I. Regulating Penitential Forms of Life in the Early Thirteenth Century

During the thirteenth century, women who were either unwilling or unable to join a traditional religious order began to live in a manner that is often discussed as a new form religious life. Though such women were not monastic in the traditional sense, it is very difficult to regard them as wholly lay. Such women were known by a variety of names such as beguines, pinzochere, mantellatae, or more generally as “penitents.” Although they began as relatively informal communities, the nature of penitential life was increasingly regulated during the thirteenth century. In his Dossier de l'ordre de la pénitence, Gérard Giles Meersseman includes regulatory documents from penitential groups including Innocent III's 1201 bull giving approval to the Humiliati, and material pertaining to the penitents of Lombardy and those associated with the Poor Catholics.Footnote ⁸ Unlike religious rules, the regulatory material included in these documents neither provided canonical legitimacy nor showed formal affiliation with a particular order. Instead, they regulated matters such as clothing, the ownership of property and liturgical obligations.Footnote ⁹ These movements did not fit established canonical categories. As they had neither canonical standing nor recognition as ecclesiastical persons, they were members of the laity in the eyes of the Church. However, as these groups became increasingly institutionalized, they took on more characteristics of what had traditionally been considered religious life, such as wearing a distinctive habit and adopting some form of religious rule. Those who followed this way of life can be called “quasi-religious,” since their way of life met some, but not all of the requirements for canonical religious life.Footnote ¹⁰ Although they were granted privileges based on status at a local level (such as tax exemptions in Bruges) they were not granted full canonical standing.Footnote ¹¹

The existence of groups that endeavored to live between the lay and religious states caused considerable confusion, particularly regarding their precise legal status. As Elizabeth Makowski has demonstrated, debates in this period centered on whether or not such groups were bound by the obligations and entitled to the protections that came with the legal status of “religious,” rather than affiliation with a particular order.Footnote ¹² The life of such groups found approval in the work of a number of canonists, who drew on the 1253 Summa of Henry of Segusio, better known as “Hostiensis” (†1271).Footnote ¹³ In this, Hostiensis described the semi-religious state saying:

More significantly, when discussing penitents in hospitals, Hostiensis says, “surely these should be considered true religious and surely the Church must defend them as ecclesiastical persons (sicut personas ecclesiasticas)?”Footnote ¹⁵

Hostiensis's words were both a summary of earlier discussions on the issue of penitents and a concise description of a dominant canonical view on the question in the mid-thirteenth century.Footnote ¹⁶ Hostiensis gave no indication that the penitents he discussed were either affiliated with any individual order, or belonged to an order of their own. His writings indicate that it was the lifestyle of the penitents rather than their legal incorporation into an order that made them “true religious.” The inclusive attitude of Hostiensis toward penitential movements was typical of the earlier thirteenth century when regulation was often only quasi-official and becoming a member of such a group often included no more than publicly receiving a penitential habit.Footnote ¹⁷ Hostiensis's words “in largo modo” reinforced a distinction between penitents and nuns, which was both widely recognized and unproblematic in the first half of the thirteenth century.

Hugolino of Ostia's regulation of Italian penitents who were under the care of Franciscans is a case in point. While seemingly not concerned about their canonical standing, Hugolino was aware that as Cardinal Protector of the Franciscan order he was, in some sense, responsible for penitents who attached themselves to this movement. Hugolino's regulatory efforts culminated in the Memoriale propositi of 1221 (confirmed in 1228). Although this document provided basic guidelines for living a devout life in the world, it neither constituted a religious order, nor gave those who followed it any claim to being canonically recognized as religious.Footnote ¹⁸ As Hugolino had considerable training in canon law, this seems a conscious decision rather than a mere oversight. Moreover, Hugolino had experience of shaping new religious orders to fit the existing canonical guidelines and was instrumental in shaping the community of sisters that had been attached to Clare of Assisi into the recognized and canonical order of San Damiano.Footnote ¹⁹

Scholarship discussing the so-called third order of St. Francis often cites Hugolino's efforts on behalf of the penitents as evidence both of a penitential order and of early Franciscan involvement. However, it is important to keep in mind that the Memoriale was neither a rule nor exclusively Franciscan. Instead, it was an amalgamation of penitential canons, legal formularies, and regulatory documents for penitential societies. It did not constitute a rule for a new order, and had no explicit connection to any that already existed.Footnote ²⁰ Moreover, this document was far from original. As Augustine Thompson points out, “much of the document is borrowed from legal formularies and canon law sources. Hardly a single line of the Memoriale lacks a model in an earlier rule or penitential canon.”Footnote ²¹ Despite the fact that the Memoriale is often claimed as “Franciscan,” it later served as the basis for regulatory documents associated with both Franciscan and Dominicans, including a rule written in 1284 by Caro, the Franciscan visitator to the penitents of Florence, and the Ordinationes of the Dominican Master General, Munio of Zamora, from 1286.Footnote ²²

Regulatory documents from the mid-thirteenth century onward contained stricter directives for the spiritual care of penitents.Footnote ²³ The trend toward providing lay and quasi-religious movements with some sort of official forma vivendi became prevalent throughout Europe and across orders.Footnote ²⁴ The perceived central role held by the Franciscans seems largely a result of papal intervention rather than an interest of the friars themselves. In 1247, Innocent IV mandated that the penitents in Lombardy and Florence be placed under the exclusive supervision of Franciscan confessors.Footnote ²⁵ Although welcomed by some, this decision resulted in such an outrage that by 1260 penitents were again able to choose confessors from both the Franciscans and Dominicans.Footnote ²⁶ However, even this choice was not strictly enforced: beguine groups in Northern Europe often had no official ties with either order, but remained under the cura of Cistercians or secular clerics with the blessing of the local bishop.Footnote ²⁷ The official concerns of the Church hierarchy seem to have been simply that the penitential groups were regularized. Though they became increasingly prescriptive throughout the thirteenth century, the documents dealing with the penitents were generally individual sets of statutes, and do not suggest the existence of a unified order. While clerical control was often an issue, the question of their canonical status was hardly ever raised.

The situation changed significantly toward the end of the thirteenth century, and in 1289 Nicholas IV issued the aforementioned bull, Supra montem, which contained the first papally approved rule for penitents throughout the Church.Footnote ²⁸ Although there is no concrete link between the 1289 rule and Franciscan friars, Nicholas's invocation of Francis as the founder of an order of penitents shaped later perceptions of those that followed this rule. While Nicholas's rule did not create a canonical order, it gave the penitents some claims to legitimacy, a saintly founder, and a nominal connection with the Franciscan order. However, this connection was problematic: although the rule advised penitents to seek the cura of the friars, it placed no obligation on the Franciscans to become involved with penitential groups. More importantly, these groups did not develop regulatory structures such as general chapters, as was characteristic of orders in the thirteenth century.Footnote ²⁹

While the Franciscan Nicholas may well have been convinced of Francis's importance to penitents, the timing of Supra montem and the “Franciscan” rule suggests more than a desire to honor the founder of his order. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council had decreed that no new religious rules should be written. Although the Council's prohibition inspired some new orders to create pious fictions about saintly founders or earlier oral papal approval, its practical effects were minimal.Footnote ³⁰ Moreover, the decree did nothing to limit the proliferation of penitential movements in the thirteenth century. In 1274, the Second Council of Lyons observed the ineffectiveness of the 1215 decree, and noted that many of these “new” groups caused problems for the universal Church. For this reason, it not only renewed the prohibition of 1215, but also attempted to suppress all orders that had been founded without papal approval in the intervening years.Footnote ³¹

The Franciscans managed to subvert prohibitions on religious rules. Francis and his followers did not have an approved rule until 1223; however, what would have been a blatant violation of the council was justified by the claim that Francis and his followers had been given oral approval for their way of life in 1209.Footnote ³² This foundation myth was developed in the Franciscan hagiographic tradition. Later, Clare of Assisi claimed her Forma vitae was based, in part, on instructions that she had been given by Francis before 1215. By claiming Francis as the official founder of the third order, Nicholas ensured that penitents who belonged to this group could also claim to predate the 1215 decree.

Despite Nicholas's efforts to create an official Franciscan order of penitents, many penitents did not want either to be Franciscan or to accept a Franciscan rule. In particular, the penitents of Florence requested the help of their bishop in their struggle to remain under the care of the Dominicans.Footnote ³³ Dominican supporters of such groups attacked Nicholas's rule, claiming that the third order was a “fictive” group that caused endless troubles in the Church.Footnote ³⁴ Women who wished to assert their independence from the Franciscan order often adopted the Rule of St. Augustine. Like their contemporaries who followed the 1289 rule, these women appeared to constitute a centralized “Augustinian order of tertiaries.” While both groups had the external appearance of unity, as they neither had general chapters, nor a system of communicating between houses, it does not seem that they were orders in the legal sense.

II. The Myth of Franciscan Identity

The myth or conviction that Francis was the founder of an “order” of penitents was developed in Franciscan liturgical and hagiographic texts from the mid-thirteenth century onward. Cases in point are the letter Caput draconis (dubiously attributed to Gregory IX), which mentions “three orders soldiering alongside the saint;”Footnote ³⁵ and the third antiphon from Julian of Speyer's 1253 Office for the feast of Francis, which explicitly states that Francis founded three orders: friars, sisters, and lay people.Footnote ³⁶ While this has often been taken as evidence that an association between Francis and penitents developed within the first generation after his death, it is important to keep in mind that, none of these sources can be construed as canonical or legislative. More importantly, these references are not corroborated by evidence of thirteenth-century penitential communities claiming to belong to a “Franciscan order.” It is quite likely that the early and non-canonical sources that mention a Franciscan penitential order are not using the word “orders” in a technical sense, but simply in its original more inclusive and non-legal meaning as a recognizable group.Footnote ³⁷

While Francis offered guidance to the laity, he was certainly neither the first nor the only one to do so.Footnote ³⁸ Francis may have inspired penitents, yet there is no evidence that he instituted a canonical penitential order. Arguments to the contrary often cite Francis's Admonitions as evidence for his having given a “rule” to his penitential followers. However, as Catherine Mooney points out, Francis's Admonitions are “little more than a series of general exhortations easily applicable to all pious Christians [. . .] to do penance, avoid vice, and love their neighbors.”Footnote ³⁹

In addition to Francis as a saintly founder, Franciscan mythology lists a canon of members of the third order including Elizabeth of Hungary (†1231), Umiliana of Cerchi (†1246), Rose of Viterbo (†1252), Douceline of Digne (†1274), and Margaret of Cortona (†1297).Footnote ⁴⁰ Upon close examination, evidence for an affiliation between the Franciscans and penitents does not hold up to scrutiny. The saintly noble Elizabeth of Hungary died in 1231—over half a century before a Franciscan order of penitents was given either papal recognition or a papally approved rule. While this does not preclude Elizabeth living according to Franciscan ideals, she could not have been a member of a canonical Franciscan order. Despite claims to the contrary, the service to the poor and voluntary renunciation of material wealth depicted in Elizabeth's many vitae were characteristic of the spiritual climate of the early thirteenth century, and not exclusively Franciscan. In fact, Elizabeth enjoyed early popularity among the Cistercians and Dominicans, but does not seem to have attracted Franciscan interest until the end of the thirteenth century.Footnote ⁴¹ There are a number of scholarly studies that indicate that Elizabeth became important to the Franciscan order;Footnote ⁴² however Ottò Gecser, André Vauchez, and Servus Gieben suggest that was a somewhat later development.Footnote ⁴³

The Franciscan associations of Margaret of Cortona are equally dubious. Despite often being discussed as a “Franciscan” penitent, Margaret appears to be a secular woman with close, but informal ties, to the Franciscan world. Although her legenda by her confessor, the Franciscan Giunta Bevegnati, explicitly states that she was clothed in the habit of Franciscan penitents, he situates this event in 1277, twelve years before the formal recognition of the Franciscan penitential rule.Footnote ⁴⁴ Margaret's legenda insists that she maintained close ties with the Franciscans, yet it never indicates any desire to live in accordance with the precepts of the 1289 rule.Footnote ⁴⁵ Moreover, Giunta's claim that Margaret was clothed as a Franciscan penitent must be regarded with some suspicion. Typically, penitents gave witness to their membership in or affiliation with an order through the color of their habit: black for the Dominicans and grey for their Franciscan contemporaries.Footnote ⁴⁶ Although this was well established by the end of the thirteenth century, the few extant depictions of Margaret of Cortona show her in the black-and-white chequered habit of a secular penitent with no formal ties to a religious order.Footnote ⁴⁷

Rather than providing support for a Franciscan order of penitents, the lives of these women simply provide evidence that penitential life was a central part of the spiritual climate of the thirteenth century. It was not until the mid-thirteenth century that groups of penitents were described as “belonging” to (in the sense of being affiliated with) a particular order.Footnote ⁴⁸ Even at this time, the links were somewhat tenuous: a sermon preached to penitents by the Dominican Humbert of Romans (†1277) does not suggest that he perceived his penitent audience as part of any order, let alone his own.Footnote ⁴⁹

In addition to the lack of evidence supporting an institutional link between the penitents and the Franciscan friars, evidence that such a link was desired by either party is also conspicuously absent. Not only did the penitents fail to cultivate ties with the friars, but the friars seem neither to have encouraged the growth of a penitential order, nor flocked to the task of providing spiritual care for penitents. In 1268 a semi-official document entitled, “Why the Friars Ought not to Promote the Order of Penitents” began to circulate.Footnote ⁵⁰ Once attributed to Bonaventure, this document indicates that the friars were aware of the dangers inherent in caring for penitents, particularly unenclosed women who were not bound by any canonical rule and not required to take vows.Footnote ⁵¹ Due to the obvious temptations that friars might experience from regular contact with unenclosed women, many felt that the reputation of the order would be damaged.Footnote ⁵²

III. Creating a Canonical Identity

Much of the debate regarding the newly created third order centered on the nature of the vows its members professed. In particular, it seems that varying degrees of importance were attached to the fact that these were “simple” rather than “solemn” vows.Footnote ⁵³ In his Decretal, the canonist Gratian had addressed the issue with respect to marriage vows over a century earlier. Although entering the religious life was a different matter, thirteenth-century canonists saw Gratian's conclusion that both types of vows were valid and binding as applicable.Footnote ⁵⁴

However, the nature of the distinction between solemn and simple vows was a subject of some debate. The Franciscan canonist Henricus of Merseberg († post-1276) wrote,

This distinction confuses simple and private vows, and is not precisely correct. Unlike “private vows,” “simple vows” were made publicly, received by a recognized superior and signified a change of life. In contrast with solemn vows, simple vows did not have to be made before a priest or bishop, and could—theoretically—be dispensed. The perceived impermanence of these vows was problematic, and canonists who supported the ecclesiastical status of tertiaries insisted that the vows they professed—although simple—be binding, so that return to the secular world was not possible. Although solemn vows for women came to be associated with the acceptance of clausura, this was never integral to the nature of the vows themselves.Footnote ⁵⁶

Nor were vows the only problematic issue for penitents. In 1298, Boniface VIII (r. 1294–1303) issued the decretal Periculoso that required that all religious women, or moniales, be enclosed.Footnote ⁵⁷ This decretal was issued less than a decade after Supra montem had appeared to legitimize the status of women in the third order. However, it did not explicitly grant the “Franciscan” tertiaries an exception to Periculoso's demands. As they continued to remain unenclosed, certain canonists drew the obvious conclusion that female members of the Franciscan order of penitents were not canonically-recognized religious. However, as they took vows and wore distinct habits, it was difficult to argue that these women were entirely lay. Again, theologians and canonists discussed the question of a “middling” or “third” status at length. While many approved of this status, or even agreed that it had ought to exist, it was not officially incorporated in canon law.

Boniface's decretal does not seem to have been an attempt to limit the role of the third order. Instead, he had a history of being concerned about the enclosure of religious women.Footnote ⁵⁸ Moreover, Periculoso in no way invalidated the status of women following the 1289 rule of Nicholas, and members of such groups received various forms of official support in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The perceived exemption from Periculoso's demands certainly increased the appeal of the 1289 rule among penitential groups, regardless of their affiliation with the Franciscans;Footnote ⁵⁹ however, in the eyes of many canonists, Periculoso had weakened the claim of any non-enclosed woman to being an ecclesiastical person. So that their vocation would not be viewed as anything less than ideal, penitent women were encouraged to accept some form of enclosed life.

Religious life and religious vows involved both responsibility and freedom. As Elizabeth Makowski points out “a professed nun could not marry, and she lost all claim to her inheritance, but she was immune to the jurisdiction of the secular courts, and her very person was protected from violence by the threat of excommunication.”Footnote ⁶⁰ In the same way, acceptance of their vows as solemn would bind the tertiaries for life, but would, arguably, class them as official ecclesiastical persons. Taking on this legal status would have exempted tertiaries from such obligations as certain taxes, holding public office, and appearing in secular court, while allowing them privileges such as receiving the sacraments during times of interdict.Footnote ⁶¹ While the status of semi-religious groups was increasingly controversial in the fourteenth century, many canonists accepted that the bull Supra montem had conferred papal approval on a particular expression of the quasi-religious life. Although they acknowledged that this “quasi-religious” state was not an official part of canon law, the nominally Franciscan sorores tertii ordinis were generally perceived as distinct from their quasi-religious contemporaries who did not follow the Franciscan tertiary rule—although this still depended, in large part, on interpretation and the goodwill of the local Church authorities.Footnote ⁶²

Despite some acceptance, the ambiguous status of penitents continued to be problematic, and the fourteenth century saw increasing restrictions in the forms of religious expression available to women. In 1311, the Council of Vienne condemned several errors attributed to those beguines who were “pernicious women” and involved in “detestable” practices.Footnote ⁶³ Yet the same council contributed to the ambiguity surrounding non-monastic religious life. At the same time that it condemned certain beguines, it absolved pious women with the words,

In theory, the Council's condemnation applied only to “beguines” with problematic associations;Footnote ⁶⁵ however, it neither provided a clear definition of “beguine,” nor established guidelines for distinguishing these “pious women” from their unruly sisters. Although the term “beguine” was commonly used in the fourteenth century, there was no canonical “ordo beghinarum.” The diocese of Liège had an official (but non-canonical) “rule” for beguines after 1246;Footnote ⁶⁶ but in most of Northern Europe, the term was applied to any non-monastic religious woman.Footnote ⁶⁷ The question of which of these women were detestable and which were pious was open to interpretation, and judgments on this matter varied throughout Europe.

It was obvious that Vienne had done little to clarify the status of quasi-religious groups. At the end of 1317, John XXII issued the decree Sancta Romana. The ostensible aim of this document was the elimination of beguines associated with the Franciscan Spirituals; however its provisions condemned practices common to a number of non-traditional religious groups, such as electing their own superiors, forming communities, and wearing a religious habit.Footnote ⁶⁸ Less than a year later, in what seems a re-statement of Vienne's decree, John issued a decretal which repeated the condemnation of heretical beguines, but stipulated that women who were pious and obedient to Church authority should be permitted to continue in their chosen path.Footnote ⁶⁹ However, as these were not generally the women who were the subject of episcopal or curial legislation, his affirmation did little to assure Churchmen of beguine piety. Rather than his support in 1318, it was John's condemnation in Sancta Romana that influenced the fate of penitent women throughout the later middle ages.

Groups known as beguines were becoming increasingly controversial.Footnote ⁷⁰ In order to minimize the effects of their condemnation, many extra-regular communities adopted the 1289 rule, but they seldom made an effort to cultivate ties with the Franciscans. Despite some tensions, many welcomed the appearance of official monastic life that the 1289 rule implied, and a number of formerly unaffiliated penitents, or women who were known as beguines, chose to adopt it.Footnote ⁷¹ In accordance with the demands of the 1289 rule, these penitents professed simple vows of poverty, chastity and obedience publicly. However, there is no indication that such groups had connections to the order.Footnote ⁷²

This is particularly clear in the case of the Chapter of Utrecht, a Dutch network of both male and female houses affiliated with the Devotio moderna. Although external pressures to adopt an official rule caused them to accept Nicholas's rule of 1289, they nevertheless, explicitly distanced themselves from the Franciscan order.Footnote ⁷³ The situation was similar throughout Europe. In 1407, a community of extra-regular women in Groningen was referred to as “beghina de tertia regula sancti Francisci.”Footnote ⁷⁴ Mariengaarde in Monnickenendam, which adopted the rule in 1403, and the community of Maria of Nazareth, which was described as “zusteren in der oirde van penitencien sente Franciscus,” were founded with the rule of the third order regular, although they did not have any other affiliation with the Franciscan order.Footnote ⁷⁵ In Italy, the monastery of Sant'Agnese in Perugia, which “went from being a twelfth-century community of lay penitents, to a fourteenth-century monastery of Poor Clares”;Footnote ⁷⁶ the “Clarissan house” of Santa Lucia in Foligno had been both a community of beguines and a house of Dominican tertiaries.Footnote ⁷⁷ In Germany, there was considerable overlap between beguine communities and communities that were identified as belonging to the Franciscan third order.Footnote ⁷⁸

IV. The Observant Influence and the Tertiary Order of Montegiove

The Observant reform movement began within the religious orders, and was characterized by a desire to return to the pristine ideals of their founders.Footnote ⁷⁹ As part of their general aim of Christianizing European society, the Observants seem to have supported various tertiary and penitential groups. However, their support was conditional. In particular, the Franciscan Observants in Southern Europe appear to have been concerned with the issue of enclosure. The biography of Bernardino da Feltre complains of unenclosed female penitents,

The Franciscan Observants of Southern Italy took a particular interest in both establishing mandatory enclosure for the penitents, and having them recognized as part of the Franciscan family. As a response to Observant pressure, Martin V issued a bull that placed tertiaries who called themselves Franciscan or wore a recognizably Franciscan habit under the care of the friars in 1428.Footnote ⁸¹ This was approved by the Franciscan Chapter General in 1430. Martin's bull recognized the monastic status of penitents who conformed to the ideals of religious life, but gave female communities associated with the Franciscans the choice between accepting clausura or leaving their communities.

It is important to note that this did not involve all communities following the 1289 rule, but merely those who already called themselves Franciscan or were under the care of the Franciscan friars. Giovanni da Capistrano's Defensorium tertii ordinis (1440) defended the status of these tertiaries, and acknowledged them as full members of the Franciscan family.Footnote ⁸² Naturally, this document had no impact on penitential communities that followed the 1289 rule but had either few connections or no connections with the friars. While disorder persisted among communities that followed the 1289 rule, the communities that accepted care from the Observant Franciscans achieved a degree of uniformity unprecedented in the penitential movement.

The community at Montegiove presents an interesting case study. Traditional interpretations hold that the first house in this federation, Sant'Anna, was founded by Angelina of Montegiove, who wished to instigate a form of life that both embraced penitential principles and adhered to the more traditional ideals of enclosure and contemplation.Footnote ⁸³ This combined ideal was so attractive that other communities of women began to imitate the lifestyle followed at Sant'Anna, which came to function as the nucleus of a network of enclosed tertiary communities. While this interpretation is more myth than fact, Angelina became a powerful symbol of a new model for quasi-religious communities and legends of miracles served as signs of divine approval for the lifestyle with which she had come to be associated.

It comes as no surprise that Angelina was portrayed as a champion of both clausura and reform. Angelina is discussed in the sixteenth-century writings of the reforming chroniclers Mariano of Florence (†1523) and Mark of Lisbon (†1591), and her official vita was written in 1627 by Ludovico Jacobilli (†1644). All of these texts date from well after her death, and more significantly, from a period in which the issue of clausura for religious women was again controversial. In 1563 the Council of Trent stipulated that all religious women were to be enclosed.Footnote ⁸⁴

The truth of Angelina's story is difficult to discern. Angelina secured permission for an active tertiary community through the efforts of her relative the early Observant Paoluccio Trinci.Footnote ⁸⁵ The resulting forma vivendi soon attracted other communities who became affiliated with the community of Sant'Anna. Angelina became something of a Minister General to a network of tertiary communities with the initial blessing of the Franciscan Observants and continued support from a series of popes.Footnote ⁸⁶ From around the 1420s, the situation seems to have changed significantly. Trinci's brand of Observance appears to have been replaced by something more stringent, and Angelina's houses lost much of their autonomy.Footnote ⁸⁷

The centralization that occurred around Sant'Anna or other communities linked with the Observants should not be seen as the beginning of the regularization of penitents. Moreover, similar, but independent, federations existed among houses in France and Flanders between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. There was uniformity among certain communities, but no universal order. While ties between the penitents and the Observants existed throughout Europe, the majority of penitential communities were reluctant to adopt this particular style of reform. Martin's efforts to create an institutional link between the friars and penitents ultimately proved ineffective, and his successor Eugenius IV allowed members of non-monastic communities the freedom to choose their confessors in 1431.Footnote ⁸⁸

Throughout the fifteenth century, federations of communities that followed the 1289 rule became both more common and increasingly subject to regulation. Their internal links were strengthened by common statutes that were both more detailed and more prescriptive than the 1289 rule, rather than by ties to a religious order. In 1401, Boniface IX approved the statutes of the Chapter of Utrecht, which were closely based on the constitutions for the community of Windesheim.Footnote ⁸⁹ In 1483, detailed statutes were approved for the use of the “grey sisters of the third order of St Francis” in and around Mechelen (Malines).Footnote ⁹⁰ While uniformity existed within individual federations, these were both so diverse and so numerous, that houses following the 1289 rule were far from being a unified order.

V. Creating a Dominican Order of Penitents: The Cult of Catherine of Siena

This situation was not unique to communities connected to the Franciscan order. Instead, as is evident from an examination of penitents affiliated with the Dominican order, a similar pattern was common in the later middle ages. As is the case for the Franciscans, traditional Dominican histories place the beginnings of their “third order” in the 1280s. According to this version of history, Munio of Zamora wrote a rule that placed the penitents directly under the supervision of the friars in 1285 or 1286. However, the Franciscan Pope Nicholas IV refused to give this rule official approval.Footnote ⁹¹ Like Francis's founding of a Franciscan tertiary order, this narrative is highly questionable. Moreover, the Ordinationes state that Munio wrote them at the request of penitent women from Orvieto and there is no indication that they were sent to the pope.Footnote ⁹² Nevertheless, it is clear that the Dominicans were responsible for the spiritual care of a number of penitents. Although these individuals generally followed some version of Munio's Ordinationes, they did not constitute a canonical Dominican third order.Footnote ⁹³

The Dominicans founded an order of penitents, which had both a separate rule and canonical membership in the Dominican order from 1405 onwards.Footnote ⁹⁴ Dominican theologians such as Johannes Nider drew upon legal arguments (predominantly Hostiensis) to validate the legitimacy of this way of life.Footnote ⁹⁵ Moreover, like their Franciscan brethren, the Dominicans who were involved in the care of penitents fabricated a historical past.Footnote ⁹⁶ Lay or quasi-religious women who had unofficial ties with the order as early members, including Benvenuta Boiani (†1292) Giovanna of Orvieto (†1306), Margherita of Città di Castello (†1320) were claimed as having belonged to the Dominican order of penitents.Footnote ⁹⁷ Although none of these saintly women were canonically Dominican, as is the case with the Elizabeth of Hungary, Umiliana of Cerchi, and Margaret of Cortona for the Franciscans, the existence of these fictive Dominican beatae facilitated the illusion of a historical order.

Both the creation of this rule and the subsequent Dominican willingness to become more involved in the lives of penitents is linked with the life of Catherine of Siena (†1380) and the growth of her cult.Footnote ⁹⁸ Although called to the religious life, circumstances forced the Dominican penitent, Catherine of Siena, to find solace in “the cloister of the world.” As a lay woman, Catherine was not under the official protection of any religious order; however, she maintained close ties with the Dominicans. Catherine's way of living devoutly while remaining in the world attracted both male and female followers.Footnote ⁹⁹ At the same time, her familial connections and position in society ensured that supporting Catherine was politically expedient. It was not long before Catherine developed a network of followers that was similar to other penitential expressions of religious life. Although Catherine's network had close ties with the Dominicans, they were not part of the Dominican order.Footnote ¹⁰⁰

Catherine's supporters in the Church shaped the wave of popular piety that surrounded her to meet their own needs. While Catherine was almost certainly influenced by the Sienese penitents, or mantellatae, she did not become an official member of any such group until after the death of her father in 1368.Footnote ¹⁰¹ However, Catherine's hagiographer, Raymond of Capua (†1399), claimed that Catherine formally entered this group in 1363, which would have made her religious path more traditional.Footnote ¹⁰² More significantly, Raymond referred to Catherine as a “soror poenitentiae b. Dominici,” although the term of “sisters of penance” had no real meaning for the Dominicans before 1405.Footnote ¹⁰³

The Sienese penitents maintained an unofficial connection to the Dominican order. However, the penitents themselves were bound neither by a formal rule nor by vows. This situation changed soon after Catherine's death. Catherine's spiritual director, Raymond put Thomas Caffarini (Thomas of Siena, †1434) in charge of penitents connected to the order. Thomas wrote a Tractatus for the order of penitents, which included a formal rule that he attributed to Munio of Zamora.Footnote ¹⁰⁴ His efforts to promote the penitents were closely tied to his campaign to promote the sanctity of Catherine of Siena, which he accomplished through hagiography and preaching.Footnote ¹⁰⁵

The regulation of penitents was also a concern of Dominicans from Northern Europe such as Johannes Nider (†1438). Nider's Formicarium recounted tales of saintly virgins, including the two sisters of the Observant Dominican Johannes Mulberg (†1414) and an unnamed woman who founded a community of virgins.Footnote ¹⁰⁶ Nevertheless, as was the case among the Franciscans, Dominican support often came with very precise expectations of the penitents, particularly clerical supervision and enclosure.

While the saintly example of Catherine showed that it was possible to live a devout life while remaining in the world, she was hailed as an exception, and clausura was still thought to represent religious perfection for women. Even before the Council of Trent made this mandatory in 1563, efforts were made by both the women themselves and those responsible for their spiritual care to acquire statutes mandating enclosure. The Dominican Matthew of Grabow (†c. 1421) was adamant in his condemnation of women who lacked either clerical supervision or enclosure.Footnote ¹⁰⁷ Similarly, the reformer Girolamo Savonarola (†1498) attempted to insist that the tertiary community of Santa Lucia in Florence observe enclosure.Footnote ¹⁰⁸ His female followers and the later women he inspired appear to have accepted his findings: Colomba Guadagnoli of Rieti (†1501) attempted to limit the amount of secular contact the women in her community were permitted; and Lucia Brocadelli da Narni (†1544) was inspired by a visionary command from St. Dominic to insist that her house be subject to perpetual enclosure.Footnote ¹⁰⁹

Because Dominican penitents were increasingly living in communities and increasingly under enclosure, the thin boundary between nuns and tertiaries in the Dominican order became virtually non-existent. Most Dominican nuns still followed the rule of St. Augustine combined with the constitutions from San Sisto (the first house of women to be institutionally connected with the order).Footnote ¹¹⁰ The original difference between nuns and tertiaries of the Dominican order had been enclosure, but this was no longer always the case. Moreover, tertiary groups were often encouraged to mimic Dominican nuns by adopting the Augustinian rule rather than the rule approved in 1405.Footnote ¹¹¹ As Dominican penitents were, for all appearances, monasticized, the penitential rule of the Dominicans did not appeal to communities of lay penitents and women who wanted to remain in the world in the same way that the “Franciscan” rule of 1289 did.

VI. Later Reforms and the Council of Trent

Penitential life continued to be a prominent issue in the sixteenth-century Church. In 1521, Leo issued Inter cetera, which presented another formulation of a rule for the so-called Franciscan third order. This rule built upon the myth that Francis had founded an order of penitents, which had already been the basis for Nicholas's Supra montem. It claimed a new form of regulation was necessary as the order had originally been founded for “married people in the world,” but now was followed by many and diverse communities, including houses of enclosed virgins.Footnote ¹¹² Leo's revised rule contained fewer chapters and stricter guidelines for penitents. This rule has been cited as an important development in the history of the third order; however, understanding its significance requires some contextualization.

Leo's rule was issued in response to a number of calls to reform. The controversial letter by the Camadolese monks, the 1513 Libellus ad Leonem X called for greater distinction being made between religious and the laity.Footnote ¹¹³ In 1516, the eleventh session of the Fifth Lateran Council recognized tertiaries as a part of the Church, but proclaimed that the rights of religious (such as receiving the sacraments during times of interdict) should only be granted to houses of women who were chaste, enclosed, took vows, and wore a habit.Footnote ¹¹⁴ Those present at the council were not opposed to the existence or devotional practices of tertiaries, but simply questioned the rights of unenclosed and unofficial groups to receive the privileges attached to being a canonically-recognized religious. Again, the somewhat ambiguous status of tertiaries is apparent: while tertiaries were essentially lay, religious privileges were granted to those who seemed to conform to religious ideals.

Leo's solution was not to create a distinct canonical identity for quasi-religious, but to steer penitential groups that conformed to orthodox ideals toward a more monastic expression of religious life. In Inter cetera, Leo placed obligations on the third order that ensured it would meet most of the conditions for acceptance as a religious group as set out by the Fifth Lateran Council. As had long been the case with monastic communities, those aspiring to join the third order were now obliged to spend a period of one year living in the community before being accepted as members.Footnote ¹¹⁵ At the end of this year, their desire to become religious was made public by taking three vows: obedience, poverty, and chastity.Footnote ¹¹⁶

Leo's rule presented a distinct contrast to the earlier rule of 1289, which contained practical provisions for dealing with conflict, socializing, and dress while in the world. The 1521 rule can only be described as monastic: it still contained a very specific set of instructions about how members of this order were to behave;Footnote ¹¹⁷ however, it was concerned with the image of the penitents as a community rather the way an individual behaved in society. Leo also used his rule to provide guidelines for creating community structure. Unlike Nicholas's vague requirement of non-specific “Franciscan supervision” in 1289, Leo's rule included several provisions on determining a suitable hierarchy.Footnote ¹¹⁸

Nevertheless, Leo's version of a rule for the third order was problematic. Although many Church officials, including those present at the Fifth Lateran Council, accepted that vows and community life were enough to establish the orthodoxy and acceptability of penitents, enclosure continued to be held as ideal, and was not demanded by the 1521 rule. Moreover, many quasi-monastic penitential groups already supplemented the 1289 rule with statutes that covered the more traditional aspects of community life. What little evidence is available for manuscripts of the 1521 rule does not indicate that it was popular among penitential communities.Footnote ¹¹⁹

It is also important to note that the sixteenth-century reforms did not share the distrust of new rules seen in the centuries immediately following the Fourth Lateran Council. As a result, new penitential groups and reformed orders such as the Barnabites, Theatines, Camillians, or Ursulines wrote religious rules, without claiming that they had earlier roots. The same was true for communities that claimed membership in the Franciscan third order. The 1521 rule was quickly eclipsed in Spain and Portugal by the more detailed rules confirmed by Paul III in 1547. Their author, the new Portuguese Franciscan Minister General, Andreas Insulanus or Alvares (r. 1547–1553), noted the plurality that existed in the so-called third order. Discerning that the requirements for the religious life of men and women was different, Alvares wrote his rule in three sections: part one was addressed to friars,Footnote ¹²⁰ part two to nuns,Footnote ¹²¹ and part three to lay people.Footnote ¹²² Paul III's confirmation of these rules stated quite clearly that there were three parts to this “order of penitence”: friars, nuns living enclosed lives, and men and women living in the world.Footnote ¹²³ Rather than avoiding this reality, these rules tried to accommodate all three different forms of life.

Leo's rule faced another hurdle. In 1563, the Council of Trent re-affirmed Periculoso's requirement that all canonically-recognized religious women be enclosed. As in the fourteenth century, questions were immediately raised as to whether this was also applicable to penitents.Footnote ¹²⁴ In 1566, Pius V issued the bull Circa pastoralis, which was explicit in stating that this applied to all female communities, whether canonically moniales or simply monasticized tertiaries.

Although this document was, in theory, absolute, it did little to bring order to the distinction between religious and quasi-religious groups. While religious women (whether nuns or tertiaries) had to be enclosed, societies of lay women were free to live in the world. The sixteenth century saw the emergence of “secular institutes” such as the Dévots, or English Ladies.Footnote ¹²⁵ Like the houses of penitents of the early thirteenth century, active communities of early modern women fulfilled important social functions such as care for the poor or education, but often did not have an official ecclesiastical existence.

As Trent had interpreted the notion of clausura very literally, it seemed unthinkable for communities of religious women not to be enclosed. While women continued to pursue a vocation of active service, their communities were now known as “secular institutes” or “congregations” rather than religious tertiaries. This distinction allowed them to remain lay women, and thus exempted them from canonical obligations such as enclosure, which were required of moniales. Those responsible for the spiritual care of these women were aware of the importance of this canonical distinction, and often forbade them to identify themselves as religious, advised them to choose non-canonical rules (that is, anything other than rules of Augustine or Benedict) and to emphasize their lay status. Whereas from the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries it had been important for tertiaries to emulate moniales, from the sixteenth century onward, tertiary groups were able to exist by distinguishing themselves from canonically-recognized nuns.

The Ursulines present an interesting case study of sixteenth-century developments of penitential life for women. Angela Merici (†1540), foundress of the Ursulines, had first entered religious life as a penitent under the 1289 rule. Her decision to adopt this way of life way of life was “so that she would more easily be able to go to masses, confessions, and communion, since frequent communion was not granted to laypersons at this time.”Footnote ¹²⁶ When Angela began to live (in largo modo) as a religious around 1497, the 1289 rule was still a necessary way of establishing authority.

Much of Angela's saintly reputation was based on works carried out during her time as a so-called tertiary.Footnote ¹²⁷ Although this life gave Angela considerable freedom to pursue her chosen works of mercy, her ministry took other directions. Angela persisted in active service, and surrounded herself with a group of like-minded women who performed apostolic works while living individually in their own homes. These women became known as the Society of St. Ursula in 1535. After Angela's death in 1540, the community was governed by a superior who steered it in a direction that imitated traditional religious life. In 1545, the society was given official approval as a confraternity.Footnote ¹²⁸ This status meant that members remained living in their own homes, but had some privileges generally given to religious orders. In 1546, Paul III approved a rule that Angela wrote for the society.Footnote ¹²⁹

As a result of developments including Trent's decree regarding mandatory enclosure, the identity of Angela's society of unenclosed penitents changed considerably. Angela's rule was revoked—not because of a distrust of new religious rules, but to facilitate filling one that allowed them to fulfill an essential role in catechesis.Footnote ¹³⁰ The Ursuline community came to the attention of the reforming bishop Charles Borromeo (†1584), who used them to provide religious education for girls in Milan. Borromeo gave the community a new rule in the early 1580s. Although this new rule did not mandate enclosure, it required community life, supervision by male clergy, a religious habit, and simple vows. As a result Ursuline communities appeared to be traditional religious, but were not canonically regarded as such. As long as they remained a secular institute and insisted on their lay status, they were able to continue their active ministry.

However, life in a secular institute did not offer the protections or privileges associated with canonically-recognized religious life. In addition to papal protection, this often had the practical consequence of wider social acceptance.Footnote ¹³¹ Like earlier communities that followed the so-called rule of the Franciscan third order, certain Ursuline communities saw some advantage in becoming monasticized. The Ursuline community in Toulouse, petitioned for enclosure, and eventually professed according to the Rule of Augustine.Footnote ¹³²