The Inquisition into Walter Langton, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield
The inquisition into Walter Langton stands at the opposite end of the thirteenth century to Geoffrey of York’s, long after inquisitorial procedures had been fully elaborated. It is well known at one level, but its interest in relation to canonical inquisitions has been little explored. Like Geoffrey of York’s, the inquisition into Walter Langton involved a cleric at the heart of royal government; was based on grave allegations; was ultimately summarily dismissed; and can again be twinned with a later, separate, and better-known investigation into Langton’s wrongdoings in the secular sphere. Unlike Geoffrey’s—and many other canonical inquisitions— Langton’s case was pushed not by an unhappy ecclesiastical group, but by a knight,
These were the allegations against Langton:
That the said bishop was and is publicly defamed [diffamatus] in the Kingdom of England and elsewhere because he did homage to the Devil [diabolo fecit homagium] and kissed him on the back [in tergo], and spoke to him frequently. Item, that concerning this, here [and] among the English at the Roman Curia there was and is that public knowledge and rumour [publica vox et fama]. Item, that the said bishop for over two years before obtaining the said episcopate, and after obtaining it, was and is publicly and seriously defamed [diffamatus] throughout the Kingdom of England amongst the clergy and people, and especially in parts of London for having committed adultery with Lady Joan de Brianzon, the stepmother of the said knight [John de Lovetot] wife of the late Sir John Lovetot, justiciar of the illustrious King of England [. . . and after his death] had the said Lady Joan as his concubine publicly, and both were attached to each other publicly and she followed the said Bishop through various parts of England up to the time of her death. Item, that concerning this there was at that time and is now public knowledge and rumour [publica vox et fama] in the Kingdom of England and especially in [London] and even among the English at the Roman Curia. Item, he [i.e. John de Lovetot, Jr.] intends to prove that the said Bishop before he acceded to the said episcopate and after was and still is publicly and seriously defamed in the Kingdom of England and especially in parts of London that, in order to more freely contract the bond of fornication with the said Lady Joanna, at an opportune time, together with the said Lady Joanna, slew, strangled, and killed the said Sir John her husband, sleeping, at night, at home, and in his own bed. Item, that concerning this it was and is the public knowledge and rumour [publica vox et fama] in the said places and among the English at the Roman Curia. Item, he [i.e. John de Lovetot, Jr.] intends to prove that the said lord Bishop before obtaining the said episcopate, and after obtaining it, was and is publicly and seriously diffamed in the Kingdom of England for simoniacal depravity, and that he has committed many wrongs [mala] by himself and through others against clerics and ecclesiastical persons and places of those parts, against ecclesiastical liberty and even by going against constitutions of the holiest father Pope Boniface VIII. Item, that concerning this there was and is the public knowledge and rumour in those parts and among the English at the Roman Curia. Item, that he intends to prove that the said Bishop before his promotion to the said episcopate held very many benefices, having care of souls, and he held these dignities without the dispensation of the Apostolic See. Item, that concerning this the same Bishop is publicly defamed in the said parts.
This admixture of ‘official’ and personal crimes comprised the inquisitorial articles relating the allegations against Langton. It barely needs stressing that the articles are at almost ‘maniacal’ pains to specify the public fama about Langton, its persistency, its occurrence both before and after his election, and the nature of crimes pertaining to clerical office (simony, pluralism) while also bringing his holding of it into disrepute more personally (concubinage, fornication, murder, perverse diabolism). Boniface VIII sent the articles on 1 March 1302 to the inquisitors Robert Winchelsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Jorz, Dominican Prior in England, and Hugh of Hartlepool, Minister of the English province of the Franciscans.
Analysis of Langton’s inquisition requires resketching the chronology of events. By 6 February 1301 repeated rumours and allegations against Langton were circulating at the Curia, provoking Boniface to summon Langton personally. At this stage the rumours were not linked to anyone; Lovetot went unmentioned. On 6 February Boniface ordered Langton to appear at the Curia within three months. On 1 May Winchelsey issued this citation directly to Langton. On 10 May Langton received it; on 26 May Winchelsey issued his certificatio recounting the events to date and his compliance with Boniface’s orders. Meanwhile Boniface appears to have written to Winchelsey demanding why he had not acted on the allegations against Langton. At least, on 5 June Winchelsey wrote defending himself. By August the deadline for appearing at the Curia had expired; but at the end of August Langton was in York. By the end of 1301 he was in France. A supportive letter of Queen Margaret may date from this period. She appealed for Langton’s excusal from personally justifying himself at the Curia ‘not least because it would threaten manifold danger and intolerable loss not only for the Lord King, but also for the whole kingdom’. Langton manages her estates which ‘had he abandoned, he would have left us all at sea, without direction, since no one knows these estates like him’. Langton ‘is deemed the very king’s right eye’, and ‘royal affairs are ruled through him before all others’. Between January and May Langton was at the Curia. Certainly royal letters supporting Langton reached Boniface before March since he mentioned them on 1 March 1302 in ‘Ad audientiam nostram’. By then one inquisition into Langton’s infamia had already been carried out. The articuli quoted on p. 174 were its product, the result of a preliminary test of the infamia, compiled by the Franciscan Gentile da Montefiore, Cardinal of Saint Martin in the Mountains, interviewing the English curiales at the Curia. They signal that inquisitorial matters had taken a clear turn cum promovente since Boniface says the articles are at Lovetot’s petitionem et instantiam. With Lovetot acting as an active and supporting promotor, ‘Ad audientiam nostram’ suspended Langton and, on the basis of Gentile’s inquisitorial findings, appointed Winchelsey, Jorz, and Hartlepool as Langton’s inquisitors in England. A striking feature of the letter is Boniface’s unease in openly describing the detailed charges against Langton, arguably a sign of their seriousness. One aspect, the kissing of the Devil’s ‘back’, would reappear as a key feature in the inquisitorial trial of the Templars. (And Boniface would have problems of his own with allegations of diabolism.) On 30 March Boniface appointed three Lichfield canons as procurators during Langton’s suspension. Possibly their competence and closeness to Langton implies he had some influence over the Pope’s selection. On 6 April 1302 Boniface ordered the inquisitors to examine the witnesses Lovetot would provide. The same day he wrote to the King asking him ‘not to have ill-will or rancour against [Lovetot], lest he, for fear of you, cease from pursuing this business and the truth be hidden’. In May Langton was in France, but was back in London for the July-August parliament. In August, in an unlikely coincidence, Lovetot was (briefly) arrested by the King. The Lichfield chapter and John Dalderby, Bishop of Lincoln, wrote in support of Langton. Through August and September 1302 so too did the King, making brutal attacks on Lovetot’s character in passing, Boniface’s earlier plea for good-will having failed. In early December Boniface, himself now frustrated with Lovetot’s foot-dragging, ordered the inquisitors to compel him to produce evidence he had promised but was allegedly withholding. Around then Lovetot was attacked and left for dead in St Paul’s cemetery. On 16 February 1303 Winchelsey, completing his inquisitorial responsibility, summarized the chain of events to date, and noted he was sending on the inquisitors’ report separately. It does not appear to survive. A few days later Winchelsey wrote to Edward asking for letters of safe conduct for the understandably nervous Lovetot since ‘he fears danger from his opponents threatening him between here and the sea’. The implication is clear that it was the journey from London (where Winchelsey wrote) to the Channel that worried Lovetot. Lovetot did not go to the Curia at Anagni. In 1303, presumably before this point, Edward wrote again to Boniface in support of Langton. On 8 June at Anagni Boniface, reviewing Winchelsey’s inquisition, found that ‘the inquisitorial witnesses have deposed nothing which has damaged you. And it seems that many of these witnessed against you with respect to the public rumour, however they added to their words that [the rumour] originated with your opponents.’ Boniface ‘therefore, who delights especially in the fragrance of prelates’ good reputation’ found that Langtons, combined with the proof that Lovetot senior ‘ended his days with a natural not a violent death’, combined with the infamy’s origination with Langtons enemies, justified ending his suspension, his office’s delegation to the Lichfield canons, and the Bishop’s absolution of infamy. The only qualification was that Langton had to purge himself with thirty-seven other senior clerics. Boniface afterwards explained his reasoning as follows: ‘You would not have had to undergo purgation, but, not so much out of legal necessity as for your protection, lest you should be slandered further regarding what has been said, and subjected to the biting of thieves, we declared you had to undergo canonical purgation regarding what had been objected in the said Curia.’
Langton returned home. He maintained a high position for the rest of Edward I’s reign: royal ambassador to the Curia in 1305; keeper of the realm in 1306; royal executor in 1307. Between August 1307 and January 1312 Langton was caught up in Edward Il’s energetic prosecution of him at the Exchequer for damages to royal and other property, and for his conduct at the Exchequer as Treasurer. Eventually exonerated, Langton returned to the treasurership in early 1312, but his subsequent career was one of oscillating inclusion and exclusion from royal and ecclesiastical favour. He died in 1321.
Langtons 1301—3 inquisition can serve as a way of reviewing the dynamics of episcopal accountability by the end of the thirteenth century, as institutionalized through canonical inquisitions.
First, inquisitorial procedure was exceptionally flexible, as others have recently argued. Its procedural boundaries readily blurred with others. It was a properly mixed action, so to speak. The case begins in 1301 as a citation of Langton to the Curia (‘Grave nimis non immerito’). Boniface does not at this stage make any clear allusion to inquisitorial procedure; he simply orders Winchelsey to cite Langton to the Curia.  It seems possible in principle that at this stage the proceedings could develop per notorium or per inquisitionem.230 Nevertheless a number of the keynotes of inquisitorial procedure are present—excessus by prelates, the threat of scandalum, the need for superiors to act on persistent rumours, a clamor validated by repetition. It seems that Boniface’s initial citation was not an inquisition with someone instigating it (cum aliquo promovente)—that is, the initial fama seems not to have been ‘helped’ by Lovetot or anyone else, as was permitted procedurally. This had happened by the time that Cardinal Gentile carried out his preliminary inquisition, as detailed in ‘Ad audientiam nostram’, where Lovetot is acting as promotor. The importance that inquisitionispromotor could assume is a further illustration of a functional smudging specifically between inquisitorial and accusatorial procedure. But an inquisition cum aliquo promovente was a wholly orthodox way of running an inquisition even though the basic inquisitorial logic was that (in the words of Lateran IV cap. 8) fama and clamor acted as actor and iudex? Determining whether an inquisition was cum aliquo promovente was one of the first things Johannes Teutonicus said was necessary in an inquisition in his commentary on Lateran IV cap. 8. Functionally Lovetot was an accuser, with the important proviso that since he was not one formally, he avoided the risk of the poena talionis associated with making such serious charges. Lovetot’s role as promotor furthermore was essential to the case’s development and collapse. Such involvement illustrates the permitted potential for inquisitions to develop following a very accusatorial dynamic.
Secondly, this fact had consequence in the proliferation of allegations. Accusatory procedure had inbuilt curbs against extravagant insinuations and allegations. In the event of a failed accusation, an accuser was liable for the penalties associated with their accusations to rebound on them.235 One effect was to prevent allegations from escalating (or getting anywhere at all). This firewall was lowered significantly for inquisitorial procedure. It is not always easy to tell how justified any litany of complaints against a prelate may be, but at the very least inquisitions permitted, arguably encouraged, the circulation of speculative allegations. It is, for instance, hard to determine whether Anselm de Mauny, Bishop of Laon in 1233 was really guilty of alienation of church property, involvement in a homicide, corruption, disciplinary failures, failure to offer the last rites, fraud, misuse of bequests, nepotism, pastoral neglect, simony, theft, and tolerance of clerics’ sexual assaults on virgins, as his chapter alleged.236 It seems reasonable to suppose that these allegations were so framed deliberately to trigger an inquisition. As they did.237 The allegations against Langton are not so lengthy, but they compensate in gravity. The allegations of homicide and diabolic communication are the most spectacularly serious. Back-kissing would feature in Philip IV’s charges against the Templars. Philip’s charges were anatomically more precise, the Templars’ kissing of the ‘base of the spine’ a euphemism for anus.238 Lovetot wished something similar to be understood here. The conjunction of diabolism and homosexuality was surely not accidental either. It is ‘striking the frequency with which homosexual behavior comes to be identified with heresy’ in this period.239 Some scholars have thought the charges wholly implausible.240 But such charges were dangerous. Versions of them would lead in less than a decade to the deliberate suppression and destruction of an entire religious order, using the same scandalized logic.241 Per se the charges against Langton were neither implausible nor hard to imagine.
Infamia then was often framed in such a way as to ensure that the relevant responsible authority felt compelled to initiate investigations. In this regard it cannot be he knows the inquisition is with someone instigating it, the defendent is not to be forced to swear anything by which his opponent [adversarius] can be benefited [instrui] but he himself [i.e. the judge] will summon witnesses.’
- 235 See Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 142-143; Kery, ‘Inquisitio—denunciatio—exceptw ; Trusen, ‘Inquisitizionprozeff.
- 236 ‘Quia potestatem ligandi’, Reg Greg IX, i. #1017 (4 January 1233). Thery remarks on this problem, ‘«Exces» et «affaires d’enquete»’, i. 416—17.
- 237 Sabapathy, ‘Accountable rectores in comparative perspective’, 215—20.
- 238 Anne Gilmour-Bryson, ‘Sodomy and the Knights Templar’, Journal of the History of Sexuality 7 (1996), 151—83, at 156—7 esp. n. 22, 182. On the kissing specified in the French Templar initiation rite see Dossier de Caffaire des Templiers, 212.
- 239 James A. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago, 1987), 473.
- 240 Michael Prestwich, Edward I (London, 1988), 549, but cf. T. F. Tout and Hilda Johnston, State Trials of Edward the First, CS, 3rd ser. 9 (1906), xxxvii, on the period’s ‘remarkable ingenuity in piling upon a nucleus of truth, a strange medley of hideous crime’.
- 241 Dossier de Caffaire des Templiers, 196—203; Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 2006), 202—16, 259—82, with his judgement on the inquisition at 283—90.
accidental that many such allegations included both personal and ‘official’ delicts. The former included ones that would have led culprits to serious secular proceedings without benefit of clergy. The latter were some of the most serious clerical crimes available. (As with Langton, de Maunys infamia included both personal crimes and ‘official’ ones such as simony.) Wider categories helped to indicate the general gravity of the matter. Generically excessus and scandalum connoted a broad, emphatic sense of official transgression, incorporating personal crimes and misdemeanours. The private was parsed through the official. Given the nature of episcopal office, and the period’s stress on pastoral care, it is unsurprising, if distinctive, that episcopal accountability evolved in this way. As Boniface duly said regarding the ‘unpromoted’ allegations against Langton,
Wherefore, led by worthy impulses and by considered zeal we are roused to hasten to apply a remedy to correct and punish the excesses of prelates as justice demands [. . .] Thus, since we did not wish, just as we ought not, to disregard such things as offend God and scandalize men by turning a blind eye, if they can be mended by the help of truth—instead of determining to proceed with skilled attention to their due punishment, according to the law as we have seen it—lest they should grow with the passage of time [. . .]
Langton’s case may be a good example of what one could call allegation inflation, a product of the relatively safe space that inquisitions provided for the articulation of infamia. This was arguably the necessary cost—in this hierarchical society—of establishing a method which actually enabled senior clerics to be investigated for excessus. On the one hand the capacity for malicious or at least exaggerated allegations as a direct side-effect of inquisitorial procedure is notable. On the other one wonders if this was inevitable when generating a complaint serious enough to have any traction against a bishop and royal treasurer.
Thirdly, therefore, the evaluation of such charges called for a discernment proportionate to their seriousness and this inflationary tendency. Throughout the trial Boniface sought to control the allegations against Langton, and to control Langton and Lovetot. In ‘Ad audientiam nostram’, he says ‘we do not want to publish their depositions about the said bishop’ arising from the case, ‘but having carefully considered the nature of the matter’ suspends him ‘as justice requires’ (justicia exigente). Boniface adds that he will not disclose the names of the witnesses against Langton, ‘with the names of the said witnesses kept absolutely out of reach of the aforementioned bishop, lest they later be liable to some danger’. This was against usual procedure, but required given the Pope’s obligation to protect witnesses.247 The exception may have been made because Lovetot expressed fear for himself; equally, it may have been made because Boniface was reluctant to encourage the circulation of such rumours about Langton. The assault in St Paul’s implies there was some justification for the fear. Boniface was also quite careful to send the articles under his seal separately, noting this repeatedly.248 Winchelsey was similarly careful. His enregistered copy of Boniface’s inquisitorial mandate excludes Gentile’s articles of inquisition (which by definition Winchelsey had received), and Winchelsey’s reference to Langton’s enormia is often allusive.249 Similarly, when Langton wanted to disprove the charges, and so see them, Winchelsey had a copy of the witnesses’ attestacionum made but with the witnesses’ names removed.250 Since a large part of the legal logic driving inquisitions was to avoid or eliminate scandalum it was sensible to minimize the repetition of the allegations. In the context of the allegations against Langton one may be eavesdropping on the uncertainty in this period about how far one should or should not specify the ‘unsayable’.251 It is also worth saying that overinflated allegations might prove counterproductive if they led to official reluctance to cause (further) scandal by disseminating them.
Partly because of this, and especially because Winchelsey’s and Jorz’s final report is missing, it is hard to determine what was actually made of the diabolical allegations. They explicitly figure in Boniface’s restitutio famae of Langton.252 But the discretion with which they were specified implies an awareness of their potency (a sensitivity perhaps shared by the modern editors of Boniface’s Register). More widely their handling suggests some prior judicial selection in determining which were the most serious and credible charges here. The Curia may have been sceptical of their credibility right from the start. Certainly it is not diabolism that seemed the stickiest charge for Langton, at least so far as ‘Ad audientiam nostram’ goes. That letter pays more attention to the alleged homicide of John Lovetot senior. Boniface noted that Lovetot junior had produced at the Curia letters, seemingly sealed with Langton’s seal, in which Langton agreed to pay this Lovetot a ‘certain amount of money’ so that the ‘knight would not file a complaint against him concerning this’, i.e. the death of the father.253 Langton conceded that ‘it did seem to be his seal, but he added afterwards that it was a fake or stolen’.254 The charges of homicide but not diabolism
- 247 Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis, 56 (cap. 8), where the canon notes that both the articles of the inquiry (so here Gentile’s inquisitio) and the names of the witnesses and their depositions were to be given to the defendant.
- 248 See Reg. Bon. VIII, ##4626, 4627, 4849, 5012 (4849 only in Reg. vat., l. fo. 237r-v).
- 249 ‘Enormia’: within ‘Sinistra quorundam’, 5 June 1301, in Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 602. Enregistered copy: within ‘Litteras vestre sanctitatis’, Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 648—50. Highly allusive: e.g. Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 651, ‘predictos articulos sub bulla vestra inclusos nobis’. On enormia, Thery, ‘«Exces» et «affaires denquete»’, i. ch. 4, esp. 441—6, arguing it is less a juridical category than a means of galvanizing a case.
- 25° ‘Litteras vestre sanctitatis’, Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 652.
- 251 See Chiffoleau, ‘Dire l’indicible’, arguing that the early fourteenth century sees a determination to say the unsayable (303). There still seems some ambivalence about doing so in Langton’s case.
- 252 Reg. vat., l fo. 332v (part edn. Reg. Bon. VIII, #5239).
- 253 Reg. vat., l fo. 279v (part edn. Reg. Bon. VIII, #5012).
- 254 Reg. vat., l fo. 279v (part edn. Reg. Bon. VIII, #5012).
appear as the focus of debate at the Curia. In the extant documentation then, we have a picture in which charges are handled with some apparent discernment. That may support the idea that in practice inquisitions—despite the risks of summary procedure—allowed rational adjustments to be made to canonistic inquisitorial procedure. Two final aspects offer grounds for some scepticism: the wide latitude given to judges in determining judgement and the openness of cases to outside influence.
Inquisitorial procedure gave judges (e.g. Boniface VIII) enormous latitude in dealing with suspects (e.g. Langton). Boniface could decide to conduct a further inquisition having had Gentile da Montefiore’s initial report. He could determine the deadlines Langton was faced with and the delegated inquisitors. If Winchelsey was an obvious lead choice he was also a very different prelate, one who poured sand where Langton poured oil in church-state relations. Finally Boniface would ultimately determine the sanctions Langton faced. In all this there was a great deal of scope for judicial discretion which might or might not be exercised equitably.
It was suggested earlier that paradoxically, in order to enable inquisitions against powerful figures, inquisitorial procedure sought to be open to questions of reputation and repute and so ran the risk that powerful people would again exert influence there. Just this happened with the royal letters on Langton’s behalf to Boniface. Arguably this necessitated some judicial freedom of manoeuvre. The procedurally ‘internal’ question of inappropriate judicial discretion was the problematic corollary of the ‘external’ issue of undue outside influence in triggering and influencing an inquisition. Judges needed discretion in evaluating the potency of allegations, and their sources. In 1301 Lovetot was in debt to Langton and had mortgaged property to him. Further than that it is hard to fathom additional putative motives (beyond the actual claims made in the allegations). An old idea was that Winchelsey was behind Langton’s inquisitions because of his opposition to royal fiscal policy, Langton’s inquisitions compromising an important ecclesiastical supporter of the King. This idea has lost support. During the inquisition relations between King, Pope, and Church were better than they had been during the 1297 crisis, if not uncomplicated. In January 1301 Boniface granted Edward a crusading tenth. In March he wrote off any money taken from earlier tenths but also sought repayment of the outstanding feudal census. Having headed off one parliamentary crisis in 1300, at a Lincoln parliament in January 1301 the King sought a fifteenth but had to endure a detailed bill of complaint as well as specific criticisms of Langton (as Treasurer) for unjust prises and Exchequer innovations. Winchelsey’s own involvement in John Ferrers’s 1301 attempts to recover his inheritance led to him being accused of breaking his fealty to the King for inappropriate use of church courts.
As bishop and Edward’s treasurer, Langton’s inquisition was an unhelpful inconvenience at a suspiciously delicate moment—a fact obvious from royal efforts to disparage Lovetot and bolster Langton.
It was a necessary evil of holding prelates to account in this way at all that the procedures should be liable to outside influence and allegations like this. Manipulation was almost entailed by reliance on publica vox et fama. During Langton’s more famous secular trials for corruption between 1307 and 1312 it certainly seems likely that Edward Il’s vendetta against him found further expression in unsuccessful allegations of ecclesiastical enormia in 1309. Once the fact of any infamia was established its functional role was arguably over; for even if fire was undetectable, it could prove hard to shift the smell of the smoke. Infamia played a clear role right up to the end of Langton’s 1302—3 trial when Boniface issued the restitutio famae with the obligation to purge himself given the allegations. Legally this may have been gratuitous if Langton had no case to answer. Politically it was vital given canonical inquisitions’ aim of eliminating ecclesiastical scandalum.
-  Julien Thery offers a complementary analysis in his invaluable habilitation ‘«Exces» et«affaires d’enquete»’, which I read having substantively completed this study. I thank him againfor his kindness in sending me a copy. See i. 304, 381, 403^, 409, 411, 451,453^, 494, 506—7,518, 524-5.
-  For the chronology of the canonical inquisition see The Register of Walter Langton Bishop ofCoventry and Lichfield, 1296—1321, ed. J. B. Hughes, C&Y 91, 97, 2 vols. (2001-7), esp. i. at xxx—xxxii, xxxv-xxxvi; Roy Martin Haines, ‘Langton, Walter (d. 1321)’, ODNB; Jeffrey H. Denton, RobertWinchelsey and the Crown, 1294—1313: A Study in the Defence of Ecclesiastical Liberty (Cambridge,1980),passim, esp. 53^; Alice Beardwood, ‘The Trial of Walter Langton, Bishop of Lichfield, 1307—1312’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society ns 54.3 (1964), 1—45 at 6—8. For the secular1307—12 trial, Beardwood, ‘The Trial of Walter Langton’ and Records of the Trial of Walter Langeton,ed. Beardwood.
-  On Lovetot’s namesake father, Paul Brand, ‘Lovetot, Sir John de (b. in or before 1236,d. 1294)’, rev. ODNB.
-  Register of Walter Langton, i. at xxxvi n. 122.
-  Reg. vat., l. fos. 279v—280r, articuli appended to ‘Ad audientiam nostram’ (1 March 1302). Thetext of Reg. Bon. VIII, #5012 (Potthast #25129) has several omissions, including the most lurid aspects;Winchelsey also omitted the articles from his recapitulation in his 16 February 1303 ‘Sanctissimopatri in’ (Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 648—52). The letter indicates Joan was dead by March 1302although Brand, ‘Lovetot, Sir John de (b. in or before 1236, d. 1294)’ states she died around August.
-  ‘Maniacal’ is Jacques Chiffoleau on such contexts, ‘Dire l’indicible. Remarques sur la categoriedu nefandum du XIIe au XV siecle’, Annales: Economies, Societes, Civilisations 45, (1990), 289—324at 305.
-  Hugh of Hartlepool died before the investigation was complete: Registrum Roberti Winchelsey,ii. 648; Reg Bon. VIII, #5239. On Hugh see Jeremy Catto, ‘Hartlepool, Hugh of (c.1245—1302)’,ODNB.
-  ‘Grave nimis non’, Chronicon de Lanercost M.CC.I.—M.CCC.XLVI.: e codice Cottoniano nuncprimum typis mandatum, ed. Joseph Stevenson, Bannatyne Club 65 (Edinburgh, 1839), 200—1, alsoreproduced within Winchelsey’s 26 May 1301 letter to Boniface certifying that he has acted in accordance with the Pope’s instructions (Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 600—1). The two editions havemultiple variants between them and a composite reading is necessary.
-  Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 601, ‘Litteras apostolicas nuper’.
-  Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 600—1, ‘Litteras apostolice celsitudinis’ is the incipit of theoverall certificacio containing the other letters.
-  204 Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 602, ‘Sinistra quorundam suggestio’.
-  Counting from his receipt of the citation in early May. His itinerary is given in Register ofWalterLangton, ed. Hughes, ii. App. D. For this period see 210—11.
-  The Liber epistolaris of Richard de Bury, ed. N. Denholm-Young, Roxburghe Club (Oxford,1950), #447 at 316—17, ‘Altis ad sancte’.
-  Liber epistolaris of Richard de Bury, #447 at 317.
-  Reg. vat., l. fo. 279, Ad audientiam nostram’. As noted, this is printed with numerous omissions and an incomplete version of Gentile’s charge sheet, in Reg. Bon. VIII, #5012. The main letteralso appears within Winchelsey’s 16 February 1303 letter, ‘Litteras vestre sanctitatis’, but lacking thearticuli (Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 648-52).
-  Gentile was Cardinal from 2 March 1300 and became a faithful adherent of Boniface: LauraGaffuri, ‘Gentile da Montefiore (Gentilis de Monteflore)’, DBI, liii. 167-70 at 167.
-  2*o Le Dossier de Raffaire des Templiers, ed. Georges Lizerand, 2nd edn. (Paris, 1964), 18, from theoriginal arrest order of 14 September 1307. Philip IV alleged that initiates ‘in posteriori parte spinidorsi primo, secundo in umbilico, et demum in ore [. . .] deosculantur ab ipso’ [i.e. the Templarreceiving the initiate].
-  Hughes’s suggestion, Register of Walter Langton, i. xxx.
-  Reg Bon. VIII, #4627, ‘Nuper nobis per’ = ‘Nuper vobis [sic] per’ as transcribed in Winchelsey’s‘Litteras vestre sanctitatis’ to Boniface (Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 651, as ‘secunda bulla’).
-  Foedera, i.2. 939, ‘Eam gerimus de’. 214 CR 1296—1302, 604.
-  215 Register of Walter Langton, i. xxxvi n. 122.
-  216 Foedera, i.2. 943 (‘Dum gemitus frequentiam’, ‘Non sine cordis amaritudine’, both 24 August
-  1302); calendared with others in Liber epistolaris of Richard de Bury, ##78-81 at 43^.
-  217 Reg. vat., l. fos. 237r-v; Reg. Bon. VIII, #4849, ‘Dudum vobis per’.
-  Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, i. 448-9, Apostolice sedis auctoritas’, 20 December 1302, excommunicating the attackers.
-  ‘Litteras vestre sanctitatis’, Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 652.
-  ‘In negotio inquisicionis’, 20 February 1303, Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 773.
-  He is held contumacious for his absence in Reg. vat., l. fos. 332v—333, ‘Dudum ad audientiam’,8 June 1303. Reg Bon. VIII, #5239 has been cut and gives the incipit as ‘Propter quod nos’, but thisis to start some way into the letter.
-  Anxietatis nimiae torquemur’, Foedera, i.2. 956, trans. CR 1302—1307, 81—2.
-  223 Reg. vat., l, fo. 333 (Reg. Bon. VIII, #5239).
-  Reg. vat., l. fo. 333 (Reg. Bon. VIII, #5239).
-  Reg. vat., l. fo. 333 (Reg Bon. VIII, #5239). Cf. ‘Inter sollicitudines nostras’ (X 5.34.10) requiring the Dean of Nevers to have fourteen compurgators. See Thery, ‘'Atrocitaslenormitas, 35; Hirte,Papst Innocenz III, 142^; R. H. Helmholz, ‘Crime, Compurgation and the Courts of the MedievalChurch’, Law and History Review 1 (1983), 1—26 at 17 cites Antonius de Butrio Commentaria (Venice,1578), at 102r (#24); Cynthia J. Neville, ‘Homicide in the Ecclesiastical Court of Fourteenth-CenturyDurham’, in Fourteenth Century England 1 (2000), 103—14; Kery, ‘Inquisitio—denunciatio—exceptio261-6.
-  Reg. vat., 50, fo. 333 (Reg. Bon. VIII, #5239).
-  See Haines, ‘Langton, Walter (d. 1321)’, ODNB; Beardwood, ‘The Trial of Walter Langton,Bishop of Lichfield, 1307-1312’, passim.
-  Thery, Atrocitaslenormitas; ‘Fama: L’Opinion publique comme preuve judiciaire’; and ‘«Exces»et «affaires d’enquete»’, i. passim, esp. 60—1, 477—8, 530—3; Kery, 4nquisitio—denunciatio—exceptw’;Vallerani, Medieval Public Justice, 35—44, stresses differences within a set of similar practices.
-  Contrast e.g. the case against Anselm de Mauny, Bishop of Laon, where Gregory IX’s 4 January1233 letter of inquisition, ‘Quia potestatem ligandi’, very clearly quotes from Qualiter et quando: Reg.Greg. IX, i. #1017, and cf. Lateran IV, cap. 8, Qualiter et quando, Constitutiones Concilii quartiLateranensis, 54—7.
-  23° On per notorium, see Fournier, Officialites au Moyen Age, 281—3; Brundage, Medieval CanonLaw, 144—7; cf. Pennington, Prince and the Law, 256—7.
-  231 ‘Grave nimis non’, Chronicon de Lanercost, 200—1; Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 600—1.
-  Lovetot is described as such in e.g. Reg. Bon. VIII, #4627; Reg. vat., l. fo. 237r (calendared, Reg.Bon. VIII, #4849).
-  Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis, 55. The procedural separation of elements wasimportant. In 1088 Bishop William of St Calais of Durham had objected to the judicial processcoordinated against him by William Rufus involving his co-bishops where he said they were simultaneously ‘accusers and judges’. See further Boureau, Loi du royaume, 96. Cf. Vallerani, Medieval PublicJustice, 250—2 for communal inquisitorial equivalents and for Bologna, Blanshei, Politics and Justice inLate Medieval Bologna, 313—20, 337—66, esp. 343—9, 364.
-  234 Johannes Teutonicus, Apparatus in concilium quartum Lateranense, 197: ‘Item. It should bedistinguished whether a judge inquires ex officio, namely to the outcry of the rumour, or whetherthe judge knows the inquisition is with someone instigating it [cum aliquo promovente, because if
-  Lemesle, ‘Corriger les exces’; Helmholz, ‘'Scandalum in the Medieval Canon Law’.
-  ‘Grave nimis non’, Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 600.
-  On difficulties with other procedures see generally Knox, ‘Accusing Higher Up’; Thery,‘Atrocitasl enormitas and ‘Fama: L’Opinion publique comme preuve judiciaire’.
-  Reg Bon. VIII, #5012 = Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 649. Depositions survive occasionally.For an instance see Marie-Claude Junod, ‘L’Enquete contre Aimon de Grandson, Eveque de Geneve(1227)’ in Memoires et documents publiespar la Societe d’histoire et d’archeologie de Geneve, 48 (1979),1-182.
-  ‘Ad audientiam nostram’ (Reg. Bon. VIII, #5012, col. 649; Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ii. 650).
-  On the issue generally, Vallerani, Medieval Public Justice, 52-65.
-  Beardwood, ‘Trial of Walter Langton’, 7.
-  Denton, Robert Winchelsey, 52^; Thery, ‘«Exces» et «affaires denquete»’, i. 453^.
-  258 Foedera, i.2. 931, ‘Celsitudinis tuae conditiones’, ‘Quanto erga Romanam’; Denton, Robert Winchelsey, 200^.
-  Rishanger, Chronica, 453-65; Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, ii. 329-34; Matthew Paris,Flores historiarum, ed. H. R. Luard, RS, 3 vols. (London, 1890), iii. 108-9, 303^; Denton, RobertWinchelsey, 186-200; Prestwich, Edward I, 525-7; Maddicott, ‘ “1258” and “1297” ’, 7-12.
-  26° Denton, Robert Winchelsey, 205-6.
-  Liber epistolaris of Richard de Bury, ##78—81, 447, at 43^, 316—17. See also CR 1296—1302,602, 603^; CR 1302—1307, 81—2; Lincolnshire Record Office, Episcopal Register II (EpiscopalRegister of Bishop John Dalderby I), fo. 31r. (I have not seen Dalderby’s defence of Langton.)
-  See esp. ‘Multa mentis turbatione’, 5 February 1309 (Reg. vat., lvi. fo. 11r; Reg. Clem. V, iv.#3699), ordering Langton’s citation and ‘Dudum ad nostri’, 7 August 1309 (Reg. vat., lvi. fo. 126r;Reg. Clem. V, iv. #4351), providing for his absolution by the Bishop of Poitiers. See also RegistrumRoberti Winchelsey, ii. 1049—50 (‘Beatitudinis vestre mandatum’, 21 May 1309) complying with‘Multa mentis turbatione’ and Reg. Clem. V, iv. #4314—15 on Langton’s loan for his expenses at theCuria (July 1309). On the secular trials, see Beardwood, ‘Trial of Walter Langton’ and Records of theTrial of Walter Langeton.