Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

The procedure and practice of witness testimony in English ecclesiastical courts, c.1193–1300

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

DOI

Open Access permissions

Open

Abstract

In the twelfth century, the English church courts made considerable use of compurgation and of sworn members of the community to aid in the resolution of disputes, but by the end of the thirteenth century, academic canon law depended almost entirely on witness testimony. Romano-canonical proceduralists established rules for examining witnesses, rejecting testimonies and resolving conflicts. However, these academic ideals were not always possible or even desirable in practice. Although Roman procedure required witnesses to be eyewitnesses, English ecclesiastical practice allowed witnesses to testify to public knowledge. Furthermore, individuals who were not qualified to testify did so regardless, and their testimonies were not excluded even following exceptions. This is not to say that standard procedure was not followed; more often than not, it was. However, these differences between theory and practice indicate that practitioners (and perhaps judges) in the English ecclesiastical courts were experimenting with ways to use witness testimony beyond the confines of the academic law.
Close

Details

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationThe Church and the Law
EditorsRosamond McKitterick, Charlotte Methuen, Andrew Spicer
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages114-130
Volume56
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2020

Publication series

NameStudies in Church History
PublisherCambridge University Press
Volume56
ISSN (Print)0424-2084

Discover related content
Find related publications, people, projects and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations

Related by author

  1. Thomas Wolf c. Richard de Abingdon, 1293-1295: a case study of legal argument

    White, S. B., Jan 2020, In : Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 71, 1, p. 40-58

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

ID: 259622512

Top