CAPÍTULO II: MARCO TEÓRICO
2.1. Antecedentes de la investigación
2.2.2.2 CARACTERISTICAS
The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e in a d io c ese stemmed e f f e c t i v e l y from th e bishop who p o sse sse d 'o r d i n a r y ' j u r i s d i c t i o n
2
by v i r t u e o f h i s o f f i c e . D esp ite e x te n siv e d e l e g a t i o n , and d e s p i t e th e c o n s id e r a b le demands made on th e a t t e n t i o n of bishops and a r c h bishops by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s and, very o f t e n , by th e s e c u l a r a f f a i r s o f s t a t e , th e j u d i c i a l r o l e of th e o r d in a r y remained an im portant f u n c ti o n of th e e p isc o p a te and even th e b u s i e s t o f bishops i s found p e r s o n a l l y involved in th e e x e r c is e of j u s t i c e . I t seems
' I n s t a n c e j u r i s d i c t i o n ' - t h a t i s , r e l a t i n g to a c t i o n s brought a t t h e in s t a n c e of p r i v a t e p a r t i e s . Also known as 'c o n t e s t e d c a u s e s ’ , t h i s a re a o f j u r i s d i c t i o n corresponds roughly to th e modern idea of c i v i l a c t i o n s .
The ' o r d i n a r y ' and th e bishop were, f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l pu rp o ses, synonomous in th e d io c ese as a whole. Only when th e m e tr o p o li ta n o f th e p rovince appeared on v i s i t a t i o n s did th e b i s h o p 's r o l e as o r d in a r y la p se (c f . A. Hamilton Thompson, The English Clergy
[Oxford, 1947], 57 and n. 4. C£. a l s o , Corpus J u r i s C a n o n i c i, ed. A. Friedburg [L eipzig, 1879-81], i i , c o ls. 186-94).
t h a t , in th e o ry a t l e a s t , t h e r e were always some c a t e g o r i e s of ca se s t h a t were understood to p e r t a i n p e r s o n a l l y to th e bishop. What such cases were in Sco tlan d i s nowhere s p e c i f i e d but some i n d i c a t i o n of t h e i r e x t e n t may be found in E nglish evidence. At Canterbury in th e f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , f o r example, such m a tte rs in cluded 'p e r j u r y in rnatr^omial causes or in th e c i v i l co u rts where bloodshed o r d i s h e r s i o n were concerned, w i l f u l murder, usury, s in s a g a i n s t maidens and nuns, a s s a u l t s on c l e r k s in ho ly , or i f s e r io u s damage were done, in minor o r d e r s , breac h es o f s a n c tu a r y , b re a c h e s of th e ep isc o p a l parks and w arren s, w i l f u l hin d ran c e o f t h e b i s h o p 's o f f i c e r s in p u r s u i t o f t h e i r c a l l i n g , c o n s p i r a c i e s and o t h e r o ffe n c e s a g a i n s t th e r i g h t s and l i b e r t i e s of th e s e e ' . ^ At Lincoln a s i m i l a r p r a c t i c e seems t o have been
2
observed, and s in c e one s i x t h o f th e cases in th e Lincoln audience c o u r t between 1514 and 1520 concern n o n - r e s id e n c e , i t would seem
3
t h a t t h i s too was re s e rv e d to th e h e arin g o f the bishop. Although irf p r a c t i c e most o f th e se a c t i o n s could be s e t t l e d by s u b o r d i n a t e s ,
4 i t was done only by ex p ress commission o f the bishop.
The c h i e f o b s t a c l e to th e p e rso n a l e x e r c i s e of j u r i s d i c t i o n by th e bishops was t h e i r p r e - o c c u p a tio n w ith o t h e r a f f a i r s , and w hile t h i s became p a r t i c u l a r l y obvious towards th e end o f th e mediaeval 1. Thompson, E nglish C le rg y , p p . 55-56.
2. An Episcopal Court Book f o r th e Diocese of Lincoln 1514-1520, e d . , M. Bowker (Lincoln Record S o c ie ty , 1967), x i v .
3. I b i d . , x i i .
4. Thompson, English C le r g y , p . 51; R.M. Haines, The A d m in istra tio n o f th e Diocese o f Worcester in th e f i r s t h a l f of th e F o u rteen th Century, (London, 1965), p p . 338-40,
p e r i o d , ^ th e s i t u a t i o n was such as to have long sin c e demanded an e f f e c t i v e and comprehensive system of d e l e g a t i o n . This p ro cess had in f a c t begun as early as th e f o u r t h century in 'Europe when t h e r e emerged from t h e b i s h o p 's f a m i l i a r c i r c l e an
o f f i c e r known as an 'a rc h d e a c o n ' who, in some a r e a s at l e a s t , soon became th e c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r o f th e d ioc ese
2
th e 'o cu lu s e p i s c o p i ' . As d iocesan a d m i n i s t r a t i o n expanded many d io c e se s were d iv id e d in t o a number o f a rc h d e a c o n rie s which came to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d by f i x e d t e r r i t o r i a l t i t l e s , and w ith as
3 many as n in e in some o f th e l a r g e r c o n t i n e n t a l d io c e se s, A
s i m i l a r development took p la c e in England where th e r e l a t i v e l y sm aller d io c e se s were subdivide d i n t o two or t h r e e a rc h d e a c o n rie s and where a l s o , in th e e a r l i e r middle ages, th e archdeacon ac te d as th e b i s h o p 's p r i n c i p a l a g e n t .^ By th e t w e l f t h ce n tu ry the nex t sta g e o f th e development seems to have been under way, s tim u la t e d by a marked in c r e a s e in th e a c t i v i t y o f th e e c c l e s i a s t i c a l c o u rts and o f th e diocesan a d m i n i s t r a t i o n throughout Europe.^ The o f f i c e of b i s h o p 's o f f i c i a l i s found as e a r l y as the middle of th e t w e l f t h century a t Norwich, and a t many o th e r dio c ese s by the end o f the c e n t u r y ,^ c o i n c id in g w ith what appears to be th e development o f a
1. Cf. i b i d . , p p . 42-46.
2. A. Hamilton Thompson, 'Diocesan O rg a n isa tio n in th e Middle A ges', Proceedings o f th e B r i t i s h Academy, xxix (1943), p . 157.
3. I b i d . , p . 162.
4. C. M orris, 'The Commissary o f th e Bishop in the Diocese o f L i n c o l n ', Jo u rn a l of E c c l e s i a s t i c a l H i s t o r y , x (1959), p . 51.
5. I b i d . , p . 51.
6. C.R. Cheney, E n g lish Bishops' Chanceries (Manchester, 1950)^\20 and nn. 2, 3.
j u r i s d i c t i o n r i v a l l i n g t h a t o f th e bishop. Having fo r so long played so im portant a r o l e in th e d io c e se , e s p e c i a l l y in the e x e r c i s e o f j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n s , th e archdeacons appear to have themselves l a i d claim to ' o r d i n a r y ' j u r i s d i c t i o n as p e r t a i n i n g to t h e i r o f f i c e . ^ They began a l s o to employ t h e i r own o f f i c i a l s who appear in th e d io c e se o f Lincoln b e fo re th e end o f th e t w e l f t h c en tu ry and almost everywhere e l s e in England e a r l y in th e next
2
century.
D espite th e i n h e r e n t d ram a tic p o s s i b i l i t i e s we have been warned of 'e x a g g e r a tin g th e importance of th e war o f bishops and
3
arc h d e a c o n s '. C e r t a i n l y any claim by an archdeacon to o r d in a ry j u r i s d i c t i o n arose n o t out o f any s p e c i f i c commission so much as from accustomed u sage, and some r i v a l r y was i n e v i t a b l e i f only because in cases where i n s t a n c e j u r i s d i c t i o n was e n t r u s t e d to an
o f f i c i a l , th e bishop made no p r o v i s i o n fo r th e e x e r c i s e of th e ^ crim in al j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s o p e r t a i n i n g to th e o r d in a r y . I t has been
1
suggested t h a t , in some a re a s a t l e a s t , th e bishops took s te p s t o | p ro v id e f o r th o s e a s p e c t s of j u r i s d i c t i o n which lay o u ts id e thecompetence of the o f f i c i a l . In Lincoln, i t seems, th e o f f i c e o f s e q u e s t r a t o r was expanded from i t s o r i g i n a l f u n c tio n of s e q u e s t r a t i n g
3
p r o p e r t y or revenue due to th e bishop i n t o one of c o r r e c t i n g and 1 pu n ish in g the moral shortcomings o f both c l e rg y and l a i t y - thus g
1. M orris, 'Commissary o f L i n c o l n ', p p . 51-52 2. Cheney, C h a n c e r ie s , p . 145 and n . 6 .
in tro d u c in g th e commissary who has been d e sc rib e d as ' t h e b i s h o p 's v i c a r in each a r c h d e a c o n r y '.^ The g r e a t a re a of the d io c ese of
Lincoln made p a r t i c u l a r demands on i t s bishop and no doubt
encouraged t h e autonomy o f a r c h i d i a c o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , but elsewhere t h i s p o t e n t i a l r i v a l r y seems to have been s e t t l e d by more or l e s s
2
amicable compromise. As th e claim of th e bishops to th e o v e r r i d i n g e x e r c is e of j u r i s d i c t i o n w ith in t h e i r d io c e se s became
i n c r e a s i n g l y secure th e d i v i s i o n between b i s h o p 's and arc h d e a c o n 's