65.

52

Another example of collective pilgrimage performed by women neighbours is that of domina Dialta and domina Alluminata. They were both from Visso and gave testimony at the shrine on the feast of Saint Nicholas; Domina Alluminata also testified to the miraculous recovery of Petruccius, domina Dialta’s son. Nicholas, testis CCXIII–CCXIV, pp. 456–57; also citationes testium, p. 66. Salunbena Vissanucii and Iohannes Mancini were also from Visso and were interrogated at the shrine on the same day. It is possible that they all travelled together, yet the actual depositions do not give any information on this. Nicholas, testis XLVII, pp. 181–82; testis CCII, pp. 445–46; also citationes testium, pp. 65 and 66. Moreover, men could travel alone, as can be seen in the case of Ceconacius Brune Guillelmi. He was blind and travelled to the shrine to petition a cure and got lost on the journey. Fortunately Nicholas appeared to him in a vision and led him the right way, simultaneously curing him. Nicholas, testis CI, pp. 289–90. 53

Nicholas, testis XLII–XLV, pp. 174–98; also citationes testium, p. 65. On domina Annese’s status as a member of upper nobility, see also Sensi, ‘Nobildonne di casa Trinci et Marsciano’.

176

Chapter 3

personally petitioned even though they had been present at other miraculous recoveries as well. Similarly the journey to the sacred sphere required collaboration. However, the cooperation of parents is not especially emphasized. Supervising and seeking a cure for children and the sick were essential elements of women’s responsibilities in the miracles performed by Saint Nicholas. Women’s collaboration in this field was also emphasized, for members of the same household or neighbourhood often witnessed and occasionally also testified to the miraculous cures petitioned by each other. Probably the companies for the pilgrimages were also formed on a similar basis. Presumably the journey to the shrine was also often undertaken by women of the same household or neighbourhood. Even though the practicalities in performing the pilgrimages may have been different in these processes, the essence of the ritual was the same: it was a mode of interaction with the intercessor. Moreover, it could have been a continuous, even perpetual element in the devotion. In the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe the promises of repeated or annual pilgrimages are not mentioned in the invocation. In Nicholas’s process these promises can be found, but they were not among the most popular. The promise of repeated pilgrimage bound the petitioner tightly to the saint. It was a commitment the consequences of which the supplicant had to consider carefully. Therefore the promises of annual pilgrimages were not the most popular strategies to urge Saint Nicholas to act favourably. Domina Mita gave a promise of annual pilgrimage when her son Cicchus was severely ill. The symptoms of the illness are not described, but the disease was apparently fatal and Cicchus died. Mita, the mother, and Johanna, the grandmother, were preparing for the funeral when they invoked Nicholas to help them in this despair. They promised to take the boy to the shrine and leave his clothing there as well as a wax image and wax candle. In addition to these material gifts they both also promised to fast on bread and water every year on the day before the anniversary of the death of Nicholas. They also promised to visit the shrine each year. This they did conditionally, though. They promised to send their oblations to the shrine if they could not personally visit it. Presumably the material promise was easier to fulfil for sure than the journey to the sacred sphere, even though the journey was not long.54 Some obstacles in fulfilling the promises of annual pilgrimages were common to all devotees regardless of their gender or social standing. For example, Severinus promised among other things to visit the shrine of Nicholas each year when he was 54

Mita lived in Monticulo (nowadays Treia), which is situated approximately 12 km north-east from Tolentino. Domina Mita is the only one to testify to this miracle. Nicholas, testis CXXVII, pp. 331–32.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

177

healthy and when there was peace and he could go there safely. Illness and war and other restlessness were obstacles on every pilgrim’s road. Therefore the promises of annual pilgrimages were in fairly modest use: the petitioners were not certain that they could fulfil them. In Nicholas’s records the annual pilgrimages were not closely associated with particular types of miracle — as in the Cantilupe process with children’s revivals.55 In the Cantilupe process these kinds of promises were not gender specific but a manifestation of familial cohesion. Both mothers and fathers undertook these collective rites with their children. In Nicholas’s records the situation was different. Women also engaged in annual pilgrimages, yet these promises seem to have been favoured more by men. Especially when invoking Nicholas for their own cure men engaged in annual pilgrimages.56 Presumably it was easier for men to engage in annual journeys. Women, on the other hand, may not have been certain of their possibilities for fulfilling such promises. The annual pilgrimages to the shrine were naturally expressions of devotion, yet they may have also had other functions especially when performed by the whole family. The connection between memory, bodily practices, and a specific place is often stressed.57 Thus the repeated pilgrimages to the shrine of the intercessor may have also been a way to reinforce the collective memories of the family of the miracle. In the Cantilupe process the repeated annual pilgrimages were not a means to urge the saint to act. They were not a strategy for coping with the vagaries of daily life since they were not uttered aloud when petitioning the intercession of the saint. Since the supplicants engaged in these practices only after the miracle, they were a mode of veneration creating a bond between the petitioners and the intercessor. Yet they had a familial commemorative role, too. 55

For example, domina Mita was in urgent need since she presumed that her son had died. Severinus, on the other hand, had suffered from scrofula, an infected throat, for twelve years. He had sought for help from many doctors. The disease was not fatal, but it was intense and the situation was probably otherwise unbearable. 56

For example Nicholas, testis LXI, p. 194; testis CXLIII, p. 350; testis CCXXX, p. 508; and testis CCLX, pp. 538–39. 57

Jacob J. Climo and Maria G. Cattell, ‘Introduction: Meaning in Social Memory and History, Anthropological Perspectives’, in Social Memory and History: Anthropological Perspectives, ed. by Jacob Climo and Maria Cattell (Walnut Creek: Altamira Press, 2002), pp. 1–36 (p. 20); on the connection of memory and a particular space, see Bedell, ‘Memory and Proof of Age’, p. 21. On the interconnection with bodily practices, hierarchies of a given community, and its social memory, see Paul Connerton, How Societies Remember (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 11–13 and 72–74.

178

Chapter 3

‘For God Gives Grace to the Humble’ A twofold approach to the pilgrimage can be found in the depositions of these processes. Direct contact with the sacred sphere was not a prerequisite for the miracle or an indispensable mode of showing gratitude to the intercessor. The distance miracles were dominant and the oblation to the saint could have been immaterial: personal ascetic practices, for example. However, the majority of the supplicants considered it essential to show their gratitude by the journey to the sacred sphere. Moreover, many of them wanted further to stress its significance by travelling in an ascetic or penitential mode. Behind the ascetic modes of travelling may lie the popularity of personal penitential practices but also the new attitude towards the saints which comprised affection and personal devotion to the saint involving free choice and inclination of the heart. Paying homage to the saint with material gifts was no longer obligatory.58 The humility of the petitioner was an important aspect in the spiritual context. Voluntary humility when approaching the Divine was emphasized in several passages in the Bible.59 It was also common to urge the supplicants to confess their sins before praying to God, since God would not hear the prayers of sinners.60 Humility was the virtuous counterpart of pride, which was a capital sin. It was an important step on the path away from sin towards salvation. Penitence included three stages: contrition, confession, and satisfaction. True contrition of sins was the prelude of honest confession. The penitential practices were an obligation for satisfaction.61 The sacramental penance increased zeal towards voluntary penitential practices among the laity.62 58

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 536–37. The more individualistic approach towards devotion in the late Middle Ages is also stressed by Hanska, Strategies of Sanity and Survival, p. 100. II

59 See, for example, II Samuel 2. 28, II Kings 22. 19, II Chronicles 7. 14, II Chronicles 12. 7, Chronicles 33. 12, II Chronicles 36. 12, Proverbs 3. 34, and Luke 18. 11. 60

However, confessions before the invocations are rather rare. See for example BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4025, fol. 114v; BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 241v and 244r. On sins and calamities, see Hanska, Strategies of Sanity and Survival, pp. 72–76 and 117–26. 61

The Fourth Lateran Council (canon 21) in 1215 declared that each and every Christian was to confess his or her sins at least once a year and complete the penitential practices that were ordained by the priest. Tanner, Decrees of Ecumenical Councils, I, 245. Excommunication was the sanction if one failed to fulfil these obligations. Con. Lat. IV, cons. 21. See also Jansen, Making of the Magdalen, pp. 199–200. 62

For example, several confraternities of late medieval and early modern Italian city-states embraced the self-mortification of the flesh. John Henderson, Piety and Charity in Late Medieval

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

179

The penitential practices offered to the saint as a counter-gift originated from the idea that humility and ascetic practices were virtuous, and thus pleasing to God. Moreover, pain and physical suffering were regarded as important elements in the communication with God. Even though scholars argued that the intellectual experience of sorrow was the essential part of contrition, the laity’s viewpoint stressed more the actual physical suffering in contrition and in the acts of satisfaction. Even more important was the standpoint that one person’s suffering could be transferred onto another; by personal penitential practices one could diminish the anguish of his or her loved ones.63 Appearances of humility and subjection also had secular connotations: they stressed the hierarchical structure of the sacred space and enhanced the saint’s power.64 To adopt ascetic practices during the journey further stressed the tribute of the intercessor. The journey itself, especially when accomplished by walking, can be seen as a manifestation of a subordinate position in the relationship with the saint.65 The humility of the supplicant emphasized the devotion of the petitioner.66 The ascetic habit could have been a method to achieve a reverent state of mind

Florence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 114. See also Mary Mansfield, The Humiliation of Sinners: Public Penance in Thirteenth-Century France (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), pp. 45–48. 63

Maureen Flynn, ‘The Spectacle of Suffering in Spanish Streets’, in City and Spectacle in Medieval Europe, ed. by Barbara A. Hanawalt and Kathryn L. Reyerson, Medieval Studies at Minnesota, 6 (1994; repr. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), pp. 153–68 (pp. 161–62). 64

Cohen, ‘The Animated Pain of the Body’, p. 59, links the signs of humility to pain, clientelism, and liminality and argues that they were all apparent aspects of medieval pilgrims. She goes on to claim that shrine clergy set the limits for expressing the pain and modes of behaviour. 65

Walking as a sign of humility and an act of piety was stressed in the deposition of Robertus de Gloucester, a chancellor of Hereford. He stressed that when the king and queen and members of the nobility made a pilgrimage to the shrine of Thomas they walked the end of the journey. Some of them even went barefoot to the shrine. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 97v –98r: ‘ex devotione quam habebat ad dictum dominum Thome dictus dominus rex, regina, prelatii et alii veniebant peditando descendendo de equis suis cum erant prope civitate Herefordensis et aliqui ex ipsius veniebant nudis pedibus’. 66

Penitential pilgrimages were also used as a punishment and an act of penance for serious crimes or sins. These non-voluntary penitential pilgrims also visited the shrine of Saint Thomas. Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 42–43. However, in Italy public penance was not regularly used as a punishment. Public penitential practices were voluntary collective rites and manifestations of devotion. Mansfield, Humiliation of Sinners, pp. 125, 185, 246, and 290.

180

Chapter 3

while approaching the sacred place.67 Going barefoot also allowed fuller contact with the sacred space.68 To go barefoot along the dirty streets of the city was indeed an act of selfhumiliation. Barefoot travel was a common act of penance and also used regularly in other religious activities, like processions.69 Other modes of ascetic travel could have been doing part of the travel on one’s knees or flagellating oneself.70 Similarly the pilgrims could make the journey wearing sackcloth or not wearing linen clothes.71 A promise to be found only in Nicholas’s process was to make the journey with hands bound. The witnesses of the Cantilupe process do not mention ascetic pilgrimages while uttering the vow. Yet in practice many pilgrims approached the shrine in this manner. After the famous recovery of the drowned Johanna, the Schirreue family performed a barefoot pilgrimage once or twice a year. Amicia la Rysshwyk had made a barefoot pilgrimage to Hereford. After she heard about the miraculous recovery of Alicia de Lonesdale she made the pilgrimage again. She intended to repeat the journey.72 Ysolda Thorgryme with many of her neighbours also travelled barefoot without linen clothes to the shrine due to the devotion the miraculous recovery of Johannes de Burtone had caused.73 Ascetic practices were usually meticulously described. For example, Diomisia clarified in her deposition that she made the journey barefoot while her husband travelled shod when they visited the shrine of Saint Thomas.74 67

On the importance of the habit in a lay penitent’s life to strengthen the pious state of mind, see Lehmijoki-Gardner, Wordly Saints, pp. 80–81. 68

The symbolic significance of bare feet was more often emphasized while invoking the saint. In the depositions of the Cantilupe process the witnesses refer especially to the sincerity of their prayers by stressing kneeling barefoot. 69

On barefoot processions as well as other penitential practices under threat of a disaster, see Hanska, Strategies of Sanity and Survival, pp. 49–59. 70

On travelling on one’s knees, see Clare, testis CXLI, p. 417; on flagellation, see Nicholas, testis LII, p. 186. 71

Clare, testis L, p. 304: ‘discalciata cum cillicio’. On refraining from linen clothes, see BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 187r. 72

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 69v .

73

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 187r: ‘ipsa et multi alii de dicta villa [. . .] venerunt nudis pedibus et pannis lineis depositis peregrini ad tumulum sancti Thome’. 74

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 203v : ‘quando ipsa erat gravida de dicto Rogero venerant ipsa nudis pedibus et predictus eius vir calciatus peregrini ad tumulum dicti sancti Thome’. Her husband does not mention these details in his deposition, fols 200r–201v .

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

181

In the canonization process of Nicholas of Tolentino several promises of ascetic pilgrimages can be found. An ascetic mode of travelling usually meant making the journey barefoot or with hands tied — sometimes even both. It remains unclear whether the petitioners intended to make the whole journey in this manner. It was a common custom to adopt more pious behaviour when approaching the shrine, and walking barefoot was customary for those entering the sacred sphere. Some witnesses mention that the penitential practices were performed only after they had entered into the city of Tolentino. The city gate as well as visual contact with the church were important turning points on the journey.75 The sacred sphere, the fulfilment of the promise, was close and this influenced the pilgrims’ action. The promises of pilgrimage with ascetic modes of travelling seem to have been favoured especially by women. The cases are scarce in the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe, yet the majority of the witnesses who personally had engaged to this mode of veneration were women.76 Mainly women promised a pilgrimage with ascetic practices in the canonization process of Saint Clare of Montefalco.77 This is also a common theme in the canonization process of Nicholas: women favoured ascetic pilgrimages more than twice as often as men.78 Women also favoured pilgrimages made both barefoot and hands tied; often their promises included both of these.79

75

Nicholas, testis CCCLVIII, p. 630: ‘et promixit visitare tumulum, ubi iacet corpus dicti fratris Nicolai; et statim, cum videbat ubi iacet dictum corpus, stare ligare manus; et manibus ligatis ire usque ad dictam ecclesiam’; see also ibid., testis CIII, pp. 293–94; testis CXI, p. 306; testis CXIX, p. 316; and testis CL, p. 364. 76

The personal engagement with the barefoot pilgrimage is mentioned by the Schirreue family, Amicia la Rysshwyk, Isolda Thorgryme, and Diomisia, the wife of Gervasius Cocus. However, a group of men arrived at the shrine while the commissioners were interrogating witnesses. They had been rescued from a storm by the intervention of Saint Thomas. Only one of them was interrogated stating that ‘ex hoc venerunt nudis pedibus peregrini ad eius tumulum’. However, it remains unknown how many of them travelled barefoot. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 210v. 77

Only two men promised to visit the shrine of Saint Clare, discalciatus (Clare, testis CXVIII, p. 394, and testis CCV, p. 487) while women engaged several times in this practice. For example, Clare, testis L, p. 304; testis XCII, p. 374; testis XCIV, p. 374; testis XCIX, p. 378; testis CIII, p. 382; testis CXII, p. 387; testis CXLI, p. 417; testis CXLVIII, p. 422; testis CLXXI, p. 451; testis CXCVII, p. 479; and testis CC, p. 481. 78 In Nicholas’s records altogether eighteen cases of women promising an ascetic pilgrimage in the vow can be found. The corresponding number for men is eight. 79

Only one man promised to include both of these practices in his journey (Nicholas, testis CCXCVI, pp. 588–89) while women engaged in such performances several times. See for example

182

Chapter 3

The reason for the popularity of ascetic pilgrimages as votive offerings may have been the fairly easy access: the pilgrims did not need to possess or gain access to any specific resources outside their own bodies. However, when travelling in ascetic mode the accustomed display of social position was altered. The social norm controlled not only the use of space, but also the ways individuals expressed and clothed themselves. Even though clerical literature commonly condemned women for vanity because of their willingness to adorn themselves, women were, however, expected to display their social standing by their apparel. Women did not hold public office or have any other authorized signs of their status. Thus luxurious clothes and precious jewellery were women’s way to manifest their social position and the wealth of their families.80 Luxurious appearance was inevitably in contradiction with the essence of ascetic pilgrimages: wealth and power could not have been emphasized simultaneously when approaching the heavenly intercessor with humility.81 From this perspective the penitential pilgrimages can be seen as liminal situations: the prestigious secular status could not be stressed while communicating with the divine. In ascetic pilgrimages the message — humility, gratitude, and devotion — was directed primarily towards the saint. But, the act also communicated in the social sphere: pilgrimages were public performances. Thus barefoot pilgrimage was a socially significant offering with a particular symbolic value. From the spiritual point of view humility was essential to all Christians. Ascetic pilgrimages stressed the tribute of the intercessor and the humble devotion of the

testis XX, p. 137; testis CIII, pp. 293–94; testis CXI, p. 306; testis CXIII, p. 309; CXIX, p. 316; testis CXXIX, pp. 336–37; and testis CL, pp. 363–64. 80

Diane Owen Hughes, ‘Regulating Women’s Fashion’, in A History of Women in the West, vol. II, ed. by Klapisch-Zuber, pp. 136–58. The clothing and physical appearance of women especially were also in the concerns of secular authorities. Sumptuary legislation ensured that the appearance and the social status of women matched each other. See for example Sarah-Grace Heller, ‘Limiting Yardage and Changes of Clothes: Sumptuary Legislation in Thirteenth-Century France, Languedoc, and Italy’, in Medieval Fabrications: Dress, Textiles, Clothwork, and Other Cultural Imaginings, ed. by Jane Burns, New Middle Ages (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), pp. 121–36. In addition to clothing, other visible signs were also used to distinguish the social position, for example, of marginal members from the rest of the community. Hanawalt, ‘Medieval English Women’, pp. 25–27, and Diane Owen Hughes, ‘Distinguishing Signs: Ear-Rings, Jews and Franciscan Rhetoric in the Italian Renaissance City’, Past and Present, 112 (1986), 355–76. 81

It should be noted, however, that the depositions do not reveal the clothing or appearance of these pilgrims — not during the journey or on more ordinary occasions. The bare feet or tied hands are usually the only details mentioned.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

183

petitioner. However, practices of voluntary humility, the temporary inversion of the manifestation of status, may have implied having a position to renounce.82 Moreover, to have more worth the promises including the inversion of hierarchy — or its public display — should have been uttered by persons of good standing. The esteemed position of the petitioner increased the weight of such promises. The majority of the witnesses who personally engaged in travelling in an ascetic mode were of relatively good social standing. The Schirreue family mentioned before was of noble origins even though they lived by their agricultural work. Ysolda Thorgryme was the wife of Richardus Thorgryme, a rich Hereford citizen.83 She was also to some extent educated since she testified in French.84 The social standing of Amicia Rysshwyk was not so high: she lived by selling small goods. She was probably not married since her husband is not mentioned.85 The social status of Diomisia was also fairly low. Her husband was a cook, and according to her own testimony, they were poor, pauperes.86 Nearly all of the married women who made a promise of this sort to Saint Nicholas were entitled domina.87 The social standing of the men also seems to be fairly good.88 82

As a comparison, Newman, ‘Crucified by the Virtues’, argues that Cistercian choir monks depicted themselves as feminine, as the brides of Christ, while lay brothers were depicted as masculine and identified with the bodily suffering of Christ. She argues that the reason for this was that the use of feminine language asserted that high-status choir monks had voluntarily renounced wordly power and prestige. It also suggested that they were the most humble and thus the most deserving of redemption. The masculine imagery used for lower-status lay brothers and women implied that they never had any power to renounce, thus reinforcing their subordinate position. However, Dubisch, In a Different Place, p. 225, studying contemporary Greek orthodox pilgrimages, argues that the ascetic practices and suffering during the journey are a strategy of empowerment — a means to stress one’s spiritual worth — used by those who held disadvantageous social positions. See also Bynum, Fragmentation and Redemption, p. 50. 83

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 186r: ‘Ysolda Thourgyme uxor Richardi Thourgyme civis Herefordensis divitis.’ 84 Richter, Sprache und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter, p. 191, emphasizes the interconnection of good social position with the knowledge of other languages than English, the mother tongue of the witnesses. 85

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 69v : ‘Et respondit interrogata de facultatibus suis quod vendebat inctum et talia minuta et exinde vivebat.’ 86

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 203v.

87 For example Nicholas, testis XXV, p. 145; testis CIII, p. 292; testis CXI, p. 305; testis CXIII, p. 309; testis CXXIX, p. 334; testis CL, p. 363; testis CLII, p. 366; and testis CCXV, p. 458. 88

The specific standing of the witnesses is hard to deduce since, for example, the citizenship, status of cives, is not mentioned in the depositions. The wives of these men were regularly identified

184

Chapter 3

A special form of ascetic travelling can be found in Nicholas’s records. Many of the petitioners promised to make the journey hands tied, ‘manibus ligatis’. The term ligare means essentially to tie but also to unite. Could the witnesses have meant only to walk hands united, in a praying position? Clasped hands became a part of the gestures closely associated with praying in the central Middle Ages even though this particular position is rarely mentioned as part of invocation in the canonization records. This conclusion would alter the interpretation from penitential performance to a symbol of devotion. Yet most likely, to walk ‘manibus ligatis’ actually meant to walk with hands tied.89 The same words were used on some occasions for bound captives, for example.90 Furthermore, petitioners could especially stress this action. For example, Flos, the wife of Bucolus Ugonis, was paralysed for a year. She made a vow to Saint Nicholas to do a pilgrimage to his grave if he cured her. From the moment that she could see where he was buried, the church of Tolentino, she would stop, bind her hands, and walk with her hands tied up to the church.91 The expression ‘stare et ligare manus’ would not make sense if by this was meant only to join hands. Of course by underlining the action one could emphasize the symbolic importance of this gesture. However, the explanation of the term ligare on these occasions is to tie up, bind, as the following examples will show. Sometimes the one to be tied up was not the supplicant but the patient, especially when invoking the saint for a sick child. For example, Nanczus was severely

as domina, for example Nicholas, testis CXL, p. 346; testis CXLVI, p. 354; and testis CLXX, p. 396. Nangni was the son of a magister (testis CXL, p. 346); the father of Thomas was apparently a rich man since he was willing and able to spend C librarum ravennesium to a doctor for the cure of his son (testis CXLI, p. 347); Cicchus Aresti spent time in tournaments with the nobility ‘astiludendum cum quibusdam nobilibus’ (testis CLXX, p. 395). However, the members of the upper aristocracy did not make such promises to Saint Nicholas. 89

The power to bind and loose sins was granted to the apostles in the Bible (Matthew 18. 18 and John 20. 23) while binding and ligatures were also commonly used in non-Christian magic. See Valerie Flint, The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 286–89. The interpretation of these performances as magical does not seem plausible. Yet it is possible that the power to bind and loose was also associated with other heavenly intercessors. Probably the journey performed with hands tied was a symbolic way to proclaim, among other things, that the pilgrims were bound by obligation: they had received divine grace and were obliged to pay tribute to the saint. Only after the promise was fulfilled were they free from the responsibility to offer a counter-gift to Saint Nicholas. 90

Nicholas, testis XLII, p. 175: ‘dictus captivus, qui erat ligatus manibus’.

91

Nicholas, testis CCCLVIII, p. 630.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

185

injured after having fallen from a wall and a stone hit him. The desperate parents promised Saint Nicholas to carry their son with his hands tied to the shrine.92 The parents did not themselves engage in this penitential act but took their son, like an offering, to the shrine. This was not an act of asceticism but rather a manifestation of devotion: the parents symbolically offered their son to the saint. Such offerings had been an actual practice in the earlier centuries of the Middle Ages. The petitioners promised themselves — or the child they were invoking the saint for — to the service of the saint: to be a member of the cloister that housed the shrine.93 The symbolic offering is also emphasized in other cases since occasionally the ascetic tone of the pilgrimage made with hands tied was absent. For example, Thomas Gentilis travelled to the shrine hands tied, but he rode on horseback all the way to Tolentino.94 In the case of Nanczus the symbolic offering to the saint is comprehensible since he was only a child, ‘in puerili etate’. No exact age is given. This kind of offering, even if symbolic, fell under the jurisdiction of his parents, especially the father. But the situation in the miracle experienced by Bellaflos was more complex.95 She was suffering from neurological problems when her mother made the vow.96 Iacobucia promised to visit the shrine barefoot and lead her daughter to the shrine hands tied. It is noteworthy that at the time of the miracle Bellaflos was already married and her husband witnessed the vow and the miracle. This offering was of course symbolic and more likely a manifestation of devotion than of authority. However, to be tied up symbolizes a submissive role particularly in relation to the saint, yet in this case also to the one leading the offered ‘gift’ since she had been in a position to be able promise such an offering. Apparently the marriage of a child did not render this offering inappropriate or impossible. Officially, married

92

Nicholas, testis CXIII, p. 309: ‘voverunt ipsum eorum filium Deo et beato Nicholao [. . .] quod ducerent eumdem Tholentinum ad tumulum dicti fratris Nicholai, manibus ligatum’. 93

Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 107–16. However, Dubich, In a Different Place, p. 175, argues that all the pilgrimages, especially those performed in an ascetic manner, could be seen as the pilgrims’ offering of him- or herself to the saint. 94

Nicholas, testis CXLI, p. 348.

95

This is the second miracle experienced by Bellaflos which was evoked by her mother. The first incident was the miraculous recovery from a limp. Nicholas, CIII, pp. 294–95. 96

The mother describes the illness as meacamatica, her limbs trembled. Nicholas, testis CIII, p. 294: ‘caput, manus, pedes et cetera membra culabat’.

186

Chapter 3

daughters were no longer under the control of their fathers, let alone their mothers, but under the tutelage of their husbands.97 Iacobucia is the only one to testify about this incident. Even the beneficiary, Bellaflos, does not mention the miracle. However, the importance of the offering of the patient to the shrine is stressed in the testimony of Marchus Morici, the brother of Iacobucia. He does not mention Bellaflos’s recovery from neurological disease, either, but testifies to the first miraculous cure from the limp. He may have forgotten or confused the actual details of these miracles since he stated that when petitioning for the cure of the limp Iacobucia promised to visit the shrine. She also promised to take her daughter with her, lead her hands tied, and sort of offer her to the shrine.98 The pilgrim walking hands tied became him- or herself an offering to the intercessor. The petitioners were obliged to pay homage: this symbolic gesture was a way to further stress the devotion and piety of the petitioner. Indeed, on these occasions the act of self-humiliation may have actually turned out to be an act of selfpromotion. The humble and submissive role of the pilgrim walking with hands tied was also a way to emphasize the special relationship of the petitioner with Saint Nicholas: the symbolic offering also proclaimed that the pilgrim was dedicated to the saint. Ascetic pilgrimages were acknowledged modes to show gratitude after the grace gained, a way to underline the successful supplication.99 Communication with the saint may have had different tones when scrutinized within the social sphere of the performance. In these processes ascetic modes of

97

On the practice of tutoring and tutors in Italy, see Kuehn, ‘Person and Gender’, and Steven Epstein, Wills and Wealth in Medieval Genoa, 1150–1250, Harvard Historical Studies, 103 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), pp. 88–91. 98

Nicholas, testis CIV, p. 296: ‘promisserat eam ducere Tholentinum ad archam beati Nicholay predicti, manibus ligatam et quedam ibi ad dictam archam offerre’. It should be noted that the proper translation of the word quedam is both something and sort of. However, in this case the latter translation is appropriate. The witnesses usually mention the object given (for example ‘offerret unum cereum’) but the words quedam offerre were used only on the occasions of the pilgrimage made with hands tied. According to Iacobucia, in the previous cure she promised to do a pilgrimage and personally travel with hands tied. Nicholas, testis CIII, pp. 293–94: ‘vovit ipsam filiam dicto beato Nicholao supplicando devote eidem quod ipsi claude filie sue gressus preberet, ipsaque daret eidem sancto ad archam suam in Tholentino et offerret ymaginem de cera ad modum unius puelle, et quod mitteret ipsam filiam suam ad dictam archam, et ipsamet dicta testis iret cum manibus ligatis ab introitu terre Tholentino usque ad terram seu tumulum eiusdem sancti’. 99

On pilgrimages as a way to emphasize one’s spiritual worth, see Dubisch, In a Different Place, p. 225; on the connection of successful invocation with acknowledged spiritual authority, see Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning’, p. 435.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

187

travelling seem to have been favoured by petitioners of fairly secure social status. Yet it cannot be concluded that the inversion of display of position was essentially a way to stress one’s status in the secular context, to emphasize a hierarchy one had temporarily rejected. On the other hand, hierarchy or social roles were not left behind, either.100 The symbolic offering of oneself to Saint Nicholas did not bind the pilgrim to the shrine with other obligations. The pilgrimage with hands tied could also have been repeated. Some of the witnesses promised to repeat it annually.101 Moreover, ascetic practices were not promised only in personal need, they were promised when invoking the saint for near ones as well. It is possible that the supplicants thought they could transfer or at least diminish the suffering of the patient by experiencing some discomfort themselves. The penitential practices of bystanders could also be used as a mode to pressure the saint for favourable action.102 Promises of penitential pilgrimages were usually given when invoking Nicholas for help in illness. The situations varied remarkably: the illness might have lasted a couple of days or several years.103 The penitential pilgrimages were usually only one part of the offering. In addition the petitioners could promise other penitential practices, like fasting, or material gifts. For example, when domina Mita was severely ill, her husband Lipponus Luttii made a vow to Saint Nicholas. Lipponus promised to fast each year on the feast of Nicholas, give food for six paupers, and each year come to the shrine with his hands tied behind his back. These annual ascetic and charitable promises bound Lipponus tightly to the cult of Saint Nicholas.

100

Collective and repeated penitential practices could create a bond, especially between participants of fairly similar social status. The inversion of hierarchy in public penitential practices may have been behind men’s increasing antipathy towards women’s public ascetic acts: it was humiliating for men to carry out penitential practices with the subordinate gender. The overall attitude towards women’s public ascetic practices became more hostile at the beginning of the early modern era. Sharon T. Strocchia, ‘Gender and the Rites of Honour in Italian Renaissance Cities’, in Gender and Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. by Brown and Davis, pp. 39–60 (pp. 48–49). In Nicholas’s records no condemnation of women’s ascetic pilgrimages can be found. 101

Nicholas, testis LXVIII, p. 201; testis CL, p. 364; and testis CCXV, p. 458.

102

Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 131–34.

103

For example, sister Franciscucia had suffered from stomachache for twelve years before she invoked Saint Nicholas, promising to visit the shrine with her hands tied behind her back. She does not mention other unsuccessful invocations yet unsuccessful medication from a doctor is stated. Nicholas, testis XXI, p. 138. Domina Novella made a promise of pilgrimage with hands tied after five days. Her son had fallen from a donkey and was badly injured. The doctors had already given up hope. Nicholas, testis XXV, pp. 145–46.

188

Chapter 3

They were worth the effort, since Mita recovered immediately. However, Lipponus was not tied to his promises long since four years later Mita was already married to Angelucius Angeli. She was widowed during this time: the testimony of Lipponus about the incident cannot be found.104 Ascetic Pilgrimages and Daily Life Some witnesses especially favoured ascetic pilgrimages as well as other penitential practices in the interaction with the intercessor. Presumably these practices were a part of these petitioners’ penitential zeal in general. For example, domina Indiola and domina Bertina seem to have been active in the field of religion.105 Domina Indiola was the wife of Nuczarellus Zappe. Domina Bertina was her mother-in-law, the wife of Zappa Carracci, the step-mother of Nuczarellus. They lived in the same household. Both of these women were devoted to Nicholas. According to Zappa, Bertina was devotissima.106 The women’s role in domestic devotion was prominent in this household. These women took responsibility for petitioning for cures for other family members, and they were several times credited with the intercession of Nicholas. The first miracle domina Indiola had experienced was her cure from an ear disease she called cancer, grance. She made a vow to Saint Nicholas and promised to go to Tolentino barefoot and immediately from the time she saw Tolentino to walk with her hands tied. For the recovery of her husband, Nuczarellus, she promised to make the journey barefoot and with hands tied — and to repeat it annually. For the cure of her little daughter, Gentelucia, she promised Saint Nicholas to take the infant to the shrine and leave her clothes there.107 Thus Indiola bound herself tightly to the cult of Nicholas by regular ascetic pilgrimages.

104

Nicholas, testis LXVIII, p. 201: ‘vovit eam Deo et beato Nicolao predicto quod si liberaretur ipse omni anno ieiunaret in vigilia anniversalis migrationis dicti sancti Nicolay et daret comedere Vi pauperibus et veniret omni anno dicta vigilia ad ecclesiam [. . .] manibus ligatus’. 105

The witnesses to these cases are Zappa Carracci (Nicholas, testis XL), domina Indiola (testis CL), and domina Bertina (testis CLII) from San Severino. They were summoned to give their depositions on 4 September. Domina Indiola and domina Bertina testified on 5 September and Zappa on 6 September. Nicholas, citationes testium, pp. 53, 54, and 57. 106

Nicholas, testis XL, p. 172.

107

Nicholas, testis CL, pp. 363–66.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

189

Similarly domina Bertina had visited the shrine of Nicholas several times. Bertina also testifies to these incidents except for the miraculous recovery of Indiola. First she told the commissioners about the miraculous cures she had personally petitioned. For the cure of her husband, Zappa, Bertina promised to visit the shrine barefoot and give a life-size wax image of Zappa to the shrine. She also promised to fast the day before the feast of Saint Nicholas and abstain from bread on the feast day. Bertina also invoked Nicholas for her stepson. When petitioning the cure for Lipparellus she promised a pilgrimage and wax oblations to the shrine: to encircle the shrine with a string of wax and a wax image.108 Similar enthusiasm for ascetic practices can be found in the miracles petitioned by domina Iacobucia. On the recovery of her drowned son, Puccius, she promised, in addition to the pilgrimage and material offerings, to fast on the feast day. On the cure of Bellaflos’s limp, Iacobucia promised a pilgrimage with her hands tied, and on the second recovery of her daughter she promised to make the journey barefoot.109 None of these women made the ascetic promises out of economic necessity. All of them also included material offerings in their promises. Moreover, since they were all entitled domina they were presumably of fairly substantial social standing. The promises of these women bound them closely to the cult of Saint Nicholas. It is plausible that the devotion of Indiola and Bertina was mutually encouraging. All these miracles took place within a rather close time span — within a few years before the hearing. Most likely Indiola and Bertina made the pilgrimages together even though the collaboration is not clearly stated in the depositions. It is also possible that the promise to lead an adult married daughter hands tied to the shrine of Saint Nicholas was Iacobucia’s attempt to increase the devotion of Bellaflos for Saint Nicholas.110 Devotion — and ascetic pilgrimages as its typical manifestation — seems to have been an essential element of these women’s strategies in the mishaps of everyday life. They were active attempts to persuade the saint to act. It is possible that the veneration of Saint Nicholas was only a part of these women’s religious activity, and promises of ascetic pilgrimages a manifestation of wider penitential zeal. The 108

Bertina also testified to the miraculous recovery of ser Ventorinus which she had witnessed when she lived in Macerata with her former husband. Nicholas, testis CLII, pp. 366–71. 109 110

Nicholas, testis CIII, pp. 293–94.

As has been noted, women of the same family, even after marriage, occasionally collaborated in the field of devotion: in invoking the saint for others, making pilgrimages together, or testifying to miracles they had each evoked. However, no explicit wish for collaboration can be found in Iacobucia’s deposition. Nicholas, testis CIII, pp. 292–95.

190

Chapter 3

petitioners themselves may have conceived these situations, the promises and their actual execution, as moments of direct communication with the divine — thus out of the ordinary course of life.111 However, as the examples of Indiola, Bertina, and Iacobucia emphasize, to solve a problem by promising a pilgrimage seems to have been typical strategy for coping with daily responsibilities — and not liminal situations in the Turners’ sense. They did not set the pilgrims apart from their social positions but more likely affirmed them. These women actively invoked Saint Nicholas, also for others, and engaged in such situations on pilgrimages. Thus the ascetic pilgrimages of these women can also be seen as public affirmation of their private caregiving roles. Even though men also made this kind of promise for somebody else, not only when petitioning for their own cure, they do not seem to form an essential mode of men’s devotion.112 As noted, women favoured more ascetic pilgrimages; moreover, these men made such promises apparently only once. They had not experienced or witnessed many miracles, like these women. Ascetic practices or devotion to Saint Nicholas were not an essential element in the strategies of men’s everyday life. For Indiola, Bertina, and Iacobucia, on the other hand, ascetic pilgrimages seem to have formed an important feature in performing the gendered roles within the family and also in making these roles visible in the public sphere. Pilgrimages were public manifestations of devotion. By these performances the pilgrims could create and construct their gendered roles and have them acknowledged by the community.113 In the cases of Indiola, Bertina, and Iacobucia the ascetic pilgrimages can 111

Dubisch, In a Different Place, p. 96, argues that pilgrims were in a liminal ritual state even though she does not agree with the Turners’ thesis on the liberation from hierarchies or secular social roles. 112

Men promised such offerings for others three times. In the case of Nanczus the mother and father invoked the saint and made the promise together: Nicholas, testis CXLVI, pp. 354–55. The promise of the husband of domina Mita is mentioned above, yet she is the only one to testify to the incident: ibid., testis LXVIII, pp. 201–02. Nagni Ugolini also made a promise to make the journey with his hands tied if Saint Nicholas cured his wife. Yet he was not present at the sickbed or active in the nurturing while he made the vow: ibid., testis CXL, pp. 346–47. 113 Richard C. Trexler, ‘Introduction’, in Persons in Groups: Social Behaviour as Identity Formation in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, Papers of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, ed. by Richard C. Trexler, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 36 (Binghamton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1985), pp. 3–16, argues on the importance of the interconnection of public acts and identity formation. Individuals take action in public to make a certain image of themselves recognizable to others, and in that process they come to recognize their own person in that image. Mary Douglas claims that, for example, clothes are significant in dramatizing the way we want to present our roles. Everything we

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

191

be seen as part of their caregiving role, thus also affirming their femininity in both the private and public spheres. Pilgrimages can also be seen as a mode of identity formation since the journeys could disrupt the way the categories of personhood were created. For example, in the case of Margery Kempe her journeys gave her access to a mode of identity formation, and thus to new identities and statuses ordinarily denied to women.114 The situation of Indiola, Bertina, and Iacobucia was different: their aim was not to disrupt their daily responsibilities or former identities but more likely to affirm them. Nevertheless, the ascetic pilgrimages can be seen as a way to create a performative space for oneself.115 They offered these women more options in gender construction. Thus one may conclude that the pilgrimages were essential elements in constructing gender and producing social order.116 The essence of the pilgrimage emerging in these canonization processes is similar: it was essentially a mode of communication with the saint. It was an important way to show gratitude; a sign of devotion. Simultaneously, however, the practices seem to differ significantly. For devotees of Nicholas the pilgrimages in different forms, ascetic and repeated annual journeys, were a way to urge the saint to act. They can be seen as a deliberate strategy. In the Cantilupe process, on the other hand, the promises of pilgrimages do not form a core of the negotiation with the saint.117 The repeated annual, and often ascetic, pilgrimages were a way to venerate Saint Thomas after the grace was gained. These pilgrimages were not gender specific but required the participation of fathers, mothers, and children. Thus collective pilgrimages can be seen as strengthening family identity, emphasizing continuity in the social roles. Yet they did it publicly in a way that was also recognizable to the other members of the community. In Nicholas’s records the collective role of these rituals is not emphasized. The travelling companions are rarely mentioned, let alone stressed. However, it seems do is significant; nothing is without its conscious symbolic load or lost on the audience. On symbolic gestures and social structure, see Douglas, Purity and Danger, pp. 100–01. 114

On Margery Kempe’s identity formation and pilgrimages, see Bowers, ‘Margery Kempe as Traveler’. 115

See also Dubisch, In a Different Place, pp. 95–97 and 218.

116

See also Bowers, ‘Margery Kempe as Traveler’.

117

In those cases where the supplicant travelled to the shrine beforehand to petition a cure at the vicinity of the relics the situation was obviously different. In such cases presence in the sacred sphere formed a crucial element in the interaction with the saint. Moreover, the measuring of the patient in order to make a wax image for the saint implicitly includes a promise of pilgrimage. Yet the journey was not especially stressed; it was not an essential element in the bargaining.

192

Chapter 3

that the pilgrimages may have been undertaken in rather gendered groups. The network of neighbours or relatives of the same gender is occasionally mentioned, especially in the women’s depositions. Liminality, on the other hand, can be found in the way the social status was manifest during ascetic pilgrimages: the esteemed position could not be stressed while approaching the shrine with humility. In the spiritual context the appearance of the pilgrims may have been interpreted as an act of self-promotion — stressing the petitioners’ close relationship with the intercessor. The different spheres of interaction intermingled in these circumstances. For women these situations, as performances in the public sphere, could have been liminal, out of the ordinary course of life. However, their private domestic roles as wives, mothers, and caregivers could have been simultaneously reinforced. Pilgrimages as votive offerings may have been these women’s way to underline their caregiving role, which was also acknowledgeable in the public sphere, thus forming an element of their femininity.

Material Votive Offerings Wax, Devotion, and Magic In addition to the pilgrimage, material offerings comprised the core of the countergift to the saint. The promises of these oblations were given while invoking the saint, thus their intention was to urge the saint to act. However, since the majority of the offerings were given after the miracle they were also a mode of thanking the intercessor.118 According to André Vauchez, in the late Middle Ages the material gifts were no longer necessary or sufficient by themselves. The communication, the invocation and thanking for the miracle, required personal devotion and affection to the saint.119 Nevertheless, the different oblations of wax — figures of humans,

118 Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 89–91, argues that the offerings played different roles whether they were given before or after the miracle. The oblation before the miracle was to urge the saint to act and symbolize the close contact of the petitioner with the relics while after the cure the intention was to thank the intercessor and testify about the miracle. According to him, the petitioners usually practised both. However, in many distance miracles only one oblation was given. Thus the promise can be seen as urging the saint to act and the fulfilling of the promise as an act of gratitude and testimony of the miracle. 119

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, p. 537, emphasizes the change that took place in the interaction with the saint and its effects on votive offerings in the late Middle Ages: the quasimechanical exchange of gifts was no longer valid.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

193

body parts, or candles — were the most popular votive offerings to be found in the depositions of these processes. Offerings of wax were in use in a great variety of situations, in sudden accidents as well as in long-lasting illnesses. They were promised when invoking the saint for oneself as well as for others and equally favoured by men and women. The majority of the miracles written down in these processes include a promise of an oblation of wax. Votive figures of wax can even be seen as core of the interaction with the saint, especially with Thomas Cantilupe, since measuring of the patient — in order to make an anatomical figure of the patient or of the afflicted limb — was an indispensable element in the invocation. Anatomical votive figures were in use already in pre-Christian times. The essence of these oblations is often considered magical also when used in the Christian cult of saints. Figures may have represented the petitioner in the sacred sphere, in the vicinity of the healing ability of the relics. If the sick could not personally come to the shrine, the wax image was put close to the healing power of the relics instead of a real member.120 Another line of interpretation deems the anatomical votive figures to have been a form of magical exchange with the saint: a replica was offered to the saint for a healthy member the petitioner had gained or hoped for.121 In other words, the anatomical images were symbolic sacrifices and they did not share the same fate as their mortal counterparts.122 The concepts of magic and religion are problematic, and scholars use different definitions and even hold conflicting opinions. The classic but rather mechanical distinction between religion and magic is stated by Keith Thomas. According to him, in proper religious rites the aid of the supernatural forces is petitioned by the supplicants while in magic these powers are forced and manipulated to act favourably.123 The invocations cannot be seen as a mode of forcing: a promise of a life-size

120

Giovanni Battista Bronzini, ‘“Ex voto” e cultura religiosa popolare’, Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa, 15 (1979), 1–27; Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 88–89; and Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 95–96. The importance of the closeness of the relics is stressed in the examples of penetration with the afflicted body part into the shrine. 121

Bronzini, ‘“Ex voto” e cultura religiosa popolare’, pp. 7–10; Giovanni Battista Bronzini, ‘Fenomenologia dell’ex voto’, Lares, 44 (1978), 143–66 (p. 160); Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 96–97; and Anne-Marie Bautier, ‘Typologie des Ex-voto mentionnés dans des textes antérieurs a 1200’, in La piété populaire au Moyen Âge, Actes du 99e Congrès National des Sociétés savantes (Besançon 1974) (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1977), pp. 238–82. 122

This fact is especially stressed by Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, p. 272.

123

Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 41.

194

Chapter 3

replica did not automatically make the cure happen; the cure could not be manipulated or the saint forced to act. By this definition Keith Thomas ends up arguing that magic was an essential and integral part of medieval Christianity.124 Similarly Aron Gurevich argues that many rituals used by the medieval Church were seen as magical by contemporaries: the distinction between magic and religion was not clear for ordinary Christians.125 Richard Kieckhefer also argues that the conceptual difference between magic and religion was not an issue for the laity in the Middle Ages. They were not usually viewed as opposites or even as essentially distinct categories even though both terms were in use. However, Christians were aware of the distinction between appealing to God, invocation of demons, and exploitation of mysterious powers within nature.126 This distinction of different modes of invocations is also evident in the canonization processes of Thomas Cantilupe. The witnesses were asked whether they had used superstitious means or sorcery or called demons in the search for a cure; similarly they were questioned about the use of different herbs in the healing process.127 Thus this kind of distinction was clear at least for the commissioners and presumably also for the witnesses since they were required to answer such questions. 124

Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 25–50.

125

Gurevich, Medieval Popular Culture, p. 62.

126

Richard Kieckhefer, ‘The Specific Rationality of Medieval Magic’, American Historical Review, 99 (1994), 813–36, does not accept a functional difference between magic and religion: magic might accomplish the same thing as prayer yet the principle invoked was the distinctive feature. Similarly he argues that natural magic could have easily been combined with devotional practices. ‘Superstitio implied irrational and improper religious practice while magia suggested more often either a sinister or an occult rationality’ (p. 816). The utility of division between religion and magic in the medieval context is also criticized by Leander Petzoldt, ‘Magie und Religion’, in Volksreligion im hohen und späten Mittelalter, ed. by Peter Dinzelbacher and Dieter R. Bauer, Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte. Neue Folge, 13 (Paderborn: Schöningh., 1990), pp. 467–85 (pp. 477–78). Valerie Flint, on the other hand, defines magic as ‘the exercise of a preternatural control over nature by human beings with the assistance of forces more powerful than they’. Consequently she speaks of non-Christian and Christian magic in the early medieval context. Thus many practices in the cult of saints are defined as magia. Flint, Rise of Magic, pp. 3–4 and passim. 127

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 191r: ‘vel quod aliquod sortilegium vel supersticionem vel incantacionem aut demonum invocacionem intervenerunt’; ibid., fol. 4v : ‘Item quinto si in operacione dictorum miraculorum fuerunt apposite herbe vel lapides vel alique alie res naturales vel medicinales et si incantationes vel superstitiones vel fraudes alique intervenerunt in operacione ipsorum miraculorum.’

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

195

They also stated regularly that none of these modes of healing was used; only the power of God and the virtues of Saint Thomas made the miracle happen.128 The difference between magic, superstition, and religion may have been less marked in other features. For example, the anatomical votive figures may have emphasized the magical side in the exchange with the saint. The ritual of measuring could be interpreted as a way to make a replica for the intercessor. These oblations could have been measured, in addition to the length, also by the weight of the patient.129 However, the measuring did not automatically mean an oblation of a life-size image especially if the person measured was an adult. These offerings would have been expensive and difficult to take to the church.130 Other practices with magical or superstitious connotations may have also been used in the ritual of measuratio. For example, the disease may have thought to transfer during the measuring into the equipment used. Thus the string used for measuring was occasionally incorporated in a candle. In such cases the disease was probably supposed to transfer through the thread into the candle and vanish as the wax melted away at the shrine.131 In many practices of contagious magic the measuring equipment was discarded after the measuring since it was contaminated.132 No mention of the disposal of the 128

See for example BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 17v, 54r, 68r, 72v, 129v, 147v, and 214v.

129

These promises can be found in Nicholas’s process when beneficiaries were young children. No symbolic significance is given to the weighing of the patient. On the weighing of an infant in order to make an oblation in equal measures, see Nicholas, testis CXC, p. 433, and testis XCV, p. 277. 130

For example, when Editha was measured her husband had two candles made of one-quarter pound of wax. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 215v : ‘fecit facti duas candelas de quarta parte unius libre cere in dicto filo’. When blind Adam and Rogerus were measured for Saint Thomas their mother had five candles made in the size of Adam, ibid., fols 234v –235r. 131

Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 95–96, deems this practice as white magic which cannot be categorized as either Christian or pagan. See also Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 89 and 97. Notions of contagious magic or transferred disease can also be seen in the practice to leave the clothes of the sick at the shrine. See Nicholas, testis XVI, p. 123; testis XVIII, p. 134; testis XXXVI, p. 164; testis CLXI, p. 385; and testis CCCIII, p. 595. 132

On this nearly contemporary folk healing ritual, see Wayland D. Hand, Magical Medicine: The Folkloric Component of Medicine in the Folk Belief, Custom, and Ritual of the Peoples of Europe and America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), pp. 94, 102, and 113. The benediction could also be transferred through a string around a blessed candle, for example. On this nearly contemporary practice, see Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 96. Indeed, all secondary relics, i.e. the clothes of the saint or water from the shrine, can be seen to be expressions of this belief of contagious or transferring power.

196

Chapter 3

device, however, can be found in the depositions. It is possible that the commissioners were not aware of the custom and did not specifically ask about it. The witnesses, on the other hand, could have realized the sentiment of unorthodox belief in this habit and did not voluntarily reveal it to the commissioners. Nevertheless, the equipment of measuring was of some importance to the commissioners. A frequently asked question was what equipment the measuring was done with. The importance of the measuring tool for the commissioners is revealed in the specifying questions. The questions are not formulated in the record, but since some of the witnesses specify in the middle of their deposition that they did not remember where the string used in the measuring came from, most likely the commissioners had asked about it. The commissioners wanted to specify the object used but these auxiliary questions were not written down.133 Presumably such questions were not posed to the suspect of unorthodox beliefs or practices. More likely their function was only to validate the miracle by scrutinizing the details. The measuring device was also significant for the witnesses: they regularly remembered the tool the measuring was done with. For example, after nearly twenty years all but one of the witnesses remembered that Adam le Schirreue had measured his daughter for Saint Thomas with his own belt. However, the measuring equipment was not especially carefully selected beforehand — usually objects that were at hand were used.134 The depositions do not reveal what was done with the measuring object afterwards, and its future role remains unclear. On some occasions it may have been offered to the shrine as an object of devotion due to its central role in the successful invocation. Many belts and some swords were offered to the shrine of Saint Thomas, but these offerings were not among the most popular. Moreover, the weapons offered to the shrine were said to have played an important yet different role in the miracles: the beneficiaries were wounded by them and afterwards miraculously cured.135 133

For example, ‘et Hugo de Atfortone testis supra iuratus mensuravit cum quadam filo nescit a quo habito vidente ipso teste dictum Willelmum mortuum ad sanctum Thomam de Hereforde’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 147r). 134

A piece of thread was used, for example, in the measuring of Johannes Drake (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 141r ), Willelmus Lorimer (ibid., fol. 147r ), and Nicholas Piscatoris (ibid., fol. 159r). 135

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 74v : ‘Item invenerunt ibi multas zonas [. . .] Item invenerunt aliquas lanceas et sagittas et aliquos gladios et enses cum quibus homines fuisse dicebantur vulnerati et miraculose curati.’ On the commemorative role of weapons in family memory, see van Houts, Memory and Gender, pp. 109–10; on weapons as symbols of conveyance, see Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, pp. 258–60.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

197

No actual measuring of the patient is mentioned in the canonization process of Nicholas. However, nearly all the candles offered to the shrine were mentioned to be as long as the patient. Life-size wax images were also popular votive offerings, as were images of body parts.136 One can wonder how the offerings of the length of the patient were done without measuring him or her. Indeed, the amount offered to the saint was sometimes measured exactly according to the afflicted person or body part, even though the act of measuring was not stated. For example, domina Novella promised to the shrine two candles as long as her son, Martinus, in addition to two other candles. These other candles were to be as long as the circling of the head of Martinus.137 Since the actual deed of measuring is not mentioned it probably did not have such a significant ritualistic value as in the miracles performed by Thomas Cantilupe. It was not an essential part of the invocation, but more likely only a method to measure exactly the offered amount. The intention to make an oblation for the saint is also mentioned as the essence of the measuring in the Cantilupe process.138 On the rare occasions where the motivation is stated no mentions of unorthodox logic of the ritual can be found. The Church approved the tradition of measuring the victim and the life-size images. Such rituals were unofficial yet tolerated and even encouraged by the clergy. After all, they appealed to legitimate powers, to the healing ability of the saint. For example, in the summarium of Thomas Cantilupe’s process the author shows compassion for the habit. He claimed that measuring was customary in many places and the purpose of the habit was to do a wax offering of identical size. He did not condemn the custom — quite the opposite: he found biblical examples of the practice and a prototype for the action in the Book of Kings.139

136 For example, when Anthonius, the son of domina Milucia, was severely ill, the mother promised Saint Nicholas a wax image as long as Anthonius. Approximately fifteen years later her other son, Cola, was severely injured after he had fallen from the second floor, plancato domus. The mother referred to the same useful remedy; she promised Nicholas a wax image as big as Cola. Both of the boys were cured. Nicholas, testis XXXIX, p. 168. 137

Nicholas, testis XXV, p. 146: ‘ibi offerre duas candelas longas quantum est dictus filius eius et duas alias candelas quantum circumdaret circum circa caput’. 138

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 152r: ‘Non obesse si dictus sanctus Thomas haberet oblationem pro dicto Willelmo et tunc prefatus Hugo accepto filo ab Agnete [. . .] mensuravit eumdem Willelmum.’ 139

BN, MS Vat. 5373 A, fol. 66v . The author refers to III Kings 17. The reference is marked in the margin of the manuscript.

198

Chapter 3

The different rituals in the interaction with the saint may have had connotations of magic or superstitious beliefs. However, most likely the supplicants themselves considered these rituals as a legitimate, traditional, and most persuasive way to plead for the saint’s help. Probably different ideas collided — or were not actually separated — in the minds of the petitioners. The clerical authorities’ procedure to differentiate superstition and sorcery from popular piety and the magical practices of proper religious rituals was in progress but became more intense only later. The majority of the clergy accepted the archaic modes of veneration; the true faith of the devotees was not put under suspicion.140 The offered wax, whether it was figures, torches, or candles, was used in lighting the church. In Christian symbolism great value is given to light; after all Christ was the light of the world ( John 8. 12). To honour the saint by lighting up candles originated in Antiquity.141 Wax was needed continuously in the illumination of the church, thus it was pleasing for the clergy housing the shrine. The importance of wax can be seen in the disputes of Hereford cathedral. Richard Swinfield, the successor of Thomas Cantilupe, had to settle the division of wax offerings between the treasurer and the chapter in 1293.142 Later in the fourteenth century the devotion diminished, the number of the offerings decreased, and the tax made on the offered wax needed to be reduced.143 It is possible that the clergy and the laity saw different connotations or emphasized different aspects in the anatomical votive offerings. However, a commonly

140

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 536–37.

141

To burn lights in worship was of pagan origin. In the early centuries it sometimes raised rejection, yet the practice was stabilized and lights played an important part in the liturgy in the later Middle Ages. D. R. Dendy, The Use of Lights in Christian Worship, Alcuin Club Collections, 41 (London: S.P.C.K., 1959), pp. 2–3 and 92–98; on the evolution of the use of lights in the cult of saints, see ibid., pp. 108–19. Lights were of great importance in the veneration of saints, but laity also offered benefactions for the maintenance of lights in the altars beyond the range of the cult of saints. David Postles, ‘Lamps, Lights and Layfolk: “Popular” Devotion before the Black Death’, Journal of Medieval History, 25 (1999), 97–114. 142

The Bishop decided that after the expenses of the cathedral lights had been defrayed, two thirds of the wax should be taken by the treasurer and one third by the chapter. The Register of Richard de Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford (A .D . 1283–1317), ed. by William W. Capes (Hereford: Wilson and Philips, 1909), pp. 297–99. 143

Pope Benedict XII gave permission in 1336 to reduce the tax Hereford paid on the wax offered at the shrine after the petition of the treasurer since the yearly amount had decreased. Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland, vol. II: Papal Letters: A .D . 1305–1342, prepared by William Henry Bliss (London: H.M.S.O., 1895), p. 531.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

199

shared opinion was that these figures were a mode of interaction with the saint. They were seen as proofs of miracles. For example, one couple, dominus Franciscus and domina Thomassa, held similar opinions of the wax figures at the shrine of Saint Nicholas. When they heard the bells rung, they claimed that Nicholas did not perform any miracles but Augustinian friars put the images at the shrine and had the bells rung.144 The importance of the oblations as proofs of sanctity can also be seen in the fact that the multitude of the pilgrims giving their oblations to the shrine was recorded in Nicholas’s process.145 Similarly the significance of oblations was stressed in the Cantilupe process. The offerings found at the shrine were listed and written down in the records. Their importance is further stressed by the fact that commissioners had them counted again after the hearing.146 Witnesses also referred to the images and other signs of miracles brought to the shrine as the proofs of the beliefs of the laity.147 The offerings were important evidence of the miracles. The oblations at the shrine further increased the reputation of the intercessor. The commissioners also acknowledged this and wanted to eliminate the possibility of fraud. They wanted to know if the clergy or the cives of Hereford or the family members of Thomas 144

Nicholas, testis XIV, pp. 107–11; testis XCV, pp. 275–77; and testis CXC, pp. 432–34. This case can be interpreted as a typical punishing miracle: Saint Nicholas punished the critical couple by severe illness which afflicted their infant son. Only after they had realized and admitted their fault and petitioned the help of Saint Nicholas was their son cured. Punishing miracles were known from Late Antiquity and throughout the Middle Ages. On transformation in the interpretation of their reasons, modes, and functions, see Gábor Klaniczay, ‘Miracoli di punizione e maleficia’, in Miracoli: Dai segni alla storia, ed. by Gajanao and Modica, pp. 109–35. 145 Nicholas, citationes testium, pp. 57–58 and 62. This was considered important enough to be written down in the relatio of the process. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4027, fol. 51r: ‘Quod ad eius ut sanctam archam seu tumulum confluit presentium in vigilia et in die sui anniversarii obitum multitudo populorum cum devocionem et reverentia palleorum vestitum ymaginum et aliarum oblationum vota sua ibidem deo et dictus nicholao solventes.’ 146

At the shrine of Saint Thomas were found, for example, 170 silver ships, 41 wax ships, 129 silver images, 436 whole images of men, and over a thousand images of body parts. The quantity of images of eyes, breasts, teeth, and ears was uncountable. Images of animals could also be found. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 74r and fols 312r–313r. One of the custodians of the shrine estimated that there was left only one tenth of the wax offerings, while the other estimated that only one third was left, ibid., fol. 75v. Lists of offerings as proofs of sanctity were also recorded in other canonization processes. See Wetzstein, Heilige vor Gericht, pp. 428–29 and 460. 147

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 119r: ‘multi peregrini confluviunt ad tumulum dicti domini Thome cum devocione et revecencia multas ymagines et signa miraculorum secum afferens’.

200

Chapter 3

Cantilupe had feigned miracles, images, or other signs of miracles that were at the shrine in order to raise enthusiasm among people or gain economic profit.148 These parties were most likely to gain profit or benefit from the multitude of pilgrims and offerings at the shrine.149 Votive Offerings as Transactions The devotional rituals might be fairly complex yet the petitioners’ initiatives in the interaction with the saint might also be fairly straightforward, even calculated. Even though the measuring of the patient was not important while invoking the help of Saint Nicholas, the exact measures were also used in the exchange of gifts with him. Some petitioners promised a string or filament of wax or even of more precious material to the shrine. The length of the filament was announced to be around the shrine.150 In this case the intention of the measuring was not to make a life-size replica of the patient but to honour the saint with the shrine’s exact measurement. It was a way to announce the accurate quantity of the offering. The offering can also be seen as the saint’s worth as an exact amount. However, presumably to circle the shrine did not imply of any symbolic valuation of the saint, but was more likely a fairly common act of devotion. Potentially its intention was to give more significance to the offering of the oblation to the shrine. It was a ritualistic way to give the saint the particular quantity. The importance of the circling of the shrine as a measure of the offering is emphasized in some depositions. For example, Pelegrinus de Arimino promised to

148

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 83v : ‘Item interrogatus si scit credit vel audivit dici ab aliis quod aliquam machinationem vel aliquam fraus vel dolus intervenerunt et interposita fuerunt a capitulo clericis vel civibus herefordensis vel propinquis vel amicis dicti domino Thome vel ab aliis quibusqumque ratione lucri vel questus vel ad augendum famam dicti domini Thome vel ad concursum populi excitando vel ob aliquam aliam causam circa miraculos que deus dicitur operatus fuisse pro dicto domino Thome vel circa ymagines vel alia signa miraculorum que presencialiter sunt vel hactenus fuerunt circa tumulum dicti domino Thome vel aliis lociis ecclesie herefordensis.’ 149

Gauffrida Rossa also assumed that Franciscan friars invented the fame of sanctity of Saint Louis to gain profit. Louis, cap. CLXXXVIII, p. 238: ‘et credo quod fratres minores hoc invenerunt propter lucrum et emolumentum habendum’. 150

For example, ‘ipsemet venire ad visitandum sepulchrum suum et archam suam cingere circum circa de cera’ (Nicholas, testis CXXI, p. 320); see also ibid., testis LIV, p. 188; testis CII, p. 290; testis CXLIII, p. 350; testis CLII, p. 368; and testis CCCLXV, p. 634.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

201

send a certain amount of wax, unam centuram ceram, to be circled around the shrine. Berardus Nuctii also promised, among many other things, to circle the shrine with wax or give an equal amount of wax to the shrine.151 In such cases the devotional side of the act is not underlined. Yet, in many cases the circling of the shrine was essentially an act of piety. The devotional side is further stressed by the fact that the promise only to personally circle the shrine with lighted candles was a valid offering.152 For example, Serendina promised to visit the shrine of Nicholas with hands tied and circle the shrine. The devotional side of the promise was emphasized since the pilgrimage and circling was done with humility, hands tied. However, in addition to this manifestation of devotion she also promised an image of wax.153 The words cereus and candela were sometimes used interchangeably.154 Thus it is possible that the expression ‘cingere archam de cera’ did not always mean to encircle it with a string of wax but rather to put wax candles around it, or at least at the corners of the tomb. The circling of the shrine with wax and candles were both fairly popular offerings and regularly given with other wax objects. However, the promises of candles and circling were not uttered simultaneously while petitioning for the cure.155 The interchangeable or commingled role of these offerings can be seen in the miraculous cure of Petrus Mathei. His wife, domina Margarita, argued that her husband promised to circle the shrine with candles. However, the other witnesses, the patient and his stepmother, argued that he promised to circle it with a string of wax.156 Likely both of these practices, to circle the shrine with candles and with a string of wax, were in use.157 However, they were not of equal economic worth: the 151

Nicholas, testis CXLIV, p. 351, and testis CCXCVI, p. 588.

152

On further examples of this practice, see Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, pp. 252–53.

153

Nicholas, testis CCCLV, p. 629.

154

Bautier, ‘Typologie des Ex-voto’, pp. 240–41; on the practice of encircling the shrine and its interconnection with magic, see ibid., pp. 250–52. 155

The promise of circling was used quite equally by men and women on various different occasions, for example, when petitioning the cure for oneself or for a family member in diverse ailments, like blindness, hernia, or paralysis. See Nicholas, testis LIV, p. 188; testis LXI, p. 194; testis LXXI, p. 204; testis LXXIII, p. 205; and testis CLII, p. 368. 156 157

Nicholas, testis CLXXXII–CLXXXIV, pp. 423–26.

An example of circling of the tomb with candles can be found in the Cantilupe process: blind Adam was sent to the Hereford cathedral with five candles of his own length. One of the candles was lit in the middle of the tomb and others stood at the four corners of the shrine. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 235r.

202

Chapter 3

circling with candles was more expensive than to use only a string of wax. The economic value is revealed in the deposition of domina Thomassa. She promised to visit the sepulchre of Saint Clare barefoot and circle it with candles or with a filament of silver.158 Even though the circling of the shrine could have been a way to announce the accurate amount of the oblation, it can also be interpreted as a devotional practice. It was a means to give importance to the offering. However, some petitioners emphasized only the exact quantity in the exchange of gifts. The offering could be a certain weight of wax or a certain amount of money.159 The value of wax varied from three to forty solidi.160 The amount of forty solidi was promised to Saint Nicholas by Thomas Gentilis.161 He appeared to have dropsy (anasarca) for four years. According to Thomas, his father spent lots of money for doctors in vain. Finally Thomas promised the blessed Venantius a hundred solidi if he cured him. It was the same amount of money his father had promised to a doctor if he could cure Thomas. Venantius did not help him, however. Thomas made a new vow to Saint Nicholas. This time he promised a pilgrimage with hands tied and a wax image of forty solidi. Personal penitential pilgrimage was part of the offering. Presumably Thomas estimated that it was worth sixty solidi since the promised amount of money was smaller in this case. The wax was to be given within eight days after the recovery. Indeed, his whole vow resembles a business transaction with exact measures and dates. Thomas was cured at the shrine of Saint Nicholas, but he did not give the promised wax to the shrine. It is possible that his interaction with the saint calculated by some means did not include intense personal devotion regardless of the pilgrimage and of the night spent at the shrine. In such a case the promise was presumably easier to leave unfulfilled. Moreover, the high costs of the gift may also have made him hesitate.

158

Clare, testis CLXXIIII, p. 455: ‘ipsa iret discalciata et portaret ad cingendum pilum suum de candelis seu filo argenteo’. 159 For example, Anthonius Thomaxii promised Saint Nicholas ‘ymaginem de cera ponderis unius libre’ if he cured his continuous fever: Nicholas, testis CXXI, p. 319. Domina Bellaflos promised Nicholas wax worth ten solidi, among other things, if he cured her daughter: ibid., testis CLXXXVII, pp. 429–30. 160 The solidus was divided into twelve denariis (silver pennies). This monetary system was based on the pound and was widely used throughout Europe. Moreover, foreign currency circulated rather freely and was regularly accepted in Italy at this time. Epstein, Wills and Wealth, pp. 239–40. 161

Thomas Gentilis is the only witness of this miracle. Nicholas, testis CXLI, pp. 347–48.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

203

However, the contract between the petitioner and the intercessor was valid, and breaking it led to severe consequences. Thomas was afflicted again the eighth day after the recovery.162 Immediately Thomas headed for Tolentino with wax of said value. He was cured again at the shrine.163 The recurring illness can also be seen as a testimony of the belief in saints’ powers. It testifies — if not to personal piety and devotion — at least to the significance of the contract and the importance of the promise given to the saint.164 Even closer resemblance to a business transaction is found in the recovery of Angelus de Monte Rubiano: he regained his sight immediately he had positioned a coin, unum floreum, above the shrine. In this case the trade with the saint was not due to the occupation of the petitioner. Angelus was a member of the order of the Knights of Saint John.165 Money was also offered to Saint Thomas. The commissioners doing the inventory of the votive offerings did not count the coins found at the shrine of Thomas. Probably they were far too numerous since it is assumed that coins were the most popular votive offerings.166 In addition to measuring, another popular custom — also referred to as the English custom — was to bend a coin in honour of the saint while invoking his help.167 For example, Johannes Syward told the commissioners 162

Saints were eager to punish ungrateful petitioners. On unfulfilled promises and reafflicted illnesses, see Nicholas, testis CXV, pp. 311–12, and testis CLVII, p. 380; and Clare, testis CXXI, pp. 398–99. 163

Nicholas, testis CXLI, pp. 347–48.

164

The contract with the saint was permanent. Iuliana Kock was paralysed anew when she had her litter brought back to her after she had already offered it to the shrine of Saint Thomas. The permanence is also stressed in her utterances after the second cure. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 170v : ‘exivit de dicta sporta clamans sancte Thome sancte Thome gratias tibi ago habe tuam sportam et fac inde quicquid voluistis’. Mauss, The Gift, p. 51, sees the right to cancel a gift on grounds of ingratitude as a normal, even natural, legal institution. See also Natalie Zemon Davis, The Gift in Sixteenth-Century France, Curti Lectures (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 110–18. 165

Nicholas, testis CXLIII, p. 351.

166

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 313r; see also Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 98. The popularity of coin offerings can also be seen in the fact that a remarkable amount of money was offered to the churches along the route to Hereford. The commissioners were surprised by the quantity of oblations. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 122v : ‘Interrogatus quid offerebant dicti peregrini in ecclesiam Wigorniensis quia oblacio posset ascendere ad tantam quantitatem.’ 167

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 72r : ‘secundum morem Anglie plicavit denari super dicti filii sui’. The word used on these occasions is plicare, thus it is also suggested that the coin was not bent but bound to the infirm limb. Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 94. However, the bending seems a more appropriate translation while the closeness with the infection is occasionally stressed. For

204

Chapter 3

that he took a coin from his purse and bent it on the forehead of Rogerus in order that God would revive the boy for the virtues of Saint Thomas.168 Unlike the measuring equipment, these coins were offered to the shrine. Bending a coin can be seen as a rather straightforward gift exchange, yet this practice is also assumed to derive from pagan customs and have connotations of magic. It may have originated in the ancient custom of ‘killing’ the object to be donated to the deity in order to dispatch it to the world of spirits.169 It was also a devotional practice since it implicitly included the promise of a pilgrimage. It was an affirmation of the vow.170 By offering money the oblation to the saint could be calculated exactly in economic terms as well as in personal sacrifice. In these cases the interaction with the intercessor was regulated and controlled; it can be seen as a transaction with explicitly known costs. Nevertheless, it cannot be concluded that the monetary offerings reflect the lack of personal devotion for the intercessor. The economic pondering of the value of the gift may have been more evident in those cases of promising a particular amount of wax, for example. These promises, however, were commingled with signs of devotion. Economic calculation and piety were not exclusive.171 example, Johannes circled his afflicted head with the coin and then offered it to the shrine. The bending of the coin is not mentioned. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 182v : ‘circuivit dictum gibbum cum uno denarii implorando auxilium dei et servum eius Thome de Cantilupo et accedens ad eius tumbam cum illo denarii’. 168

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 193r.

169

However, the shrine clergy did not acknowledge the special status of these coins: the bent coins were apparently melted down. They were no longer valid currency even though their metal value was not affected by the bending. According to Ralph Merrifield, The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic (New York: New Amsterdam, 1987), pp. 91–93, the melting down is the reason why these coins are not found in large quantities. He also contradicts the opinion of numismatics that bending was only a method of validating the metal value of the coin and not a ritual of devotion. On destruction as sacrifice, see also Mauss, The Gift, p. 16. 170 Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 94. In early modern France dernier à dieu was used as a confirmation in secular transactions. It was simultaneously a contract and a gift: an agreement of precise details yet having an affecting side as well and being summoned by God as a witness. Davis, Gift in Sixteenth-Century France, p. 89. 171

On the intermingling of ‘free gifts’ and economic calculation in the offerings to monasteries, see Mayke de Jong, In Samuel’s Image: Child Oblation in the Early Medieval West, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 268–77. Moreover, Davis, Gift in SixteenthCentury France, pp. 73–109, argues that gifts were an essential and even undistinguishable part of business negotiations and contracts. In early modern France the sale mode and the gift mode intermingled in the exchange of goods. On the other hand, Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran,

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

205

Unlike wax figures, pecuniary oblation seems to have been a rather genderspecific practice in both of the processes. The promises of pecuniary offerings were mainly uttered by men.172 Possibly this difference reflects the gender roles in society. Men were more accustomed to handling money and they controlled it independently.173 In Nicholas’s process the majority of the witnesses were prosperous town-dwellers who were presumably accustomed to business transactions. Moreover, Italian practice put husbands in full control of their wives’ dowries.174 Similarly in England the wives’ economic status was restricted. Husbands controlled the conjugal funds in which the wife’s assets were also emerged.175

p. 249, distinguishes these two types in the interaction with the saint. He sees conditional vows as contracts and unconditional vows as gifts while he claims that the unconditional vows put more pressure on the saint to act. Contracts could always be renegotiated or renounced but it was an obligation to accept a gift and offer a counter-gift. However, the unconditional vows were a minority in the miracles performed by John Capistran. Similarly Patrick Geary, ‘Sacred Commodities: The Circulation of Medieval Relics’, in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. by Arjun Appadurai, Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 169–91, distinguished rather strictly gift, theft, and commerce in the circulation of relics. 172

Margarita Appillaterre was the only woman in Nicholas’s records to have offered unum denarium to Saint Blaxius after the suggestion of Saint Nicholas. Nicholas, testis LXXXIV, p. 237. In the Cantilupe process two examples of women offering money can be found. According to Gilbertus, the raving Editha offered unum denarium after her cure. No bending of a coin is mentioned in the invocation. Similarly the paralysed Iuliana Kock was said to have offered a denarius to the shrine after her cure. In both cases dominus Gilbertus is the only witness to mention this detail. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 211 v and 170r. On examples of men bending a coin for Saint Thomas, see ibid., fols 61v , 66v , and 72r; on offering a coin without bending, see ibid., fol. 182v. Moreover, in addition to gender, other aspects in social position may have affected the inclination to offer money. Iuliana Kock is the only one of the previously mentioned petitioners who gained livelihood from agriculture. However, the cases are too few and sporadic — especially if compared to the assumed popularity of the custom — to draw any definite conclusion: it is impossible to know the donor of the coins found at the shrine. 173 However, see also Barbara Schuh, ‘“Wiltu gesund warden, so pring ain waxen pildt in mein capellen . . .”: Votivgaben in Mirakelberichten’, in Symbole des Alltags, Alltag der Symbole, ed. by Blaschitz, Hundsbichler, Jaritz, and Vavra, pp. 747–63. Barbara Schuh has studied German miracles stories from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and argues that the pecuniary oblations were favoured equally by men and women. 174

On the privileges and burdens of this custom, see Stuard, ‘Burdens of Matrimony’; on examples of women’s economic independence, see Cohn, ‘Women and Work in Renaissance Italy’. 175

Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside, p. 35.

206

Chapter 3

However, women could promise wax objects of a certain amount of money or of a particular weight.176 Thus they were aware of the costs of a specific figure as well as their personal economic situation. Moreover, the division does not necessarily directly reflect the gendered economic options. Women also enjoyed enough economic freedom to offer valuable gifts to the intercessor. The golden or silver filaments offered to Saint Nicholas were all given by women.177 Men also offered valuable gifts to the shrine, yet their promises were made in terms of money.178 Valuable offerings, like silver figures of humans or ships, were also found at the shrine of Saint Thomas.179 Ships were most likely promised in shipwreck at sea by sailors or merchants.180 However, women also gave valuable offerings to the shrine of Saint Thomas; several hundred women’s items of jewellery in gold and silver were found at the shrine. Probably these gifts were also offered simply as acts of devotion and not exclusively as votive offerings.181 The material oblations were naturally closely connected to the economic and social status of the petitioner. The gender of the donor did not dictate the financial worth of the gift.182 However, gender and the gifts chosen for the saint were interconnected. Men favoured more purely pecuniary oblations, which presumably reflects their positions and responsibilities in society. On many occasions women’s valuable offerings also held more significance on a personal level. The jewellery was 176

For the cure of her daughter domina Bellaflos promised, among other things, ‘cereum pretio X solidorum’ (Nicholas, testis CLXXXVII, p. 429). Domina Vera promised the same amount for her own cure; testis CXVIII, p. 315. Four pounds of wax were promised by domina Indiola (testis CL, p. 363) and by domina Monaldischa (testis CCLXXXVII, p. 581). 177 Domina Margarita promised to encircle the shrine with silver filament (Nicholas, testis CXI, pp. 305–06). Domina Plubella promised to encircle the shrine with golden filament (testis CCXCIII, p. 585), while domina Flordalixa promised to repeat the circling annually with golden filament (testis LIII, p. 187). 178 For example, Corradus Perucii promised ‘XII anconitanos grossos de argento pro uno cereo’ (Nicholas, testis CLV, p. 375). Friar Symon promised ‘unum floreum de auro’ to the shrine (ibid., testis CCXXIII, p. 491). 179

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 74v .

180

On a promise of a silver ship, see BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 210r.

181

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 74v . See also ibid., fol. 80v .

182

On women’s independence in thanksgiving, see also Quirk, ‘Men, Women, and Miracles’, p. 56. On connections with votive offerings and women’s legal status in the Eastern Church, see Christine Peters, ‘Access to the Divine: Gender and Votive Images in Moldavia and Wallachia’, in Gender and Christian Religion, ed. by R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History, 34 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1998), pp. 143–61.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

207

part of the personal property with clear connotations of the donor. The personal belongings — even a kind of intimacy — seem to have formed an important part of women’s interaction with the saint. Intimacy in Gift Exchange For each petitioner it was obviously easiest to offer something they had control over. The financial situation of the supplicant was naturally important, yet the resources and options were also gender based. In the traditional view business transactions belonged to the masculine field of duty while women’s domestic roles were emphasized: nurturing and caregiving were seen as feminine duties. In addition to nursing the sick the caregiving role also included feeding and clothing the members of the household. Food preparation especially was women’s role. It was a resource particularly controlled by women.183 This gendering of responsibilities can also be found in the votive offerings, for oblations of food as well as diverse cloths were favoured more by women.184 Offerings of grain to Saint Nicholas — often of equal weight to that of the patient — seem to be more favoured by women than men.185 When the amount offered equalled the patient’s weight, the beneficiaries were children. The grain was undoubtedly used by the Augustinian friars housing the shrine of Saint Nicholas. In some cases of food distribution the offering was given especially to the friars. For example, Philippus Anne promised an annual meal to the friars in order to receive offspring.186 Personally made bread was promised twice by Aldisia Iacobucii.187

183

See Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast, pp. 189–93.

184

The promises of charitable food distribution were not very popular offerings or connected with the gender of the donor. Only two promises can be found: one offered by a woman and the other by a man. Nicholas, testis LXVIII, p. 201, and testis CCCLXII, p. 633. 185

There can be found altogether six promises of grain offerings given by a woman: Nicholas, testis XCVI, p. 278; testis LVIII, p. 191; testis LXXXIV, p. 240; testis CXCVI, p. 440; testis CXCVII, p. 441; and CCLXX, p. 559; the last five are offerings of equal weight of the patient. Only one man promised an offering of grain; ibid., testis LVII, p. 190. Margarita Appillaterre offered an egg: ibid., testis LXXXIV, p. 237. No food offerings can be found in the Cantilupe process. In the early Middle Ages other natural products, like meat or even living animals were also offered to the saints. Bautier, ‘Typologie des Ex-voto’, p. 272. 186

Nicholas, testis CXLVIII, p. 359.

187

Nicholas, testis XCI, pp. 266–67.

208

Chapter 3

An example of women’s control over food and its interconnection with oblations can be seen in the miracle of the flour multiplication mentioned earlier: Alixa donated the first bread to Nicholas, who was begging in Tolentino. In her deposition Alixa also stressed her control over the flour. When commissioners were interrogating her about the details of the multiplication they asked if other members of the family or neighbours had access to the chest where the flour was. Alixa replied that it was not possible. Even though the chest was not locked, the room where the chest was situated was. Nobody could enter without her.188 However, Alixa did not control the grain entirely independently. Her husband had bought the grain and even though he was not constantly aware how much flour there was left, he knew how long the ordinary amount normally lasted.189 The oblations of grain do not directly reflect the lack of other options or restricted economic choices of these women. The women offering grain were not poorer than the other witnesses in the process. The majority of these women were referred to as domina. Witnesses of noble status had also promised such offerings.190 Some witnesses also stated that they had first sought help from doctors and only after they had failed did they petition for the divine aid, promising to offer grain to the shrine.191 Indeed, it has even been argued that a diet of (wheat) grain was a sign of more affluent social position since the poorest members of the community — mostly peasants and urban wage-workers — had to make do with bread baked of mixtures with inferior cereals or beans or in years of famine even with grass.192 Charity was a meritorious act and this may have been the reason for the petitioners to promise a food offering to the friars. However, presumably they also had other motives for the food distribution: by offering food to the friars, who housed the shrine and honoured the saint, the saint himself was simultaneously venerated.193

188

Nicholas, testis LXXIX, p. 220: ‘nullus potuisset eam intrare sine eam’.

189

Nicholas, testis LXXVII, p. 210.

190

Nobilis domina Caradruda promised the weight of her grandson in grain to the shrine: Nicholas, testis CXCVI, p. 439. Her daughter domina Annesucia made a similar promise for the cure of her son: ibid., testis CXCVII, p. 441. These women’s collaboration in performing pilgrimage is clear (see ‘Pilgrimages as Votive Offerings’ in Chapter 3). Possibly their other activities in this field had also influenced one another. 191

Nicholas, testis CCLXX, p. 559.

192

Piero Camporesi, Bread of Dreams: Food and Fantasy in Early Modern Europe (1980; repr. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989), pp. 120–21. 193

Nicholas, testis XCI, pp. 266–67: ‘de faciendo fieri panem de una coppa farine, et dabo istis fratribus, qui officiant istam ecclesiam tuam et faciunt tibi tantum honorem’.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

209

Some offerings were intended only to honour the saint and had no particular value as replicas as the anatomical figures may have had. The ornaments for the shrine especially played such a role. Naturally wax images and candles, particularly the valuable torches, were also of decorative importance. However, in many cases their symbolic role was probably more emphasized than the decorative value. The offerings of ornaments usually included cloths and textiles. The actual clothes of an afflicted person might also be offered to the shrine. The oblation of the clothes was usually made in a ritualistic mode, thus imparting more significance to the offering: the sick child was taken to the shrine and undressed there.194 However, in the majority of cases these clothes hardly qualified as ornaments.195 The silk cloths, some of which were decorated with gold, were valuable and clearly had a decorative role. The main purpose of these offerings was to honour the intercessor, which is expressed explicitly in some depositions. For example, Margarita Massii promised a silk fabric to the shrine — to honour God, the Virgin Mary, and Nicholas — if her badly infected throat was cured.196 Some of the petitioners promised only these decorative cloths to the shrine, yet more commonly they were offered in addition to other oblations. Wax candles and life-size images were especially common: Margarita also promised a wax candle of her size and height. The decorative role of these offerings is also clearly stated. Many petitioners promising a cloth offering mentioned specifically that they would put it above the shrine: ‘offerret supra archam seu altare unam tobalea’.197 Others stressed that it was for the altar, ‘pro altare’.198 Thus while honouring the saint by decorating the 194

On offerings of a child’s clothes, see Nicholas, testis CIII, p. 293; testis CXXVII, p. 332; and testis CCCVII, p. 598. Adults — both men and women — could also promise such offerings to Nicholas; see ibid., testis CLXVII, p. 391, and testis XX, p. 136. Some parents only took the child’s shirt and gave it to the shrine without any other ritualistic manifestations of devotion: ibid., testis CLXXVI, p. 412, and testis CCXIII, p. 456. 195

An exception to this may be the silk cloaks offered to the shrine. Nicholas, testis CCCXXII, p. 611, and testis CXX, p. 318. Offerings of personal clothing could also be used to dress the clergy. On this practice in English wills, see Kathleen Ashley, ‘Material and Symbolic Gift-Giving: Clothes in English and French Wills’, in Medieval Fabrications, ed. by Burns, pp. 137–46. 196

Nicholas, testis CCLXXV, p. 570: ‘promixit visitare tumulum, ubi corpus dicti fratris Nicolai iacet, et offerre ibi ad laudem Dei et beate Marie et dicti fratris Nicolai unum velictum siricum et candelam unam ad staturam et longitudinem corporis sui’. 197 198

Nicholas, testis XXIV, p. 144; also testis LXXV, p. 207, and testis CCLVI, p. 535.

Nicholas, testis CII, p. 290. The shrine was apparently covered with fabric: Thomas Gentilis took a linen cloth above the shrine to warm himself when he spent the night there: ibid., testis CXLII, p. 348.

210

Chapter 3

shrine the offerings stayed concurrently as close as possible to the core of the sacred sphere. Both men and women promised to leave the clothes of the patient at the shrine of Nicholas, but decorative textiles were especially favoured by women. The altar cloths, tobalea, were all offered by women.199 It remains unknown whether these textiles were made or decorated by the donors. However, at least not all of them were made especially for this purpose, since some of them were offered soon or immediately after the invocation.200 These offerings of valuable fabrics were closely connected to the women offering them. They were movable property of the domestic sphere and — especially clothes closely connected to the body of the donor — property women could have had more certain control over than over immovable property. Thus they were offerings of personal importance yet often also of great monetary value.201 In the Western European imagination the connection of cloth work with women, and especially with feminine virtue, is strong and dates back to Antiquity. Throughout the Middle Ages, the clothing of the members of the household was seen as women’s responsibility, and tasks required in cloth work were presumed to be managed by women. The connection of married women with textile work, and especially weaving, was clear. It was seen as a desirable occupation since it was involved in clothing the family. Part of women’s jobs as nurturers and reproducers was caring for the basic needs of their dependants.202 These offerings can thus be

199

Nicholas, testis XXIV, p. 144; testis LXXV, p. 207; and testis CI, p. 290.

200

For example, domina Francesca sent her daughter to the shrine with the cloth immediately after the vow before the miracle. Nicholas, testis XXIV, p. 144. 201

Martha C. Howell, The Marriage Exchange: Property, Social Place, and Gender in Cities of the Low Countries, 1300–1550, Women in Culture and Society Series (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), pp. 152–67, has studied late medieval and early modern Douai’s property transactions. She argues that men and women had different relationships with materials and goods: women tended to treat property as less economic capital and more like cultural or social capital. Items associated with their bodies and the domestic sphere were important donations in women’s wills. Women donated property which held personal importance yet often also high economic value. On women’s gifts of clothing as mementoes of relationships, see also Davis, Gift in SixteenthCentury France, pp. 51–52. 202

Textile work remains as a symbol of feminine virtue even after women no longer formed the main body of workers. Ruth Mazo Karras, ‘“This Skill in a Woman Is by No Means to Be Despised”: Weaving and the Gender Division of Labour in the Middle Ages’, in Medieval Fabrications, ed. by Burns, pp. 89–104, and David Herlihy, Opera Muliebria: Women and Work in Medieval Europe (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), pp. 76–77. On women and work

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

211

seen both reflecting and reinforcing the accustomed gendering of spheres and responsibilities. However, the different modes of cloth work were also connected with the social status of the women. The skills of embroidery with silk and gold were regarded as noble art.203 The only offering of silk fabric with golden decoration was given to Saint Nicholas by a lady of the high nobility, domina Marina, the wife of Raynaldus Uppelli, the Count of Foligno.204 However, her personal effort in the making of the fabric remains unknown. The other, presumably also decorated, altar cloths were not offered by women of notably high status. Many of them were not titled domina. For example, another silk fabric — apparently without golden ornaments — was offered by Margarita Massii. Her social status is defined only as the wife of Massius Petri Hugolini; no epithets or titles are mentioned.205 The offerings of cloths and clothing were both also found at the shrine of Thomas Cantilupe. The actual clothes were all children’s. Decorative textiles of silk and gold were also offered to the shrine. It remains unclear whether these offerings were promised in the invocation since in the list of offerings the cloths of silk and gold were mentioned to be ‘ex devocione oblati’.206 The cloth offerings were not among the most popular since thirty-eight of them were found at the shrine of Saint Thomas. Offerings of decorative textile must have been fairly common in Italy, since the commissioners particularly mention textiles and lamps, palia et luminaria, as oblations given by the pilgrims to the shrine.207 Personal and also gender-specific oblations were the weapons offered to the shrine. They, especially the swords, belonged to men’s apparel and to masculine roles, responsibilities, and privileges in society. Arms and jewellery were valuable offerings, yet they were simultaneously associated with particular individuals. They

in general in Renaissance Italy, see Cohn, ‘Women and Work in Renaissance Italy’. Moreover, weaving and women’s capacity in it was considered so significant that occasionally women were feared to use illicit methods and thought to exercise supernatural powers, for example to cast a spell, by their work. Flint, Rise of Magic, pp. 226–31 and 286–89. 203

Herlihy, Opera Muliebria, pp. 55–59.

204

Nicholas, testis LXVII, p. 200. For the status of domina Marina, see Sensi, ‘Nobildonne di casa Trinci et Marsciano’. 205

Nicholas, testis CCLXXV, p. 570; also ibid., citationes testium, p. 37.

206

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 74v .

207

Nicholas, citationes testium, p. 62.

212

Chapter 3

were mementos of the donor and, especially the weapons found at the shrine of Thomas Cantilupe, also mementos of a particular miracle.208 Oblations of money were fairly impersonal, but the anatomical votive offerings held connotations of the donor. Similarly oblations of personal clothing or food made by the donor emphasize the personal, even intimate, interaction with the saint. The auxiliary equipment of patients were also highly personal offerings. Crutches, carts, or litters of the paralysed were noticeable evidence of the former torments and thus testify to the miraculous powers of the intercessor. They held evident commemorative value. They were private belongings with simultaneous associations with the giver.209 Even more intimate offerings were given to the saints to commemorate the miracle as well as to prove the saint’s powers. For example, Dulcesa was paralysed for two years after a particularly difficult childbirth. She could not move her limbs or get out of bed. Consequently her body was infested with worms. The reason for her condition was, as she estimated, a bone that had entered into the birthing channel and made her suffer so badly that she could not stand up or lie down. After a vow to Saint Louis the bone was expelled from her and Dulcesa was cured. The friars at the shrine of Saint Louis kept the bone that had tormented her.210 These ‘exuvial’ offerings were not unknown in other shrines either.211 Close connections to the donor can also be found in the offerings of painted pictures — especially if the beneficiary was also portrayed in the image. The pictures of the miracle and of the intercessor had evident commemorative and testimonial value. Promises of these pictures can be found already in the canonization process of Nicholas, yet this custom increased in frequency only later.212 208 Objects showing the donor’s identity, like arms, jewellery, or precious clothes, can be seen in a certain sense to be identical with the person — even after being given away. Arnould-Jan A. Bijsterveld, ‘The Medieval Gift as Agent of Social Bonding and Political Power: A Comparative Approach’, in Medieval Transformations: Texts, Power, and Gifts in Context, ed. by Esther Cohen and Mayke B. De Jong, Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions: Mediaeval and Early Modern Peoples (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 123–56 (p. 125); on hau and goods containing the donor’s spiritual essence, see Mauss, The Gift, pp. 12 and 109. 209

For example, the paralysed Mathiolus Angeli promised his cart to the shrine if he recovered enough to walk around with crutches. Nicholas, testis LXXVIII, p. 215; Iuliana Kock also offered her litter to Saint Thomas. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 170v. 210

The depositions to this miracle are in Louis, cap. XCII–XCV, pp. 165–69.

211

See Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 96–97.

212

The first painted votive images were usually images of saints while the narrative depiction of miracles prevailed later. In the fifteenth century many votive pictures were offered to the shrine

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

213

The images seen today in the chapel of Saint Nicholas may have been votive offerings prior to the canonization process.213 These images were manifestations of the petitioners’ gratitude and permanent mementos of the powers of the intercessor, thus testifying to the miracles and having simultaneously a close association with the donor.214 A testimony of the immediate iconographic side of the cult of Nicholas can be found in the cure of Servita, the daughter of Rosa Iohannis. Rosa had a picture painted of the Virgin Mary and Saint Nicholas after Nicholas had cured her daughter of scrofula. The miracle took place, at least partly, during the lifetime of Nicholas. Servita was cured a few days after Nicholas’s benediction, after the death of Nicholas. After the cure Rosa had a picture painted to honour Christ, the Virgin Mary, and Nicholas.215 When Iacobus Bonomi was captured by rebels,216 he invoked Nicholas for help and promised to offer him his chains and wax, make an image painted of Nicholas, and fast each year on his feast day. The incident took place at the time of the hearing.217 In 1320 or 1321 when Friar Angelus regained his sight at the shrine there were already many painted pictures in the chapel: dompnus Pelegrinus wanted to confirm the recovery and interrogated him about the pictures.218

of Saint Nicholas. On the images offered to the shrine of Nicholas, see Antoine, ‘L’Image d’un Saint Thaumaturge’; on this practice in the cult of Saint John Capistran, see Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, p. 274. 213

This interpretation is emphasized by Fabio Bisogni, ‘Gli inizi dell’iconografia di Nicola da Tolentino’, while Miklós Boskovits, ‘La decorazione pittorica del cappellone di San Nicola a Tolentino’, in San Nicola, Tolentino, le Marche, pp. 245–52, argues that the chapel was painted after the canonization hearing. 214

Antoine, ‘L’Image d’un Saint Thaumaturge’, pp. 185–89, argues that the votive images offered to Saint Nicholas in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were gender based: the images offered by women were more detailed and personal. Men were often depicted praying alone and mute. Women, on the other hand, often also prayed for others and in these pictures writings and other explanations can be found. 215

Nicholas, testis CCXXXV–CCXXXVII, pp. 513–16.

216

In the 1320s there were several rebellions against the Holy See in Marche but also in other parts of north-eastern Italy. Falaschi, ‘Società e istituzioni nella Marcha’, pp. 108–09. 217 218

Nicholas, testis CLXXIX, pp. 420–21.

Nicholas, testis CXLIV, p. 351: ‘ostendebat sibi ac ipsum interrogabat de figuris in dicta ecclesia depictis’. According to Paulus Alegii, icons and pictures were also left at the image of Saint Nicholas in Nursia: ibid., testis CCXII, p. 455. Friar Petrus Venge also stated that domina Gregoria Gentilis promised a painted image to the shrine of Nicholas when she invoked the saint for his

214

Chapter 3

Even though the pictures could have been closely connected to the donor they were simultaneously gifts of an especially public nature. In addition to the intercessor they often also represented the petitioner and the beneficiary. Thus the event was made known for those who were not eyewitnesses to the miracle or had not heard about it. Diverse Roles of Material Offerings The importance of reciprocity, the obligation to return the gift with a counter-gift, was initially stressed in Marcel Mauss’s seminal study. Another important aspect in his thesis was the nature of the gifts: they are not free and disinterested but constrained and interested. Well-articulated social rules defined the reciprocal gift exchange. Thus the reciprocal obligations as well as self-interest led to a circling of goods as gifts.219 The social control of the gift exchange is one of the features for which Mauss’s theory had been criticized: the rules guiding the reciprocity cannot be recognized as rules — otherwise the gift would become merely barter or a loan.220 Many aspects in Mauss’s theories are also valid for the interaction with the saint: reciprocity was an essential element in the relationship while other aspects are not as easily applicable to the relationship of the petitioner with the intercessor. Inner spirituality was an essential element in votive offerings; however, the outspoken conventions and even regulations are also apparent in the interaction with the saint. In the invocation the saint was petitioned, pleaded with, and urged by different rituals to act favourably. The promises were often uttered aloud and could be controlled by the community. Moreover, the interaction with the saint recovery. Domina Gentilis mentions a promise of a wax image. Ibid., testis CV, pp. 297–98, and testis CX, pp. 304–05. 219 Mauss, The Gift. Original in French: Essai sur le don in 1924. On historiographical analysis of the use of Mauss’s theories on the gift exchange in historical and sociological studies, see Bijsterveld, ‘Medieval Gift’. 220

Alan Schrift, ‘Introduction: Why Gift?’, in The Logic of the Gift: Toward an Ethic of Generosity, ed. by Alan Schrift (New York: Routledge, 1997), pp. 1–22 (p. 8). On further analysis of gift exchange and critiques of Mauss’s theories, see the other essays in The Logic of the Gift, ed. by Schrift. On Mauss’s theories’ social and intellectual context as well as their aim to criticize modern capitalism, see Patrick Geary, ‘Gift Exchange and Social Science Modelling: The Limitations of a Construct’, in Negotiating the Gift: Pre-Modern Figurations of Exchange, ed. by Gadi Algazi, Valentin Groebner, and Bernhard Jussen, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte, 188 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), pp. 129–40, and Beate Wagner-Hasel, ‘Egoistic Exchange and Altruistic Gift: On the Roots of Marcel Mauss’s Theory of the Gift’, in ibid., pp. 141–71.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

215

was also, at least up to some point, regulated by the clerical authorities: the clergy insisted on the fulfilling of the vow to the saint. Nevertheless, the social rules did not dictate the contents of the offerings — as the variation in the oblations shows. Furthermore, the obligation to offer an oblation was set out by the petitioner him- or herself. The counter-gift was already promised and occasionally also given before the hoped-for cure. Hence when absolving the vow the petitioners not only contributed to the circling of gifts, but by giving a counter-gift they were simultaneously fulfilling a promise and ending a process initiated by themselves.221 Thus the interaction with the saint could rather be interpreted as a contract.222 The gift exchange can be seen as a transaction creating and maintaining relationships. This feature was especially important in the late medieval context: gift-giving was a social strategy, a mechanism of social bonding.223 This notion is also valid for the votive offerings: occasionally their aim — for example, by the annual pilgrimages or gifts — was to form a perpetual bond and maintain it with repeated oblations.224 The votive offerings have been categorized in several different ways.225 Here the focus of categorizing is on the interaction of the petitioner with the saint — and 221

Moreover, the objects offered to the saint were not actually circulating since they remained at the shrine. On the other hand, the ‘gifts’ received from the saint were immaterial, cures or protection, thus they could not be put in the circulation of goods. See also Ilana Silber, ‘Gift-giving in Great Traditions: The Case of Donations to Monasteries in Medieval West’, Archives européennes de sociologie, 36 (1995), 209–43 (p. 222). 222

Marcel Mauss, The Gift, p. 17, defines the gifts to the deity by do ut des principle as contract sacrifice and as such a subcategory of reciprocal gift exchange. See also De Jong, In Samuel’s Image, p. 165. Davis, Gift in Sixteenth-Century France, p. 21, argues that in sixteenth-century France gift reciprocity and formal contract shared some of the same moral ground. The spread of contracts did not necessarily lessen the importance of gift exchange. 223

Bijsterveld, ‘Medieval Gift’, p. 143. On child oblation as a form of bonding and communicating with the deity, see De Jong, In Samuel’s Image, p. 7 and passim. In the secular context, in the situations of bonding and creating an alliance, as in marriage, the exchange of gifts also played an important part. See Davis, Gift in Sixteenth-Century France, pp. 45–47, and Klapisch-Zuber, La maison et le nom, pp. 185–213. 224 225

See also Bronzini, ‘Fenomenologia dell’ex voto’, p. 162.

For example, Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 96–97, has categorized them as animate, inanimate, exuvial, and replicative. Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 87–92, has also used four categories: symbolic, figurative, testimonial, and compensatory. Bautier, ‘Typologie des Ex-voto’, has used a mixed division of fourteen categories according to the shape, material, and significance of the offering. See also Bronzini, ‘Fenomenologia dell’ex voto’, and Bronzini, ‘“Ex voto” e cultura religiosa popolare’, p. 10.

216

Chapter 3

its interconnection with the offerings.226 The objects offered formed an essential element in creating the supplicants’ relationship with the intercessor. The different offerings communicated on different levels. Some oblations were highly personal, even intimate, while others remained fairly impersonal. All the offerings were a way to honour the intercessor and show one’s gratitude. The oblation simultaneously worked as testimony of the saint’s powers and as mementoes of a particular miracle. Probably similar offerings had different meanings for different petitioners. However, since some petitioners promised several various offerings, presumably offerings had multiple functions for one person, too. Concurrently the oblations had connections to economic, social, and religious aspects of life.227 The diverse roles of offerings can be seen, for example, in the cure of Adam de Kylpek. His mother sent him to the shrine of Thomas Cantilupe with five candles as long as the measured boy. The candles were positioned in the four corners and one was lit in the middle of the tomb. The positioning of the candles around the tomb was an act of devotion and honoured the final resting place of the intercessor, in addition to their decorative value.228 Since the offering was made before the cure the candles were to urge the saint to act. They were made the length of Adam so they can also be seen as a replica of him offered to the saint. Indeed, since one candle was lit immediately it is possible that it was thought to contain the transferred disease that was supposed to vanish at the shrine. Be that as it may, the economic value of five long candles was considerable. However, it was money well spent, since the third night Adam had a vision

226

Schrift, ‘Introduction: Why Gift?’, p. 3, argues that the problem with the studies of gift exchange is that ‘all analyses of gift must address, namely, should the analysis focus on the object given, on the relationship established between the giver and the receiver, or on the inextricable interconnection between these object(s) and relationship(s)’. 227

The offerings were significant in several different perspectives. This seems to accord with Marcel Mauss’s notion of gifts as ‘total social activities’. According to Mauss, The Gift, p. 3, gifts were simultaneously, for example, economic, moral, aesthetic, and religious phenomena; see also Stephen D. White, Custom, Kinship, and Gifts to Saints: The ‘Laudatio Parentum’ in Western France, 1050–1150 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), p. 4. White had used Mauss’s concepts in analysing offerings and their diverse meanings to monasteries in eleventh- and twelfth-century France. However, Mauss, The Gift, pp. 79–80, also introduces another, not as easily applicable, interpretation of the concept of gift as total phenomena: it can also be seen as total since it related to the society as a whole. See also Silber, ‘Gift-giving in Great Traditions’, p. 231. 228

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 235r: ‘tenens unam ex dictis candelis accensam in medio et alias quattuor in quattuor angulis tumuli dicti sancti Thome’.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

217

of Saint Thomas and was cured.229 On this occasion the one type of oblation, the life-size candles, had presumably many functions. On other occasions petitioners promised various offerings to meet different needs. When Cicchus, the son of domina Mita, was seriously ill, the mother, father, and grandmother thought that he had died and started the preparations for the funeral.230 Before the relatives and neighbours came to carry the boy to the grave, domina Mita with domina Iohanna, the mother and the grandmother, reverently invoked Saint Nicholas. They promised to bring the boy to the shrine, undress him, and leave his clothes there. Pilgrimage performed together and a ritualistic offering of the clothes was an act of devotion, yet offering of the clothing could also have held implications of transferred illness. Perhaps these women thought that the defeated death could be left at the shrine with the clothes.231 Domina Mita and domina Iohanna also promised a wax image and a candle as long as the afflicted boy. It is possible that these or at least one of these offerings had implications of substitution in the minds of the petitioners: an equal amount of wax was offered to the shrine in exchange of a healthy boy. The wax figures simultaneously served as an expression of gratitude and a testimony to the miracle. This was not enough, however. Mother and grandmother were apparently desperate and thus generous: they also promised to fast annually the day before the feast of Saint Nicholas and to visit the shrine annually. If they could not visit the shrine personally they would send oblations there. The annual oblations are not clearly specified. Probably they were also wax figures or candles to manifest devotion, honour the saint, commemorate the miracle, and decorate the shine, thus creating a permanent bond with the intercessor by the exchange of gifts. The annual offerings would create an economic obligation for the supplicants. Yet the petitioners were willing to show their gratitude on a regular basis: the hoped-for cure would bring about perpetual veneration. Regardless of the role which the material votive offerings played in the minds of the petitioners they were public testimonies. Even though they were initiated by private conviction and personal piety, as material objects they could have been seen and evaluated by the congregation and by the pilgrims at the shrine. Thus they were all evidence of the miracles. Presumably the valuable gifts gained more 229

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 235r.

230

Nicholas, testis CXXVII, pp. 331–32.

231

However, since clothes were highly personal belongings it is possible that they were thought to represent the patient at the sacred sphere. On this mode of thought in distribution of clothes in wills, see Davis, Gift in Sixteenth-Century France, p. 51.

218

Chapter 3

interest. Life-size wax figures have certainly attracted attention, as did more precious oblations. However, smaller wax figures have probably been lost in the multitude of offerings. The miracle they stood for would soon be forgotten if the votive offering was the only thing commemorating it. Images and other material offerings were public and visible, but at the same time they were anonymous. They were a commemoration of a particular miracle only for those who knew the incident and the oblation it had occasioned. For others it did not hold any commemorative value regarding the petitioner, the beneficiary, or the event. It was only another sign of the divine power, which focused at the shrine. For example, the recovery of Johanna la Schirreue gained great fame and was widely known in their parish and in the villages along the road to Hereford. Her father had a wax image made after the recovery. The image was held at the shrine for years until it was old and used up.232 For many town dwellers of Hereford and pilgrims of Hereford diocese this must have been a vivid reminder of the miracle and of God’s grace. For pilgrims unaware of this incident it could not have played such an important role. The wax figures and candles were not especially gender-specific oblations. Wax in its many forms was the most common votive offering favoured by both men and women. The majority of even anatomical offerings did not reveal the gender of the donor. Presumably the economic situation — which had interconnections with gender — was a more determinant feature in the offerings: the wealthy could offer bigger figures of better quality or make the figures of more precious material.233 The economic significance of the offering for the supplicant is not stated in the depositions. Nor can the economic situation of the petitioner be directly deduced by analysing the votive offerings. For example, Dulcesa — who was a poor woman according to her own testimony — gave a wax figure to the shrine of Saint Louis even though she apparently had to beg to get enough money for the oblation.234 On the other hand, Agnes, described as rich woman, offered only wax eyes to the shrine

232 BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 126r : ‘fecit fieri ymaginem ceream dicte puelle que per multos annos stetit appensa prope tumulum predicti domini Thome et postmodum corruit vetustate consumpta ex tunc autem’. 233

The economic worth seems to have been an important aspect in the offerings. For example, Beatrix Riccana apologized for her modest offering: a candle of one denarius, by claiming that she was and is a poor woman. Louis, cap. CXLV, p. 206. 234

Louis, cap. XCII, p. 166: ‘Et cum esset pauper mulier et non haberet de quo emeret, dati sunt sibi denarii in ecclesia, de quibus emisit ymaginem et portavit eam beato Ludovico.’

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

219

of Saint Thomas to promote the cure.235 The depositions do not offer any information on the quality of these offerings. However, some of the material offerings mentioned in the depositions of these processes were rather closely connected to gendered roles and modes of behaving. Offerings of money were mainly given by men, thus reflecting their roles in society. Even though the interaction with the saint on these occasions may seem to be rather calculated, it cannot be concluded that the oblations of money testify to lack of devotion. Coins as well as other material oblations were also a mode to manifest gratitude to the intercessor. They were also interpreted as testimonies of the saint’s powers even though they were impersonal: they did not serve as mementos of a particular miracle. The offerings of fabric in addition to grain or bread made by the donor emphasized women’s domestic roles. In addition to femininity these offerings, as well as personal belongings like jewellery, also imply a personal, even intimate relationship with the intercessor. Presumably preparing the offerings for the intercessor personally was considered an act of devotion. However, it remains unknown whether the onlookers seeing and evaluating the altar cloths, for example, emphasized the devotional side of such oblations more than other material offerings.

Immaterial Votive Offerings Penitence and Circulation of Favours Interaction with the saint did not necessarily require material oblations. Gratitude could be expressed without offering goods — by offering deeds. The intercessor could be venerated, the gratitude manifest, and the miracle commemorated by penitential or devotional practices. Many of these practices also benefited the supplicant spiritually, thus the favours and benevolent deeds can be seen as forming a circle on these occasions. Penitential practices, like charity, fasting, and praying, were firmly established in the religious culture of the late Middle Ages. They were appreciated by the laity and encouraged by the Church: the mortification of the flesh was respected and seen as a means for salvation.236 Charity, almsgiving to the poor, was a Christian obligation and simultaneously a meritorious act. Charity was the counterpart of

235

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 227v and 228v.

236

Kieckhefer, Unquiet Souls, pp. 139–49.

220

Chapter 3

avarice, one of the capital sins.237 One could vow, for example, to feed paupers in exchange for a cure. Thus in some offerings actual goods may have changed hands even though the saint or the shrine did not gain anything material in return for the favourable intercession. The reason for charity was not only benevolence towards the less fortunate. One could also wish to attain more spiritual merit through almsgiving: the paupers could be expected to pray for their benefactor thus ensuring his or her redemption.238 However, these acts were pleasing to God, and thus presumably also pleasing to the saint and held value in the negotiation with the intercessor. As votive offerings charitable food donations were rare. Only two examples of feeding paupers can be found in Nicholas’s records.239 Beggars or poor people were not the recipients of votive offerings in the Cantilupe process. However, charitable actions were recognized as a responsibility of pious Christians since the distribution of alms is often mentioned as a part of the devout life.240 Similarly fasting was mentioned as a sign of devotion and inner piety.241 It was also a regular part of religious life in the Middle Ages. The Church urged all Christians to fast at certain times, like Advent and Lent. However, the clerical authors often saw fasting and charity as gendered modes of behaviour. Charity was commonly seen either as an episcopal or as a feminine virtue. Sometimes in the clerical literature women were even allowed to correct the avarice of their husbands.242 The 237

On avarice, see Casagrande and Vecchio, I sette vizi capitali, pp. 96–120.

238

Michel Mollat, The Poor in the Middle Ages: An Essay in Social History (1978; repr. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), pp. 154–55. 239

Rosa promised, in addition to a wax image, to feed three paupers if Nicholas cured her son: Nicholas, testis CCCLXII, p. 633. Lippono Lutti promised, among many other ascetic promises, charity — to feed six paupers for the cure of his wife: ibid., testis LXVIII, p. 201. 240

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 126v : ‘dixit quod fideles erant et devoti ad deum et ecclesiam divinum officium in festivitatibus audientes, de suo viventes, elemosinas iuxta eorum possibilitatem facientes ex karitate’; ibid., fol. 52v: ‘Respondit quod bonam vitam ducebant et quod libenter faciebant elemosinas et ibant ad audiendum missas.’ 241

For example, when Beatrix le Mareschal was questioned about the moral state of the parents of Gilbertus, she replied that they were pious and devout, leading a good life: they frequented church, gave alms and fasted, and lived by their honest work. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 54v: ‘item interrogata de vita conversatione patris et matris dicti Gilberti. Respondit quod sunt fideles bone vite et devoti. Ecclesiam frequentantes elemosinas facientes, sexta feria et sabato ieiunantes de suis redditibus et iustis artificiis suis viventes’. 242

According to Caesarius of Heisterbach, priests often gave permission to wives to take money from their avaricious husbands and donate it to indigents. ‘Soleant enim sacerdotes saepe licentiare

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

221

abstinence of food was a sign of firm devotion and even sanctity, especially for women. In the later Middle Ages religious food practices, charitable food distribution, fasting, and Eucharistic fervour, were associated with women. They were seen as typically feminine modes of piety.243 This kind of gendered approach cannot be found in the depositions of these processes. In Nicholas’s records the promises of fasting were rather rare and seem to have been favoured more by men.244 In the Cantilupe process only one promise of fasting can be found: Agnes de la Hulle promised to fast one day, quarta feria, for the honour of Saint Thomas.245 The social standing of Agnes was apparently not very high. She was presumably not married since she was identified through her parents even though she was in her fifties. She lived by her work.246 The status of the petitioners in Nicholas’s

feminis ut maritis suis avaris et immisericordibus rapiant et indigentibus largiantur’ (DM VI, cap. 3). See also Karras, ‘Gendered Sin and Misogyny’, p. 244. 243

The importance of fasting, Eucharistic fervour, and other bodily practices in the female saints’ lives is stressed by Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast, pp. 136–37 and 192–93. The food practices were essential for women since food was the resource they controlled, and moreover women could control themselves and others through food: fertility, sexuality, and members of the household were controlled by withholding or bestowing food. On the importance of fasting, communion, and charity in lay penitents’ life in late medieval Italy, see Lehmijoki-Gardner, Wordly Saints, pp. 81–86 and 102–10. Amy Hollywood, ‘Inside Out: Beatrice of Nazareth and her Hagiographer’, in Gendered Voices, ed. by Mooney, pp. 78–98 (p. 82), on the other hand, argues that women themselves did not include accounts of ascetic practices in their writing before the fourteenth century. Thus the evident association of women with intense ascetic activities, especially fasting, found in the hagiographic material may tell more about men’s understanding of women’s sanctity than about these women themselves. 244

There can be found fourteen promises including fasting: nine of them were uttered by men (Nicholas, testis XXXII, p. 153; testis LXVIII, p. 201; testis CXLIII, p. 351; testis CLXVII, p. 391; testis CLXXIX, p. 421; testis CCXVIII, p. 465; testis CCXXXIV, p. 512; testis CCLX, p. 539; and testis CCLXXXIV, p. 579) and five by women (ibid., testis CIII, p. 293; testis CXIX, p. 316; testis CXXVII, p. 332; testis CXLVIII, p. 356; and testis CLII, p. 367). However, exact promises are not always specified, and witnesses seem to disagree with each other, especially about the offerings. For example, ser Giliolus stated that he and domina Nicolucia both gave a promise of fasting (ibid., testis XXXII, p. 153) while domina Nicolucia mentions only material offering (testis CCXIX, p. 474). Her promise is not counted here. 245 246

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 238v .

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 238r: ‘filia Willelmi de la hulle et margerie uxoris sue [. . .]. Respondit requisita se esse liberam quinquagenarium et ultra et vivere de labore manium suarum et morari in Civitate herefordensis.’

222

Chapter 3

process is not clearly stated. All but one of the women were titled domina. Among men were a notary and a doctor. Thus those promising fasting for Nicholas as a votive offering were presumably better-off town-dwellers like the majority of the witnesses in Nicholas’s records. This would be understandable since, to have value as counter-gifts, promises of fasting presumably required a certain economic status of the petitioner: the paupers’ involuntary diet of bread and water would not have qualified as an oblation. However, there seems to be one indicative difference between men and women promising fasting as a votive offering. These women also seem otherwise to have been more active in the cult of Nicholas. The majority of these men recounted only the miraculous cure they had personally petitioned or benefited from. However, women regularly mention other miraculous cures they had witnessed or heard of. Some of these women, namely domina Iacobucia and domina Bertina, were also recognized as devotees of Nicholas by other witnesses.247 The majority of the petitioners stressed especially the continuity of the promise: they were to fast constantly (continue, perpetuo, semper) on the feast day.248 The timing of the fast was connected with the annual feast of Nicholas. Thus these offerings can be seen as a mixture of ascetic and devotional practices. They also served to commemorate the feast of the saint and to honour the intercessor.249 Repeated offerings were also a form of bonding between the petitioner and the intercessor; they tied the devotees to the saint. During such practices the petitioners were probably considered to have a close contact with the intercessor. For a devotee, fasting may have created a liminal ritual state, like ascetic pilgrimages. The feast of the intercessor could also be venerated in other modes than by fasting. For example, domina Riccha promised to commemorate the feast: ‘custodire diem migrationis et nil facere’.250 Her promise implies that she planned to concentrate on the veneration of Saint Nicholas, perhaps by praying or attending a Mass,

247

On the activity of these women, see ‘Pilgrimages as Votive Offerings’ in Chapter 3.

248

Nicholas, testis XXXII, p. 153; testis CXLIII, p. 351; testis CLII, p. 369; and testis CCXVIII, p. 465. 249

However, some promises of fasting were not clearly connected with the expression of devotion by commemoration of the feast day; they were only practices of asceticism. For example, Doctor Amadasius promised to fast in Lent if Nicholas cured Buctius, his patient. He is also the only supplicant in Nicholas’s records who promised only fasting in exchange for a miracle. Nicholas, testis CCLXXXIII, p. 579. Andreas Vingiati promised to fast one unspecified day: ibid., testis CCXXXIV, p. 512. 250

Nicholas, testis CLXIII, p. 387.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

223

and leave the daily tasks and routines aside. Thus the essence of the promise was to celebrate the feast day of Nicholas like other important holy days. On the economic level, the promise not to work on one day was presumably not a big sacrifice for Riccha. Her status or occupation is not clearly stated; she is referred to as domina and her husband was a son of a magister. Likely her standing was good, but a clear status cannot be known for sure. Moreover, since she had had paralysis in her right arm for years she had probably not been able to work at all or only in a restricted manner. However, this promise stresses her good social standing since poorer members of the society could not have afforded to lose one day’s work. Such a promise was easier to keep for a prosperous town-dweller than for a peasant or a poor wage-worker. This is clearly stated in the miraculous recovery of Bilia, the wife of Ceccharellus. She was also injured in the arm and petitioned Saint Clare to cure her since ‘she was a poor woman and needed to work for a living’.251 Work itself could also be seen as a penitential practice — after all it was the punishment God laid upon Adam.252 The cases of work as penance offered to the saint are very rare, yet the few cases accord with the traditional gender distribution of work. The paralysed and afflicted Dulcesa vowed herself to Saint Louis promising to wipe and clean his church every Saturday for the rest of her life. The promise to clean the church was presumably given due to her impoverished status and not as an act of penance. Yet her poor economic situation made it difficult to keep the promise. Dulcesa stated that for a couple of times she had cleaned the church yet it was a laborious task since the church was large. She could not continue the practice — although she tried to do whatever she could — since she was a pauper and she had to gain her daily bread by the work of her hands.253

251

Clare, testis XCVII, p. 377: ‘Tunc dicta testis, cum esset paupercula et oporteret eam laborare si vellet vivere.’ Bilia promised to offer Saint Clare an amount of wax to be circuited around the shrine. The wax would have been earned by her own work. 252 On work as penance, see Jussi Hanska, ‘And the Rich Man also Died; and He Was Buried in Hell’: The Social Ethos in Mendicant Sermons, Bibliotheca Historica, 28 (Helsinki: SHS, 1997), pp. 95–103, and Farmer, Surviving Poverty, p. 127. Farmer, ‘Manual Labour, Begging, and Conflicting Gender Expectations’, p. 275, argues that this mode of penance was also gendered: penitential labour was seen as especially suitable for women. 253

The depositions are in Louis, cap. XCII–XCV, pp. 165–69. ‘Dixit eciam quod aliquibus diebus scopavit dictam ecclesiam; set postea per nimio labore, cum ecclesia sit nimis magna, et propter nimiam paupertatem non potuit illud continuare: set laternis vicibus facit quod potest, et proponit facere; set pauper mulier est et habet quarere panem cum manibus suis’ (Louis, cap. XCII, p. 166).

224

Chapter 3

Not all the promises of personal work were given due to economic necessity. While Dulcesa promised to clean the church, Cicchus Folle, on the other hand, promised to work in building the church of Nicholas if he cured his epilepsy. He promised to work for eight days and to do whatever the friars wanted.254 It is probable that Cicchus did not offer this out of economic necessity since he also gave a silver coin, ‘unum anconitanum grossum de argento’, to the shrine.255 In his case the penitential aspect of personal work is more pronounced. Not only the work done with one’s own hands but also some of the penitential practices were closely connected to the perceptions of femininity and masculinity. In this sense the promise of Berardus Nuctii to abstain from all deadly sins was neutral since sins threatened all Christians.256 However, some sins were more gender related than others. The promise not to wear luxurious clothes or ornaments was strictly connected to femininity. Already in the patristic writings of Late Antiquity women were associated with the cosmetic and aesthetic. Artificial decoration and alteration of God’s creation was a sin leading to other evils. However, the communities of the later Middle Ages assumed women to manifest their social position with splendour in their clothes and ornaments while preachers regularly blamed women for doing so out of vanity. Christian virtue manifested itself in modesty while cosmetics and adornment were an insult to God’s creation. Vanity easily led to lust, and both of these sins were associated especially with women.257 Thus domina Thomassa’s promise never to wear gold, silver, silk, or any other kinds of ornaments in her clothes for the rest of her life can be seen as typical of women.258 However, the one to mention this detail was domina Nina. The other 254

Nicholas, testis CXXXIV, p. 341: ‘quod serviret in edificio ecclesie ipsius sancti ad quodcumque servitium vellent fratres heremitani de dicto loco VIII diebus’. On other examples of votive offerings to take part in reconstruction or to offer a whole church or chapel to the saint, see Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 105. 255

Nicholas, testis CXXXII, p. 339. Thomas Salinbene also promised his donkey to the friars for a week when he did not lose C libras to robbers: ibid., testis LXXXIII, p. 234. 256

Nicholas, testis CCXCVI, p. 588.

257

Jansen, Making of the Magdalen, pp. 155–67 and 254–56, and Karras, ‘Gendered Sin and Misogyny’, pp. 244–50. R. Howard Bloch, Medieval Misogyny, pp. 39–46, argues that feminization of the aesthetic is a topos to be found practically everywhere in patristic writings. Vainglory originating from superbia was a grave vice since it easily led to even more serious outcomes: it enticed men to lust and other women to jealousy thus threatening the order of the community. Casagrande and Vecchio, I sette vizi capitali, pp. 30–33 and 178. 258

Nicholas, testis XCV, p. 277: ‘et etiam promixerat dicta eius mater nunquam portare in pannis toto tempore vite sue aurum nec argentum nec setam nec aliquod aliud ornamentum’.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

225

witnesses to this miracle, domina Thomassa and dominus Franciscus, do not mention this promise. Moreover, domina Nina claims that the decrying of Nicholas done by the parents caused the affliction in the eyes of Zuccius, the son of Thomassa and Franciscus. The father does not mention the decrying, quite the contrary. According to him, the whole family was devoted to Nicholas and had several times called on his help.259 He mentioned the wax offering promised for the cure of Zuccius and added that the promise was fulfilled. Domina Thomassa admits the decrying, explaining that the cure was made to happen by the devotion as well as the pain and suffering she felt afterwards due to her previous infidelity.260 In these circumstances it is possible that Thomassa actually also gave a promise of such penitential practice but does not mention it in her deposition. Yet the penitential practices may have been adapted after the miracle when she was convinced about the powers of Nicholas and regretted her former disbelief. Obviously domina Nina may have also confused or mistaken the details and added to her deposition a promise which was typical of women’s penance. Quite a peculiar offering — and clearly a gender-based penitential act — was reported by Berardus Appillaterre. He saw a noble woman offering the clothes of her daughter as well as her hair to the shrine. Long hair was a physical sign of femininity and closely connected with sexuality. Long loose hair was thought to entice men to lust, and the precious ornaments with which women were criticized for adorning their hair were vanity. Commonly unmarried girls wore their hair loose and uncovered while married women covered their hair; hair also revealed status and could serve as a means of control.261 However, in this case the hair was

259 Nicholas, testis XIV, p. 110: ‘Item dixit quod multotiens, dum ipse vel aliquis de domo ipsius infirmaretur vel ipsis vel ipsorum alicui aliquod periculum inveniret et invocaret reverenter auxilium omnipotentis Dei et ipsius beati Nicholay.’ 260

Nicholas, testis CXCI, p. 434: ‘propter fidem et devotionem quam postmodum habuit et pinam et dolorem cordis, quem postmodum habuit de infidelitate primeva, firmiter credit quod meritis et precibus dicti beati Nicolay fuerit liberatus’. 261

Hair could be an object of choice like the tonsure of monks or manipulated by authorities, for example, when punishing prostitutes or criminals by shaving their heads. French, ‘Legend of Lady Godiva’, pp. 14–18, and Hanawalt, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute’, pp. 24–26. On female hair as a symbol of temptation and penance, see Jansen, Making of the Magdalen, pp. 130–34 and 157–58. Other bodily signs were also used as a means of control: earrings were used to identify Jewish women and distinguish them from the rest of society. See Hughes, ‘Distinguishing Signs’.

226

Chapter 3

not loose, since Berardus stated that he was present when the mother cut the plaits of the girl.262 To cut the hair short was an act of humiliation and served as a penitential practice. It also altered the way the social status of this young unmarried highborn girl was manifest: she did not fit into the accustomed modes of gendered appearance. Thus the private experience of a miracle could also be shown publicly. This message of marginality was of a more permanent nature than only the divergent clothing during the pilgrimage. The offering was all the more valuable due to her noble status and her age. According to Berardus, she was around twelve, thus coming to puberty and marriageable age.263 Some forms of penance did not necessarily require outer signs or performances. For example, the illness itself could be seen as a penance. Patience in the face of the tribulations of this world was a virtue; it demonstrated submission to the divine will. Suffering was an opportunity for spiritual development; it opened an opportunity for communion with God.264 The reflection of illness as an opportunity to learn patience can be found in the case of Iordana. According to Aycarda Gaufrida, her daughter, Iordana, did not vow herself to Saint Louis just to be cured. She suffered such a severe affliction in her hands that she could not even eat with them in the wintertime. However, she would have voluntarily and patiently endured the illness recalling the much greater suffering of Christ. She asked God to manifest a miracle for the good and saintly life of blessed Louis so that she would have more confidence and devotion towards him.265

262

Nicholas, testis XVI, p. 123: ‘incidit trecias sive capillos dicte filie sue coram omnibus’. Berardus is the only witness. According to him, the mother had made the vow when she thought her daughter had died. 263

Generally Italian women were married younger than women in the rest of Europe. Marriage in early teens was not unknown, especially for girls of the nobility. On marriage age, see Chojnacki, ‘“The Most Serious Duty”’, p. 151. On other marriage customs in late medieval Italy, see Marriage in Italy, 1300–1650, ed. by Trevor Dean and K. J. P. Lowe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 264

Bynum, Fragmentation and Redemption, p. 184, stresses suffering as a union with the body of Christ in the lives of medieval saints. Kieckhefer, Unquiet Souls, pp. 50–51, argues that patience was a virtue especially characteristic for the fourteenth century. 265

Louis, cap. CXX, p. 189: ‘devovit se beato Ludovico, et ipsa erat presens; sed non ad istum finem quod vellet a dicta infirmitate curari, quia eam multum libenter et pacienter sustinebat quando recordabatur quod Christus in manibus suis fuerat perforatus et passus longe magis vehementem dolorem quam ipsa haberet vel posset sustinere, sed ut Deus manifestaret in ea miracula que debebat facere propter bonam et sanctam vitam quam duxerat et tenuerat beatus

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

227

Illnesses threatened all people, yet not all the patients were presumed to have a similar approach to the suffering. Illness as a condition to be endured rather than cured was a gendered mode of thought: late medieval society found it more valuable to cure men. Patient endurance of illness was considered more appropriate for women.266 Another religious practice which was available to all Christians was praying. Prayer was a form of pious communication, a means to achieve direct personal contact with the divine. All Christians were thought to know the principal prayers: Paternoster, Ave Maria, and Credo. Recited prayers were a sign of devotion, yet they were also favoured as penitential practices. Prayers could have been a voluntary manifestation of contrition, yet they were also ordained by priests as acts of satisfaction. On some occasions prayers were an alternative penitential practice for those who could not fast.267 Prayers were also an important part of the interaction with the saint. Prayers were an indispensable part of the invocation yet also a way to honour the saint. Most likely they were a typical procedure at the shrine while giving thanks to the heavenly intercessor. Some petitioners mention the prayers recited as a votive offering.268 In recited prayers the penitential aspect of the promise is stressed while Ludovicus [. . .] ideo plus confidebat et maiorem devocionem habebat in eo’. However, Franciscus Gaufridi, the son of Iordana, did not mention pious patience with suffering. According to him, his mother made the vow praying, petitioning, and supplicating most devoutly, ‘orando, rogando et supplicando devotissime’ (ibid., cap. CXIX, p. 188). She was cured due to the devotion and the invocation. On examples of the acknowledged spiritual value of suffering and the justification for the wish to be cured as a chance to be a better Christian (hear preachers or see the Eucharist), see Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, pp. 242–43. 266 Bynum, Fragmentation and Redemption, p. 189, argues that illness was more likely to be described as something to be endured when it happened to female than to male saints. On illness as a prominent feature of women’s holiness, see Donald Weinstein and Rudolph M. Bell, Saints & Society: The Two Worlds of Western Christendom, 1000–1700 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 234–35. Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 259–61, claims that the clearly smaller proportion of women as beneficiaries of miracles was due to the lesser preoccupation of their surroundings in cases of illness. On patience as a virtue of the poor in thirteenth-century mendicant sermons, see Hanska, ‘And the Rich Man also Died; and He Was Buried in Hell’, pp. 92–94. 267 268

Hanska, Strategies of Sanity and Survival, pp. 48–63.

Palmuctia promised to say a hundred Paternosters in reverence to Saint Clare: Clare, testis CXXV, p. 402. Domina Brunecta instead vowed to say three Paternosters every day for the rest of her life if Saint Clare saved her son: ibid., testis CXLVII, pp. 421–22. The miracle could also be considered as an exchange of prayers. The saints did not perform the miracles themselves: they only prayed and petitioned God and God performed miracles for the saints, due to their saintly lives. The

228

Chapter 3

they could also be offered to honour the saint. Praying as votive offering was not socially exclusive; these offerings were available to all. However, this form of devotion was also occasionally seen as connected to other positions in society as well. Praying was, of course, the duty and responsibility of the clergy. They were experts in pious communication. However, such promises — or other penitential practices — were not given by persons of religious standing. The members of the religious orders seem to have favoured the more traditional pilgrimage and wax offering in their interaction with the saint.269 Religious practices, such as praying and fasting, were an essential part of their life otherwise. Possibly therefore they did not consider it reasonable to offer such practices in return for a miracle.270 All these offerings of personal penitential practices have features in common. First of all, they were all ordinary religious practices required of all Christians. As votive offerings they were not among the most popular; the examples are rather sporadic. Personal penitential practices were usually mentioned last in the vow after the more traditional material offerings.271 They seem to have been the last feature in the contract persuading the saint to act favourably. The penitential practices promised as votive offerings can also be seen as a means to conciliate God, who may have personally sent the tribulation or at least has allowed it to happen.272 Moreover, all these practices were meritorious acts as such. Thus by offering this kind of performance for the intercessor the donors themselves simultaneously received a benefit. The circulation of gifts went full circle.

reciprocity of prayers is stressed in the recovery of Iacobi Deodati. His mother, Iohanna, persuaded him: ‘Son, therefore say Ave Maria in honour of blessed Louis so that he would pray for you’ (Louis, cap. CIV, p. 176; ‘Filii, ergo dicas Ave Maria in honorem beati Ludovici, ut ipse oret pro te’). 269

On more traditional promises, pilgrimages or wax objects, made by members of religious orders, see BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 63v, and Nicholas, testis XVII, p. 131; testis XXI, p. 138; testis CXXIII, p. 323; testis CXLIV, p. 351; testis CCCXXVII, pp. 616–17; testis CCCXXIX, p. 619; and testis CCCLXVI, p. 635. 270

Praying was also occasionally seen as a gendered task. Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, pp. 61–64, argues — drawing evidence from eleventh-century Bavaria — that aristocratic women were supposed to serve as intercessors between the living and the dead, praying for the deceased and for the living as well. 271

Nicholas, testis XXXII, p. 153; testis CXIX, p. 316; testis CXLIII, p. 351; testis CLII, p. 367; testis CLXXIX, p. 421; and testis CCLX, pp. 538–39. However, on fasting the feast day as the only offering, see ibid., testis CCLXXXIV, p. 579; also Clare, testis LXXV, p. 358; testis CXIX, p. 395; testis CXXXIV, p. 410; and testis CXLIV, p. 419. 272

See also Hanska, Strategies of Sanity and Survival, pp. 52–54.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

229

The benefit to the petitioner’s soul may have also been considered as a benefit for the intercessor. Officially the saints’ role was to turn the contemplation of Christians towards God. In this sense the meritorious penitential acts offered in exchange for a miracle accorded with the teachings of the church and underlined the intercessory role of the saint between God and the faithful. Moreover, if these offerings were carried out on the feast day they can also be seen as a way to venerate the intercessor and commemorate God’s grace. All these promises were equally applicable to all petitioners. Even though some forms of penance were closely connected to ideas of masculinity and femininity, in general these offerings do not seem to have been especially gender specific. Moreover, fasting as a votive offering was promised more often by men than women even though religious food practices were traditionally connected with feminine modes of piety. Ascetic practices did not require access to economic assets. However, a certain social position may have been a prerequisite for some offerings, especially in the case of renouncing jewellery but also on a more modest level in the cases of fasting. The modes of penance were bodily practices and in this sense highly personal. They were very intimate offerings requiring the inner devotion and engagement of the petitioner. The interaction with a saint required inclination of the heart and personal commitment.273 Common to these offerings was also their ambiguous private nature. Nearly all these practices could be performed privately, even secretly.274 Moreover, they did not interrupt the daily routines or duties. Personal ascetic practices were not public manifestations of devotion to the same degree as pilgrimages. They required inner piety and patience, not economic resources or access to the spheres outside home. Nevertheless, all these practices could have been made known to a wider audience if preferred. The fame of the miracle could have spread, for example, by the distribution of food to paupers. The fasting or repeated prayers were recognized at least within the same household. Moreover, some of the devotional offerings could have been socially demanding on family life. The immaterial oblations could have also had economic, social, and

273 274

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 535–37.

For example, privacy in charity and almsgiving was recommended by clerical authors. In early Christian texts the motivation lay in avoiding the risks of a display of virtue, yet by the thirteenth century the emphasis had shifted to avoid the shaming of the recipients. Timothy Reuter, ‘Gifts and Simony’, in Medieval Transformations, ed. by Cohen and De Jong, pp. 157–68.

230

Chapter 3

judicial consequences challenging the accustomed roles and authority within the domestic sphere. Devotion and Domestic Roles The promises of penitential practices in exchange for a miracle were usually given while petitioning the saint for oneself or occasionally for immediate family.275 However, some of the immaterial offerings were used especially in the vicarious vows. Moreover, others were also occasionally the ones to fulfil the promise. Such an offering was, for example, to name the child after the intercessor. To name a child after a saint was a common practice in the late Middle Ages. Usually children were named after the patron saint or a saint on whose feast day they were born. Sometimes a special devotion was a reason to name a child after a certain saint.276 By naming a child after a saint, parents were seeking spiritual favour and protection. The name put the child under the protection of the heavenly namesake.277 No promises of naming can be found in the Cantilupe process.278 However, the naming could have taken place spontaneously after the miracle, as has been seen in the case of the drowned Johanna. After the incident she was called ‘virgine Sancti Thome’. Lucia de Aspertone also gained an epithet ‘filia sancti Thome’ after she

275

These promises were given only when the petitioner was personally engaged with the patient. Opposite examples are rare if not practically non-existent. For example, Adamasius offered Nicholas fasting in exchange for the cure of Buctius. In a sense Adamasius himself was also a beneficiary of this miracle since he was a doctor taking care of the said Buctius. Nicholas, testis CCLXXXIII, p. 579. 276

In Italy between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries the naming patterns changed: the variety of names decreased and saints’ names became more dominant, especially as second names. Herlihy, Women, Family and Society, pp. 330–52, and Klapisch-Zuber, La maison et le nom, pp. 87–93. 277 278

Lett, L’enfant des miracles, p. 272.

To name a child after a certain saint due to devotion was not an unknown custom in England either, yet traditionally the children were baptized after their godparents. Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, p. 18; Hanawalt, Growing up in Medieval London, p. 46; and Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, p. 174.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

231

was rescued from drowning.279 These names labelled the bearer even more publicly than the baptismal name. Offering to name a child after the intercessor was not very typical in Nicholas’s process, either. Altogether four promises can be found. Appropriately, all these promises were given when petitioning for offspring.280 Thus the child to be born would benefit both the petitioners and the intercessor. However, David Herlihy argues that the primary reason for adopting the saint’s name for a newborn baby was not in return for past or future favours. Children were not named after saints to create or honour patrons but to recapture fortunes. Parents named their children after saints in order to reproduce the good life of the original name bearer.281 Thus the child — and concurrently the parents yet again — would also benefit from this kind of contract. The will to have children and the pressure to procreate were strong. Childlessness caused a serious crisis for the family. The pressure for the couple to procreate was twofold: in addition to the Church’s instructions, social circumstances also reinforced the will to have progeny. The parents hoped that the children would take care of them in their old age and pray for them after their deaths. Procreation was seen as Christian but also — in the Italian city-states — as a civic duty. In more rural areas the children’s eventual contribution to the household economy was expected.282 Childless couples might be seen as somehow suspicious: the reason for the absence of progeny could be a hidden sin or forbidden contraception. However, the Church saw it as women’s obligation to bring offspring into this world. Procreation was the justification of sexual intercourse in marriage. Childlessness was a disaster; it spelled doom for a woman, since women were usually held responsible

279

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 243 v: ‘et dixit omnibus precentibus cum revixisset se esse filiam dicti sancti Thome’. The beneficiary of a famous miracle may have been named after the saint rather commonly. Johannes Traquenart explained that nearly all the neighbours called his son Yvo Charles in memory of his miraculous revival. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4025, fol. 83r. 280

Nicholas, testis CXLVIII, p. 359; testis CLXX, p. 396; testis CCV, p. 448; and testis CCCXLIX, p. 627. 281

Herlihy, Women, Family and Society, pp. 330–52. On remaking the names — or persons, according to some interpretations — by naming the newborn child after an ancestor, see KlapischZuber, La maison et le nom, pp. 99–105. 282

Haas, Renaissance Man and his Children, pp. 27–35; Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, p. 215; Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 18–22; and Lett, L’enfant des miracles, p. 243.

232

Chapter 3

for infertility.283 In the cases of naming promises, the couples had unsuccessfully tried to conceive for many years or all their children had died. Since greater weight and responsibility for procreation was laid on women, one might assume that women especially petitioned such favours. This was not the case, however; both fathers and mothers wished for offspring. The right to name a child was generally seen as the father’s privilege. For example, in late medieval and Renaissance Florence the father regularly gave the child its name. Maternal interventions were very rare.284 This was not the case in the examples of Nicholas’s records. The difference between the naming culture of a large urban centre and the cases from the Marches of Ancona is obvious: both men and women promised to name the child after Nicholas if he helped. Women could also use their pregnancy as a persuasive feature in the negotiation. For example, domina Elena was badly afflicted during her pregnancy; she could not rest, eat, or drink. She invoked Saint Clare for help and promised, in addition to the material offerings, to name the unborn infant after the saint if she was a girl.285 Promises to name the child after the saint were not given only when petitioning for offspring. Moreover, these examples give an image of a fairly independent right of women to name children. It remains unknown whether this kind of maternal intervention in the naming privilege caused disturbance in family life. However, in all these cases the child was actually named after the intercessor. It is possible that the parents would have wanted to give the longed-for child a family name after an ancestor. However, presumably it was too delicate a matter to be ungrateful for favourable intercession. Moreover, it is possible that Nicholas’s cult was so popular in the area that to name

283

While medical theories acknowledged that the reason for childlessness could be in both male and female, in the social sense reproduction was seen more as women’s responsibility. Moreover, infertility was not only a question of science, since lack of progeny could cause social disturbance: a fertile household was a functioning household. Cadden, Meanings of Sex Difference, p. 232 and more generally on sterility, pp. 228–58. On the clerical view of women’s connection with reproductive work and men to productive work, see Farmer, Surviving Poverty, pp. 39–40. Contraception, abortion, and infanticide were strictly forbidden, though known practices. However, high infant mortality may have been the most important limitation to the number of children. Hanawalt, Ties that Bound, pp. 100–04; Vecchio, ‘Good Wife’, pp. 121–22; and Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 18–22. 284 285

Klapisch-Zuber, La maison et le nom, pp. 87–93.

Clare, testis LVI, p. 313: ‘quia erat pregnans tunc si pariet filiam feminam promixit sibi imponere nomen sororis Clare, predicte’.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

233

a child after him was a fairly common practice. Devotion seems to have been a valid reason to name a child after Nicholas even if he played no part in the conception.286 The saint or the shrine did not gain any material profit from this offering; nonetheless the oblation had evident commemorative value. The name was a lasting reminder of the grace gained and of devotion to the saint. Naming a child was a public gift; the name of the child would identify it for the rest of its life. Naming and especially baptizing were public events, but nonetheless had their private spiritual meaning. In a miraculous conception the child itself was a proof of the divine intervention and perpetual commemoration of the miracle.287 However, all the petitioners mentioned before deemed it appropriate also to promise material offerings in exchange for a living child. Pina promised to give the clothes of the child to be born to the shrine, and Philippus Anne promised to donate food to the Augustinians of Naples, his home town.288 Both Cicchus Aresti and domina Riccucia promised to weigh the child to be born and give the same amount of wax to the shrine. Cicchus Aresti adds to this exchange of gifts a promise to make his son an Augustinian friar in the future — if the child himself wanted it.289 A promise to give a child to a religious order was not a light one, especially if the child was the only and longed-for heir. Child oblations to the saint, usually in practice to the monastery, had been in actual use in earlier centuries, but the custom changed during the Middle Ages.290 It was not totally forgotten, as can be seen in the promise of Cicchus Aresti. He made the promise conditionally, however. It is noteworthy that mothers could also make such promises. Domina Clarendina promised, in addition to wax offerings, to give her son to the Augustinian order as

286

On devotion as a reason for the choice of a child’s name, see for example Nicholas, testis CCLXXX, pp. 576–77; testis CLVIII, p. 381; and testis XVI, p. 125. 287

In the interrogatory the child him- or herself could have had testimonial value. For example, domina Riccucia showed her son to the commissioners as a proof of the miraculous conception: Nicholas, testis CCV, pp. 447–48. 288

Nicholas, testis CCCXLIX, p. 627, and testis CXLVIII, p. 359.

289

Nicholas, testis CLXX, p. 396, and testis CCV, p. 448.

290

To offer the desired child to God had a biblical role model (I Samuel 1. 24–28). On child oblation in early medieval Europe, see De Jong, In Samuel’s Image; see also Finucane, Rescue of the Innocents, p. 14. On Scandinavian practices of child oblation which was still in use at least to some degree in the fifteenth century, see Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, pp. 318–19. In hagiographic literature many future saints had been born after the parents had made a vow and promised the progeny to spiritual life. Lett, L’enfant des miracles, p. 244.

234

Chapter 3

soon as he could survive without her. Clarendina’s son was seriously ill, and the mother thought he had died. The son recovered but did not apparently live long enough for the promise to be been put into practice.291 Domina Fina also promised to take her son personally to the church of Nicholas in Tolentino and give him to the order of Augustinians. Cicchus, her son, was adrabiacus and gained his senses after the vow. Fina did not reveal in her testimony whether the vow was made good or not. The commissioners did not ask her about it, either. The miracle had happened fifteen years before the hearing and her son was still alive.292 The promises to offer the child to the saint alter the picture of the father as the sovereign head of the family under whose jurisdiction all the members of the household were.293 Fina was a widow of Thomaxinus Cimarelli, but Clarendina was most likely married as she was titled as the wife of Cottius Admannite. The death of the husband did not give the authority to the mothers alone: the male relatives of the father often took over the responsibility and tutelage of the orphans.294 However, the mothers could also take the initiative in matters which held great significance for the future of their children. The desperate situation before the miracle was a reasonable explanation for the contract made in the vow. Yet such promises were strong interventions claiming authority within the domestic sphere.

291

Nicholas, testis CLXV, p. 390: ‘vovit eum ipsi sancto promittendo, si resubsitaretur [. . .] dare ipsum puerum et offerre dicto ordini statim cum posset ipse puer nutriri sine matre’. According to one witness, Iohanna Deodata also promised her son to the Franciscan friars if Saint Louis cured him. Other witnesses mention only an offering of a wax image: Louis, cap. CVII, p. 179. 292

Nicholas, testis CXXIX, p. 336: ‘fecit Deo votum et beato Nicholao quod si liberaretur dictus eius filius ab ipsa infirmitate, quod ipsa duceret eumdem ad ipsam ecclesiam beati Nicholai ipsumque daret ordini fratrum heremitarum Sancti Augustini loci de Tholentino’. 293

Chojnacki, ‘“The Most Serious Duty”’, pp. 133 and 138, deems many principles of Roman law, like patria potestas, to have continued uninterrupted from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Fathers had the principal responsibility and authority in planning the children’s destiny. However, he also gives examples of independent choices made by mothers; see ibid., pp. 148–49. In the Carolingian world the oblation was usually seen as a privilege of the father, although maternal interventions were not completely unknown. De Jong, In Samuel’s Image, pp. 78–86 and 169–70. 294

The children were seen to belong to the lineage of their father. Thus in remarriage the mothers may have been forced to leave the children to the custody of the father’s relatives. KlapischZuber, La maison et le nom, pp. 255–57. On contrary examples, see Chojnacki, ‘“The Most Serious Duty”’, p. 139. Unmarried widows often had the guardianship of their children yet not necessarily alone but with the father’s male relatives. See Epstein, Wills and Wealth, pp. 88–91, and Kuehn, ‘Person and Gender’, pp. 98–99.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

235

The reaction of the other members of the household remains unknown. Whether fathers consented and admitted the validity of such a contract cannot be known. One may ponder whether the miracles with great familial strife after such a promise would have found their way to the canonization processes. However, if such maternal interventions had been impossible, the women would not have promised them to the saint. It should be noted, however, that the depositions differ from each other, especially in the promises given to the saint. Moreover, many years after the incident — and possibly after the death of the beneficiary, as in the case of Clarendina — the witnesses may have remembered their actions differently and stressed, perhaps unconsciously, their devotion and willingness to sacrifice. The child’s destiny may have also aroused other kinds of conflicts within the family. The children may have also challenged the paternal or parental authority, as is seen in the case of Johanna la Schirreue. The parents seem to have agreed with each other and urged Johanna to marry. Johanna herself, however, wanted to take her fame as virgin of Saint Thomas seriously and refused to marry. No explicit wish to become a nun is stated in the deposition, however.295 The strategy of dedicating a child to the religious life was not unknown or unthinkable for the Schirreue family, either.296 However, the chosen one for a religious career was Johanna’s brother. Since the family already had difficulties with his promotion to holy orders, presumably it was not possible for them to contribute two children to the religious life.297 The questions of children’s destiny were important ones and influenced the whole family. Moreover, they seem to have been negotiated and presumably also argued within the family. The scarce evidence of canonization processes does not

295

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 123r–v.

296

On the motivation for dedicating a child to a religious career even within families of rather modest background, see Jussi Hanska, ‘Education as Investment: The Childhood of Pietro del Morrone in the Thirteenth Century Abbruzzi’, in Hoping for Continuity, ed. by Mustakallio, Hanska, Sainio, and Vuolanto, pp. 157–66; on socio-economic as well as spiritual reasoning for asceticism in Late Antiquity, see Ville Vuolanto, ‘Children and Asceticism: Strategies of Continuity in the Late Fourth and Early Fifth Centuries’, in ibid., pp. 119–32. 297

Cecilia, the mother, explained that their son, Johannes, could not be promoted to holy orders due to a lacking title (titulus) to support him since the father was not willing to give his title to their son. The promotion was important enough for Cecilia to measure her son and lead him to the shrine of Thomas. According to Cecilia, the problem was solved by the help of a local knight who gave Johannes the required income from the chapel which was under his patronage; hence he was promoted. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 129r. Titulus in this context means sufficient means of income after ordination. On this and other requirements of promotion to holy orders, see Salonen, Penitentiary as a Well of Grace, pp. 178–82.

236

Chapter 3

allow far-reaching conclusions to be drawn. However, the exclusive paternal authority on these matters is not stressed in the depositions — to say the least. The devotion and interaction with the saint may have also affected family life in a more tranquil way. The promises of naming, not to mention the oblation of a person to the saint, raised questions of authority. The petitioners could also offer their own spiritual dependence and veneration. Perpetual devotion to the saint was a personal choice and possible for each supplicant. Yet undoubtedly such offerings also had an obvious influence on the domestic sphere and family life. To be a devotee of a saint was perhaps the most abstract and on the other hand the most binding promise. In these promises the focus was on the inner spiritual experience of the supplicant. The devotion did not necessarily require specific visible modes of behaviour, even though it often did. The annual pilgrimages and fasts may have been expressions of devotion. The material offerings to the saint, whether symbolic or not, were also signs of devotion. Yet, in some cases these modes of piety may have also had a lot to do with the cohesion of the community, manifestation of social position, and accustomed modes of behaviour. They were not only matters of the inclination of the heart of a certain individual. The promise always to be a devotee of the saint may have meant to always prefer the help of this — successful — intercessor to that of other saints as well as earthly remedies. These supplicants took the risk that the powers of the patron would diminish or the saint would cease to intervene on their behalf. Ordinarily the exchange of gifts between the petitioner and the intercessor remained conditional: if the saint failed to help, the petitioner was free to turn to another saint. The perpetual devotion created a special bond between the intercessor and the petitioner reminiscent of the feudal oath of fealty.298 In earlier centuries it was quite common to vow to become a servus or ancilla of the saint. Servitude to a saint could mean several things: the strictest way of solving the vow was to become a monk or a nun. This was not possible for the 298

Gurevich, Medieval Popular Culture, pp. 40–41, emphasized the similarity of these concepts: the cult of saints and feudal homage may have influenced one another or originated from the same state of mind. However, the reverence for the saint could have worked the other way round. Some witnesses reported that they hesitated or refused to invoke the saint since they thought they were not worthy of such an honour. For example ‘ipsa reputans se indignam, negligebat se vovere et reconmendare sibi quia non sentiebat se dignam tantm gratiam ab ea recipere’ (Clare, testis LVI, p. 313); ‘Non tamen promixit vovere se sibi, quia non videbatur sibi esse digna tanta gratia’ (ibid., testis CLXXV, p. 456). Also Nicholas, testis CCLXXX, p. 577. Yet the majority of Christians deemed the saints to be consistent media against adversities. See also Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 538–39.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

237

majority of Christians, however. At the other end was personal dependence on the saint. This could mean judicial and economic subordination, service to the church or to the monastery, or just mental dependence.299 In Nicholas’s process the promise of devotion most likely meant spiritual dependence on the saint; it was an affirmation of the bond between the saint and the supplicant.300 The promises of lifelong devotion and servitude to the saint may have been mixed up in the popular mentality. At least Nicola Iacobucii connected them with each other in his deposition. According to him, Iacobucia promised to always be devota et serva sua when she was petitioning for the recovery of her son.301 Domina Iacobucia gave her promise of perpetual devotion when her son Puccius had drowned in the river. In addition to devotion she also promised always to fast on Nicholas’s feast day and to commemorate it by not working. She also promised to take Puccius to Tolentino and leave his clothes at the shrine.302 Since the ascetic practices were first uttered in the invocation it is possible that Iacobucia considered them as the most important offerings. The material gifts were only supplements to these promises. The penitential offerings were also of great importance for the onlookers; devotion and fasting were mentioned by all the eyewitnesses. Some of them, however, failed to mention the material offerings mentioned in the vow. Perhaps they were not thought to be so significant.303 299

Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 107–09, and Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 532–33. The pilgrimage performed with hands tied can also be interpreted as a symbolic offering of oneself (or of the child) to the saint. These symbolic gestures were acts of devotion signifying the spiritual dependence of the petitioner. They did not change the judicial, economic, or social status of the performer, like the actual offering of the child to the friars. 300

See also Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, pp. 270–71.

301

Nicholas, testis LXXXIX, p. 262.

302

Nicholas, testis CIII, pp. 292–93: ‘invocarent auxilium beati Nicholai vovendo dictum filium suum ipsi beato Nicholao, et promittendo quod si meritis et precibus ipsius resupsitaretur perpetuo esset devota sua et semper diem migrationis sue beati Nicholai ieiunare et non laborare dicta die, ac promixit dictum filium suum induere et ipsum portare ad archam suum et ibi ipsum denudare et supra dictam archam vestimenta reliquere’. 303 However, the witnesses’ depositions differ on the promises: Nicola Iacobucii claims that Iacobucia promised to fast on bread and water with her son (Nicholas, testis LXXXIX, p. 262), while the majority of other witnesses do not mention the boy but the celebration of the feast by not working. Marchus Morici is the only witness not to mention the penitential practices, but he was not present at the scene of the accident. He stressed the offering of the clothes, for understandable reasons: he accompanied his sister and nephew to the shrine (ibid., testis CIV, pp. 295–96). Witnesses to this miracle are ibid., testis XVIII, pp. 133–34; testis XXXV, pp. 161–62; testis LXXXIX, p. 262; testis XC, pp. 263–64; testis CIII, pp. 292–93; and testis CIV, pp. 295–96.

238

Chapter 3

Promises of perpetual devotion were not uttered aloud when invoking Saint Thomas, yet examples of lifelong devotion and firm devotees of Saint Thomas can be found, as in the case of the Schirreue family. In Nicholas’s process the promises of permanent devotion are already clearly stated when petitioning for the miracle. In a few cases these promises can be seen as a way to negotiate with the saint.304 The reason for the absence of such promises in the canonization processes may lie in the fact that inner devotion was an essential part of the invocation. It was a prerequisite for the miracle. Only sincere and devout invocations were heard by the saint. Some witnesses stated specifically that devotion was the reason for the invocation and moreover, it was devotion that persuaded the saint to act.305 Fulfilled petitions also confirmed devotion.306 It was an indispensable result of the miracle: it was seen as a proof of the authenticity of the divine intercession. This was important enough to be separately elicited from the witnesses: the commissioners of the Cantilupe process investigated whether the people involved in the miracle became firmer in faith and more devout.307 All the depositions confirm the increase of devotion. Some witnesses also further clarify the situation by stating that after the miracle they prayed or attended masses or pilgrimages on a more regular basis.308

304

In addition to Iacobucia two other promises can be found. Salinbena Vissanucii suffered from demonic possession when she made a vow to Saint Nicholas to visit his shrine and always be his devotee: Nicholas, testis CCII, p. 445. Dompnus Pelegrinus promised lifelong devotion and also to circle the shrine annually with wax: ibid., testis CXLIII, p. 350. 305

For example ‘et propter devotionem, quam habebat in dicto sancto Nicolao, fecit votum’ (Nicholas, testis LIII, p. 187); ‘Et dixit quod fidem habet quod meritis et precibus dicti fratris Nicolay Deus liberaverit eum de infirmitate predicta, propter devotionem magnam quam habet in eo’ (ibid., testis CXCII, p. 435). 306

Nicholas, testis CLXXXVI, pp. 427–28: ‘quandoqunque dictus maritus eius dominus Iohannes vel filii ipsius domini Iohannis et ipsius testis passi sunt infirmitates aliquas, semper habuerunt recursum ad dictum beatum Nicolaum et continuo fuerunt exauditi: propter quam causam habet magnam devotionem in eo’. 307

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 162v : ‘Item requisita si et ratione dicti miraculi ipsa et eius vir et eorum convicini erant devociores et in fide firmiores effecti. Respondit quod sic.’ See also Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, p. 579. 308

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 68r: ‘Respondit quod dicit in mane cum surgit Credo in deum et quinques orationem domenicam et Ave Maria quod ante dictam curationem non faciebat’; ibid., fol. 133v: ‘quod frequencius ratione dicti miraculi clamant ad deum et visitant ecclesias et peregrinatur ad tumulum dicti domini Thome’.

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

239

One may ponder what kind of interconnection there was between inner devotion and outer signs of piety. Was the inclination of the heart enough as a votive offering to the saint? For example, domina Natalia promised to always have a good opinion of Saint Clare and of her sanctity. However, the inner devotion was not enough: she also promised an arm of wax.309 Indeed, internal piety required external devotional practices. Firm devotion demanded outer gestures and signs.310 It was expressed in pilgrimages, fasting, and other deeds to commemorate the feast day.311 Promise of perpetual devotion was an affirmation of the special bond between the petitioner and the saint. In this sense it was a question of personal and inner spirituality. Both men and women engaged in promises of devotion. The social position of the supplicant did not affect offerings of this kind. However, promises of personal devotion may have also had an influence on family life. Other members of the household undoubtedly recognized the repeated prayers, fasts, or pilgrimages. It is even possible that the promise of devotion included spreading the fama and transmitting the devotion for the patron to the next generation.312 Public Nature of a Gift: Promotion of the Cult Devotion as well as personal penitential practices affected the interaction within the family and the domestic sphere. However, occasionally the essence of the promise was the communication in the public sphere and interaction within the wider spheres of the community. The distribution of the fame of sanctity and of the

309

Clare, testis CCXXXVIII, p. 513.

310

For example, lay penitent women were thought to live in a ‘mental cell’, yet this inner spiritual solitude did not exclude the need for exterior religious practices. Lehmijoki-Gardner, Wordly Saints, p. 77. 311 However, the promise of devotion did not automatically include fasting on the feast day. For example, when dompnus Pelegrinus was seriously ill he promised always to be devoted to Nicholas and encircle the shrine with wax annually. Later, when he was suffering from fever he promised to encircle the shrine with wax and always to fast on the feast day. The date of the first miracle is not mentioned, yet most likely it took place before the cure from the fever, which occurred a few months before the hearing. Nicholas, testis CXLIII, pp. 350–51. 312

Shared pilgrimages can be seen as way of educating and introducing children to this field of religion. Moreover, repeated stories of saint’s powers and common commemoration of the miracles may also have increased the devotion of the children. On the interconnection of personal devotion and transmission to the next generation, see Andriæ, Miracles of St. John Capistran, p. 270.

240

Chapter 3

miraculous occurrences was an important offering for the saint.313 The intercessors needed devotees, therefore explicit promises to make the saint’s powers known were given.314 Some of these offerings were closely connected to the gender and social position of the petitioner. For example, the offering given by Franciscus Andrioli from Macerata was possible only for a very limited group of petitioners. Franciscus was a notary in the house of the governor (rector) of the province of Marche and he used his position and occupation in negotiations with the intercessor. Franciscus had a fight with his brother and was badly injured: the thumb of his right hand was totally cut off. Franciscus invoked Saint Nicholas for a cure. In his deposition he stated that he had written several times to the Roman curia to cardinals as well as to the pope on behalf of his master for the canonization of Nicholas of Tolentino. He had also written many letters on behalf of the people and the community of Macerata for the same reason.315 In his vow Franciscus pleaded with Nicholas to remember this service. Franciscus considered these letters to have constituted a bond between him and the intercessor. Moreover, he considered these services to be important for the saint and promised to continue them after the cure. In addition he promised annual fasting, pilgrimage, and a hand of wax of one libra.316 313

Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 154–56, claims that, from the end of the thirteenth century on, the supplicants more often approached the more local and recent saints. These new saints were thought to be more effective patrons than the older ones, which were well-established objects of official cults. Popular opinion held that these new saints heard the invocations of the faithful better since they needed promotion for their cult. Menestó, ‘Il Processo apostolico’, pp. 125–26, also connects the new cults with new kinds of votive offerings: new saints needed promoters for their cults to make themselves known among the faithful. 314

Ceccholus of Montefalco promised to make Saint Clare’s powers known to a hundred persons if she cured his toothache: Clare, testis CXXXVI, p. 411. Domina Thomassa promised among other things to publicize the miracle as often as possible if Saint Clare cured her husband (ibid., testis CLXXIII, p. 455), while domina Helena promised to have the miracle written down and preached if Saint Clare gave her the grace of recuperation (testis LV, p. 312). On these kinds of votive offerings, see also Krötzl, ‘Fama Sanctitatis’, pp. 241–44. 315 316

Nicholas, testis CCXVIII, p. 466.

Nicholas, testis CCXVIII, p. 465: ‘O beate Nicholae de Tolentino, bene scis quod multotiens et pluries litteras scripsi in servitium tui pro canonizatione tua in Curia Romana; rogo te et supplico quod ostendas virtutem tuam ita quod non perdam manum et dictum digitum, quia promitto venire Tholentinum ad archam tuam, et offerre unam manum de cera de unius libre, et ieiunare continue in vigilia festivitatis tue, et scribere continue in servitium canonizationis tue sine aliqua pecunia, quandocumque fuero requisitus.’

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

241

Franciscus sewed the cut thumb back onto his hand. When the doctors saw the finger they did not give much hope. They recommended him to remove the thumb so that it did not corrupt the whole hand. The thumb shrivelled up and, indeed, soon the whole right arm was afflicted. Franciscus was not driven to despair, however. He held firm faith, as he told the doctors, that since he had done such a service for Nicholas with his hand the saint would not let him lose it. On the feast day of Nicholas Franciscus rode to Tolentino and offered the promised wax hand to the shrine. As he offered the oblation above the shrine he felt how the blood ran into the dry thumb. After a fortnight Franciscus was completely cured. The reciprocal circulation of gifts is underlined in this case. Immaterial offerings and favours could also constitute a firm relationship between the supplicant and the saint. Undoubtedly Franciscus felt that Nicholas would hear his pleadings more willingly than other saints. However, past and future service done for the canonization or the commemorative fasting on the feast day were not apparently enough for the cure. Franciscus also promised a material offering. Moreover, the act of giving the oblation and the contact with the sacred sphere seem to have been the crucial moment for the cure. This case also sheds light on the economic side of the canonization campaigns. Procuring the canonization of a putative saint required money. The letters to the papal curia were not written free of charge. However, according to the testimony of Franciscus, even ordinary people could take part in it. Offering to work for the canonization of Nicholas for no reward could have eventually been expensive for Franciscus. Therefore his promise was also an economic burden. Yet the situation was serious for Franciscus since his livelihood was at stake. The incident happened approximately one year before the actual hearing. It remains unknown how many times Franciscus actually put his promise into practice. To propagate the cult was considered a valuable offering. However, the spreading of the fame of sanctity and the promotion of the cult did not necessarily demand special social status or economic assets. The news of a miraculous cure rapidly spread in the neighbourhood, and most likely many cured petitioners were eager to disseminate the information. The reports of a miracle and of a new saint were spread without any specific promises. Pure gossip and the will to publicize a marvellous and extraordinary event may have been the reason for many to tell about the curative powers of a new intercessor. However, devotion was also a reason for the promotion.317 317

Margarita Appillaterre was an acknowldeged devotee of Nicholas, and witnesses refer to her as a source of information concerning the life and merits of Nicholas. See Nicholas, testis XCII, p. 270, and testis CCLXXI, p. 562.

242

Chapter 3

Augustinian friars are often mentioned as the source of knowledge of the sanctity of Nicholas.318 Richard Swinfield, the successor of Thomas Cantilupe as Bishop of Hereford, is assumed to have been the main promoter of the cult. Other members of the clergy of Hereford cathedral are also supposed to have been active in the promotion.319 However, they are not mentioned by name in the depositions as sources for Thomas’s fama. The fame of sanctity as well as miracles were of great importance. The candidate’s saintly reputation was a prerequisite for opening the process for canonization.320 The commissioners of the Cantilupe hearing decided that the witnesses were to be asked if there was ‘fama et communis voce et oppinio’ that Thomas Cantilupe was a saint. If they replied yes, they were questioned as to how they knew it, and where and for how long this reputation had existed. Were the people from whom they had heard of it of good or bad repute, or special friends or family members of Thomas Cantilupe, or beneficiaries of Hereford cathedral? The witnesses were also to explain the meaning of ‘fama publica’ or ‘communis oppinio’.321 The collective role in the formation of the fame of sanctity is stressed by several witnesses. When Friar Walterus de Knulle was asked about the public fame of Thomas he replied that it was something the crowd commonly cried out, ‘vulgus communiter clamat’.322 Dominus Andreas Accursi, the king’s knight and professor of law, declared that it was common knowledge and fame that Nicholas had raised the dead, freed prisoners, and performed many other miracles after his death. This was publicly stated and commonly held by men and women.323 Domina Viola 318

Nicholas, testis XV, p. 112; testis XCV, p. 275; testis CCXXIX, p. 506; testis CCLXVI, p. 548; and testis CCLXVII, p. 552. 319

Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 174–75, and Finucane, ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life’, pp. 169–71. 320

On the growing importance and different definitions of fama sanctitatis of the candidate during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, see Krötzl, ‘Fama Sanctitatis’, pp. 223–44; also Krötzl, ‘Kanonisationsprozess, Socialgeschichte und Kanonisches Recht’, pp. 33–37. 321

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 4 r–v. However, these questions were posed only to the witnesses testifying about the life and merits of Thomas. 322

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 79v . Also ‘Interrogatus quid vocat famam publicam dixit quod illud quod communiter dicitur et clamatur a popolo’ (ibid., fol. 85r); ‘Interrogatus quid vocat famam publicam respondit quod illud quod communiter et vulgariter dicitur’ (ibid., fol. 87 r); ‘Interrogatus quid vocat famam publicam Respondit quod illud quod dicitur a gentibus et non habet contradictione ab aliquo’ (ibid., fol. 87v ). 323

Nicholas, testis CCCXV, p. 606: ‘Interrogatus quomodo scit, dixit quia sic publice dicitur et tenetur communiter per mares et mulieres’; also ‘Interrogatus unde habuit originem dicta fama, dixit

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

243

stressed that she had heard publicly said that Nicholas had led a saintly life and God had performed various miracles through him. When she was asked whom she had heard saying this publicly she answered that it was nearly all the people, ‘quasi a toto popolo’.324 Dina Angeli declared that to give a public voice and create public fame was something that people did collectively and publicly in streets, crowds, churches, and other places.325 Women claimed to have heard of the fame of sanctity in the public places, and more importantly women were mentioned as sources of the public fame.326 This emphasizes women’s role in collective opinion formation. Thus the unofficial dissemination of the renown of the miracles and the reputation of the saint can be seen as an offering equally available to both men and women. Naturally, due to the costs involved, the official promotion of the cult, letters to the papal curia for example, was not possible for everyone. However, unofficial spreading of the news did not require economic assets or access to public offices. In this perspective it was not a gender-specific offering. Nevertheless, the speech and speaking in general were seen in gender-specific terms: the words of men and women were not esteemed, trusted, or understood equally. In clerical as well as in secular literature women were regularly seen as loquacious, talkative, garrulous, and more prone to gossiping.327 Their words were suspect, and the Church had totally prohibited preaching and public teaching by women. Against this background the distribution of the fame of sanctity and spreading the news of miracles could have challenged the gender hierarchies and approved modes of behaviour. quod ab hominibus communiter de Tholentino masculis et mulieribus et ab illis qui recipiebant miracula meritis dicti fratris Nicolay’ (ibid., testis LXXVIII, p. 216); ‘Interrogatus quid est publica vox et fama, dixit id quod communiter dicitur et quod mares, mulieres et pueri clamant hoc’ (ibid., testis CCXXXI, p. 509); ‘Interrogatus unde habuit exortum dicta fama, dixit quod communiter a personis secularibus tam masculis quam feminis Tholentini’ (ibid., testis CCLXXI, p. 561). 324

Nicholas, testis CCI, p. 444.

325

Nicholas, testis XCII, p. 271: ‘Interrogata quid est dicere publica vox et fama, dixit id quod communiter et publice dicitur per gentes in stratis, tribiis, in ecclesiis et alibi.’ 326

In cases in the Italian courts of law the public fame was usually constituted by the talk of men. Wickham, ‘Gossip and Resistance’, p. 15. ‘The common opinion’ was also a way to justify testimony in secular cases in England. On the reference to common opinion by (male) jurors in English cases, see Bedell, ‘Memory and Proof of Age’. 327

Bloch, Medieval Misogyny, pp. 15–22. On multiloqium and verbositas as typically feminine vices, see Casagrande and Vecchio, I peccati della lingua, pp. 407–17. On a warning example of female talkativeness, see DM IV, cap. 22.

244

Chapter 3

The promises to proclaim the reputation of the saint can be seen as devotional activity. However, these promises were also fairly rare. The reason for this may have been the importance of spreading the news of all the miracles. The notification was an essential element in the miracle process. There was usually held a hearing at the shrine when a new miracle took place or a pilgrim proclaimed a miracle that had taken place at a distance from the relics. After the inquiry the miracle was publicized. The beneficiary him- or herself may have had the principal role in the proclaiming. For example, Iacobucia told about the proclaiming of the miraculous recovery of the blind Anfelixia in the following manner: ‘after this [i.e. the cure] was done everyone from Tolentino, together men and women alike, went to the said church to see that miracle. The cured domina Anfelixia herself confessed and publicly proclaimed the before-mentioned miracle to all the people present’.328 Public announcements of religious matters in churches were rarely enough done by women. These situations imbued women’s words with extraordinary publicity and prestige.329 The importance of publicizing miracles is also stressed in the miraculous recovery of Angelischa. She was cured from blindness by Nicholas during his lifetime. After the death of Nicholas the Augustinian friars were preaching about the good deeds of Nicholas and also telling about this incident. Angelischa did not want to make the cure public — and went blind again. She interpreted the relapse as a divine punishment for her unwillingness to publicize the good deed.330 Publicizing was an essential part of the miracle.331 The fame of sanctity spread in diverse ways. Several examples show that witnesses of these processes were actually discussing, praising, doubting, or even decrying the alleged saints with each other. The fame of sanctity and the powers of the intercessor were a subject of discussion among the faithful. Speaking in a public

328

Nicholas, testis LXXXIII, p. 233: ‘Et dum hoc fuit factum per terram Tholentini omnes communiter mares et mulieres traxerunt ad dictam ecclesiam ad videndum dictum miraculum; et ipsa domina Anfelixia liberata publice coram omnibus astantibus confessa fuit et narravit miraculum predictum.’ See also ibid., testis LXXXI, p. 226. 329

Women’s words were especially alarming when uttered in church since this could have been categorized as preaching. Waters, Angels and Earthly Creatures, pp. 121–22. 330 331

Nicholas, testis CCLXXX, pp. 575–76.

However, Rosa gives the impression that the publicizing of the event also depended on the activity of the petitioner or of the beneficiary. Nicholas, testis CCXXXVII, p. 516: ‘Et ut dictum miraculum esset notum et publicum, fecit pulsari campanas in honorem et reverentiam Dei et beate Marie et dicti fratris Nicolay et ymaginem predicte beate Marie fieri fecit.’

AFTER GRACE WAS GAINED

245

place may have commanded a wider audience, yet one should not underestimate the prestige of conversations in domestic settings. An efficient private discussion of a saint’s powers was held in Marseilles in the house of the Deodati family around the year 1300. Iohanna Deodata had been in the church of the Franciscans and heard Friar Raymundus de Ginhac preaching about the sanctity of Louis of Toulouse. She was so moved by the sermon that devoutly and with tears she invoked Saint Louis to cure her paralysed son.332 After the invocation she returned home and at the dinner table described how the friar had preached and pronounced good words about the saintly life and sanctity of the said Louis. According to her deposition, she was only recounting the words of the friar; she did not teach or preach to the people present.333 Nevertheless, her husband was moved to tears by her words. He was pleased with the vow. As an oblation Iohanna Deodata promised legs and knees of wax. Spreading the fame was not promised as a votive offering, yet it seems to have been an important feature in the cure. The paralysed boy was also present to hear the conversation. More importantly, after a while he was cured, to the wonder of the spectators. According to Iohanna, altogether twenty persons were present. None of them testified, however. It remains unclear whether all the participants were members of the household. They were, however, greatly delighted at the recuperation.334 Several witnesses stated that the miracle gained great fame in the city of Marseilles.335 The invocation of a saint as well as the promotion of the reputation opened up channels of influence to women. Women as well as men took part in opinion formation, in which both private and public conversations played an important role. The spreading of the fame of sanctity could have challenged accustomed gender roles, providing initiative positions for women. No mistrust of women’s words can 332

The depositions to this miracle are in Louis, cap. CIV–CX, pp. 176–82. The deposition of Iohanna Deodata is cap. CIV, pp. 176–77. 333

Dinner tables and more intimate spheres of interaction were also seen as favourable places for preachers to have edifying conversations. Women’s words, on the other hand, were considered powerful and dangerous because of their links to sensual and sexual allure. See Waters, Angels and Earthly Creatures, pp. 70–72 and 96–101; on the connection of rhetoric with the decorative and thus feminine, see ibid., pp. 74–94. 334

Louis, cap. CIV, p. 177: ‘puer cum magno gaudio annuncians patri et matri et aliis astantibus, qui erant bene viginti numero quod ipse erat curatus. Quo viso, gavisi sunt valde presentes et familiares domus, quia viderunt eum erectum’. 335

Louis, cap. CIV, p. 178: ‘Dixit eciam quod est publica vox et fama in civitate Massiliensi quod dictus puer meritis beati Ludovici fuit miraculose ita curatus, erectus, et sanatus’; see also cap. CVI–CX.

246

Chapter 3

be found in the depositions; the words of women were also deemed worthy and important. Indeed, for women the promotion of the cult offered an opportunity to sway opinions and gain prestige, which was not otherwise possible in the field of religion. Immaterial offerings did not usually require notable economic sacrifice. The majority of the immaterial votive offerings were not exclusive, but often equally applicable for both men and women regardless of their social standing or economic situation. Offerings of personal penitential practices or devotion were not, however, given due to inability to offer anything else. The majority of these miracles also include material oblations in addition to the pilgrimage to the shrine. Moreover, the immaterial offerings could have been socially demanding. They could have raised problems of authority and control within the family and occasionally also in the public sphere. Many of the immaterial offerings seem to have challenged the traditional gender relations as prescribed in clerical literature. In matters of authority, like naming a child or donating a child to the saint, the mothers seem to have taken fairly independent initiatives. Moreover, the traditional gendering of religious practices is not valid for the interaction with the intercessor. Men favoured more promises of fasting even though this form of asceticism is regularly gendered as feminine. Nevertheless, some promises of work, like cleaning the church, or penance, like renouncing jewellery, accorded with the traditional gender roles and perceptions of femininity. Since these offerings were rather rare, no definite conclusions of gender hierarchies or roles can be drawn. The immaterial offerings were not especially favoured by the devotees of Nicholas. In the Cantilupe process they are practically non-existent. Such offerings were not regularly used in the negotiation with the saint. The reason for this may have been the pronouncements of the Church: many of these practices were part of the ordinary religious life. Presumably they were not seen as an appropriate way to form a contract with the saint. The importance of these meritorious acts as part of the pious life was commonly acknowledged in both these processes. Despite their immateriality penitential or devotional practices were also concrete signs of gratitude. Moreover, they were not easily forgotten or passed over: the annual commemoration of the feast day tied the petitioner to the saint constantly. The name of the child was a perpetual commemoration of the miracle, but wax images and candles were eventually burnt at the shrine. However, the simplest material offerings of wax, images or candles, had likewise an evident symbolic, immaterial value. The various votive offerings also played similar roles: to persuade the saint to act was at the core of every vow; to thank the intercessor was the essential element in all the offerings.

Chapter 4

D EPOSITIONS AND M EMORIES OF M IRACLES

Reminiscence and the Mode of Testifying Memories of Miracles

A

fter the miracle, occasionally already before offering the oblation to the intercessor, began the reminiscence and narration of the event. It was an indispensable part of the miracle process. The participants needed to evaluate and interpret the incident with each other. Finally these memories — or rather one form of them shaped by the commissioners’ questioning formula — were written down in the records of the canonization hearing. The miracles were significant events in the communities, especially those which took place in the public sphere. They became part of the collective, social memory shaping the mentality of the community. In addition to the private recollection the public miracles were also interpreted and transmitted collectively through communication by the members of the community. Miracles were experienced, remembered, and commemorated together. Memories were shaped by interaction with others who shared the same experience.1 1

Social or collective memory can be seen as a socially relevant past, which gives meaning to the present for the group which commemorates it. On further analyses of the concept, see Climo and Cattell, ‘Meaning in Social Memory and History’, and James Fentress and Chris Wickham, Social Memory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992). Connerton, How Societies Remember, pp. 2–4 and 36–37, argues that membership within a group is essential for locating one’s memories: the groups provide the frameworks, the mental and material spaces within which to situate and recall one’s memories. Elisabeth Tonkin, Narrating Our Pasts: The Social Construction of Oral History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 105–06, separates these two concepts and stresses that we belong to several different groups at the same time, thus the word ‘collective’ is misleading since there is no single undifferentiated collectivity which is ‘the social’.

248

Chapter 4

Despite the collective nature of miracles, their significance was also interpreted individually, and meaning, let alone details, varied from one witness to another. The individual memories are at the same time personal and reflective of the culture of the given time and place.2 The interconnection between personal and collective memories can be seen in the correlation between the amount of memorized detail — sometimes even inconsequential — and the emotional or personal significance of the event. The tendency of an individual’s memory to exaggerate his or her own role in any recalled set of events is also common.3 Memory and remembrance in the Middle Ages has been much studied from the point of view of genealogies of ruling families or ‘educated memory’ while the passing on of values of families of lesser prestige has been widely neglected. Moreover, the major part of the studies concerning recollections and the passing on of memories has concentrated on the early Middle Ages or on the first centuries of the central Middle Ages.4 Usually the depositions of the canonization records do not offer a view of the remembrance of several generations. However, on a smaller scale the depositions reflect the way the witnesses remembered important events such as miracles and how these memories worked in the everyday life in forming family or personal identity, educating children, and transmitting domestic devotion to the next generation. Women had commemorative role in the medieval culture. It was generally regarded as women’s duty, especially in the noble families, to preserve the memories

2

Memories do not exist in solitude but in constant interaction with the cultural values of the surrounding society. It is claimed that memory is the main place where culture exists and culture can be seen as memory in action. Marea Teski and Jacob J. Climo, ‘Introduction’, in The Labyrinth of Memory: Ethnographic Journeys, ed. by Marea Teski and Jacob Climo (Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 1995), pp. 1–10, and Fentress and Wickham, Social Memory, p. 7. According to Connerton, How Societies Remember, p. 37, individual memory, absolutely separate from the social memory, is an abstraction almost devoid of meaning. 3 4

Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning’, pp. 434 and 440.

On family and monastic memories, see Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, pp. 48–80; Gabrielle M. Spiegel, The Past as Text: The Theory and Practice of Medieval Historiography, Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), pp. 99–137; van Houts, Memory and Gender, pp. 65–92; and Matthew Innes, ‘Memory, Orality and Literacy in an Early Medieval Society’, Past and Present, 158 (1998), 3–36. On educated memory and medieval theories of memory, see Mary Carruthers, The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature, 10 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

249

of the previous generations and educate the next generations.5 The evidence of the canonization processes proposes that women’s devotional and nurturing roles often collided: they played crucial roles in the miraculous recoveries of their children. Therefore their memories were important in constructing these past events in the inquiry. The things to remember — the details of everyday life, the occupied spheres, and the performed tasks — also reveal the way gender was constructed. Quotations and Written Evidence Throughout the Middle Ages oral tradition dominated the creation and transmission of the social memory; writing had only a marginal role in it.6 Yet, to distinguish orality and literacy can be rather complicated since they penetrate and influence one another actively.7 The canonization processes can be seen as a nexus of oral and written. They were the frozen form of the memories of these miracles. They were written down as they were conceived in that particular moment in time.

5

Women’s commemorative role is stressed in the context of the early and central Middle Ages; see van Houts, Memory and Gender, pp. 63–119; Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, pp. 51–73; and Matthew Innes, ‘Keeping It in the Family: Women and Aristocratic Memory, 700–1200’, in Medieval Memories, ed. by van Houts, pp. 17–35. The caregiving role of the mothers took different forms on different levels of society: aristocratic women did not personally take care for their children’s physical welfare yet their responsibility was the educational and commemorative role. 6 The relationship between written and oral culture had long been a dispute among scholars. Nowadays it is generally accepted that medieval culture was mainly based on oral communication despite the growth of reading and literature. See for example Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record; Vox Intexta: Orality and Textuality in the Middle Ages, ed. by A. N. Doane and Carol Braun Pasternack (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991); Aron Gurevich, Historical Anthropology of the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), pp. 50–64; Wickham, ‘Gossip and Resistance’; Michael Richter, Studies in Medieval Language and Culture, Medieval Studies (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1994); and Innes, ‘Memory, Orality and Literacy’. On oral genres and their relationship with literary genres, see Tonkin, Narrating Our Pasts. On diverse methods to remember and conceptualize things among literate and illiterate people, see Walter Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, New Accents (1982; repr. London: Routledge, 2002). 7

On intermingling of these spheres especially in the cult of saints, see Smith, ‘Oral and Written’, and Michael E. Goodich, Lives and Miracles of the Saints: Studies in Medieval Latin Hagiography, Variorum Collected Studies Series (Burlington: Ashgate Variorum, 2004), pp. 177–87. On general interconnection between orality and literacy, see also Tonkin, Narrating Our Pasts, pp. 12–14.

250

Chapter 4

Since the formula of questions affected what was written down, the written culture shaped the memories that had up to that point been circulating orally.8 The oral testimonies and the literary tradition also have other connections in the canonization processes. Oral traditions, that is, the way the people remembered and narrated the miracles they had experienced, were coloured by the written models. The miracle stories the witnesses had heard undoubtedly helped them to give meaning to their experiences and influenced the details they remembered.9 The tension between oral and literate testimonies can be found in the canonization process of Thomas Cantilupe.10 The officials of Hereford cathedral gave the registers of the miracles collected at the shrine to the commissioners. They were not content with the written testimony, however, since the miracles lacked essential details. Thus the commissioners decided to interrogate the witnesses once again.11 These depositions were recorded briefly at the end of the process.12 The value of oral testimony was emphasized, but the written testimonies do not stress the value of direct speech. The depositions of the canonization processes were translated into Latin and turned into the third person (‘dictus testis dicit’), thus the direct speech of the witnesses cannot be found. The direct speech quotations are sporadic and rather rare in the depositions. To quote the witness verbatim was not essential for the testimony to be trustworthy. The frequency of direct quotations depends on the notarial act and varies from one process to another. Moreover, the quotations are problematic in the hagiographic material since even emotional first-person speeches could have been copied from an earlier example.13 However, the influence of previous examples is more obvious in didactic and fictional miracle stories than in the canonization hearings in which attention was

8

However, the canonization processes convey only a small proportion of all the memories and narrations that were told about the miracles. Only a minority of all the cases were recorded in the processes. 9

On the intertwining of well-known miracle stories and actual events, see Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning’, and Hanska, ‘Hanging of William Cragh’. 10

Written evidence spread and was accepted cautiously. The conflicting attitudes to oral and written testimony persisted. On the diffusion of written documents in England between the years 1066 and 1307, see Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record; especially on the pondering of the value of oral and written evidence, see ibid., pp. 260–66. 11

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 240r–241r.

12

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 241v –246r.

13

Ashley and Sheingorn, Writing Faith, p. 95.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

251

paid to the judicial requirements, such as the trustworthiness of the testimony and the loyalty of the notarial act. The practicalities of the processes dictate how edited the records are and how many direct quotations can be found. For example, in the canonization process of Nicholas the commissioners wanted specifically to know by which words the saint was invoked. Thus the petition is occasionally written down in the form of a direct quotation.14 In the Cantilupe hearing the actual praying is usually written down in the form of indirect speech. Since the measuring was an essential aspect of invoking Saint Thomas it is also described in the depositions. The direct quotations written down in the records were justified by their importance and value for the scrutiny of sainthood. The dialogue with the appearing saint or cries for help were important from the commissioners’ point of view. They helped to validate the performer of the miracle.15 Yet they were not indispensable elements in the miracle. Therefore the primed questioning formula did not shape the depositions at this point, and the witnesses were allowed to recount these details freely and meticulously. The reminiscence of the dialogue with the saint was a personal assertion and also revealed the witnesses’ ways to analyse and give meaning to the incidents. Since they are recounted several years after the actual dialogue, at least the longer quotations articulate more likely the personal significance of the occurrence and not the genuine speech. In these details the voice of the witnesses is heard as directly as possible. Indeed, when analysing the mode of testifying such utterances are the most personal to be discovered in this material — and thus worth a closer look. In the Cantilupe process the exact quotations were usually cries for help uttered by the victim. For example, the witnesses in the case of the drowned Nicholas quoted the words of the boy at the miraculous revival. According to them, Nicholas cried out for help to the Virgin Mary and Saint Thomas.16 These utterances were significant for the commissioners since they helped for their part to validate

14

Nicholas, testis XCI, pp. 266–67: ‘Rogo te, beate Nicholae, amore domini nostri Iesu Christi ut liberes dictam neptem mean ab illa infirmitate quam patitur, et ego promitto quod si liberatur, de faciendo fieri panem de una coppa farine, et dabo istis fratribus [. . .]. Interrogata quibus verbis interpositis, dixit ut supra.’ 15

The importance of the speech of the saint can be seen in the feature that occasionally the intercessor’s words were also quoted verbatim in the sources, summarized vitae for example, that were written after and based on the canonization inquiry. See Goodich, Lives and Miracles of the Saints, pp. 177–87. 16

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 159v , 161v , 163r, and 164v .

252

Chapter 4

the performer of the miracle, like the actual invocation. The commissioners considered the words of Nicholas so important that they wanted further clarification. Lucia, the mother of Nicholas, declared that the drowned boy had twice shouted ‘Dulcis domina, adiuva, sancte Thoma, adiuva’. The commissioners asked the mother which lady she thought the boy meant. She replied that it was the Lady of Heaven since it was a mode of the area to plead for the Holy Virgin’s help with those words.17 The witnesses agree that the cry for help took place when the father wanted to close the boy’s eyes. Obviously this was a crucial moment in the miracle, for it was the first sign of life in the presumably dead boy. It was a memorable moment, and indeed, all the participant witnesses mention this detail. However, they did not agree on the exact words uttered by Nicholas. Since the exact quotation aroused the interest of the commissioners the notaries most likely wrote this detail down verbatim. Thus the variation in notarial practice is not the reason for the deviation. The father, the mother, and Felicia, the drowned boy’s maternal aunt, stated that Nicholas had pleaded for the help of the Virgin Mary and Saint Thomas, while Cristina, the neighbour, claimed that he had asked them to have mercy on him. The small variation in this kind of detail is understandable since the incident took place eight years before the hearing. This rather inconsequential deviation in the depositions did not interest the commissioners or have any effect on the valuation of the miracle. It is noteworthy, however, that the commissioners saw this detail as valuable. Moreover, they asked the mother — and not the father who testified before her — to further clarify it. Probably they considered this detail important in validating the miracle after two witnesses had mentioned it. The detail seems to have been important for the witnesses, too, since they all remembered and mentioned it. All these witnesses claim that they were present at this crucial moment and heard these words. However, Lucia and Johannes, the mother and father, insist that they were alone at the time of the revival. A possible explanation may be Cristina’s close residence: she lived in a house next to the parents of Nicholas. The privacy of the family life may have been relative. The mother stated that later in the night after the recovery Nicholas sighed, ‘Father, have mercy on me’, and his father replied that he did and thanked God and Saint Thomas for the restoration of his life. It is possible that Cristina had mixed 17

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 162v : ‘Item requisita de qua domina intelligebat dictus Nicholas, dicendo suprascripta verba dulcis domina adiuva. Respondit quod de domina celi et quod erat talis modus et communionis in patria per talia verba invocare auxilium beate marie.’

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

253

up these exclamations. The reason may also lie in the wish of Cristina to claim a more important role in the proceedings: Lucia and Cristina also disagree on the actual petitioner. Both of them claim the active role in the measuring of the victim for Saint Thomas.18 Cristina claimed that she was present at the actual revival, quoting the father’s words that it was not good to bury the boy with open eyes. The father does not mention these words. It is possible that the cry for help was a famous and known part of the narration of this miracle, and Cristina had only heard of this detail afterwards. Cristina also claimed that all the parishioners accompanied the parents to the shrine after the miracle.19 The parents mention only some or many of the neighbours following them on the pilgrimage.20 Moreover, Cristina not only claimed wider participation of the community, she also implied that an organized collective performance took place by stating that Nicholas was taken to the shrine processionaliter. Processions were a well-known and widespread form of popular devotion. Quite often they took place on certain feast days or in order to placate God: communities often resorted to religious processions when pleading for a miracle to save the whole community in the face of natural disaster. It is noteworthy that the processions were not regularly spontaneous expressions of devotion caused by religious fervour. Usually they were coordinated and planned in advance and the clerical authorities took the initiative in the organization.21 However, it is probable that no official procession was organized to give thanks for this miracle. Indeed, most likely Cristina had mixed up two different occasions. The date of the miracle was the day before Pentecost, a Saturday. The more or less collectively performed pilgrimage to the shrine took place the next Tuesday. All the witnesses agree on these details. Officially ordained processions generally took

18

On further examples of disagreements on the initiative role in the invocation and their interpretation as an individual’s memory to exaggerate his or her own role in past activities, see Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning’. 19 BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 163v: ‘ipsa Cristina et communiter totus populus dicte parochie venerunt processionaliter sicut venire consueverant aliis annis dicto Nicholao in processione existente [. . .] ad ecclesiam Herefordensis’. 20

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 160r : ‘ipse Nicholas, propris pedibus cum patre et matre ipsius et aliis viciniis venit ad tumulum dicti domini Thome’; ibid., fol. 162r : ‘venit cum patre et matre et cum aliis multis peditando’. 21

Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 155–61, and Hanska, Strategies of Sanity and Survival, pp. 49–63.

254

Chapter 4

place on Rogation Days, which fell close to Pentecost and this pilgrimage. It is possible that a common procession was an annual habit in the parish, as Cristina described.22 Yet the motivation — also in this particular year — was not obviously to give thanks for the revival of Nicholas. The pilgrimage was probably due to the spontaneous collective burst of devotion brought about by the miracle, which was considered to be an affirmation of God’s grace towards the community. The father and mother of Nicholas emphasized the importance for and the activity of the family members while Cristina stressed the meaning of the miracle for the wider community. The incident was well known and probably narrated continuously in the parish. The rector of the church was also familiar with the story. According to his words, he had commonly heard of the incident even though he was still studying in Canterbury at the time of the miracle.23 The interaction within the family is emphasized in the depositions of Nicholas and his parents. According to the mother, they had engaged in commemorative rituals after the revival: the whole family made a pilgrimage once a year to the shrine of Saint Thomas. The miracle was also narrated and commemorated several times within the family. The collective family memory is stressed in the feature that Nicholas as well as his father and mother all started their depositions by mentioning the inconsequential detail of the reddish-brown cow with the star in its forehead. Apparently Nicholas had been searching for a stick to train the untamed animal. The stick was on his father’s boat, and while searching for it he fell off and drowned.24 Apparently this aspect was not of great interest for the non-family members or they were not aware of it, because they do not mention the detail. For the family, on the other hand, this cow was important in an economic sense, thus it was remembered after eight years and even personified. By way of comparison it could be noted that none of the witnesses remembered the name of the beggar’s son who informed the parents of the drowning. Presumably these beggars were not constant inhabitants in the village and their current residence was unknown. However, the informant’s role seems to be so unimportant that the witnesses disagree strongly even on the boy’s age. The estimates vary from 22

The rituals of Rogation Day were to secure harvest — to gain a prosperous year. On these practices, see Hanska, Strategies of Sanity and Survival, pp. 33–41. 23 24

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 165r.

Taking care of animals, for example taking the livestock to the pasture, was a task often left to older children. On the division of labour in peasant households as well as the importance of livestock in late medieval England, see Hanawalt, Ties that Bound.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

255

four to ten years. Understandably the importance of the information, as well as of the messenger, diminishes if one deems the resurrection to be due to the invocation — and not the attempts at resuscitation — made by the witnesses. The duration of the drowning was not crucial for God’s power to bring the deceased back to life. The depositions of the miracle also reveal many details that challenge the traditional gender roles. First of all both father and mother were so shocked after having found their son dead that they nearly fainted and collapsed on the ground. Even though expressions of grief are regularly found in the canonization processes, medieval clerical rhetoric often required men to act rationally and refrain from extreme expressions of emotions. Yet only Johannes, the father, claims that the pain was so severe that Cristina needed to sprinkle water on their faces to make them recover.25 The deposition of Johannes also stresses his nurturing role as well as the close bond between the father and the son. He recounted with more precision the activities of Nicholas up to the point that he mentions the bread and milk the boy ate that morning.26 According to the accustomed gender roles and division of labour, it would have been more probable for the mother to remember and mention such details. However, she did not bring them up in her testimony. Thus caregiving and emotional attachment, features regularly connected with femininity, seem to have formed essential elements of Johannes Piscator’s gendered position as father.27 Moreover, the father was active in the burial preparations, which were usually seen as a feminine field of duty up to the point that these responsibilities could put women into a liminal position between life and death.28 In addition to the 25

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 159r: ‘et ipse testis post eam dolorem fere nequintes commotis visceribus collapsi fuissent ad terram quasi ex animes et demum perfusi aquam in facie ad se ipsos redussent dicta Cristina [. . .] perfundente et aspergente dictam aquam in facies eorumdem’. 26

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 158v.

27

According to the studies on hegemonic masculinity, the most important feature in masculinities was the distinction from femininity. Parenting was not an important aspect in being a man, or forming adult masculinity. See Karras, From Boys to Men, and McNamara, ‘The Herrenfrage’. However, the depositions of the canonization processes stress different aspects of masculinity: offspring was considered important on all the levels of lay society, and collaboration of genders, emotional attachment, and protection of the defenceless formed an essential element of fatherhood. 28

The handling of corpses was polluting, thus usually done by women of inferior status. However, with death came the possibility of eternal life. This, in addition to the capability to give life through birth, gendered the physical contact between the worlds of dead and living as peculiarly feminine. Innes, ‘Keeping It in the Family’, pp. 26–29. On comparative aspects of connection between death, gender, and pollution, see also Maurice Bloch, ‘Death, Women, and Power’, in

256

Chapter 4

preparation for burial, the mourning as well as the commemorating was usually done by women.29 On this occasion the rather low status of Johannes — he was a fishmonger — may have altered the presuppositions of gendered roles and the manifestation of prestige. The small discrepancies in the depositions reveal the most intimate sphere of interaction in the reminiscence of the event. Even though Cristina seems to have been a fairly active participant in this event, her deposition varies from those given by the parents of the drowned boy. Cristina may have wanted to stress her own role in the course of action, yet it is also possible that she was not part of the formatting of the memories of this event among the family members. The family stressed features that held significance for them. Thus the sphere of reminiscence, the private recollection done by the family members, seems to have caused the greatest variation in testimonies. The Case of the Appillaterre Family In addition to the cries for help, other detailed quotations were the words of the intercessor. In Nicholas’s process special attention was paid to the speech of the saint, which was often recorded in the form of a direct quotation. Whether the miracle had taken place during the saint’s lifetime or whether the saint had appeared to the beneficiary in a vision, the dialogue connected with the miracle was often written down in the form of direct speech and, more importantly, remembered by different witnesses exactly and meticulously. As noted before, the Appillaterre family was very active in interaction with Saint Nicholas. Several family members had known the saint during his lifetime and had experienced miracles — whether in vita or after the saint’s death. The testimonies of Berardus Appillaterre and his daughter, Berardescha, who was at the time of the hearing married to Anthonius Thomaxii, are especially noteworthy.30 The third member of the family to testify was the younger daughter, Ceccha.31 It remains unknown why the other members of the family did not testify. The

Death and the Regeneration of Life, ed. by Maurice Bloch and Jonathan Parry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 211–30. 29

Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, pp. 48–80, and van Houts, Memory and Gender, pp. 94–96. 30

Nicholas, testis XVI, pp. 116–30, and testis LXXXIV, pp. 235–42.

31

Nicholas, testis LXXXV, pp. 243–47.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

257

Appillaterre family had at least two other children: Nicolucius and Tuccius had also experienced a miracle performed by Saint Nicholas. Berardus, Berardescha, and Ceccha were all mentioned in the list of the names of witnesses the proctor Friar Thomas presented to the commissioners at the beginning of the hearing.32 It is possible that Luctius, the son of Berardus, who was mentioned on this list was actually Tuccius mentioned before.33 The members of the Appillaterre family were summoned on 24 July. They, as well as other witnesses summoned from Tolentino, were personally found in Tolentino.34 Due to the unclear practicalities of Nicholas’s hearing it remains unknown whether all the members of the Appillaterre family were interviewed within small intervals or one after the other. As noted, not all the witnesses summoned to testify actually gave testimony or their depositions were not recorded. The depositions of Berardus, Berardescha, and Ceccha can be found in the process, yet at rather long distances from each other. The father, Berardus Appillaterre, testified as witness number sixteen, while the daughters testified as witness numbers eighty-four and eighty-five. The time proximity of the testimonies has significance due to the great accuracy of the depositions of Berardus and Berardescha. For example, when Margarita and Berardus wished for offspring yet all their children died or were stillborn Nicholas secured domina Margarita: ‘Sta secure, non dubites: quia tu facies unam filiam feminam [vivam], et vivet magno tempore, et si vixero tantum ego, ipsa portabit michi sepe sepius ad comedendum ex parte tua.’35 The only difference in these quotations is the word vivam marked in brackets, which can be found in the deposition of Berardus but not in the deposition of Berardescha. The difference is insignificant and does not affect the meaning of the speech.36 32

Nicholas, citationes testium, p. 25.

33

Nicholas, citationes testium, pp. 22 and 25: ‘Die predicta suprascriptus frater Thomas proctor et sindicus coram ipsis dominis episcopis, pro tribunali sedentibus [. . .] produxit et exibuit testes infrascriptos, videlicet [. . .]. Berardum Appiliaterre, Luctium eius filium.’ 34

Nicholas, citationes testium, p. 27: ‘requivisse omnes testes seculares predictos personaliter inventos in Tholentino’. In this actual summoning of witnesses Luccius/Tuccius is no longer mentioned. Yet Berardus, Berardescha, and Ceccha swore an oath on 24 July, thus they were presumably also interrogated on that day or soon afterwards. 35

Nicholas, testis LXXXIV, p. 236, and testis XVI, p. 125. ‘Be secure, do not hesitate: since you will have a living daughter and she will live for a long time, and if I am also to live, she will very often bring me something to eat from your part.’ 36

Ceccha, the younger daughter, also mentioned this miracle and also quoted the speech. Her deposition varies slightly, yet the deviation in the minor details does not affect the meaning of the

258

Chapter 4

The daughter to be born was Berardescha herself. Thus she, as well as Ceccha, had heard of the prediction from their mother. The role of Berardus was not important in this miracle. He had also heard of this incident from his wife. It is noteworthy that the memories of other miracles experienced by this family also include vivid details of dialogue and direct quotations. For example, in the miraculous cure of Ceccha, which also took place while Saint Nicholas was still alive, all the witnesses recall the dialogue between the other friars and Nicholas. Without anyone telling him, Nicholas knew that domina Margarita was grieving because of her daughter and urged the friars to make her to come to him: ‘Redite ad eam et dicatis [ei] ex parte mea: quod si possem venire ad eam, libenter venirem, sed bene scit ipsa quod ego non possum ambulare ita sum infirmus, veniat ipsa ad me et portet dictam Ceccham filiam suam et non faciat eam tangi cum ferro aliquo.’37 Once again the depositions of Berardus and Berardescha concur verbatim. The only difference is the word ei, which can be found in the deposition of Berardescha but not in the deposition of Berardus. This extreme accuracy raises the question whether the deposition of Berardescha could have been copied from the testimony of her father. Evidence pointing to copying can be seen, for example, in the name of the servant involved in the miracle. She was called Specia. Her name was mentioned to be Spena in the testimony of Berardescha. This kind of lapse was not probable when writing down the spoken testimony. Yet when copying the deposition from another written document the ci of the name Specia could have been easily turned to n, Spena. However, this does not necessarily mean that the document Berardescha’s testimony was copied from was the deposition of her father. Notaries took notes in the hearing and afterwards they wrote them out.38 This kind of lapse could have occurred while editing the deposition into its final form without copying it from somebody else’s testimony. In Nicholas’s case the copying of the process is apparent, since there exist two manuscripts of the actual canonization process. These manuscripts are not copies of each other but more likely copies from a common archetype.39

speech. Nicholas, testis LXXXV, p. 244: ‘Non dubites: quia tu facies unam filiam vivam et vivet magno tempore, et si vixero, portabit michi pluries ad comedendum.’ 37

Nicholas, testis XVI, p. 126, and testis LXXXIV, p. 236. ‘Return to her and tell her from my part that if I could walk to her I would gladly go there but she knows well I am so infirm that I cannot move around. So she should come to me and bring her daughter Ceccha with her and not let her be touched with any knife.’ 38

On this editing role of the notaries, see Vauchez, La Sainteté en Occident, pp. 53–54.

39

Gentili, ‘Introduzione’, pp. xxviii–xxix.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

259

Canon law explicitly forbade copying or witnesses’ influence on each other’s testimonies.40 Therefore it is not likely that one witness’s testimony could have been used as a model for copying some other’s deposition. Moreover, at the beginning of Nicholas’s hearing some ground rules for the execution were written down. The commissioners stated specifically that the words of all the witnesses were to be written down fully, exactly, and truthfully.41 The testimony of Ceccha concurs with that of Berardus and of Berardescha, varying slightly but rather insignificantly. The only difference is that she does not use the words ‘bene scit ipsa quod’. It is noteworthy that the questions were read to Ceccha in Italian, ‘vulgariter et distincte’. Thus her deposition also likely needed translation into Latin. This may explain the small deviation in the minor details. The order of incidents as well as the actual miracles recounted are different in the depositions of the members of the Appillaterre family. Moreover, after the exact quotations the depositions deviate from each other. For example, in the prediction of a living daughter Berardus ends his deposition of this miracle at the birth of Berardescha while Berardescha herself recalls how she did indeed several times bring food to Saint Nicholas and she did it always with pleasure since she knew about the miracle of her birth.42 Ceccha, on the other hand, ends the story of the miraculous birth of her sister by adding that she herself and all the others of their house were also born and created due to the merits of Saint Nicholas.43 Thus all these witnesses, Berardus, Berardescha, and Ceccha, added personal elements to their testimonies stressing the features that were significant for them. Memory is not only a matter of recalling past experiences but a continuous process of selection and negotiation over what will be remembered and what forgotten. Memories change since they are modified to meet the changing needs of the

40 On this feature and other practicalities in carrying out canonization hearings, see Krötzl, ‘Kanonisationsprozess, Socialgeschichte und Kanonisches Recht’, pp. 21–22, and Krötzl, ‘Prokuratoren, Notare und Dolmetscher’, pp. 122–23. 41

Nicholas, documenta et mandata, p. 13: ‘et verba testis cuiuslibet plene et distincte fideliter redigantur in scriptis’. The notaries of the Cantilupe process did not always write down all the answers of all the witnesses. They only concluded that the witness replied in a similar manner to the last questions as did the previous witness. The summarizing method was clearly written down; see for example BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 165r. 42 Nicholas, testis LXXXIV, p. 236: ‘et dixit quod propter predicta que mater retulerant ipsi testi, numquam dimisit, nec per pluviam nec per nivem, quin portaret libenter comestionem dicto fratri Nicolao’. 43

Nicholas, testis LXXXV, p. 244.

260

Chapter 4

present.44 It is possible and even probable that the quotations of Nicholas’s speech had altered during the years when they were repeated and memorized collectively. Likely the narrations and commemorations of the miracles had become a sort of family ritual, which helped to maintain the fixed form and to memorize the quotations verbatim. Generally in conversations a remarkable part of talk involves speaking of the words of others. However, memory and language studies claim that women are more attentive to these past speech acts. Women in their narrations use direct quotations of past conversations. Quoting speech as close to verbatim as possible is an important feature in the narratives of women.45 In the case of the Appillaterre family no gender-based distinctions in the accuracy of direct quotations can be found. Moreover, the use of language is always very closely related to the cultural context, and the gendered practices may not be generalized. On this occasion the dialogue and the words of the saint seem to have been an essential part of the narration. These details were equally important for all the witnesses. Gender did not dictate the attention paid to the words of the saint. The detailed quotations of the saint’s words were presumably a way to stress the personal relationship the family, and especially the mother, had had with Saint Nicholas. However, other details were not equally important. For example, the actual time of the miracle was not relevant. On several occasions Berardus, Berardescha, and Ceccha replied that they did not remember the time of the miracle. The only turning point they mentioned was quite often the death of Nicholas: the miracle had taken place before or after it. Since the family had experienced so many miracles it was undoubtedly hard to keep track of details of lesser importance, like the exact date of the event. However, the inability of all these witnesses to remember the date similarly testifies to the collective reminiscence done within the domestic sphere. Presumably these details had not come up in the narrations by mother or by other family members, thus the witnesses were unable to remember them. 44

Teski and Climo, ‘Introduction’; Climo and Cattell, ‘Meaning in Social Memory and History’; Tonkin, Narrating Our Pasts; and Fentress and Wickham, Social Memory. On medieval examples of selecting, interpreting, and transforming experiences or past events into useful memories, see Wickham, ‘Gossip and Resistance’; Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, especially pp. 158–76; and Bedell, ‘Memory and Proof of Age’. On the political perspective, see also Spiegel, Past as Text, pp. 83–98. 45

On the gendered use of past speech and quotations in narrations, see Richard Ely and Alyssa McCabe, ‘Gender Differences in Memories for Speech’, in Gender and Memory, ed. by Selma Leydesdorff, Luisa Passerini, and Paul Thompson, International Yearbook of Oral History and Life Stories, 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 17–30.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

261

The importance of the date of a miracle undoubtedly depended on the occasion. In the public miracles with a cohesive role the date may have also been important for the witnesses to remember. Indeed, on many occasions the witnesses could remember the date exactly even after decades.46 Interestingly, on some occasions several witnesses mention the same date as the time of the miracle even though it could not have been correct.47 Presumably in these cases the witnesses had also shared memories of the incident and by these narrations affected each other’s recollections. The questions of the accurate date and time served like other details in validating the witnesses’ testimonies and miracles. However, deviation in these incidents did not usually arouse the interest of the commissioners. For example, in the case of the Appillaterre family the lack of the exact time of the miracle did not interest the commissioners holding the hearing. The copying of testimony from other depositions is highly unbelievable, but one may ponder to what extent the witnesses otherwise influenced each other’s testimonies.48 The long exact quotations arouse, if not suspicion, at least wonder. How is it possible for several witnesses to remember speeches verbatim after more than two decades? Verbatim quotations were crucially important in medieval culture, and memorizing techniques were developed to support recollection. However, they were in use in the educated monastic circles for memorizing from written examples, thus most likely they were not utilized by the Appillaterre family.49 Were Berardus, Berardescha, and Ceccha interviewed simultaneously? This did not accord with canon law, yet one peculiar detail in the depositions suggests that all three were present in front of the commissioners at the same time.50 All three 46

In the case of Johanna la Schirreue nearly all the witnesses defined the date as ‘quadam die domenica ante festum beati Georgii’ even though the year of the incident varies from one witness to another. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 124r, 127r, 131v , 134r, 135v, 136v, 137v, and 139r. 47

See Hanska, ‘Hanging of William Cragh’, pp. 134–36.

48

Similarly in the Cantilupe hearing the witnesses may have directly influenced each other’s testimonies since some of the witnesses were interviewed for several days. For example BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 133v , 141r , and 172v . However, the commissioners also specifically asked about the influence of others: ‘Ultimo requisitus [. . .] an concordavit cum aliis testis sic deponere et utrum doctus vel instructus fuit testificari.’ For example ibid., fol. 160v. 49 50

On memorizing techniques and educated memory, see Carruthers, Book of Memory.

Mariani, ‘Racconto spontaneo o memoria construita?’, pp. 268 and 272–79, claims that the simultaneous interrogation of the witnesses in Nicholas’s process is possible. He uses as an example another miracle with similar yet not as remarkable resemblances. However, Mariani concludes that most likely the testimonies were spontaneous despite the similitude in the vocabulary and expressions. He assumes the reason for this to be the refreshed collective memory. In other words the witnesses may have recalled the event together before giving their testimony.

262

Chapter 4

recall that domina Margarita had washed the hands and feet of the deceased Nicholas and kept the water as a relic. In Berardus’s and Berardescha’s testimonies it was recorded that the water was shown to the commissioners: ‘que quidem aqua fuit ostensa sic clara coram ispis venerabilibus patribus dominis episcopis supradictis’.51 Presumably this family valuable was not allowed out of sight of the family members or was shown by each witness to the commissioners. In Ceccha’s testimony it was particularly stated that the water was shown when the witness was present: ‘presente ipsa teste’. Berardescha was duly asked to clarify how she knew this was the same water as the authentic relic. On this occasion the reference was to the water being shown to the commissioners.52 In addition to the narrations, this relic served to commemorate the miracles. As a devotional object it emphasized the commitment to this saint and served as concrete proof of the memories. The rituals connected with this relic, taking it out and putting it on a sore member, duly also helped to construct and transform the memories of the relationship with the saint.53 Thus these witnesses had undoubtedly influenced each others’ testimonies whether they were interviewed together or not. The actual interrogation hardly had any influence on their recollection or memorized details. Thus, in this case, it is rather insignificant whether the witnesses were interrogated separately or not. Commemoration and Passing on the Devotion The importance of women’s memories within and about the family is stressed. The commemorative role could be seen as an obligation especially for noble women. Generally women passed on their memories orally.54 The case of the Appillaterre family also stresses the authority of the mother: Margarita was the prime mover in the domestic devotion, in transmitting piety to the next generation, and in 51

Nicholas, testis XVI, p. 129, and testis LXXXIV, p. 241.

52

Nicholas, testis LXXXIV, p. 242: ‘Iterrogata quomodo scit quod ista aqua sit illa cum qua fuerunt lavati pedes et manus dicti fratris Nicolai que modo ostensa est coram dictis venerabilibus patribus, dixit quia recognoscit et vas et aquam et copertorium.’ The word modo could mean just or just now. 53

On transmitting memories through rituals, see Connerton, How Societies Remember, pp. 41–71. 54

On women’s role in recollection and their presentation in the sources, see Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, pp. 51–79; van Houts, Memory and Gender, pp. 65–92; and Medieval Memories, ed. by van Houts.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

263

constructing the family memory. The leading commemorative role of Margarita was also acknowledged by Berardus. He was not active, and often not even present, at the scene of the miracle. Moreover, in his deposition he often relied on the recollection and narration of his wife.55 Berardescha had been present at many miracles. She stated that she was twentyfive years old and more. Since Nicholas had died twenty years earlier she had been a very young child at the time of the majority of the miracles. However, she frequently stated that she knew about the incident since she saw, heard, and was present. Undoubtedly she would not have remembered the details or the exact quotations if her mother had not talked frequently about the incidents. Sharing memories and narrations with a child is also a way to educate him or her. These narratives constructed the memories and formatted the perceptions of the past of the Appillaterre family. In this sense the ownership of memory was also a question of authority — to control the memory is to control the meaning. The ability to remember events also equals the ability to interpret and transmit them.56 It was Margarita’s interpretation that was transmitted to the other members of the family. Her reconstruction of events formed the shared memories of the Appillaterre family.57 She had saved these miraculous events from oblivion and simultaneously she had prevented her own memory from fading. At the time of the hearing domina Margarita was dead, so her memories of the incidents cannot be directly found. Among the devotees of the Appillaterre family, Berardescha was the only one to claim that she did not resort to medicine but preferred the help of Saint Nicholas when she was ill. According to her testimony, her pleading was constantly heard and fulfilled.58 It seems that Berardescha was imitating her mother’s activity and 55

Nicholas, testis XVI, pp. 125–28: ‘Interrogatus quomodo scit predicta, dixit quod ex relatione dicte uxoris sue [. . .] dixit quia audivit dici a dicta eius uxore, quia ipse testis tunc temporis erat absens a terra Tholentini [. . .] dixit quod ipse nescit aliter nisi ex relatione dicte domine Margarite, quia ipse non fuit presens quando peperit, nec vidit predicta.’ However, on the acknowledged devotional role of Berardus and his daughters, see Nicholas, testis CCXXI, p. 478. 56

See also Climo and Cattell, ‘Meaning in Social Memory and History’, and Teski and Climo, ‘Introduction’. 57

Her interpretation of the case where Saint Nicholas saved the soul of her stillborn child in a vision was especially important. Margarita was uncertain whether the child had survived to be baptized. However, Nicholas urged Margarita to bury the child in church yet forbade her to tell anyone about the incident. Margarita did not reveal this before the death of Nicholas, thus she was the only source of the information. Nicholas, testis XVI, p. 128; testis LXXXIV, p. 238; and testis LXXXV, p. 245. 58

Nicholas, testis LXXXIV, p. 241.

264

Chapter 4

possibly trying to achieve a similar role as an acknowledged devotee whose remembrance plays a crucial role in constituting the family memory. Ceccha was only approximately two years younger than Berardescha, yet she referred quite often to the words of her older sister as a source of information on the miracles.59 Apparently Berardescha was eager to pursue her role as the one who recalled these incidents. She may have felt that being the eldest child she needed to assume the responsibility by commemorating the miracles and showing devotion to the family’s patron saint. Undoubtedly the mother had set the tone for the domestic devotion and the children grew up to be devoted to Saint Nicholas. Since Berardescha was the eldest child she had been present and had more personal recollections of these events, yet she had also heard more repetitions of these narrations than her younger siblings. Possibly Berardescha felt responsible for passing on the domestic devotion. Older children exercised authority over younger siblings: the rank within families was established according to age.60 Presumably the eldest daughter shared many of the daily responsibilities and activities with her mother. However, Berardescha did not bear the responsibility for commemorating the patron of the family alone since the mother had died less than eight years before the hearing. At that time Berardescha was already married, thus probably she did not intensely continue her mother’s role in passing on the memories of the grace bestowed among her siblings even though she continued to visit her childhood family after her marriage.61 A more important reason for Berardescha’s devotion and activity may have been the reality that Berardescha was in a way dedicated to Saint Nicholas since she was born after his intervention and prediction. The repeated narrations of her miraculous birth had undoubtedly affected her sense of self and aroused her interest in the cult.62 The narrations of memories formed — or at least affected — the sense of self for individuals, groups, and communities; recollections are strongly connected with people’s social roles.63 59

Nicholas, testis LXXXV, pp. 244–45: ‘Item dixit quod audivit dici a predictis matre sua et sorore sua. [. . .] Interrogata quomodo scit predicta, dixit quia audivit dici a dictis matre et sorore ipsius testis.’ 60

Lett, ‘Adult Brothers and Juvenile Uncles’, and Lett, ‘Brothers and Sisters’.

61

Nicholas, testis LXXXIV, p. 242: ‘et postquam fuit nupta aliquando ibat ad domum matris’.

62 See also Lett, ‘Adult Brothers and Juvenile Uncles’, p. 397. On the importance of narrated memories in identity formation, see Climo and Cattell, ‘Meaning in Social Memory and History’, and Connerton, How Societies Remember, pp. 22–30. 63

See Tonkin, Narrating Our Pasts, p. 96 and passim.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

265

Thus the vivid and exact memories of these events reveal their personal importance to Berardescha. It is possible that Berardescha also took an active role in encouraging the devotion to Saint Nicholas in her marital family. She had been married for at least nine years at the time of the hearing. Presumably she had adopted the role of commemorator in her marital family. In addition to the stories of her birth family she also recounted a miracle that had happened in her husband’s house. Her husband, Anthonius Thomaxii, was also devoted to Saint Nicholas. He had experienced several miracles performed by Nicholas.64 Interestingly, all the miracles had taken place after his marriage to Berardescha. Anthonius Thomaxii was originally from Tolentino. He had also known Nicholas personally. Anthonius stated that he was more than thirty-eight years old. Thus he was several years older than his wife, and he had been nearly adult when Nicholas died. He was well aware of the fame of sanctity of Nicholas and claimed that after having made his confession of sins to Nicholas he was always afterwards devoted to him. Indeed, the timing of the miraculous experiences after the marriage may have been only a coincidence, since not all of even the most devoted invocations were answered. However, apparently Anthonius did not adopt the devotion to Saint Nicholas in his native home. His father refused to fulfil Anthonius’s vow to give a wax bull to the shrine after Nicholas had cured Anthonius’s bull. Only after the animal was afflicted again did the father offer the image.65 The miraculous recovery of Anthonius’s horse is the only incident his wife recounted. Berardescha had actually heard the vow only in this miracle.66 Interestingly, it is also recounted more vividly than the other miracles, including direct quotations in the invocation. The renown of this miracle had also spread further, since Berardus, the father-in-law of Anthonius, also knew about the recovery of the horse. Berardus also cited the invocation accurately.67 The other miracles are recounted

64

Nicholas, testis CXXI, pp. 318–22.

65

Nicholas, testis CXXI, p. 321.

66

Berardescha was also present at the miraculous recovery of her husband yet he made the vow silently, ‘votum fecit in corde suo’: Nicholas, testis CXXI, p. 319. 67

Anthonius and Berardescha recounted verbatim the invocation: ‘O Beate Nicholae, qui me iuvasti de tot periculis, iuva me de isto roncino ut non perdam eum, quia ego promitto cras mane tempestive cum surrexero ire ad emendum unam libram cere et portare ad archam tuam’ (Nicholas, testis LXXXIV, p. 240, and testis CXXI, p. 321). The minor differentiation in Berardus’s deposition does not affect the meaning. ‘O Beate Nicolae, qui me iuvasti de tot periculis, iuva me de isto roncino ut non perdam eum; ego promitto cras mane tempestive cum surrexero emere unam libram cere et portabo ad archam tuam’ (ibid., testis XVI, p. 129).

266

Chapter 4

only by Anthonius. These incidents were not recalled by others even though they, like the rescue from the storm at sea, would have been more entertaining narrations. However, the recovery of the horse was the more widely known event. Were the vivid details and exact quotations due to the role of Berardescha? Her role as a commemorator was acknowledged: her father stated that he had heard of the recovery of the horse from Anthonius and Berardescha. Berardescha was used to remembering the details of miracles since she had witnessed so many of them. She was also apparently eager to promote the cult of Saint Nicholas and probably even her own role as a devotee. Her meticulous narrations as well as the refusal of doctors or medicaments imply firm commitment to Saint Nicholas. However, there is another explanation for the more vivid quotations of the invocation. The other miracles took place several years before the hearing while the recovery of the horse happened less than a year before the interrogation. Berardescha played an important role in commemorating the miracles her family had experienced. Yet it seems that she did not otherwise occupy an active role in the cult. She memorized and obviously narrated the miracles to family members, yet she did not invoke Saint Nicholas for others. It remains unknown whether Berardescha had children of her own to pass on the devotion for Nicholas. No children or miraculous cures experienced by them are mentioned in Berardescha’s or Anthonius’s depositions. Moreover, Berardescha mentions her own miraculous cures only very briefly, after long narrations of miracles petitioned by her mother.68 The younger daughter, Ceccha, who did not recall the past events as meticulously as her elder sister, had otherwise taken an active and independent role in the interaction with Saint Nicholas: Nicholas had revived her daughter Clarucia who was thought to have suffocated under Ceccha’s arm in bed.69 Didier Lett has analysed the relationship between these sisters and claims that Ceccha admired her older sister and wanted to identify with her, yet at the same time she wished to be different.70 Indeed, the statement that all the children of the Appillaterre family were born after the intervention of Saint Nicholas implies her identification as a saint’s

68 Nicholas, testis LXXXIV, p. 241: ‘Interrogata de quibus infirmitatibus fuit liberata, dixit quod pluries de febre, de doloribus et de maxime de quodam dolore fortissimo quem habebat in parte sinistra ita quod non poterat se tangere et, facto voto per eam ad dictum beatum Nicolaum, statim fuit liberata a dicto dolore.’ Moreover, Berardescha does not exemplify the bond between herself and Nicholas by emphasizing any specific votive offerings or devotional practices connected to the cult. 69

Nicholas, testis LXXXV, p. 243.

70

Lett, ‘Adult Brothers and Juvenile Uncles’, p. 397.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

267

chosen, like her sister. However, she — unlike her sister — stressed her independent activity by starting her deposition with the revival of Clarucia. It remains unknown whether Ceccha played an important role in her own family as a commemorator of Nicholas’s deeds and a prime mover of the domestic devotion. Perhaps, when the little Clarucia was growing up, she was also told and retold the story of her miraculous revival by her mother who was hence passing on the devotion to Saint Nicholas to the next generation. The recollection of miracles can be seen as interaction with the sacred. The relationship with the intercessor was emphasized and evaluated by the narrations. Both of these cases recounted here at length stress the importance of the family as the sphere of interaction. The amount of detail indicates the active recollection done within the family. The narrations of the miracles were recounted and retold in the domestic sphere by parents and children. In the drowned Nicholas’s case the recollection, the narrations as well as the commemorative pilgrimage, seems to have been undertaken by both the mother and father, while the example of the Appillaterre family stresses the role of the mother. Thus the memories and commemoration of miracles emphasize similar features in the gender roles and family interaction as other devotional practices studied here. The parental collaboration seems to have formed an essential element in the Cantilupe process, while women’s role in domestic devotion is stressed in Nicholas’s records. The contradictory statements in the depositions may reveal the presumably unconscious wish to stress one’s own role in the incident while the identical testimonies manifest the collective recalling of the event. However, this collective memory could also include personal elements which are shown in the additions and explanations in the depositions of the Appillaterre family. Occasionally the reminiscence was also done within the wider spheres. The direct quotations are not the only proof of the efficiency of the collective recollection. Other details, like visions of an appearing saint, can also reveal important aspects of the recalling of the event and the sphere of collective commemoration.

Narrations and the Sphere of Recollection Visions and Apparitions In addition to the words of the saint, other features in the depositions were also worth scrutinizing in detail and even quoting verbatim. The commissioners were

268

Chapter 4

also interested in the visions and apparitions of the saint. Witnesses were allowed to recount these experiences quite freely. They were important in certifying the divine intercessor. Since visions or apparitions were not an indispensable part of the miracle, like the invocation, the questioning formula above did not include questions on these phenomena. Not all the witnesses were interrogated about these aspects. Visions played an important role in the thoughts and imagination of the laity. Quite often the vision was a crucial element in the miracle, therefore they were also an essential part of the memories and narrations of the event. Consequently these small, significant, yet not indispensable details of the miracle reveal the intensity of the collective memory and the sphere within which the reminiscence of the event occurred. The visions shed light on both the elite’s theological definitions as well as the more popular notions of religion. The theological context of the vision was set out in late Antiquity when Augustine (354–430) divided the types of vision into corporeal, spiritual, and intellectual. This distinction was valid throughout the Middle Ages. For example, Caesarius of Heisterbach utilizes this division in his Dialogue on Miracles.71 However, these distinctions or the theological context do not seem to interest the witnesses or the commissioners. The majority of the miracles took place while the beneficiary was asleep, thus fulfilling the requirements of visio spiritualis. Ordinarily the witnesses do not make a distinction between apparitions and visions but use the terms interchangeably.72 Similarly the commissioners seem to have been fairly indifferent to the distinction between dreams and visions. The witnesses themselves do not speculate whether the apparition was an actual vision or just a dream. Nor do the commissioners pose any classifying questions.73

71

DM VIII, cap. 1.

72

For example ‘apparuit dicte uxori sue dictus frater Nicolaus in visione’ (Nicholas, testis CLV, p. 375); ‘apparuit sibi in visione in somniis’ (ibid., testis CCXXVI, p. 501); ‘in visione apparuit’ (ibid., testis CCLII, p. 532); ‘apparens ei multis noctibus videbatur porrigere sibi manum et umerum quod volebat iuvare eam ex quibus visionibus accensa petebat quod portarent eam ad tumulum dicti sancti Thome’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 175v ). 73

Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 83–84, stresses the significance of the distinction between dreams and visions, also among the laity, while Peter Dinzelbacher, Vision und Visionsliteratur im Mittelalter, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 23 (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1981), pp. 29–56, claims that basically there was no distinction between these phenomena during the Middle Ages.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

269

Moreover, the choice of a specific word for the written deposition may have been a situation where the more educated interpreters and notaries have chosen the Latin word which they considered most suitable. Therefore the comparison of specific words may not necessarily explain the phenomenon or the different interpretations among the visionaries. Nor can the theological knowledge of the witnesses be deduced by analysing the choice of words. Visions were also seen as a gendered mode of religiosity. In the clerical literature women were typically considered more prone to visions since they were considered to have more imagination.74 However, in Nicholas’s records the quantitative aspect of visions does not emphasize their gendered nature while the content of these miracles was closely connected to the gender and social roles of the visionary.75 However, the gendered aspect of visions is further blurred by the feature that occasionally the one to testify was not the one who had actually seen the vision. In Nicholas’s process there are several cases where the visionary does not testify, but the testimony was given by somebody else. Above all the Augustinian friars were keen on recounting the visions of other people.76 The officials of Hereford cathedral recounted visions only when they had been present at the shrine at the moment of the vision.77 The reason for the activity of the Augustinian friars was most likely their eagerness to promote the cult of Saint Nicholas: the appearing saint certified the intercessor that had brought about the cure. Therefore the visions played an important 74

The better imaginative ability of women was considered both in positive and in negative terms in their spirituality: women were more prone to visions and revelations yet also more susceptible to superstition. Women’s imaginative power was seen as natural for them and closely connected with their bodies and sexuality: for example, the mental images of an expecting mother could affect the appearance of the foetus. Dyan Elliott, Fallen Bodies: Pollution, Sexuality, and Demonology in the Middle Ages, Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), pp. 37–45. 75

In Nicholas’s records visions were connected altogether to twenty-one miracles, which are divided quite evenly between men and women (ten men, eleven women). The equivalent numbers in the Cantilupe process are nine visions of which six appeared to women and three to men. However, in Nicholas’s process only women report exhortations to pilgrimage given by the appearing saint while only men report visions connected with liberation miracles. In the Cantilupe process the visions reported were regularly connected with the saint’s healing ability, which did not depend on the gender of the visionary. 76 Altogether seven friars testify to somebody else’s visions of Nicholas. Nicholas, testis VII, p. 85; testis IX, p. 92; testis X, p. 96; testis CXLVIII, pp. 357–58; testis CLIV, p. 375; testis CLV, p. 378; and testis CLXXVII, p. 418. 77

For example BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 212r and 237v.

270

Chapter 4

part in validating the miracles and confirming the saint’s abilities in the canonization processes. In addition to the will to promote the cult, the more profound knowledge and wider experience in spiritual matters may lie behind the eagerness of the friars. Presumably they could have recollected and distinguished the important facts in validating the miracle more precisely. However, the visions were also important for the lay witnesses. Often they mention that they were aware of the apparition seen by the beneficiary. Such features were important enough to be mentioned even though the witness was not familiar with the details. For example, Daniel Landeney gave his deposition to the miraculous recovery of Adam de Kylpek. He did not remember or know any details of the vision yet he considered it important enough to be mentioned that it was publicly and commonly reported that Adam had seen a vision at the shrine.78 Widespread knowledge of visions can also be found in other cases.79 However, quite often the remarks of the apparitions lack further details. The knowledge of the incident did not accord with the precise recollection of the particularities: to be aware of and remember all the minute details required a position within a close circle of the visionary to be part of the recollection of the event. The similarities and especially the exact accuracy in the diverse depositions imply a story regularly heard and several times recounted. Parental Roles in Forming Memories The visions certified the performer of the miracle, yet the commissioners were not very eager to validate this feature in the testimonies. The commissioners seem to have taken the words of the visionaries as given, because no auxiliary or clarifying questions about the visions were posed in Nicholas’s process. Naturally the authenticity of the vision was hard if not impossible to prove. However, no attempt to identify the appearing figure was made. Nor were the commissioners interested in how the visionaries identified the person in the vision.80

78

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 237r: ‘Et publice ac communiter referebatur eundem Adam habuisse nescit quam visionem prope tumulum.’ 79

For example, dominus Petrus, the chaplain of Cradley, and Johannes de la Guyalle were aware of the visions connected with the recoveries of Johannes de Hammeleie and Iuliana de Credeleye even though they were not relatives or especially close friends. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 242r–v. 80

On some occasions the means of identification were spoken. The witnesses could explain that the appearing Saint Clare was similar to a picture above her shrine: Clare, testis CXIX, p. 398,

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

271

Clarifying questions of identification of the appearing figure were not very regular in the Cantilupe process, either. However, the miraculously cured Alicia was, for example, asked to specify the time of the vision. She was also interrogated about the people who were present when Thomas Cantilupe appeared to her in a dream at the shrine.81 Alicia’s unprivileged status as a beggar may have affected the reliability of her words. It is possible that the commissioners needed further assurance to believe her utterances. More common, however, were auxiliary questions about the look of the appearing figure. Quite often they were about the clothing of the former bishop. It is noteworthy that these questions were not written down in the depositions. Jacobus Atteperie gave his testimony to the recoveries of his nephews. A vision was an important part of the miracle. He stated that a bishop, he did not know with what kind of clothes, appeared to Adam de Kylpek in a light.82 Apparently the commissioners had asked him to clarify this detail, otherwise he would not have mentioned his lack of knowledge of the apparel.83 The interest in the clothing may have been due to the other depositions of this miracle. Adam and his mother, Margeria, meticulously described the priestly clothes with which Saint Thomas had touched the blind boy’s eyes thus curing them. The vision was obviously more significant for them, and their precise recollection of the details of the cure is understandable. However, there may also be another explanation. According to Gilbertus, the custodian of the shrine at that time, the cured Adam had shouted that a man had appeared to him. This man was dressed in such clothes as his late uncle, who had been a priest, was buried in.84

and testis CXXVIII, p. 405. Or witnesses had known Saint Thomas during his lifetime and therefore there were no doubts about the identity of the appearing figure: BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 212r. Nicholas could introduce himself to the visionaries who were not familiar with him (Nicholas, testis XXIII, p. 142, and testis CCLVI, p. 536), or witnesses mention only an appearing friar or friars (testis CVII, p. 301, and testis CCCXXII, p. 611). 81

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 67v –68r.

82 BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 236r: ‘quod quidam episcopus nescit cum quibus vestibus aparuerat cum lumine prope ipsum tumulum eidem Ade’. 83

A similar statement can also be found in the case of the paralysed Agnes de la Hulle. She had also seen a vision at the shrine when she was cured. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 238v : ‘apparuit sibi dormienti de nocte in dicta ecclesia quidam vir nescit quo indutus’. 84

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 237v : ‘circa auroram dictus Adam in predicto lecto clamantem et dicentem quod quidam vir indutus talibus vestibus quales habebat quidam presbyter eiusdem Ade avunculus quando fuit cum ipsius vestibus sepultus’.

272

Chapter 4

It is possible that in the mind of this five-year-old boy the dead bishop was commingled with a more familiar figure of religious status. Yet he may have only used the more vivid image of his uncle’s burial to describe the appearing figure. The similarity of the clothing of the appearing saint and the deceased uncle did not interest or disturb the commissioners. Auxiliary questions were posed to the other witnesses to clarify the appearance, but no hesitation about the authenticity of the vision or appearing figure can be found. The reference to the burial may also have been the reason that the clothing was remembered after twenty years. It is noteworthy that Margeria, the mother, actually described the clothes with more precision than the visionary himself.85 As an adult Margeria could have inspected and remembered the funeral clothes with more accuracy than her young son. However, she also recounts the whole vision with more details than the visionary himself. Margeria stated that the appearing figure went towards the east window and Adam shouted after him asking where he was going.86 Adam’s deposition was more modest in the details.87 Undoubtedly this story had also been narrated within the family, and the mother had an active commemorative role. Many of the witnesses refer to the narrations of the mother as a source of knowledge.88 Moreover, the incident was well known locally. The chaplain of the parish stated that he knew about the incident only through the narration of the mother and others. It was done publicly and collectively.89 Thus the recounting of the event must have been frequent and the incident famous. However, the collective memory of the event was not as frequent and effective — or as newly refreshed — as in the case of the Appillaterre family since the

85

According to Margeria, the clothes were ‘vestes presbytales albas cum cruce ante et retro’, while Adam himself stated only that the figure was ‘hominem indutum sicut induntur sacerdotes vestibus albis’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 235r and 235v). 86

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 235r: ‘postmodum exiverat per unam magnam fenestram vitream orientalem prope tumulum et dictus Adam apertis oculis respiciebat eum et petebat quo ivisset’. 87

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 235v : ‘vidit eum exeuntem cum lumine per irandam fenestram vitream dicte ecclesie’. 88

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 235v : ‘deposuit de relatum quod mater super hoc de scientia deposuit’; ibid., fol. 235v : ‘dixit se nichil scire nisi per relatum matris sue’; ibid., fol. 236r: ‘quod nichil scire de dictis miraculis nisi ex relatu matris predictorum Ade et Rogeri’; ibid., fol. 236r: ‘Item dixit se audivisse referri a matre’. 89

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 236r.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

273

particularities are not as precisely recalled in this miracle. The younger brother, Rogerus, stated that he knew about the incident only from the narration of his mother and others. He did not recount any details. The older brother, Willelmus, recounts the incident briefly and mentions the appearing figure, the touching of the eyes, and the departure through the window.90 However, some of the missing details may have been due to the interrogation procedure. The commissioners were apparently not interested in hearing testimonies that were hearsay. Thus, for example, the interrogation of Rogerus, the younger brother, was cut short. Since both Adam and Rogerus lived still with their mother, there should have been good opportunities for family reminiscence. The daughters of Margeria were not interrogated, so it remains unknown whether they would have offered more precise details.91 In the case of the Appillaterre family the narrations of miracles were recounted several times by the mother with the daughters. Mother and daughters shared the same responsibilities and occupied the same spheres during the daily labour, while the daily tasks were fairly different for the mother and her sons. Perhaps there were not as many good occasions for collective recollection for the Kylpek family. The gender of the participants may have caused the less precise memories of the event. Presumably the recollection could have taken place more often with family members of the same gender, thus making possible the more exact recalling of certain details. The father of the boys was dead at the time of the hearing. He did not play any role in the miraculous recovery, either. He is not even mentioned in the depositions. It remains unknown whether the lack of paternal reminiscence is the reason for less precise memories. The parental collaboration is obvious in the rituals of miracles performed by Saint Thomas. Usually both of the parents took part in the invocation; regularly the whole family participated in the (annual) pilgrimage to the shrine. Presumably these notions were also valid for the rituals of reminiscence of the miracle. This was the case at least in the miraculous revival of the drowned Nicholas. However, the most important reason for the less precise narration of the recovery of Adam de Kylpek was likely the less significant maternal devotion to Saint

90

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 238r: ‘fuit domenica sequenti circa auroram ut audivit miraculose illuminatus dictus Adam per quedam quem dicebat sibi apparuisse et eius oculos extrasisse per fenestram recesisse’. 91

Margeria stated that Johanna and Amabilia, her daughters, were taking care of Rogerus when he was miraculously cured at the same time as his older brother at the shrine. However, Amabilia was dead at the time of the hearing. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 235r.

274

Chapter 4

Thomas. Maternal activity was not a crucial element in this cure, as in the miracles experienced by the Appillaterre family. Margeria had heard about this new saint from her sister, who had returned from the shrine. Her sister invoked Saint Thomas and did the measuring. Margeria did not accompany her son to the shrine, either. Moreover, she does not describe any particular devotional practices after the miracle. She only admits that the miracle increased her devotion and made her firmer in faith.92 Apparently she was not a known devotee or closely connected with the cult. This is a major difference when compared to the Appillaterre family: especially the mother but also the father and daughters were known to be devoted to Saint Nicholas.93 However, there are also other examples where the gender of the participants may have affected the family recollection. For example, Willelmus de Lonesdale does not mention the nocturnal vision of Saint Thomas which his daughter had at the shrine. The vision and the healing practices in it were essential elements in Alicia’s cure from paralysis. Moreover, the father and the daughter had a close relationship otherwise: Alicia’s mother had died and the father took care of his infirm daughter: he measured the girl and arranged the pilgrimage from London to Hereford.94 However, the father apparently was not present at the shrine at the moment Alicia was cured. Moreover, there are other well-justified reasons for the lack of details in his depositions: Willelmus was seriously ill and close to death.95 Presumably Alicia had commemorated the miracle since her account of the vision is very precise. Alicia’s meticulous narration emphasized the appearance of the saint and the way the appearing figure stroked her as well as her healing process.96 92

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 235r. This question was a regular part of the questioning formula. 93

On the acknowledged devotional role of Berardus and his daughters, see Nicholas, testis CCXXI, p. 478. 94

Willelmus and Alicia were beggars, and the father used to carry his paralysed daughter on his back begging for alms. Alicia was paralysed for nearly ten years, and other remedies did not help her. The pilgrimage was not easily arranged: they had to beg for money to get a cart in which Alicia was pulled to Hereford. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 65r–68 r. 95

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 64 v : ‘laborabat in extremiis’. Because of his condition he testified in his residence. 96

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fols 66v–67 r: ‘visum fuit sibi quod venit ad eam quidam vir senex magnus pulcher canus et albus sicut lilium habens vestes candidas et anulum in manum cum quattuor lapidibus preciosis et in capite videbatur portare operimentum sive pilleum nigrum cuius caude pendebat subtus collum ad modum Almicie [sic] que portatur intra ecclesiam a capellanis et videbatur tenere lac in manu in quadam parva pixide’. The old man stroked Alicia with milk-like liquid

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

275

Alicia’s long description is a clear testimony to the importance of the visions for the commissioners as well as for the visionaries. Low-status witnesses were also allowed to recount their memories in detail. The apparitions were important elements in the miracles. Witnesses had several ways to give meaning to their memories, for example, by fitting the recalled event into the generally recognized patterns of a miracle story. Visions were notable features common to didactic miracle stories as well as the testimonies of real life experience. The memories evoked and miracles narrated may have become fixed according to stereotypes. The typical features of the miracle stories helped the participants to remember and understand their experiences.97 The saint acting as an earthly doctor was a known hagiographic topos. Similarly the sign of the cross, also mentioned by Alicia, was typical for saints appearing in visions.98 Likewise Alicia’s personal experiences with doctors may have influenced the way she interpreted the saint’s actions.99 Alicia described the figure wearing white, typical priestly vestments, while she also used her personal experiences, the way the officials had carried her to the shrine, to describe the appearance of the clothing. Alicia’s deposition illustrates the intermingling of personal significance and the cultural values and perceptions of the surrounding society.100 However, it remains unknown how many times she had actually shared her memories of the event or interpreted the content of the miracle with others. It seems to be that the miracle was not actively or collectively commemorated. Some Londoners of Alicia’s neighbourhood were present at Hereford cathedral at the time of the cure. Moreover, all the other witnesses stated that they had regularly seen Alicia before and after her cure. However, the vision, let alone the details,

from throat to bellybutton and twice both infirm legs. Afterwards Alicia was able to move her arms ‘levavit ambas manus et ambo brachia versus celum supra caput suum et clamavit alta voce domine sancte Thome, domine sancte Thome miserere mei et tunc dum sic clamaret et manus ad celum erectas teneret ille senex qui palpaverat eam et inunxerat quasi subridens fecit signum crucis supra frontem et vultum dicte Alicie non tamen tangendo eam et disparuit facto signo crucis predicto’. 97

See also Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning’, pp. 441–42, and Hanska, ‘Hanging of William Cragh’, pp. 132–34. 98

See also Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 67–68.

99

Magister Gilbertus, a London surgeon, had, as an act of mercy, twice put a bandage (emplastra) on her leg. BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 66v . 100

On the interconnection between personal memory and cultural values of the surrounding society, see Teski and Climo, ‘Introduction’, and Fentress and Wickham, Social Memory, p. 7.

276

Chapter 4

were not commonly known.101 The miracle had taken place four years before the hearing. During this time many of the details may have been forgotten. However, this was not the case in several other cases where the details were recollected precisely even decades later. Presumably the incident did not affect or interest the other witnesses enough to be remembered. Moreover, Alicia’s poor economic situation may have prevented intimate socializing with her and collective reminiscence of the miracle. The most vivid details in the other witnesses’ depositions seem to be the miserable condition of Alicia before the cure, a feature the witnesses could have ascertained by themselves.102 This detail also held significance for them since she was begging for alms — and some witnesses also report giving them — due to her wretched situation. The only witness to precisely mention the vision was dominus Willelmus, the perpetual chaplain of the church of All Saints in London. Furthermore, he also recounts it in some detail: he mentioned the milk-like liquid with which the old man who appeared stroked Alicia’s infirm legs and knees.103 The chaplain was in Hereford at the time of the miracle. Moreover, Alicia told him about the vision the next morning after her cure. Willelmus also stated that he had regularly seen Alicia after the event. It remains unknown whether the chaplain and Alicia had conversed about the miracle together afterwards. Discussion or common reminiscence seems plausible because of the precise details.

101

The only, and rather vague, reference to any specific feature connected with the cure mentioned by a lay witness was uttered by Willelmus de Oxfordensis: ‘tunc apparuerat in dicta ecclesia quedam magna choruscatio sive lux qua apparente et existente in dicta ecclesia [. . .] ita fuerat curata’ (BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 70r). In addition to Alicia herself and her father Willelmus, the other witnesses to this miracle are Amicia la Rysshwyk, Nicholas Chiket, and dominus Willelmus: ibid., fols 68v–71 v. 102

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 68v : ‘ipsa vidit dictam Aliciam de lonesdale mendicantem per Civitatem londonensis et non incedebat pedibus suis sed gradiebatur super femur suum tracinando corpus suum per terram et apodiabat se cum manu dextra super terram et aliquando pater dicte Alcie baiulabat eam super collum suum’; ibid., fol. 69v: ‘dixit se vidisse per vii vel per octo annos continue in Civitate londonensis quod pater ipsius Alicie portabat ipsam ad collum suum tamquam contractam [. . .]. Et dicta Alicia trahebat sive tracinabat corpus suum per terram cum una manu apodiando se in terram’; ibid., fol. 70v : ‘viderat tamen ipsam per vi annos et ultra in Civitate londonensis [. . .] contractam et paraliticatam quod non poterat stare nec ire pedibus propriis sed trahebat corpus suum per terram appodiando secum una manu super terram’. 103

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 71r: ‘apparuerat sibi quidam senex cum magno lumine et palpaverat sibi pectiis et tibias et pedes et inunxerat quodammodo unguento simili lacti in colore’.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

277

The clerical status of dominus Willelmus may also have been behind the more detailed recollections. Presumably he was aware of the important features to define a cure as God’s grace. Moreover, as a cleric he may have taken more interest in the interaction with the deity.104 Indeed, personal interest in the case was essential for the recollection of details. The welfare of family members naturally aroused interest, yet the miracles were also commemorated within wider spheres. On these occasions the occupation or other commitments, gender, and social position guided the attention given to the event. Recollection among Non-family Members Possibly the miracles that took place in the public sphere with a group of spectators were also commemorated in a more public way. For example, the miracle of Johanna la Schirreue was presumably regularly commemorated by the participants. After all, the incident was widely known after twenty years. However, in this case the particular small details cannot be found, the details which had become fixed in the narration and would therefore reveal the intensity of the collective reminiscence. Presumably so many persons were affected and took part in the miracle process that several versions stressing different details also circulated in the community. Interestingly, the depositions of the family members do not emphasize such particularities, either. There does not seem to be a set way to start the narration as in the case of the drowned Nicholas, where all the family members emphasized the detail of the reddish-brown cow and the need to tame it. No specific speech of the saint is recounted, let alone quoted verbatim, by several witnesses as in the Appillaterre family case. No visions or apparitions are connected with this miracle. Moreover, the mother and father seem to stress different aspects — their personal point of view — in the course of action. For example, they recounted the crucial moment of the first signs of life differently. Furthermore, Johanna herself does not mention these details at all. Both of the parents stated that the mother did not let her drowned daughter out of her arms but took Johanna with her to bed. According to Adam le Schirreue, at sunrise the girl moved and the mother told this to others, who rejoiced and thanked God and Saint Thomas. After the girl had

104

The miraculous recoveries from paralysis had a biblical role model (Matthew 9. 5–7). It is possible that dominus Willelmus had this story in mind since he recounted Saint Thomas telling Alicia to rise (‘dixerat ei quod surgeret’, BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 71 r), like Jesus healing the paralytic. Alicia does not mention this detail.

278

Chapter 4

vomited the remaining water she was asked how she was drowned and she claimed that Johannes had pushed her.105 The mother, on the other hand, stated that after she had felt her daughter moving she whispered in her ear asking what she was doing in the water — ‘quid voluisti in aquam?’ Johanna replied that Johannes had pushed her. Only after this did she reveal the revival and the reason for the drowning to others. She does not recall the vomiting.106 The maternal role as commemorator seems to be important in this case, too. Two other witnesses also mention this dialogue and quote it meticulously. These witnesses are Thomas Schonk and Stephanus de Pirebrok. There are, however, variations in Thomas Schonk’s deposition, yet he mentions the whispering verbatim before the collective rejoicing. Moreover, he states that he knows this since the mother had told him.107 Stephanus also recounts the dialogue nearly verbatim and adds that he had several times heard this from the mother.108 However, it remains unknown in what kind of atmosphere the witnesses had commemorated the incident. Thomas Schonk was the father of Johannes, the boy who had pushed Johanna into the pond. Furthermore, both Thomas and Stephanus had taken part in the dances, chorea. They had found the drowned girl and decided to leave the body in the pond. Thus their personal interest, even guilt, may lie behind their accurate recollections. Moreover, the remorse may have been the reason why Stephanus also mentions, and remembers, the minor detail of Johanna’s new shoes with red laces.109 Cecilia, the mother, stated that she had difficulties in recognizing her daughter after she was pulled from the water: her face was disfigured with her tongue sticking out and

105

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 125v .

106

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 128v .

107

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 133r: ‘circa galli cantum vero mater ut audivit idem testis ab ea [. . .] dictam puellam peciit ab ea in aure filia quid voluisti in aqua et illa Respondit Johannes impulit me in aquam’. 108

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 138v : ‘in aurora sensit dicta Cecilia filiam suam movere pedem dextrum sicut eadem Cecilia tunc referebat et cito post audivit iste iuratus dictam Ceciliam loquentem cum filia sua sic dilecta filia benedictus deus et beatus Thomas qui operati sunt miraculum inde dic mihi quid voluisti in aqua et Respondit dicta Johanna Resuscitata ipso teste et aliis audientibus Johannes impulsit me in aquam’. Moreover, this dialogue was also considered valuable by the compiler of the summarium. He also noted it ‘et aplicante matre os suum ad aurem puelle et petente quid in aqua facere voluisti; ipsa respondit Johannes me impulit’ (BN, MS Lat. 5373 A, fol. 66v ). 109

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 138r.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

279

her clothes muddy. Then she noticed the shoes with red laces which she had bought the day before and realized that the victim was her daughter.110 Stephanus is the only witness with Cecilia to mention this detail. Presumably its significance for his self-justification had made it an important and memorable feature: if the mother of the drowned girl did not immediately recognize her own daughter it was all the more understandable for the participants of the dances, for the non-family members, to have mistaken Johanna for the beggar’s child. Thus in this case other features, position, personal involvement, as well as emotions, seem to have been more important than the gender of the participant in forming the sphere of reminiscence. For example, Johanna Wase, the mother of Johannes and the godmother of the drowned Johanna, does not mention either of these details. Her role in the revival was crucial: she pulled the corpse out of the water. However, she ends her testimony in the measuring of Johanna. After that she went home to change her wet clothes and does not testify to other events by hearsay. It remains unknown whether she was aware and remembered the particulars mentioned before or if she had concentrated her reminiscence on her personal role in the event. Memory can be seen as a search for meaning, a negotiation over what will be remembered and what forgotten. Thus the personal situation of the witnesses affected their interest in the particularities. Minute details were recollected if they were closely connected to the witnesses — to their situation, emotions, fears, and expectations.111 These features did not depend only on gender. However, in another case the gender of the participants seems to have guided their interest. In the recovery of Anfelixia, the wife of Mercatante Iohannis Adambi, four out of seven witnesses recounted the vision involved in the miracle. The details of the cure and the vision vary in some depositions. Yet three of these witnesses remember the dialogue of the vision almost word for word. The recovery took place soon after the death of Nicholas, nearly twenty years before the hearing. Anfelixia herself died approximately one year after her recovery.112

110

BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4015, fol. 127v .

111

On the interconnection between memorized details and personal significance, see also Smoller, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning’, pp. 434 and 440. 112

The witnesses testifying to this miracle are Friar Natimbene (Nicholas, testis IX), Mercatante Iohannes Adambi (testis LXXVIII), magister Iacobus Iohannis (testis LXXX), Manfredinus Francisci (testis LXXXI), Iacobucia, the wife of Thomasius Salinbene (testis LXXXIII), Mancinus (testis LXXXVIII), and domina Bruna Pensanicti (testis CCLXXII).

280

Chapter 4

The peculiar incident took place in the domestic settings of the house of Mercatante Iohannis Adambi, the husband of Anfelixia. Anfelixia had been blind for years and she had made several vows to Saint Nicholas. One day, after another invocation, a hand seemed to appear in front of her eyes. Anfelixia thought it was the hand of her mother-in-law, who was staying in the same house. She assumed that her mother-in-law was playing a cruel joke on her and said: ‘Raise your hand and do not deceive me since God who has done this to me can do it to you.’113 The ones to mention this detail were the husband of Anfelixia and two neighbours, Iacobucia and Bruna Pensanicti. The depositions are an evident statement of the importance of the visions: every detail could be remembered years after the incident. However, there may have also been other explanations for this particular case. It is possible that these depositions do not testify specifically to the importance of the apparition of a saint but to the domestic strife between the mother-inlaw and the daughter-in-law. It may have been the particular reason for these words being remembered so exactly years afterwards. After her words Anfelixia saw how the hand was lifted; then she saw Saint Nicholas in front of her eyes and had seen perfectly ever since. The incident was widely known in Tolentino. It is one of the few miracles where the witnesses stated that a public announcement was made. The proclamation was made ‘in ecclesia coram omnibus’. Undoubtedly this increased the common knowledge of the incident. However, since the details are so precise twenty years after the incident, the event must have been recollected collectively by the witnesses. The neighbour women were presumably on good terms and in close contact with Anfelixia. Iacobucia claimed that Anfelixia sent her daughter immediately after the recovery to tell her of the miracle. In all probability they had also commemorated the incident together after the actual recovery. The commemoration performed by the family members does not seem to be crucial in this miracle. Mercatante’s sister Orsella was on close terms with Anfelixia. Friar Natimbene mentions that she was sleeping with Anfelixia in the same bed at the time of the vision and cure. Mercatante also mentions Orsella’s presence in the miracle process. Her missing deposition is well justified, however; Orsella was dead by the time of the hearing.

113

Nicholas, testis LXXVIII, p. 214: ‘Eleva manum et noli truffari de me: quia ille Deus, qui fecit hoc michi, posset facere tibi’; ibid., testis LXXXIII, p. 233: ‘Domina, eleva manum supra oculos: quia ille Deus, qui fecit hoc michi posset facere tibi, et noli truffare de me!’; ibid., testis CCLXXII, p. 567: ‘Male facis quod tu me deludes, quia ille Dominus, qui michi fecit hoc, potest tibi facere.’ There are no mentions of translation of these questions or depositions.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

281

The daughters Amorella and Lisa were not interrogated. Only Iacobucia mentions them, and their place of domicile is not known. It is probable that the event was also commemorated among these women of the same household. However, this sphere of reminiscence cannot be verified due to the missing depositions. Imilla, the sister of the healed Anfelixia, testified in the process, yet she did not mention the incident. She testified only to the miracles that took place in her own family to her children.114 Her husband, Manfredinus Francisci, did, however, mention the miraculous recovery of Anfelixia. These two sisters, Anfelixia and Imilla, both lived in Tolentino yet in different quarters. Apparently they had stayed in touch since Manfredinus told the commissioners that his knowledge of the event was due to the accounts of both Anfelixia and Mercatante. However, it seems these accounts were not frequent or detailed enough since he does not mention the apparition.115 Indeed, for a witness to remember the particular details he or she must have heard the narration several times and, more importantly, paid close attention to the story. In this case the precise details of the vision may not reveal only the sphere of reminiscence but also the sphere of interest. At this point the gender of the participants played an important role. Gender influenced the way people remembered: it affected the positions and spheres men and women occupied in society, hence it affected the issues and details the witnesses deemed relevant and remembered afterwards. The ability to recall particular features is dependent on the cultural context.116 The domestic friction between the mother-in-law and Anfelixia may have been closer to the concerns, hence more significant, for the women hearing the story, while this kind of detail would soon have been forgotten by men. Probably women were more interested in the domestic relationships and conflicts in managing the household since such features affected their everyday lives more. Women’s daily tasks and responsibilities mainly took place within the domestic sphere.

114

Nicholas, testis C, pp. 286–89.

115

Moreover, apparently Manfredinus and Imilla did not recount the recovery of Anfelixia frequently in their own home. Otherwise the sister of Manfredinus, who was living in this household at the time of the miracle, would likely have mentioned it. Nicholas, testis XXIX, p. 150. 116

On gender and memory, see also Selma Leydesdorff, Luisa Passerini, and Paul Thompson ‘Introduction’, in Gender and Memory, ed. by Leydesdorff, Passerini, and Thompson, pp. 1–16; Tonkin, Narrating Our Pasts, pp. 103–06; and Fentress and Wickham, Social Memory, pp. 137–43.

282

Chapter 4

The men’s responsibilities were different and not directly connected with managing the household. The men testifying to the recovery do not recount the vision or the hand incident. Perhaps they were not aware of this part of the vision or they just did not remember it since the mode of contact between daughter-in-law and mother-in-law or women’s domestic discord was not of great interest for them — particularly if the friction did not take place in their household. In this case the circle of collective commemoration does not seem to be constructed of family members. The husband was aware of the vision and of its crucial importance to the miracle. Mercatante had also spread the news of the recovery since some of the witnesses mention him as the source of information.117 More often, however, the witnesses referred to the words of Anfelixia herself.118 Since Anfelixia died quite soon after the cure she was not the nexus of the commemorative action. It remains unknown whether the female neighbours had commemorated the event with the husband or with each other. At the time of the hearing Bruna Pensanicti lived in Belforte, thus the shared reminiscence may not have been very frequent or active.119 Moreover, since the witnesses were interrogated on different days and summoned to testify separately it is possible that they did not refresh their memories collectively before the inquiry — as may have been the situation in other cases.120 For example, all the witnesses to the recovery of Adam de Kylpek were summoned to the interrogatory by the proctor — except for dominus Gilbertus himself, who also testified. He had been a custodian of the shrine at that time and witnessed the miracle. Moreover, he remembered it accurately after nearly two decades. On such occasions the proctor may have conducted a preliminary hearing to know

117

Nicholas, testis IX, p. 92; testis LXXXI, p. 226; and testis CCLXXII, p. 566.

118

Nicholas, testis IX, p. 92; testis LXXXI, p. 226; testis LXXXIII, p. 233; and testis CCLXXII, p. 566. 119 Iacobucia claimed that she heard of the incident immediately from Anfelixia (Nicholas, testis LXXXIII, p. 233), while Bruna stated that she had heard of it several times recounted by Mercatante, Anfelixia, Anfelixia’s mother-in-law, or other members of the household (testis CCLXXII, p. 566). 120

Friar Natimbene was summoned and testified on 24 July (Nicholas, citationes testium, p. 26), magister Iacobus on 30 July (citationes testium, p. 31), Bruna Pensanicti on 31 July (citationes testium, p. 32), and Manfredinus and possibly also Iacobucia on 10 September (citationes testium, p. 63). Mercatante was summoned to testify 29 July and the nuntius Cicchus Venture had found him and given the order, yet apparently Mercatante did not testify until 10 September (citationes testium, pp. 29–30 and 63).

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

283

whether it was worth addressing the miracle officially. It is possible that the whole group of witnesses had commemorated the event together before the actual interrogation.121 On many occasions the details may have been blurred in the minds of the witnesses during the years that had passed between the actual incident and the hearing.122 However, presumably the refreshed collective memory did not have any effect on the inconsequential particularities, like the reddish-brown cow or the new shoes with red laces, which apparently were fixed elements in the recollection. They were not important in validating the miracle yet held personal significance and were therefore repeated in the narrations. The repeated detail of the appearing hand held importance for the course of action in the recovery of Anfelixia. However, personal significance and meaning can also be seen in the narrations of this vision. The only man, beside Anfelixia’s husband, to mention the vision was Natimbene, an Augustinian friar. Yet he described the vision completely differently from the other witnesses. According to him, Saint Nicholas had appeared to Anfelixia in a dream. He does not mention the mother-in-law having played any kind of role in the vision. Interestingly, his recounting of the vision is very detailed up to the point that it includes quotations of Nicholas’s speech. Natimbene also claims that he had several times heard the story recounted by Anfelixia, Mercatante, and Orsella.123 Thus the witnesses may have mainly paid attention to the details they considered important. For the Augustinian friars the

121

See also Hanska, ‘Hanging of William Cragh’, where the author evaluates the possibility of the proctors manipulating the witnesses or testimonies in these preliminary hearings. This does not seem plausible, however, since both of these candidates were known thaumaturges and the focus of veneration, thus the proctors had plenty of miracles and witnesses from which to choose . They could present only the most reliable cases at the canonization hearing. Moreover, no indications of manipulation can be found in the depositions. 122 Obviously the witnesses may have spontaneously and independently refreshed their memories before the hearing. The urging of the proctor did not take place on all the occasions. Sometimes, as in the case of the Appillaterre family, the reminiscence may have been frequent and not connected to the official hearing. See also Mariani, ‘Racconto spontaneo o memoria construita?’, p. 275. 123

Nicholas, testis IX, p. 92: ‘Nocte vero sequenti habuit in visione in sompnis dictum fratrem Nicholaum dicentem sibi: Cito habebis a Deo gratiam luminis, conforta te secure. Et dum dicta domina excitaretur a sompnis in aurora diei, respiciens per fenestram, vidit lumen et vocavit Orsellam cognatam suam: Surge quia ego video lumen precibus et meritis beati Nicholay de Tholentino; et recitavit sibi visionem predictam.’

284

Chapter 4

most important role of a vision was to confirm the intercessory role of Nicholas. To recount these visions was to promote Nicholas’s cult and strengthen the order of the Augustinians.124 The Sphere of Reminiscence Ordinarily the visions did not play such a public role in the miracles performed by Nicholas. Quite often the visionary revealed it to the closest persons, family or servant sleeping in the same room.125 However, since many of the miracles contain only one deposition given by the beneficiary it is impossible to conclude how wide a reputation the details enjoyed or how frequent the collective recollection of the event was. Family or a circle of friends were most likely the ones to remember the specific details, like visions, of the miracles. Gender was not crucial in the act of recollection, yet gender and gendered features connected to the story may have been significant in arousing the interest of the listeners, thus facilitating the recollection of the details. Women’s and especially mothers’ roles seem to have been significant in the collective reminiscence. Quite often they were the ones to take the initiative in the commemorative action. Passing on the family memories to the next generation may have been a gendered task connected to caregiving. Since many of the miraculous recoveries were directly connected with the maternal responsibilities of caregiving it may have been quite common for women also to be the prime movers in reminiscing. Moreover, introducing children to the cult of saints by recounting personal experiences can also be seen as a way to educate and socialize them.

124

The difference in the details of the vision did not interest the commissioners. Moreover, they did not inquire about the vision of the witnesses who did not mention it in their depositions. 125

For example, domina Cisca revealed her nocturnal vision, during which she was cured, in the morning to the servant sleeping in the same bed. The vision was not widely known even though it was argued that the miracle itself gained great fame in the neighbourhood. Witnesses to this miracle are domina Cisca (Nicholas, testis CCLVI), whose detailed testimony includes dialogue with the appearing saint, and domina Catalina (testis CCLVII) and domina Verderosa (testis CCLVIII), who do not mention the vision. On the publicizing of dreams of visions, see also Kate Normington, ‘Dreams Made Public? Juliana of Mont Cornillon and Dame Procula’, in New Trends in Feminine Spirituality: The Holy Women of Liège and their Impact, ed. by Juliette Dor, Lesley Johnson, and Jocelyn Wogan-Browne (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), pp. 251–67.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

285

Obviously women were not the only ones to recount the memories, yet apparently they were especially active in the recollection. The importance of feminine reminiscence can be seen in the recovery of Forensis de Stacto. Forensis was an elderly man suffering from an internal affliction that made moving very hard for him. The infirmity lasted for several years, and after the pain became extremely severe he invoked Saint Nicholas for a cure. After this he recovered immediately during the night.126 The miracle was apparently widely known since Berardus, the Bishop of Camerino, stated that the friars spread the news of the event.127 Symon Forensis, the son of the beneficiary, also claimed that the fame of the event had spread from Stacto to Tolentino and Camerino and people came to see the miracle.128 Three of the witnesses were Forensis’s family members. In addition to them, an Augustinian friar from Camerino and the Bishop Berardus mentioned above testified to the miracle. It is noteworthy that two of the family members were also clerics. Thus the majority of the witnesses were educated and well aware of the important details in validating a miracle. However, only Symon Forensis, son of the beneficiary and the rector of the church of Saint Stephen in Stacto, mentions the vision connected with the cure. Symon stated that his father had told him how an Augustinian friar appeared to him during the night urging him to make a vow to Saint Nicholas. Gemelucius, another son of the beneficiary, or Cucius Carlucii, a grandson, do not mention the vision. Moreover, other details also vary from one deposition to another. For example, the estimates of the age of Forensis differ from sixty to a hundred years, also among the family members.129 Apparently Forensis had lived six years after the

126 Witnesses to this miracle are Friar Victor de Camereno (Nicholas, testis CXLVIII), Gemelucius Forensis de Stacto (testis CCCXXI), dompnus Symon Forensis (testis CCCXXII), dompnus Cucius Carlucii de Stacto (testis CCCXXIII), and Berardus, episcopus Camerinensis (testis CCCXXVII). 127 Nicholas, testis CCCXXVII, p. 617: ‘supervenerunt duo fratres heremite, qui narrabant de sero multa magna miracula’. 128

Nicholas, testis CCCXXII, p. 612: ‘homines de dicto castro Stacti et civitate Cammereni concurrerunt ad videndum dictum miraculum’. The renown may have also been so wide since the miracle was publicized when Forensis visited the shrine. Nicholas, testis CXLVIII, p. 358. 129

Nicholas, testis CCCXXI, p. 609: ‘dictus Forensis erat etatis C annorum, secundum quod ipse dixit’; ibid., testis CCCXXII, p. 611: ‘et erat LXXX annorum dictus infirmus’; ibid., testis CCCXXIII, p. 613: ‘dixit quod erat plus LX annorum’.

286

Chapter 4

incident and had died fairly recently. Thus he would have had sufficient time to recount the story of his miraculous cure several times. The sons were on close terms with their father. All the family members mention taking care of the old man and helping him with his disease. They also vividly describe the illness which severely affected Forensis’s testicles.130 It is possible that the women of the household did not take care of Forensis for modesty’s sake. Thus probably the nurturing role of women was not strong in this case. Perhaps women were not active in the commemoration, either. The recollection of the women of the household — or the lack of it — cannot be verified since their depositions are not written down in the records. No woman is even mentioned in the depositions. It seems that the family recollection was not very efficient in this case since important details, like the appearing saint, were left unnoticed by the majority of the witnesses. The clerical status of the family members may have helped to spread the fame of the miracle, yet it was not equal to firm family reminiscence. The comparison of depositions does not reveal particular differences in the modes of reminiscence in these processes. The recollection of the miracles within the private sphere was stressed in both processes, while the maternal role as a devoted commemorator of miracles is more emphasized in Nicholas’s hearing. Gender and gendered roles influenced the recollections of miracles and the ability to recall particular details. However, the active persons in each case depended on the situation, which varied from one case to another. Moreover, gender may have had the greatest effect on the level of personal interest. It was not an exclusive category: motivation, emotions, and personal involvement had occasionally more effect on the interest which can be seen in the quality and quantity of details remembered. Common to both processes is the importance of the collective memory of the miracles. The stories of the event were told repeatedly and memories of the incident evoked up to the point that the narrations became fixed. Some little, occasionally also inconsequential, details were told time and time again. These particularities testify to the personal significance of the event as well as the intensity of the collective reminiscence. Simultaneously they shed light on the intermingling of the diverse spheres: commonly known literary models may have affected the

130

Nicholas, testis CCCXXI, p. 609: ‘ipsam infirmitatem palpavit manibus suis, et reposuit viscera manu propria, que cadebant in testiculis’; ibid., testis CCCXXII, p. 611: ‘ipse erat totaliter ruptus in vissceribus cadentibus in testiculis dicti patris sui, cui dictus testis diversis vicibus et temporibus reposuit plusquam c vicibus visscera predicta cadentia in testiculis predictis de ventre’; ibid., testis CCCXXIII, p. 613: ‘eam palpavit tactu, et reposuit visscera dicti avi’.

DEPOSITIONS AND MEMORIES OF MIRACLES

287

personal recollections. Moreover, the personal, private details, like the child’s new shoes, may have become a part of the collectively shared narration. The narrations of the miracles may be seen as interaction with the sacred. The relationship with the intercessor was renewed and strengthened by the repeated narrations of the grace bestowed. The memories of miracles were concurrently private and public: the interaction between these spheres can be seen in how collective reminiscence done by the community and personal memories were combined.

C ONCLUSIONS

Gendered Interaction

T

his study has focused on the way gender was constructed in the depositions of the canonization processes. The aim has been to contribute to the field of study by a scrutiny of the interconnection between gender, miracles, and daily life — a theme little explored either in the studies of the canonization processes or in the gender studies of the Middle Ages. Gender was one of the fundamental aspects creating differences and hierarchies and affecting identities and perceptions in medieval culture. Therefore it was also a decisive element in the interaction with the saint. The interaction with Saint Thomas Cantilupe as well as Saint Nicholas of Tolentino can be considered as a social strategy; it was a deliberate approach to difficulties requiring evaluation and negotiation. The vows were conscious decisions. On the other hand, the interaction with these saints was also an important element in constructing the gendered roles. The interaction with Saint Thomas and Saint Nicholas required communication in the private, public, and sacred spheres. Modes and perceptions of the surrounding society affected even secret invocations and the promised oblations as well as forming the memories of these events. Interaction with the saint had personal spiritual significance, yet it could have also been an element in gaining recognition of one’s private, social position in the public sphere. The contracts with the heavenly intercessor were often made in the difficulties of daily life, thus they were also connected with other modes of interaction — between women and men in their social roles within their daily responsibilities. Since the hearings were conducted by the papal commissioners and the local proctors, clerical perceptions of masculinities and femininities were concurrently reflected in the records. However, many prejudiced ideas of femininity or

290

Conclusions

masculinity present in the clerical literature are not confirmed in the lived experiences of the witnesses. The gender relations as well as hierarchy were negotiated and reconstructed. The authority was not fixed, but flexible and mutable. The invocations, offerings, and narrations created a relationship, a bond, between the heavenly intercessor and the supplicant. Occasionally the relationship with the saint seems to have been constructed similarly by men and women: both men and women could petition the saint’s help and were allowed to enter the sacred sphere, to approach the relics. However, the gender of the petitioner had an effect on the troubles for which the saint’s help was sought; it influenced the permissible modes of behaviour, thus regulating the way the intercession was petitioned as well as the promised offering. Hence, even though the conduct at the shrine — the patient praying, prostration, and waiting — or the offered wax oblations (wax figures, images of body parts, candles, or strings of wax) were not very gender specific themselves, the tribulations leading to the vow may have been a result of gendered position. Occasionally the biological sex difference actually determined the mode of contact between the supplicant and the saint: only women suffered personally from difficult pregnancies, labours, or postpartum trauma. These proceedings could lead to other physical tribulations, like paralysis. Thus gender, or sex difference, may have been the decisive feature behind the seemingly similar performance of two paralytics lying at the shrine and offering similar oblations of wax.

Caregiving and Daily Responsibilities More than biological sex difference, the social roles of men and women had an effect on the interaction with these saints. The gendered social roles are seen, for example, in the types of miracles experienced by men and women. Only men invoked Saint Thomas or Saint Nicholas for help in robberies, being taken prisoner, and storms at sea. The traditional division of labour and space, especially in the clerical literature, connected men with diverse occupations and with the spheres outside home, while household management and the domestic sphere were appropriate for women. The rescue miracles seem to emphasize the men’s wider use of space, stressing simultaneously the burdens and obligations inherent in this privilege. Nurturing and caregiving were responsibilities that stand out especially in the canonization processes: children were particularly numerous as beneficiaries of the saints’ intercessions. These tasks were regularly gendered as feminine; they were inextricably linked with women’s social roles. Generally it was seen as women’s

Conclusions

291

duty to bring offspring into the world — and to take care of them. In the clerical rhetoric education as well as other important decisions concerning a child’s future were reserved for the paternal authority, while the daily nurturing, feeding, clothing, and taking care of the sick were considered as women’s work. However, gender was not the only element which affected these responsibilities. The social position, occupation, and geographical area also had an effect on the gendering of caregiving, which appears to differ fairly significantly in these canonization processes. The participation of fathers seems to be an important element in the children’s accidents in the Cantilupe process. Mature men of fairly secure social status, quite often the father of the victim, seem to have taken the initiative in the public accidents. They usually initiated the invocation and did the actual measuring. Paternal concern is also emphasized in the recoveries from various illnesses. The majority of the beneficiaries in the children’s miracles were boys. It remains unknown to what extent the gender of the beneficiary affected the paternal concern. Presumably fathers were more concerned about the welfare of their sons than of their daughters while caring fathers were also active in the miracles experienced by girls. In the public accidents the role of the group present is also underlined in the interaction with the divine. The onlookers took an active part in the invocation of Saint Thomas. Witnesses stress their own role and signs of piety — tears and kneeling. The collective rituals lessen the importance of the initiatory role. The mothers as well as other women were usually active participants on such occasions even though they did not take leading roles in these performances of common devotion. The cases in Nicholas’s records stress caregiving as a feminine duty. Women seem to have been especially active in petitioning the help of Saint Nicholas. Their initiatory role is particularly stressed in the case of their children, yet the nurturing expanded the limits of the nuclear family. Women also petitioned the help of Nicholas for other relatives: for their husbands, parents, and siblings. The involvement of the fathers is not notable in the children’s miraculous recoveries while the women’s activity stands out in Nicholas’s process. The devotional and caregiving roles of women coincided, for they both sought a cure for their offspring and took the initiative of the interaction with the saint. It was women’s duty to seek — even divine — help for their children. The individual and independent responsibility of the petitioner in Nicholas’s process is stressed when compared to the practicalities of invocation in the Cantilupe process: the role of the group present is not emphasized. Moreover, since the measuring of the patient was an indispensable element in the invocation of Saint Thomas, the ritual usually required more than solely the supplicant. Saint

292

Conclusions

Nicholas, on the other hand, could have been invoked for help in one’s mind. No outer gestures or signs of piety were required for proper invocation. In Nicholas’s records the collective rites are not emphasized in the manifestation of gratitude, either. Pilgrimages, for example, were important elements in the interaction, yet the promises usually bound solely the supplicant. Pilgrimages were public performances and especially the journey done with hands tied was also a way to emphasize the close connection of the pilgrim with Saint Nicholas. Ascetic pilgrimages seem to have been especially favoured by women — also when petitioning cures for their children. Thus pilgrimages performed in an ascetic mode may have also been a way to make the private nurturing roles visible in the public sphere. Occasionally the promises of ascetic pilgrimages may have formed an essential element of the witnesses’ social strategies and sense of self, thus creating an element in these women’s femininity. The manifestation of social position may have been in a marginal or liminal state in these situations. The prestige of a particular status could not be stressed simultaneously when approaching the heavenly intercessor with humility. Yet the private, gendered role as caregiver was further emphasized and made visible in public by these rituals. The interconnection of the domestic devotional and caregiving roles — and their gendering as feminine — can also be seen in the fact that more promises were made to take recovered girls to the shrine than boys. Parents seem to have been more eager to petition the help of Nicholas for their sons than for their daughters. However, the pilgrimage undertaken together was an important element when seeking a cure for girls. Apparently only infant boys were, literally, carried to the shrine while girls’ presence in the rites of thanksgiving at the shrine was also valued at an older age. Collective pilgrimages and other devotional rituals can also be seen as a mode of educating and introducing children to this aspect of religion. Presumably active participation in interaction with the saint was seen as a part of girls’ future responsibilities as caregivers while it was more important to introduce boys to other duties. Thus the practices of pilgrimages in Nicholas’s process were important elements for the devotees’ construction of gender. Common parental pilgrimage after the grace gained is not a very typical feature in the miracles performed by Saint Nicholas. On the other hand, in the Cantilupe process the common parental caregiving is further emphasized in the rituals of thanksgiving. The often annual pilgrimages were performed together by the whole family. They were a way to venerate the intercessor, commemorate the grace bestowed, and reinforce the family memory of the event.

Conclusions

293

In the Cantilupe process the caregiving seems to have required the collaboration of the parents. The invocation, the collective pilgrimage after the miracle, as well as the formation of narrations of these events required both parents. These responsibilities were not based on gender: both mothers and fathers constructed their position in a similar way in these rituals. The reason for the difference between these processes may lie — in addition to the cultural area — in the social status of the witnesses. Since the majority of the beneficiaries of the Cantilupe miracles were peasants, their daily survival depended on mutual aid and collaboration within the family. Taking care of the children may have also been perceived as a common enterprise, while these tasks were gendered differently in Nicholas’s process, in which the majority of the witnesses were prosperous town-dwellers. They considered caregiving as a feminine duty, yet it did not confine women to their homes — women could perform these responsibilities publicly, too. In addition to nurturing, other gendered responsibilities are also reflected in the depositions, for example, the importance of household duties for women. Women offered bread and cloths made by themselves to Saint Nicholas. Offering objects connected with the domestic sphere as well as producing them personally may imply a close and personal relationship between the supplicant and the intercessor. Moreover, these oblations also emphasize the intermingling of the devotional and domestic roles. The practicalities in these cults bear many resemblances but also have differences. Both Thomas Cantilupe and Nicholas of Tolentino were primarily helpers in difficulties for the witnesses in the inquiries. They were invoked in a moment of distress. The logic of the exchange of gifts appears to be similar even though there were differences in the particularities of the interaction. Different types of miracles — many accidents in the Cantilupe process and a multitude of recoveries of various illnesses in Nicholas’s process — do not testify to the different powers of these thaumaturges but likely to the different needs of the devotees and, more importantly, to the different approach of the inquisitorial committees in organizing the hearings. Both Saint Thomas and Saint Nicholas were invoked in various situations: in sudden accidents and in long-lasting illnesses; for men, women, and children. Most likely, the regional and temporal proximity created a bond between the supplicant and the intercessor. It was an incentive for petitioners to turn to these particular intercessors. On a general level, the interaction with Saint Nicholas appears to be a more individual affair. The witnesses accentuate only their personal efforts. The collective role of the rituals, either in invocation or in thanksgiving, was not emphasized.

294

Conclusions

Similarly, the variety of counter-gifts was large, and petitioners could follow their own preferences. The collective role of the interaction with Saint Thomas Cantilupe was evident in every phase of the miracle process. Measuring was an essential part of the proper invocation, and it demanded outer signs and more than one person. Often the invocations as well as pilgrimages were done collectively. Different oblations of wax as well as bent coins were the most typical votive offerings. The essence of repeated pilgrimages was to create a bond: between the petitioners and Saint Thomas but also between the family members taking part in the ritual. The collective and cohesive role is also emphasized in the publicizing of the event. The ringing of the bells and official proclamation was a regular part of the cases in the Cantilupe process. There can be found only sporadic remarks of this practice in Nicholas’s records.

Hierarchy in Gender Relations Gender relations were constructed hierarchically: in stereotypic constructs submission was seen as an essential element of femininity. The gender hierarchy was stressed by clerical authors; it was regulated in legislation and emphasized in secular literature. According to the Church’s teachings, the order of Creation as well as the Fall justified gender inequality and determined women’s inferior morality. Men, being a more perfect image of God, were to guard, control, and discipline women. The experiences of the witnesses depicted in the canonization processes emphasize more often collaboration than strict hierarchy. In the Cantilupe process the initiatory roles seem to have been reserved for men of fairly secure social status, yet the role of women in the course of action is not belittled. Moreover, even though women were not usually the prime movers in the invocation they were active participants in the devotional activities and could challenge their husbands’ or parents’ decisions. The depositions reveal that the authority over crucial questions of the future of family members was not automatically fixed — it needed to be negotiated and reconstructed. The hierarchy appears to be different in the cases in Nicholas’s records. Since caregiving was more clearly gendered as women’s duty it simultaneously afforded women opportunities for independent activities — even authority. The nurturer could decide the mode of remedy he or she was going to seek for the patient. Occasionally these decisions challenged masculine authority — the decisions made by the father or by a doctor. Moreover, the oblations to Nicholas — naming a child after him or even donating a child to the Augustinians — also reflect women’s

Conclusions

295

options within the private sphere in a way which challenges the image of fathers as sovereign heads of the household. The interaction with Saint Nicholas reflects the potential women held in the decisions of daily life: they held acknowledged authority within the domestic sphere. Occasionally this ability was recognized in the spheres outside the home. The domestic responsibilities and activity within the private sphere could gain women the position of known devotee in the wider community. Again in the stereotypic gender constructs the concept of masculinity was decisively connected with dominance. The domination was to be expressed in control, competing, and even aggression. However, the devotional context, the invocation of a saint, does not seem to form an important competition environment for men. The depositions of men do not often challenge or confront others’ testimonies. Moreover, claiming the status of a known devotee does not seem to have been an important element in men’s interaction with the saint. This field of religion was not controlled by men, either. Only a few examples of direct control, like refusing to fulfil the promise given by others, could be found. Aggression, on the other hand, can be found in the men’s depositions when describing the background of the miracle. Violent robberies, captivities, as well as the physical struggles between the participants were committed and experienced by men. It remains unknown whether all the weapons found at the shrine of Saint Thomas were given by men. These arms were claimed to have played an important role in the miracle: the beneficiaries were wounded by them yet recovered due to the intervention of Saint Thomas. Occasionally aggression can also be found in the relationship between men and women — especially between spouses. The husband’s right to chastise his wife even by force was acknowledged. Yet there were limits to chastising one’s wife. Pleading for divine intervention in such a situation may tell about exceeding the limits, while the absence of these miracles does not necessarily testify to a more harmonious relationship between the spouses. Presumably these situations were not regularly defined as miraculous, thus they were not recorded in the canonization processes. On the whole these features of hegemonic masculinity do not stand out in the depositions, yet other aspects were emphasized. Affection, mutual concern, collaboration, and the importance of family bonds were stressed in men’s testimonies to miraculous experiences — especially in the Cantilupe process. The importance of the miraculous recoveries of children is also emphasized in the vivid narrations by men about these events. However, men’s dominance or women’s submission in the formation of the narrations cannot be confirmed, either. Women seem to have been active in the

296

Conclusions

commemoration both in the Cantilupe and especially in Nicholas’s process. The frequent narrations of the miracle were a way to interpret the event. Often the maternal version became accepted and circulated among the family members and occasionally also in wider spheres. Femininity seems also to have been connected with this kind of nurturing: women were eager to preserve and pass on the family memories of miracles, thus reinforcing the sense of unity between the participants, educating the next generation, and occasionally also strengthening their own roles as caregiver and devotee. This feature in the miracle process also emphasizes women’s authority: to control the memory is to control the meaning.

Femininities, Masculinities, and Clerical Rhetoric Occasionally the maternal interpretation and the meaning they had attached to the event were also preferred by the clerical authorities, by the commissioners examining the witnesses. Canon law as well as secular law codes were suspicious of the testimony of women. However, the normative legislation was not always directly adapted to the particular cases. The commissioners applied the regulations flexibly. The approval of women’s testimonies can be seen, for example, in the fact that the father’s testimony was not required to confirm the deposition of the mother in Nicholas’s hearing. Moreover, the husband’s version of the events did not automatically prevail, as canon law required, in cases of contradiction. The most obvious appreciation of women’s testimonies can be found in the summarium of the Cantilupe process, where in a few cases the author openly preferred the mother’s version of the event. However, a very different evaluation of the witnesses seems to have prevailed among the organizers. The inquisitorial committee in the Cantilupe process was rather cautious in summoning women to testify. Women did not give their testimony on the life and habits of the former bishop. Moreover, the organizers were not especially eager to interrogate women on miracles, either. Women were chosen to testify if they played a crucial role in the proceedings or were close relatives of the beneficiary. On the other hand, often only being present at the scene of the miracle qualified men to give their testimony on the event. Men of clerical status were especially appreciated as witnesses. However, no deprecating comments of women as witnesses due to their gender can be found: the epithets like simplex were not gender-based. Moreover, the rejection of the deposition — whether at the

Conclusions

297

actual hearing or on the next level of the examination — did not depend on the gender of the witness. A similar mode of thought can also be found among the examiners of Nicholas’s hearing, even though the way of selecting witnesses to testify was more liberal. Women formed a large proportion of the witnesses, and they were free to recount their personal miraculous experiences. However, only one woman, defined as a holy person of saintly life, was allowed to give testimony to the life of Nicholas. Many other women had personally known Nicholas, but they were not interrogated on such questions. Apparently a high moral status was a prerequisite for women to give testimony to the important aspects of the putative saint’s life, while high social or religious status conferred adequate credibility on men’s words. In the clerical perspective women were also seen as untrustworthy in other contexts — not only as witnesses. Women were deemed to be talkative and unreliable gossipers, yet this opinion is not verified in the depositions. Women were active participants in the formation of the fama of these saints and spread the news of miracles eagerly. These features were not seen in a negative light in the depositions. Moreover, apparently they were also appreciated by the intercessor since these performances were promised as votive offerings to the saint. Even though all Christians were potential sinners in the Church’s teachings, sexual allure as well as fragile chastity was connected especially with women. These features formed an essential element of femininity in the clerical rhetoric. However, they are not particularly reflected in the depositions. Gendered sins and penitential practices are mentioned in a few cases. Women promised, for example, not to wear jewellery or other ornaments. These offerings, however, are so rare that no firm conclusions of the use of gendered penitential practices in the communication with the divine can be drawn. Thus femininity seems to have been constructed differently in the clerical rhetoric and in the depositions of the laymen and -women testifying in these processes. The intermingling of diverse spheres of daily life is also a common feature in both processes, and it was confirmed by both examiners and witnesses. Moreover, the spheres were neither constant nor fixed. They were also negotiated and reconstructed during the course of the action. The news, opinions, and even people from the vicinity could enter into the private sphere. The public and private roles and positions of the participants intermingled. They were concurrently present and met during the interaction with the saint. Furthermore, both private and public involvement was a prerequisite for the interaction with the sacred sphere: interaction with the saint required inner motivation and piety as well as outer signs of devotion. The commonly held norms and

298

Conclusions

patterns influenced the communication with the divine even if it was done privately or secretly. On the other hand, the private experiences and individual positions, social as well as spiritual, could be made visible and acknowledged in the public sphere through the devotional practices. There are clear differences between these processes. The interaction with Saint Nicholas seems to have been important in constructing gendered roles, especially for women. Caregiving and devotional practices intermingled; both of them seem to have been important in the construction of femininity and making it acknowledged in the public sphere, too. By interaction with Saint Nicholas women could have widened their opportunities and created a space for their personal choices and performances. On the other hand, men’s social roles, in the private as well as in the public sphere, were constructed differently. Fathers’ activity in the recoveries of children is not marked. The men’s interaction with the saint was connected with a personal need. It does not seem to form an essential element in their interaction with the family or with the wider community. Men had other options for acknowledged position and esteemed status. Many of the laymen testifying were officials and held formal authority. The interaction with Saint Nicholas does not seem to have constituted an important element in their masculinity. Caregiving and devotional practices were constructed differently in the Cantilupe process. The interaction with Saint Thomas seems to have been an important element in uniting the family. Greater activity of men and relative passivity of women are emphasized in the rites of invocation. Women did not hold public authority or offices, yet the public accidents were not an opportunity for taking initiatory roles in the community, either. They seem to have been situations when the good social standing of an adult man was a prerequisite for the initiative. The parents’ involvement seems to have been fairly similar in the rituals of thanksgiving, too. The collaboration of mothers and fathers was further stressed in the practices of pilgrimage. Both men and women also took an active part in the formation of narrations of the miracles of Thomas Cantilupe while at this stage of the miracle process the women’s activity is emphasized. Women, especially mothers, seem to have been more involved in recalling. Their commemorating role was not acknowledged only in the domestic sphere but also in the wider community. The devotional practices seem to have been important in forming the family identity. Moreover, the gendered position of mothers and fathers was constructed fairly similarly in the interaction with Saint Thomas. The gender hierarchy seems to have been most rigid among the commissioners. Yet these were not fixed with general rhetoric, either. The commissioners

Conclusions

299

themselves could overcome the prejudices of the clerical teachings. The construction of gender seems to have been fairly flexible in the interaction with the saint. The gendering of different responsibilities or qualities was mutable — the categories were not exclusive. Hierarchy was not rigid, either. The authority, initiatory roles, and range of responsibilities and opportunities were not invariably connected with the perceptions of masculinity or femininity but created and modified in the course of the action. Thus even though the diverse social, geographical, and cultural spheres constructed masculinity and femininity differently, what was common to all of them was the need for negotiation in the process of construction as well as the flexibility of the roles of daily life.

S ELECT B IBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (=BAV) MS Vat. Lat. 4015: Inquisitio de fide, vita et moribus et fama et miraculis recolende memorie domine Thome de Cantilupo quondam episcope dicte ecclesie Herefordensis MS Vat. Lat. 4016: Inquisitio de excommunicationis articulis quibus recolende memorie dominus Thomas de Cantilupo quondam episcopus Herefordensis dicebatur tempore obitus sui fuisse ligatus MS Vat. Lat. 4017: Processus super miraculis Thomae de Cantalupo MS Vat. Lat. 4025: Liber canonizacionis domini Karoli ducis Britanniae MS Vat. Lat. 4027: Rubrice examinationes et recollectiones sumpte de processu inquisitione articulis et attestati omnibus habitis et receptis super vita conversacione et miraculis recolende memorie Nicolai de Tholentinum ordinis heremitarum sancti Augustini Camerinensis diocesis et relatio super hiis Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale (=BN) MS Lat. 5373 A: In negocio canonizacionis pie memorie domini Thome quondam Herefordensis episcopus (fols 66r–126v )

Printed Sources Il processo di canonizzazione di Chiara da Montefalco, ed. by Enrico Menestò, Quaderni del Centro per il collegamento degli studi medievali e umanistici nell’università di Perugia, 14 (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 1984). Il processo per la canonizzazione di S. Nicola da Tolentino, ed. by Nicola Occhioni O.S.A., Collection de l’École française de Rome, 74 (Rome: Padri Agostiniani di Tolentino, École française de Rome, 1984). Processus Canonizationis et Legendae varie Sancti Ludovici O.F.M. Episcopi Tolosani, Analecta Franciscana, 7 (Quaracchi-Firenze: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1951).

302

Select Bibliography

Secondary Sources Andriæ, Stanko, The Miracles of St. John Capistran (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2000). Antoine, Élisabeth, ‘L’Image d’un Saint Thaumaturge: les ex-voto de Saint-Nicholas de Tolentino (XV e–milieu XVIe siècle)’, Revue Mabillon, n.s., 7 (1996), 183–208. Ashley, Kathleen, and Pamela Sheingorn, Writing Faith: Text, Sign, and History in the Miracles of Saint Foy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999). Bartlett, Robert, The Hanged Man: A Story of Miracle, Memory, and Colonialism in the Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). Beattie, Cordelia, Medieval Single Women: The Politics of Social Classification in Late Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Bedell, John, ‘Memory and Proof of Age in England 1272–1327’, Past and Present, 162 (1999), 3–27. Bell, Catherine, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992). Bennett, Judith M., Women in the Medieval English Countryside: Gender & Household in Brigstock Before the Plague (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987). Biller, Peter, and A. J. Minnis, eds, Medieval Theology and the Natural Body, York Studies in Medieval Theology (Bury St Edmunds: York Medieval Press, 1997). Bitel, Lisa M., and Felice Lifshitz, eds, Gender and Christianity in Medieval Europe: New Perspectives, Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008). Boesch Gajano, Sofia, ‘Dalla storiografia alla storia’, in Miracoli: Dai segni alla storia, ed. by Sofia Boesch Gajano and Marilena Modica, Sacro/santo (nuova serie), 1 (Rome: Viella, 2000), pp. 215–33. Bowers, Terence N., ‘Margery Kempe as Traveler’, Studies in Philology, 97 (2000), 1–28. Brown, Judith C., and Robert C. Davis, eds, Gender and Society in Renaissance Italy, Women and Men in History (London: Longman, 1998). Brown, Peter, The Cult of Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity, Haskell Lectures on History of Religions, n.s., 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982). Bynum, Caroline Walker, Fragmentation and Redemption: Essays on Gender and the Human Body in Medieval Religion (New York: Zone Books, 1991). Caciola, Nancy, ‘Mystics, Demoniacs, and the Physiology of Spirit Possession in Medieval Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 42 (2000), 268–306. Caciola, Nancy, ‘Spirits Seeking Bodies: Death, Possession and Communal Memory in the Middle Ages’, in The Place of Dead: Death and Remembrance in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. by Bruce Gordon and Peter Marshall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 66–86. Casagrande, Carla, and Silvana Vecchio, I peccati della lingua: Disciplina ed etica della parola nella cultura medievale (Rome: Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana fondata da Giovanni Treccani, 1987). Casagrande, Carla, and Silvana Vecchio, I sette vizi capitali: Storia dei peccati nel Medioevo (Turin: Einaudi, 2000).

Select Bibliography

303

Chojnacki, Stanley, ‘Daughters and Oligarchs: Gender and the Early Renaissance State’, in Gender and Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. by Judith C. Brown and Robert C. Davis, Women and Men in History (London: Longman, 1998), pp. 63–86. Chojnacki, Stanley, ‘“The Most Serious Duty”: Motherhood, Gender, and Patrician Culture in Renaissance Venice’, in Refiguring Woman: Perspectives on Gender and the Italian Renaissance, ed. by Marilyn Migiel and Juliana Schiesari (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), pp. 133–54. Climo, Jacob J., and Maria G. Cattell, ‘Introduction: Meaning in Social Memory and History: Anthropological Perspectives’, in Social Memory and History: Anthropological Perspectives, ed. by Jacob Climo and Maria Cattell (Walnut Creek: Altamira Press, 2002), pp. 1–36. Cohen, Esther, and Mayke B. De Jong, eds, Medieval Transformations: Texts, Power, and Gifts in Context, Cultures, Beliefs & Traditions: Mediaeval & Early Modern Peoples (Leiden: Brill, 2001). Dean, Trevor, and K. J. P. Lowe, eds, Marriage in Italy, 1300–1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Delooz, Pierre, ‘Towards a Sociological Study of Canonized Sainthood in the Catholic Church’, in Saints and their Cults: Studies in Religious Sociology, Folklore and History, ed. by Stephen Wilson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 189–216. Dubisch, Jill, In a Different Place: Pilgrimage, Gender, and Politics at a Greek Island Shrine (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). Elliott, Dyan, Fallen Bodies: Pollution, Sexuality, and Demonology in the Middle Ages, Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999). Ely, Richard, and Alyssa McCabe, ‘Gender Differences in Memories for Speech’, in Gender and Memory, ed. by Selma Leydesdorff, Luisa Passerini, and Paul Thompson, International Yearbook of Oral History and Life Stories, 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 17–30. Farmer, Sharon, Surviving Poverty in Medieval Paris: Gender, Ideology and the Daily Lives of the Poor (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002). Farmer, Sharon, and Carol Braun Pasternack, eds, Gender and Difference in the Middle Ages, Medieval Cultures Series, 32 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003). Fentress, James, and Chris Wickham, Social Memory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992). Finucane, Ronald C., Miracles and Pilgrims: Popular Beliefs in Medieval England (1977; repr. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995). Finucane, Ronald C., ‘Pilgrimages in Daily Life: Aspects of Medieval Communication Reflected in the Newly Established Cult of Thomas Cantilupe (d. 1282), its Dissemination and Effects upon outlying Hereford Villagers’, in Wallfahrt und Alltag in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit: Internationales Round-Table-Gespräch Krems an der Donau 8. Oktober 1990, ed. by Gerhard Jaritz and Barbara Schuh, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophischhistorische Klasse, 592 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), pp. 165–217. Finucane, Ronald C., The Rescue of the Innocents: The Endangered Children in Medieval Miracles (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000). Fröjmark, Anders, Mirakler och helgonkult: Linköpings biskopsdöme under senmedeltiden, Studia historica Upsaliensia, 171 (Uppsala: Acta universitatis upsaliensis, 1992).

304

Select Bibliography

Geary, Patrick, ‘Humiliation of Saints’, in Saints and their Cults: Studies in Religious Sociology, Folklore and History, ed. by Stephen Wilson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 123–40. Gentili, Domenico, ‘Introduzione’, in Il processo per la canonizzazione di S. Nicola da Tolentino, ed. by Nicola Occhioni O.S.A., Collection de l’École française de Rome, 74 (Rome: Padri Agotiniani di Tolentino, École française de Rome, 1984), pp. ix–xxx. Golinelli, Paolo, ‘Social Aspects in Some Italian Canonization Trials: The Choice of Witnesses’, in Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: Aspects juridiques et religieux/Medieval Canonization Processes: Legal and Religious Aspects, ed. by Gábor Klaniczay, Collection de L’École française de Rome, 340 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2004), pp. 165–80. Goodich, Michael, ‘Reason or Revelation? The Criteria for the Proof and Credibility on Miracles in Canonization Processes’, in Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: Aspects juridiques et religieux/Medieval Canonization Processes: Legal and Religious Aspects, ed. by Gábor Klaniczay, Collection de L’École française de Rome, 340 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2004), pp. 181–97. Goodich, Michael E., Violence and Miracle in the Fourteenth Century: Private Grief and Public Salvation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995). Hanawalt, Barbara, ‘Of Good and Ill Repute’: Gender and Social Control in Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). Hanawalt, Barbara, The Ties that Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986). Hanska, Jussi, ‘The Hanging of William Cragh: Anatomy of a Miracle’, Journal of Medieval History, 27 (2001), 121–38. Hanska, Jussi, Strategies of Sanity and Survival: Religious Responses to Natural Disasters in the Middle Ages, Studia Fennica Historica, 2 (Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, 2002). Howell, Martha C., The Marriage Exchange: Property, Social Place, and Gender in Cities of the Low Countries, 1300–1550, Women in Culture and Society Series (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). Jansen, Katherine Ludwig, The Making of the Magdalen: Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000). Karras, Ruth Mazo, From Boys to Men: Formations of Masculinity in Late Medieval Europe, Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003). Katajala-Peltomaa, Sari, ‘Parental Roles in the Canonization Processes of Saint Nicola of Tolentino and Saint Thomas Cantilupe’, in Hoping for Continuity: Childhood, Education and Death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, ed. by Katariina Mustakallio, Jussi Hanska, Hanna-Leena Sainio, and Ville Vuolanto, Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae, 33 (Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2005), pp. 145–55. Kieckhefer, Richard, ‘The Holy and the Unholy: Sainthood, Witchcraft and Magic in Late Medieval Europe’, in Christendom and its Discontents: Exclusion, Persecution, and Rebellion, 1000–1500, ed. by Scott L. Waugh and Peter D. Diehl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 310–37. Kieckhefer, Richard, ‘The Specific Rationality of Medieval Magic’, American Historical Review, 99 (1994), 813–36.

Select Bibliography

305

Klaniczay, Gábor, ed., Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: Aspects juridiques et religieux/Medieval Canonization Processes: Legal and Religious Aspects, Collection de L’École française de Rome, 340 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2004). Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane, La maison et le nom: stratégies et rituels dans l’Italie de la Renaissance, Civilisations et sociétés (Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 1990). Krötzl, Christian, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag: Formen des Verhaltens im skandinavischen Mittelalter, Studia Historica, 46 (Helsinki: SHS, 1994). Krötzl, Christian, ‘Prokuratoren, Notare und Dolmetscher: Zu Gestaltung und Ablauf der Zeugeneinvernahmen bei spätmittelalterlichen Kanonisationsprozessen’, Hagiographica, 5 (1998), 119–40. Lefebvre, Henri, Production of Space (1974; repr. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991). Lehmijoki-Gardner, Maiju, Wordly Saints: Social Interaction of Dominican Penitent Women in Italy, 1200–1500, Bibliotheca Historica, 35 (Helsinki: SHS, 1999). Lett, Didier, ‘Adult Brothers and Juvenile Uncles: Generations and Age Differences in Families at the End of the Middle Ages’, History of the Family, 6 (2001), 391–400. Lett, Didier, L’enfant des miracles: enfance et société au Moyen Âge (XIIe– XIIIe siècle), Collection Historique (Paris: Aubier, 1997). Lett, Didier, Un procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: Essai d’histoire sociale, Le nœud gordien (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2008). Mariani, Paolo, ‘Racconto spontaneo o memoria construita? Testi e confronto in alcuni processi di canonizzazione del secolo decimoquarto’, MEFRM, 108 (1996), 259–319. McNamara, Jo Ann, ‘The Herrenfrage: The Restructuring of the Gender System, 1050–1150’, in Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages, ed. by Clare A. Lees, Medieval Cultures Series, 7 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994), pp. 3–30. Menestò, Enrico, ‘Il Processo apostolico per la canonizzazione di Chiara da Montefalco (1318–1319)’, in Mistiche e devote nell’Italia tardomedievale, ed. by Daniel Bornstein and Roberto Rusconi, Nuovo Medioevo (Naples: Liguori Editore, 1992), pp. 107–26. Mooney, Catherine M., ed., Gendered Voices: Medieval Saints and their Interpreters, Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999). Morrison, Susan Signe, Women Pilgrims in Late Medieval England: Private Piety as Public Performance, Routledge Research in Medieval Studies, 3 (London: Routledge, 2000). Newman, Barbara, ‘Possessed by the Spirit: Devout Women, Demoniacs, and the Apostolic Life in the Thirteenth Century’, Speculum, 73 (1998), 733–70. Newman, Martha, ‘Crucified by the Virtues: Monks, Lay Brothers, and Women in ThirteenthCentury Cistercian Saints’ Lives’, in Gender and Difference in the Middle Ages, ed. by Sharon Farmer and Carol Braun Pasternack, Medieval Cultures Series, 32 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), pp. 182–209. Pasternack, Carol Braun, ‘Negotiating Gender in Anglo-Saxon England’, in Gender and Difference in the Middle Ages, ed. by Sharon Farmer and Carol Braun Pasternack, Medieval Cultures Series, 32 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), pp. 107–42. Richter, Michael, Sprache und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter: Untersuchungen zur mündlichen Kommunikation in England von der Mitte des elften bis zum Beginn des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1979).

306

Select Bibliography

San Nicola, Tolentino, le Marche: Contributi e ricerche sul Processo (a. 1325) per la Canonizzazione di San Nicola da Tolentino, Convengo internazionale di studi. Tolentino, 4.–7. Settembre 1985 (Tolentino: Tipolito A. Pezzotti, 1987). Schmitt, Jean-Claude, La Raison des gestes dans l’Occident médiéval, Bibliothèque des Histoires (Mayenne: Éditions Gallimard, 1990). Schrift, Alan, ed., The Logic of the Gift: Toward an Ethic of Generosity (New York: Routledge, 1997). Sigal, Pierre-André, L’ homme et le miracle dans la France médiévale (XIe– XIIe siècle) (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1985). Smoller, Laura, ‘Miracle, Memory, and Meaning in the Canonization of Vincent Ferrer, 1453–1454’, Speculum, 73 (1998), 429–54. Smoller, Laura Ackerman, ‘Northern and Southern Sanctity in the Canonization of Vincent Ferrer: The Effects of Procedural Differences on the Image of the Saint’, in Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: Aspects juridiques et religieux/Medieval Canonization Processes: Legal and Religious Aspects, ed. by Gábor Klaniczay, Collection de L’École française de Rome, 340 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2004), pp. 289–308. Strocchia, Sharon T., ‘Gender and the Rites of Honour in Italian Renaissance Cities’, in Gender and Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. by Judith C. Brown and Robert C. Davis, Women and Men in History (London: Longman, 1998), pp. 39–60. Stuard, Susan Mosher, ‘Burdens of Matrimony: Husbanding and Gender in Medieval Italy’, in Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages, ed. by Clare A. Lees, Medieval Cultures Series, 7 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994), pp. 61–71. Teski, Marea, and Jacob J. Climo, ‘Introduction’, in The Labyrinth of Memory: Ethnographic Journeys, ed. by Marea Teski and Jacob Climo (Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 1995), pp. 1–10. Turner, Victor, and Edith Turner, Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives, Lectures on the History of Religions, n.s., 11 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978). van Houts, Elisabeth, Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe, 900–1200 (Houndmills: MacMillan Press, 1999). van Houts, Elisabeth, ed., Medieval Memories: Men, Women and the Past, 700–1300 (Harlow: Longman, 2001). Vauchez, André, La Sainteté en Occident aux derniers siècles du Moyen Âge: d’après les procès de canonisation et les documents hagiographiques, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 241 (1981; repr. Rome: École française de Rome, 1988). Waters, Claire M., Angels and Earthly Creatures: Preaching, Performance, and Gender in the Later Middle Ages, Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). Webb, Diana, Patrons and Defenders: The Saints in the Italian City-States, International Library of Historical Studies (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 1996). Wetzstein, Thomas, Heilige vor Gericht: Das Kanonisationsverfahren im europäischen Mittelalter (Cologne: Böhlau, 2004).

INDEX

Accaptus, magister 35 Adam de Kylpek 25, 60, 143, 159, 195, 201, 216, 270–3, 282 Adam le Schirreue 57, 60, 77, 79, 82, 88, 92, 93, 169, 170, 196, 277 Agnes de la Broke 25, 146–7, 159, 218 Agnes de la Hulle 25, 159, 221, 271 Agnes, maid of Willelmus de Domington 43, 92 Agnes, wife of Hugo le Chandeler 65–6, 116 Aldisia Iacobucii 174, 207 Alicia de Lonesdale 42, 45, 59, 117, 122, 143, 159, 180, 271, 274–7 Alicia, wife of Henricus Galant 51 Alicia, wife of Johannes le Lorimer 44–5 Alicia, wife of Radulphus Sporum 59, 165–6, 220 Alixa, wife of Ranalducius Andree 107–12, 208 Amadasius, medicus 122, 222 Amicia Boke 43 Amicia le Rysshwyk 42, 180, 181, 183, 276 Amorella, daughter of Mercatante Adambi 281 Andreas Accursi 242 Andriola, wife of dominus Petrus 134–6 Anfelixia, wife of Mercatante Adambi 131, 174, 244–5, 279–83 Angelischa, widow of magister Accaptus 35–6, 244 Angelucia, wife of Boniacobus 121–2 Angelucius Angeli 102, 188 Angelucius Fortis 175

Angelus de Monte Rubiano 203 Angers 138, 140 Annese Vinzoli, nobilis domina 47, 54, 129, 175 Annessucia, daughter of Caradruda of Matelica 133, 174, 175, 208 Anthonius Thomaxii 202, 256, 265–6 Arnaldus le Glouere 37–8 Augustine, Saint 2, 268 Augustinian friars 9, 50, 100, 107, 131, 199, 207, 244, 269, 283–4 Augustinus de Tholentino 128 Ave Maria 90, 227, 228, 238 Avignon 55 Aycarda Gaufrida 226 Bartholonucia, daughter of Imilla and Manfredinus 120–1 Belforte 96, 282 Bellaflos, daughter of domina Iacobucia 102–3, 185, 186, 189 Berardescha, daughter of Margarita and Berardus Appillaterre 28, 125–8, 256–67, 274 Berardus Appillaterre, notary 28, 121, 124–8, 225–6, 256–63, 265, 274 Berardus Nuctii 201, 224 Berardus, Bishop of Camerino 63, 166, 285 Bertina, wife of Zappa Carracci 54, 109, 129–33, 188–91, 222 Bilia, wife of Ceccharellus 223 Blonda, wife of Jacobucius Facteboni 86, 96 Boniacobus, doctor 121

308 Bruna Pensanicti 33, 279–80, 282 Buctius of Sancto Maroto 122, 222, 230 Bynum, Caroline Walker, historian 168 Caesarius of Heisterbach 2, 220, 268 Canonization processes as hagiography 1–6, 18–19, 250–1 judicial requirements 7–10, 18, 23–32, 38–42, 48–53, 56, 66, 251 questionnaire 18–20, 32–40, 49, 53, 57, 61, 80, 123, 194, 196, 242, 247, 251, 259, 268, 270–2, 274, 280 Canterbury 49, 254 Caradompna, wife of Boniscambius, 173 Caradruda, wife of dominus Franchi 143, 174–5, 208 Catalina, mother of Nicolaus 166 Cathalina Boniscambii 173–4 Cathalina, wife of Cognugius Andree 171 Ceccha, daughter of Margarita and Berardus Appillaterre 28, 83, 121, 125, 256–64, 266–7 Cecilia la Reve 44, 45–6 Cecilia, wife of Adam Schirreue 26, 44, 46, 57, 77, 79, 86, 88, 235, 278–9 Charity 208, 219–21, 229 Charles of Blois, Saint 7, 34, 138, 140 Cibilla, wife of Robertus Gumbald 43, 92 Cicchus Aresti 184, 233 Cicchus Benetengni 175 Cicchus Folle 224 Cicchus Venture, nuntius 9, 283 Cicchus, son of domina Fina 234 Cicchus, son of domina Mita 150, 176, 217 Cisca, wife of Andreas 108–9, 128, 284 Clare of Montefalco, Saint 6–7, 34–5, 126, 135, 138, 181, 270 Clarendina, wife of Cottius Admannite 233–5 Clarucia, daughter of Ceccha Berardi 83, 266–7 Cloth, as votive offering 209–11 Cognugius Andree 171 Coins, as votive offering, see Pecuniary oblations Commemorative rituals 177, 212, 217, 219, 222, 229, 233, 239, 246, 247, 254, 260, 262, 267, 284, 286

Index Commissioners 7–10, 18, 23–69, 74, 86, 93, 99, 114, 122, 123, 152, 162, 164, 174, 181, 194, 196, 199, 203, 208, 211, 233, 242, 247, 250, 251–2, 257, 259, 261, 262, 267–8, 270–1, 272–3, 275, 284, 289, 296, 298 Conway 68, 93 Credo 90, 173, 227, 238 Cristina Cray 55 Cristina, daughter of Henricus de How Caple 82, 94–5, 252–6 Daniel Landeney 270 Devil, demons 9, 12, 125, 147–53, 194, 238 Devotion as a prerequisite for a miracle 73, 88–91, 99, 109, 134, 146 as votive offering 236–40, 246 Dialogue on Miracles 2, 268 Dina Angeli 128, 243 Diomisia, wife of Gervasius Cocus 44, 64, 86, 180, 182, 183 Dubisch, Jill, anthropologist 168 Editha Drake 44, 76 Editha, furiosa 25, 51, 55, 57, 63, 149, 153, 158, 195, 205 England 1, 4, 9, 61, 76, 118, 205, 230, 243 Fame of a candidate, Fama sanctitatis 7, 9, 33, 37, 38, 52, 126, 128, 130, 166, 199, 200, 239–45, 239, 242–5, 265, 297 of a miracle 8, 27, 49, 56, 57, 60, 101, 114, 124, 130, 153, 170, 218, 229, 284, 285–6 of a witness 27, 35–6, 37, 38, 41, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 60, 79, 80–3, 95, 170, 235 Fasting 176, 187, 189, 213, 217, 219–22, 227–30, 236, 237, 239, 240, 241, 246 Federico, Bishop of Senigallia 9 Felicia Morker 82, 94–5, 252 Fina, widow of Thomaxinus Cimarelli, 144–5, 234 Finucane, Ronald, historian 163 Flordalixa, wife of Franciscus 125 Florence 119, 137, 139, 232

Index Flos, wife of Bucolus Ugonis 184 Foligno 211 Food, as votive offering 187, 207–8, 212, 220, 229, 233; see also Charity Forensis de Stacto 63, 155, 285–6 Franciscus Adinolfi, dominus 199, 225 Franciscus Andrioli 240–1 Galfridus, son of Leticia and Robertus Russel 76–7, 79, 124, 171 Gemelucius Forensis 63, 285 Gentelucia, daughter of domina Andriola 134–6 Gentelucia, daughter of Nuczarellus Zappe 132, 172, 188 Gervasius Cocus 25, 64, 180, 181, 183 Gilbertus de Cheueninge, vicar of Magna Markle and proctor of the Cantilupe hearing 8, 29, 49, 50, 143, 153, 205, 271, 282 Gilbertus le Reve 45, 46 Gilbertus, son of Radulphus Sporum 55–6, 59, 118, 220 Giliolus Iohannis, ser 54, 58, 129–30, 221 Golinelli, Paolo, historian 24, 25 Gratian 28–9 Gregoria Gentilis 97–8, 100–2, 214 Gregory IX, pope 28, 38 Guidecto de Gregoria Gentilis 97–8 Guillelmo Godin, cardinal 53–4 Gurevich, Aron, historian 194 Hambleden 137 Henricus Schorne, proctor 8 Hereford 4, 5, 7, 8, 32, 37, 50, 55, 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 91, 114, 117, 124, 137, 146, 149, 153, 169, 171, 179, 180, 183, 198, 199, 201, 203, 218, 221, 242, 250, 269, 274–6 Herlihy, David, historian 231 How Caple 8, 82, 95 Hue and cry 42, 45, 68, 76–83, 92, 94, 111 Hugo de Atfordon 43, 92, 94, 196, 197 Hugo le Barber 40–1, 44, 122, 123, 137 Hugo le Chandeler 65–6, 116 Humility 89, 134, 135, 141, 144, 157, 178, 179, 182, 183, 186, 192, 201, 292

309 Iacobucia, wife of Angelucius Angeli Benentesi 76, 91, 102–3, 141, 186, 189–91, 222, 237–8 Iacobucia, wife of Thomasius Salinbene 33, 244, 279–82 Iacobus Bonomi 213 Image (painted) as a center of cult 134, 137, 138, 140, 213 as a votive offering 97, 213 private, devotional 132, 134, 135 Imilla, wife of Manfredinus 26, 58, 83–4, 121, 281 Incubation 142–4 Indiola, wife of Nuczarellus Zappe 132–4, 136, 188–91, 206 Interpreters 10, 38, 39, 57, 269 Iohanna Angelucii Pauli 33, 110 Iohanna Deodata 234, 245 Iohanna Mulucii 174–5 Iohannes de Murrovallium 34, 51 Iohannes Petri Vegne 97–101 Iordanus Adginate 145 Italy 4, 7, 9, 24, 37, 97, 104, 118, 136, 153, 159, 179, 202, 205, 211, 226, 230, 231, 244 Iuliana Kock 25, 61, 68, 123, 156, 158, 159, 160, 203, 205, 212, 203 Jacobucius Facteboni 96 Jacobus Atteperie 271 Jansen, Philippe, historian 127 Johanna de la Wyle 44, 77, 89 Johanna la Schirreue 25, 36, 44, 60–1, 76–82, 86, 90–1, 93, 169–70, 180, 218, 230, 235, 261, 277–9 Johanna Traquenart 140 Johanna Wase 44, 77, 80, 82, 279 Johanna, daughter of Margeria de Hoymer 156 Johanna, wife of Andre Vielator 51 Johannes Alkyn 29, 32, 50–1 Johannes de Burtone 61, 142–3, 158, 180 Johannes de Leoministre 37 Johannes de Ryschok, 51, 66 Johannes de Tydele 90 Johannes Drake 25, 44, 49, 57, 60, 61, 76, 86, 93, 196 Johannes le Lorimer 42, 44–5, 89, 94

310 Johannes Moniworde 61 Johannes Piscator 25, 49, 57, 62, 82, 94–5, 252, 255–6 Johannes Syward 36, 64, 93–4, 203 Johannes Traquenart 140, 231 Johannes, son of Agnes and Hugo le Chandeler 65, 116–17 Johannes, son of Johanna Wase and Thomas Schonk 77, 79–80, 278–9 John XXII, Pope 53 Juliana de Lude 63 Kieckhefer, Richard, historian 194 Knights of Saint John 203 Leticia, wife of Robertus Russel 57, 77, 79 Lipparellus, son of Zappa Carracci 189 Lipponus Luttii 187–8 Lisa, daughter of Mercatante Adambi 281 London 7, 14, 65, 117, 274, 275, 276 Louis of Toulouse, Saint 7, 200, 212, 218, 223, 226, 228, 234, 245 Luccius, son of domina Annessucia 174 Lucia de Aspertone 8, 230–1 Lucia, wife of Johannes Piscator 57, 82, 94–5, 102, 171, 252–3 Lucola Venture 175 Macerata 51, 137, 240 Magna Markle (today Much Markle) 50 Manfredinus Francisci 26, 58, 83–4, 121, 279, 281–2 Manfredus, son of Boniacobus 121 Marches of Ancona 4, 9, 129, 135, 213, 232, 240 Marchus Morici 186, 237 Marella, sister of Caradompna 174 Margarita Massii, wife of Massius Petri Hugolini 209, 211 Margarita, wife of Berardus Appillaterre 121, 124–8, 205, 207, 241, 257–8, 262–3 Margarita, wife of Petrus Mathei 201 Margeria de Hoymer 61, 68, 156–7 Margeria de Kylpek 271–4 Margery Kempe 191

Index Marina, wife of dominus Raynaldus Uppelli 47, 211 Marital violence 109–11 Marriage age 107, 118, 170, 226 and clerical rhetoric 31, 90 and identification 42, 47, 50, 59, 81–2, 95, 98, 183, 221, 225, 234 and legal status 45–6, 81, 95, 185–6 dowry 119 Marseilles 245 Martinus, son of domina Novella 197 Mary Magdalen 31, 147 Massius Petri Hugolini 211 Mathiola Luce 175 Matilda, servant of Alicia and Johannes le Lorimer 44–5 Matilda, wife of Philippus de Domington 43, 92 Mauss, Marcel, anthropologist 214 Measuring (rite of) 64, 65, 73, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 99, 109, 116, 146, 156, 191, 193, 195–7, 200, 216, 235, 251, 253, 274, 279 Memories, formation of and gender 260, 267, 273–4, 279–81, 284–6 and nurturing role 255–6, 296 see also Commemorative rituals, Oral reminiscence Mendina, daughter of domina Andriola 134 Mercatante Adambi 131, 279–83 Miracle biblical prototypes 25, 30, 54, 197, 277 definition of 1–3, 40 part of hagiographic genre 5–6, 18–19, 30, 154, 250, 275 publicizing 23, 103–5, 124, 147, 240, 242, 244, 285, 294 punishing 199, 203, 244 registers kept at the shrine 23, 24, 41, 124, 146, 149, 163–5, 199, 250 Mita, wife of Angelucius Angeli 187–8, 190 Mita, wife of magister Matheus 176–7, 217 Monticulo 145, 176

311

Index Nanczus, son of domina Cathalina and Cognugius Andree 171, 184–5, 190 Naples 233 Natimbene, Augustinian friar 50, 279–83 Nicholas Piscatoris, son of Lucia and Johannes Piscator 25, 45, 62, 76, 82, 85, 95, 171, 198, 251–5 Nicola Iacobucii 237 Nicolucia, wife of ser Ventorinus 58–9, 129–36, 221 Nicolucius Appillaterre 257 Notaries 9–10, 24, 26, 38, 47, 52, 54, 56, 63, 68, 69, 80, 97, 100, 124, 129, 222, 240, 250–2, 258, 259, 269 Nursia 137, 213 Nurturing and authority 92, 114–24, 185, 262–4 and gender 76–87, 93–5, 115–24, 177 and public sphere 71–102, 177, 186–92 Olivella Buti 175 Oral reminiscence 20, 128, 247–87 Orsella, sister of Mercatante Adambi 280, 283 Palnucia, daughter of Jacobucius Facteboni 96 Pater Noster 90, 227 Pecuniary oblations 202–6, 219, 224 Pelegrinus de Arimino 200, 213, 238, 240 Penitential practices as part of devout life 136, 178, 219–21, 224, 227–9 as votive offerings 136, 161, 178–92, 202, 219–30, 237, 246, 297 Perugia 9, 38, 59, 135, 175 Petrus Mathei 201 Petrus, Bishop of Macerata 51, 54, 129, 130 Philippucia, Cistercian nun 150–2 Philippus Anne 207, 233 Philippus le Longe 68 Philippus, friar and lector of the Augustinian friars 34 Processions 136, 169, 180, 253–4 Puccius Angelii 54, 76, 86, 91, 96, 102–3, 189, 237

Ralph Baldock, Bishop of London, commissioner of the Cantilupe process 8 Ranalducius Andree 107–12 Raymundus de Ginhac, friar 245 Relatio or recollectio 6, 53–8, 111, 149, 150, 199 Relics 1–3, 36, 67, 113, 114, 123, 126–7, 135, 136–60, 161, 191, 192, 193, 195, 205, 244, 262, 290 Reputation, see Fame Riccha, wife of Alifandus 133, 153–8, 222–3 Richard Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford 8, 55, 198, 242 Richardus Thorgryme 183 Ritual, definition of 73–4 Robertus Russel 57, 77, 79, 171 Rogerus de Kylpek 60, 143, 195, 272–3 Rogerus, chaplain of Nova Radenor (New Radnor) 43, 49 Rogerus, son of Diomisia and Gervasius Cocus 25, 36, 44, 64–5, 67, 68, 76, 86, 93, 117, 180, 204 Rosa Iohannis 213, 244 Roysia de Denham 66 Salinbena Vissanucii 151–2, 238 San Ginesio 59, 96, 98, 101, 102, 103, 152 Sennucia, daughter of Imilla and Manfredinus 26, 58, 83–5, 130 Sensus Angelucii 54, 59 Servita, daughter of Rosa Iohannis 213 Sigal, Pierre-André, historian 155 Smoller-Ackerman, Laura, historian 92 Socialization of children 172–3, 284 Specia/Spena, servant of the Appillaterre family 258 Stephanus de Pirebrok 77, 89, 278–9 Summarium 6, 7, 53–6, 61–5, 197, 278, 296 Symon Forensis 63, 285 Thomas Aquinas, Saint 2, 40 Thomas de Gynes, proctor 8 Thomas di Fermo, proctor 9, 257 Thomas Domington 42, 45 Thomas Gentilis 185, 202, 209 Thomas le Frayns 89

312 Thomas Schonk 36, 77, 79–80, 89–91, 278 Thomas, Keith, historian 193–4 Thomassa, wife of Franciscus of Tolentino 199, 202–3, 224–5 Thomaxinus Cimarelli 145, 234 Tommaso di Cesena 9 Tuccius/Luccius Appillaterre 257–8 Turner, Edith 167, 190 Turner, Victor, anthropologist 167, 190 Ugolino, Abbot of Saint Peter’s in Perugia 9 Vanity 95, 182, 224, 225 Vauchez, André, historian 62, 192 Venantius, blessed 202 Ventorinus Gilioli, ser 54, 58, 129–30, 134, 135, 189 Violence, and miracles 104, 157, 166, 240; see also Marital violence Virgin Mary 31, 98, 134, 141, 251–2, 209, 213 Virtus 1 Vision and speech of a saint 154–5, 256, 263, 269, 283, 284 authenticating the performer of a miracle 138, 153, 270–2, 283–4 definition of 267–9 saint acting as earthly doctor in 108–9, 142–4, 156, 274 Votive offerings and circulation of favors 71–2, 219–30, 241 and domestic life 188–92, 230–9 and intimacy 207–13 and magic 192–201 as economic sacrifice 165, 204, 210, 216, 217, 218, 223, 241, 246 reciprocity in gift exchange 171, 214–15, 241 see also Work as votive offering, Penitential practices, Pecuniary oblations Vow/votum 64, 71–3, 92, 97, 98, 99, 100, 109, 115, 120, 140 Walterus Balhardy 43 Walterus de Caple, rector of the church of How Caple 8, 49, 82, 95

Index Walterus de Knulle, friar 242 Walterus de la Wyle 77–8 Wax as votive offering 192–207 candle 176, 193, 195, 197, 198, 201, 202, 209, 216, 217, 218, 246 string 189, 195–6, 200–2 torch 198, 209 Widows 90, 95, 119, 130–1 and guardianship of children 119, 234 Willelmus Cragh 41, 48, 55, 99 Willelmus de Codineston 32, 40 Willelmus de Kylpek 273 Willelmus de Lonesdale 59, 274 Willelmus de Wayte 63 Willelmus Jaudre 37 Willelmus le Lorimer 25, 42–8, 49, 76, 89, 92, 94, 196 Willelmus, perpetual chaplain of the church of All Saints in London 276–7 Willemus de Breuse 32, 40 William de Testa, commissioner of the Cantilupe process 8 William Durand, Bishop of Mende, commissioner of the Cantilupe process 8 Witness in canonization hearings age 38, 44–5, 52 clerical status 40, 43, 48–53, 60, 79, 95, 254, 270, 272, 276, 285 gender 29, 32–8, 39, 48, 51, 53, 55, 56, 59, 62 Work as votive offering 223–4, 241, 246 Ysolda Thorgryme, wife of Richardus Thorgryme 180, 183 Yvo, son of Johanna and Johannes Traquenart 140, 231 Zappa Carracci 109, 132–3, 188–9 Zola, wife of Massius 150–2 Zuccius, son of Thomassa and Franciscus Adinolfi 225