Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: Aspects juridiques et religieux/Medieval Canonization Processes: Legal and Religious Aspects (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: Aspects juridiques et religieux/Medieval Canonization Processes: Legal and Religious Aspects Kenneth Pennington Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: Aspects juridiques et religieux/Medieval Canonization Processes: Legal and Religious Aspects. Edited by Gábor Klaniczay. [Collection de l'École Française de Rome, 340.](Rome: L'École Française de Rome. 2004. Pp. iv, 392. €48,00. ISBN 978-2-728-30723-4.) This set of essays arose from a Wallenberg Seminar held at the Collegium Budapest in 2001.The purpose of the meeting was to explore the legal framework through which saints were created—that is, how the Romano-canonical Ordo iudiciariuswas employed to determine whether a holy person was, in fact, worthy of the designation saint. In the Middle Ages the process was not frivolous. One contributor asserts that between 1198 and 1447 papal tribunals rendered decisions on less than forty saints. During the pontificate of John Paul II 486 new saints were canonized. Whether or not the first figure is exact, there is no question that the rules governing the creation of saints in the Middle Ages did not cheapen the coin. The conference was sponsored by the Bank of Sweden in honor of Raoul Wallenberg, and to some extent, Wallenberg's life and memory shapes the content of the volume. Chapters are devoted to geographical areas that form a crescent from Ireland to Hungary, with a southern glance toward Italy. The trials of Lorcán Ua Tuathail, Birgitta of Sweden, Brynof Algotsson, Elizabeth and Margaret of Hungary, Stanislaus of Kraków, Vincent of Ferrer, and Bernardino of Siena merit treatment in some depth, but a large number of other canonization proceedings are touched upon. Despite the volume's title, the authors seem to know very little about the rules that governed the inquisitorial Ordo iudiciarius. Only one author, Thomas Wetzstein, demonstrates an understanding of how a trial was conducted. This is important because canonization proceedings followed the rules governing the Ordo iudiciariusexactly. A number of the essays illustrate the danger of using medieval legal materials without understanding medieval jurisprudence. Most of the authors wished to use the materials from these proceedings to explore medieval religious attitudes on all levels of society. The goal is commendable but rather difficult to achieve if the sources do not speak clearly for themselves. For example, Gábor Klaniczay, in his essay on how the inquisitioestablished sanctity in the thirteenth century, describes the "new norms" (p. 123) [End Page 797]for questioning witnesses that Pope Gregory IX outlined in a letter to Conrad of Marburg in October 1232. Paolo Golinelli repeats this idea in his essay. They were, in fact, far from new. Canon 38 of the Fourth Lateran Council established rules for recording the testimony of witnesses that had already been a part of the Ordo iudiciariussince the second half of the twelfth century. The conciliar canon only confirmed existing practices. Klaniczay discusses several thirteenth-century canonizations, including St. Francis. He raises the question of why Gregory did not put more weight on reports of Francis's miracles. The pope simply declared in his bull of canonization that "his life … was sufficient for joining the Church Triumphant" (p. 118). Klaniczay and others have described it as paradoxical that Francis's miracles did not play a more central role in the proceedings. When, just a few years later, the great canonist, Hostiensis, wrote that when interrogating witnesses in canonization proceedings, first fama, then vita, and finally miracles should be examined (Commentary on X 3.45.1, cited on p. 266n14), the jurist simply reflected contemporary jurisprudence. According to the rules of the Ordo iudiciarius, the fama, then the life, then miracles were to be investigated. Miracles, as Hostiensis's list made clear, were not a top priority. Klaniczay also describes Francis's canonization as "hasty and rudimentary" (p. 118). Gregory's treatment of Francis conformed to the norms of judicial procedure at that time. First, rather than miracles, the trial focused on Francis's fama. More important, however, it treated a matter that was "notorious." Until the second half of the thirteenth century, "notorious" matters did not...