Heavenly Healing or Failure of Faith? Partial Cures in Later Medieval Canonization Processes1 Jenni Kuuliala For the past decades, canonization processes and miracle collections have provided a treasure trove for the historians of everyday life. Using them as source material, topics such as family life, childhood, and gender roles have been covered by many scholars, in addition to the study of the veneration of saints and the canonization process itself. 2 Healing miracles, with their basis in the Bible, were the fundamental type of miracle performed by saints. For medieval people, the miracles performed by Christ provided the models for subsequent miracles, which continued to be conducted after his life on earth.3 A high proportion of recorded miracles cured blindness, deafness, speech disorders, and various conditions impairing a person’s mobility. Therefore, they also provide a very unique source type for the study of medieval illness and health, as well as dis/ability. 4 1 This essay has been funded by the University of Bremen and the European Commission 7th framework programme. 2 For studies concerning the canonization procedure and its technical and practical features, see e.g. Goodich, ‘The Politics of Canonization’; Klaniczay, ‘Speaking about Miracles’; Krötzl, ‘Prokuratoren, Notare und Dolmetscher’; Paciocco, Canonizzazioni e culto dei santi; Vauchez, La sainteté en Occident. An extensive compilation on canonization processes is Procès de canonisa- tion au Moyen Âge, ed. by Klaniczay. Children, family life, and gender have been covered in the studies by Finucane, The Rescue of the Innocents; Katajala-Peltomaa, Gender, Miracles, and Daily Life; and Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag and ‘Parent-Child Relations’. For a comprehensive historiographical analysis of canonization processes, see Katajala-Peltomaa, ‘Recent Trends in the Study of Medieval Canonizations’. For studies concerning the veneration of saints, see e.g. Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims; Katajala-Peltomaa, Gender, Miracles, and Daily Life; Goodich, Miracles and Wonders; Goodich, Vita perfecta; Krötzl, ‘Miracles au tombeau – miracles à dis- tance’; Sigal, L’homme et le miracle; Wittmer-Butsch and Rendtel, Miracula. Wunderheilungen im Mittelalter. 3 On biblical miracles as the model for medieval conceptions of a miracle, see Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 49-50; Goodich, Miracles and Wonders, pp. 8-12; Metzler, Disability in Medieval Europe, pp. 134-36; Ward, Miracles and the Medieval Mind, pp. 20-24. 4 Among the miracles curing what we would label as ‘physical impairment’, the most com- monly cured conditions were various mobility impairments, while approximately one-third of recorded cures were healings of blinding conditions. Deafness and muteness, on the other hand, are much rarer. On the proportions of healing miracles, see Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag, pp. 188-89; Metzler, Disability in Medieval Europe, pp. 130-31; Sigal, L’homme et le mira- cle, p. 256; Vauchez, La sainteté en Occident, p. 547; Wittmer-Butsch and Rendtel, Miracula. Amsterdam University Press 172 JENNI KUULIAL A Although many of the healing miracles included in later medieval canoni- zation records, as well as in other types of miracle collections, are sudden, often even showy cures, a large proportion of the recoveries of particularly physical impairments and long-term illnesses were gradual.5 Addition- ally, hagiographic sources include a group of miracles that were somehow partial. By ‘partial cure’, I mean healing miracles, after which some milder symptoms of the previous illness or impairment remained. The term is a modern one; although the sources record the possible ‘incompleteness’ of the cure, there is variation in the labelling and phrasing of them. Cures that can be deijined as partial were, in any case, scrutinized relatively rarely in the canonization hearings. Those scholars who have paid attention to their existence have explained this lack of coverage by interpreting them as failed miracles, or uninteresting to the commissioners. For example, Maria Wittmer-Butsch and Constanze Rendtel write that partial cures were most often rejected because they were considered rather as healings, not miracles, and thus no longer interesting for the process,6 and Stanko Andrić places partial cures in the category of failed, or ‘not-quite-successful’ miracles.7 When thinking of miracles as source material for the conceptions and everyday life of the laity, miracles with remaining symptoms provide an interesting sub-type of a healing miracle. Medieval conceptions of what counted as ‘healthy’ or ‘ill/impaired’ were by no means unambiguous or univocal, or compatible with the often equally vague modern deijinitions and ideas.8 It rather seems that functionality and the ability to fulijil social Wunderheilungen im Mittelalter, pp. 101, 111, 113. On physical disability in canonization hearings, see also Kuuliala, Childhood Disability and Social Integration. There are some differences in the methods of categorizing the cures; for example, Vauchez has counted fractures and other such accidents as a separate group. This does not, however, signiijicantly alter the proportions. 5 The authorities occasionally expressed scepticism towards slow cures because these were more likely to have been brought about by medical means: Goodich, Miracles and Wonders, pp. 20-21, 84. There are also notions about suddenness being a vital proof for the miracle itself. See Bartlett, Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things?, pp. 660-61. At the same time, sudden cures could also be considered dubious. See Lappin, The Medieval Cult of Saint Dominic of Silos, p. 243. Pierre-André Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, p. 69, has calculated that in the earlier miracle collections, thirteen per cent of the beneijiciaries had to wait for a week or more before receiving the cure. 6 Wittmer-Butsch and Rendtel, Miracula. Wunderheilungen im Mittelalter, p. 66. 7 Andrić, The Miracles of St. John Capistran, p. 268. 8 The term ‘disability’ has been deijined by the World Health Organization as ‘an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. Impairment is a problem in body function or structure; an activity limitation is a difijiculty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action; while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in life situations. Disability is thus not just a Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 173 expectations were the primary deijining factors for physical health.9 There- fore, it is indeed open for discussion whether the contemporaries viewed partial or incomplete cures as lesser miracles. This chapter examines cures with remaining symptoms from the point of view of impairment/illness and the miraculous. The cases analysed come from eleven canonization processes from the time period between 1235 and 1400:10 although the surviving documents of the inquisitiones in partibus from this period all include a signiijicant amount of healing miracles, partial ones appear only as sporadic cases here and there, and several processes lack such cases altogether.11 The chapter asks what types of partial cures ended up being recorded in later medieval canonization processes, and what the accounts tell us about medieval ideas concerning miraculous cure, health, and the lack of it. First, we will take a look at cures in which the beneijiciary received a miraculous healing, but a milder version of the previous condition remains. Secondly, cases in which a partial cure can be explained as a relapse are examined. We move on to narratives in which it appears that partial cure was the expected result. Finally, ‘full’ cures with some remaining physical marks and their signiijicance for sanctity are scrutinized. health problem. It is a complex phenomenon, reflecting the interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she lives.’ ‘WHO | Disabilities,’ http:// www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/. Therefore, the number of different types of impairing conditions – whether an illness, a traumatic, incurable injury, or a (congenital) impairment – greatly depends on the person’s living conditions, social network and personal characteristics. This idea is called the ‘social model of disability’. See Linton, Claiming Disability, pp. 11-12. For criticism of the model see e.g. Shakespeare, Disability Rights and Wrongs, esp. pp. 29-53 and for medieval studies, Eyler, ‘Introduction’, p. 8. 9 Gentilcore, Healers and Healing in Early Modern Italy, pp. 185-86. The diverse vocabulary and conceptions of impairment/disability in the Middle Ages have been discussed by several scholars. See e.g. Frohne, Leben mit “kranckheit”, pp. 18-24; Goetz, ‘Vorstellungen von menschli- cher Gebrechlichkeit’; Kuuliala Childhood Disability and Social Integration, pp. 32-48; Metzler, Disability in Medieval Europe, pp. 4-5. 10 I have chosen the process of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary (1235) as the earliest one to analyse, because it is the ijirst case in which appear several characteristics essential for the legal side of the inquest. See e.g. Goodich, Miracles and Wonders, pp. 72-73; Klaniczay, ‘Proving Sanctity’, pp. 128-29; Wetzstein, Heilige vor Gericht, p. 538. 11 For a complete list of the medieval canonization processes, see Vauchez, La sainteté en Occident, pp. 655-64. Amsterdam University Press 174 JENNI KUULIAL A Cures with Remaining Impediments A ijive-year-old girl, Alicia de Lonesdale, was on a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela with her father Willelmus, when she suddenly fell on the street, injuring herself and becoming completely unable to walk as a result. The two halted in London, where they supported themselves by begging. Ten years after the accident, Willelmus took his daughter to Thomas Cantilupe’s shrine in Hereford. She stayed there with her stepmother, saw a vision of the Saint in her dream, and woke up cured.12 The healing, however, remained partial: after the miracle, Alicia walked with a stick or limping without one. In 1307, during Thomas Cantilupe’s canonization inquest, Willelmus was reported as testifying that Alicia was cured of all her impediments, Alicia herself stated that after the miracle she limped or walked with a stick, and the other four witnesses made similar comments. Yet all of them were of the opinion that the girl was indeed miraculously cured, and the miracle was publicized in the church,13 which was an essential aspect of the pattern of a proper miracle.14 The commissioners also recorded Alicia’s continuing walking problems, which they witnessed when interrogating her. Their statement provides an interesting description of what constitutes as healing, for they wrote that she was ‘cured of all her aforementioned inijirmities […] and she was so perfectly cured that she could walk on her own feet […] and she soon walked in the presence of the lord bishops, and in the presence of us notaries with a cane and without a cane, limping, because the nerves of her foot are withdrawn, and big scars and cavities are apparent on the foot of the said girl’.15 Thus, the commissioners appear to have shared Willelmus’s view that she was 12 The testimonies about Alicia’s case are in BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fols. 64v-71r. On Alicia’s vision, see Katajala-Peltomaa, Gender, Miracles, and Daily Life, pp. 142-44, and on visions in medieval miracles, e.g. Goodich, Miracles and Wonders, pp. 100-16. 13 BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fol. 67v. 14 Publicizing a miracle, which was seen as a means to strengthen the faith and to turn sinners to penance, was an important hagiographic topos. Failure to follow this rule after receiving saintly help could even result in a relapse of the previous condition as a punishment from the offended saint. Craig, Wandering Women, pp. 108-09; Goodich, Miracles and Wonders, pp. 32-33; Ackerman Smoller, ‘Deijining the Boundaries of the Natural’, pp. 354-56. On punishment miracles in general, see Klaniczay, ‘Miracoli di punizione e maleijicia’; Krötzl, ‘“Crudeliter afflicta”’, pp. 124-28; Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 276-82. 15 BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fol. 65r: ‘fuit […] curata ab omnibus predictis inijirmitatibus suis […] et fuit ita perfecte curata quod potuit propris pedibus ire, […] et modo vadit et iuit coram dominis Episcopis, et coram nobis notariis cum baculo et sine baculo claudicando, quia nerui pedis sunt retracti, et cicatrices et concauitates magne apparuit in pede dicte puelle’. Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 175 cured of everything that had troubled her – despite the fact that there still remained visible, albeit signiijicantly milder, symptoms. The curialist, who evaluated the miracles after the hearing, was more reserved, coming to the conclusion that Alicia’s healing was alleviation rather than a cure. This is also a rare example of a medieval notion of a miraculous cure being speciijically labelled partial.16 Interestingly, the curialist’s reasoning includes the statement that Alicia did not want to stay at the shrine long enough to receive a perfect cure. This further shows how the gradual nature of mi- raculous healings were often expected yet fluid, as many other beneijiciaries continued getting better after a vow or a pilgrimage.17 Consequently, Alicia’s cure was excluded from the summary of Thomas Cantilupe’s miracles,18 but it is nevertheless mentioned in the canonization bull – apparently being in the end considered a display powerful enough for his sainthood.19 Alicia’s case is not unique among miracle testimonies: these types of in- complete healings appear, albeit sporadically, in other canonization dossiers as well, portraying the beneijiciaries walking with mobility aids or limping after the cure.20 A few cases of remaining traces of a cured condition, worth examining in more detail, are also recorded in the miracles of Saint Louis IX of France. He was ofijicially canonized in 1298, but the documents of the hearing, except for the testimonies of three miracles, are lost.21 Fortunately, around 1303 Franciscan friar Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, the confessor of Louis’s widow Margaret of Provence, compiled Vie et miracles de Saint Louis (Life and Miracles of Saint Louis) based on the canonization testimonies on the request of their daughter Blanche. Comparing his text with the surviving fragments of the hearing, as well as his own notions about the 16 Edited in Vauchez, La sainteté en Occident, p. 645: ‘Que postmodum apparente sibi in visu beato Thoma in parte est curata. Probatur per testes sed quia curata non invenitur in pede plene nec vulnera in tot clausa nec voluit morari usque ad plenam curationem, illi non est insistendum. Potius enim videtur quedam aleniatio quam curatio.’ 17 Saints were also thought to appreciate persistence. See Bartlett, Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things?, p. 362. 18 Vauchez, La sainteté en Occident, p. 572. 19 Sancti canonizatio facta per Joannem XXII Papam in AASS, Oct. I, p. 597: ‘Quaedam insuper puella annorum quinque, quae pedem unum habebat annis pluribus quasi totum ex ijistulis putrefactum, ita quod nec stare nec ire poterat, nisi se super femur trahendo per terram, portata ad dicti Sancti tumulum per patrem, fuit ibidem a dicta inijirmitate curata.’ 20 A parallel case to that of Alicia in Thomas Cantilupe’s hearing concerns the cure of a woman called Agneta, who was completely unable to move. After her cure at Thomas’s shrine she walked on crutches for a year and with a cane after that. The case was not investigated as meticulously as that of Alicia, and is not included in the curialist’s report. BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fols. 238r-v. See also BAV, Vat. lat. 4025, fols. 165v-166v; Quellenstudien, pp. 175-76, 178, 205-06, 222-23. 21 Edited in ‘Fragments de l’enquête faite à Saint-Denis’. Amsterdam University Press 176 JENNI KUULIAL A writing process, it has been concluded that Guillaume remained rather faithful to his original source.22 In the collection, a few miracle beneij iciaries were cured of severe impairments but had small symptoms left. A girl called Eidelot had been unable to walk, but after a pilgrimage she reportedly limped very little. The narrative resembles that of Alicia de Lonesdale’s case, stating that she ‘felt nothing of the malady’.23 In his description of two cures of severely disabling conditions, Guillaume de Saint-Pathus makes it clear that even though some symptoms are left after the miracle, the beneijiciaries were able to take care of their everyday tasks.24 The fourth case in this category leaves it somewhat unclear whether Guillaume de Saint-Pathus meant the cure to be complete or simply gradual. Guillot dit le Potencier, who had for years been unable to walk with his other leg, received a miraculous cure at Louis’s shrine. Afterwards he reportedly walked with a cane for about four months because of his feebleness. Then the apertures of his foot were closed, and he could walk without a cane if he wanted, but he limped a bit. Guillaume, however, goes on to end the narrative by stating that Guillot was totally healthy of the said malady with no further references to the remaining limp.25 That we only have Guillaume’s summaries and interpretations of the original witness accounts makes the text very interesting for our current topic. Guillaume’s motive for writing the collection was to promote the cult of the saintly king,26 and although he was faithful to his original source, sometimes apparently transcribing parts of the hearing verbatim,27 this 22 Farmer, Surviving Poverty, pp. 7-9; Gaposchkin, The Making of Saint Louis, pp. 37-39. On Louis IX’s canonization, see Gaposchkin, The Making of Saint Louis, pp. 19-65; Goodich, Vita perfecta, pp. 186-91. 23 Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, p. 37: ‘ne puis de cele maladie riens ne senti, et aloit de ça et de la comme une autre saine pucele, et nonporquant ele clochoit un bien petitet’. 24 Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, pp. 133-34, 187. The ijirst one of these examples, concerning Jehenne de Serris, has been extensively analysed in Farmer, Surviving Poverty, pp. 119-24, 130-31, 152-54. Similarly, in Philip of Bourges’s hearing a presbyter called Petrus testiijied that after a vow to the saint, his gutta was ijirst alleviated and then, within a month, he was able to ride. Eventually, he became so healthy that he often felt the inijirmity a bit, but it did not burden (grauare) him. BAV, Vat. lat. 4019, fol. 86r. 25 Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, p. 26. 26 As pointed out by M. Cecilia Gaposchkin, these hagiographic writings did not, however, construct Louis’s sanctity and memory for the public at large; that was done through the use of liturgical texts. Gaposchkin, ‘Louis IX and Liturgical Memory’. 27 See Gaposchkin, The Making of Saint Louis, p. 39. Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 177 purpose must have affected the way he summarized the accounts.28 After all, he was writing at royal request, having himself a Franciscan background. Other cases in the collection where the cures are thought to be somewhat partial will be discussed below, but if indeed the partial nature of some of these cures had lessened the powers of the saint, there is the possibility that he would not have included so many of them in his text. On the other hand, Guillaume emphasized carefully the insigniijicance of such remain- ing impediments, thus underscoring the wondrous nature of the events, relegating the remaining limps or weaknesses to the background. While this may be Guillaume’s rhetorical means to emphasize his own message, it is likely that a similar tone appeared in the original hearings – perhaps even more often than Guillaume’s narrative mentions, as is sug- gested by the comparison between the surviving testimonies for the cure of a curved woman and Guillaume’s narrative.29 It is apparent that the dossiers of the inquest were exceptionally lengthy and detailed,30 and many accounts include detailed information on the gradual nature of the cure, with the beneijiciaries residing at the shrine for several days, and the process of healing itself being meticulously examined. An old man called Gilbert de Sens suffered from badly trembling hands. He was cured at Louis’s shrine so that only a small trembling remained; it later disappeared. At the time of the inquest, the commissioners wanted to know if he was well-healed, and this was tested by Gilbert drinking wine from a goblet without any spilling or trembling of the hands.31 Whether or not a cure was partial was, therefore, not insigniijicant. On the contrary, the exact nature of it had to be carefully scrutinized for proving the miracle real. As these examples already show, a vast majority of partial cures concern various conditions impairing mobility, while partial cures of blindness are much rarer. Miracles curing blindness are, in general, more scarce in 28 This aspect is perhaps even more essential when it comes to Louis’s vita. All its versions care- fully describe Louis’s saintly virtues according to the mendicant ideals of the time. Gaposchkin, The Making of Saint Louis, pp. 40-41. On the importance of the vitae for the canonization proceed- ings, see e.g. Goodich, Vita Perfecta, pp. 21-47. 29 Robertus de Cantrage testiij ied that after the cure, she performed her tasks like other healthy women, although her thighs remained a bit curved. ‘Fragments de l’enquête faite à Saint-Denis’, p. 26. Guillaume de Saint-Pathus did not repeat this remark, perhaps because the other six witnesses for the miracle did not mention it. Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, pp. 18-20. 30 This has been noted by, for example, Sharon Farmer, who states that the miracle collection ‘gives us more detail about poor people’s strategies for surviving long-term disability than any other source yet to be exploited by a medieval historian’. Farmer, ‘Manual Labor’, p. 266. 31 Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, p. 32. Amsterdam University Press 178 JENNI KUULIAL A the canonization hearings; this may explain the low number of partial cures.32 Another reason may be that blindness has fewer visible symptoms, although the beneijiciary may reportedly have had a white cover over his or her eyes. Presumably, the different levels of vision were also harder to detect and prove. Needing to be guided by another person was a typical way to demonstrate blindness in the miracle depositions, which sometimes added details about the inability to take care of some everyday tasks. Besides such details, the complete cure may have been harder to demonstrate. Some of the deijinitions concerning healing, like that of recognizing objects,33 do not necessarily mean ‘perfect’ vision. Two examples from the canonization process of Saint Yves of Tréguier further demonstrate the ambiguity of the concept of a ‘cure’. In one of them, the mother considered her daughter’s blindness in one eye a grave condition, praying that she would die rather than live with it.34 Another woman had a completely blind daughter and she also wished for her death. This time, the result of the vow was that the girl recovered vision in one eye, bringing great joy to the family.35 Relapse and Alleviation It has been suggested that of the beneijiciaries whose cures were recorded at shrines, quite a few actually suffered from a relapse later. There are also recorded statements of pilgrims returning to the shrine after the illness re- turned.36 However, people who testiijied in the canonization hearings often did so years, even decades, after the witnessed or experienced miracle. Most canonization processes were conducted based on a questionnaire ( formula interrogatorii), which could be of varying length, but always included a question asking for the length of time the witness has been healthy or has 32 See note 4 above. 33 Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, p. 182: ‘Car des donques puis cel flu de cel sanc, ele connoissoit et devisoit les choses que ele veoit.’ 34 ‘Processus de vita et miraculis Sancti Yvonis’, pp. 168, 210. 35 ‘Processus de vita et miraculis Sancti Yvonis’, pp. 269-70. 36 See Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 75-78; Park, ‘Medicine and Society’, p. 74. Robert A. Scott goes as far as to write that ‘the great majority of miracles recorded at medieval shrines involved partial recoveries and temporary improvement of health’. Scott, The Gothic Enterprise, p. 201. Unfortunately, he does not refer to any speciijic collection or scholarship here. Whether relapses were recorded, depended, in any case, also on the scribe. For example, William of Canterbury, who wrote down Thomas Becket’s miracles, was reluctant to record such instances and, when he did, he provided explanation. See Koopmans, Wonderful to Relate, pp. 197-98. Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 179 seen the miraculé being healthy.37 This is a signiijicant difference compared with miracles recorded at shrines, which did not have such ‘follow-up’. Miracle narratives in canonization hearings, which include mentions of relapse, are, therefore, very rare – the only exception being those cases where the ill deeds of the person who made the vow resulted in the return of the condition as a punishment.38 In such cases, the protagonist virtually always realizes his or her mistake and ijinally receives a complete cure.39 In the hearing of Saint Nicholas of Tolentino, there is a rare account por- traying the miraculous cure as alleviation, or even as a series of temporary cures. Andreas Accursi, regius Roberti (Robert of Anjou, 1277-1343, King of Naples) milex (sic) et iuris professor, was asked if he knew anything of Nicholas’s miracles, to which he replied no, but that sometimes he himself had experienced temporary help for his inijirmity, which he pleaded from the Saint. 40 The commissioners then wanted to know what Andreas’s inijir- mity was, and he informed them it was podagra, which is a version of gutta, affecting mainly legs and causing pain and/or fever. 41 Andreas’s deposition does not specify his symptoms, but he reported that he had been ill for about four years. The commissioners then asked if he was completely cured of his condition, to which he replied no, but that he only felt the aforementioned temporary alleviation. Andreas is an extremely rare example of a witness who does not count the help received as a miracle. The testimony thus acts as one of the few instances in which some kind of pre-evaluation of whether or not the heal- ing was a miracle was done by the miraculé. Most likely, his education has an effect here. As a university-trained man, Andreas was probably aware of the thirteenth-century scholastic theology of miracle, and the on-going 37 See e.g. Goodich, Miracles and Wonders, pp. 88-89; Klaniczay, ‘Proving Sanctity’, pp. 128-29; Vauchez, La sainteté en Occident, pp. 58-59. 38 The most typical reason for such a punishment was the failure to fulijil the promise made to the saint. Krötzl, ‘“Crudeliter afflicta”’, pp. 124-28; Sigal, L’homme et le miracle, pp. 276-82. Asking for the help of medical professionals after making the vow could also result in a relapse, though this was not always so. See Ackerman Smoller, ‘Deijining the Boundaries of the Natural’, pp. 347-48. 39 A rare example was recorded in the hearing of St Dorothea of Montau in 1404-1406. A cleric defaming Dorothea’s sanctity was blinded, his mouth became curved, and he became unable to speak. After an invocation to the saint he was otherwise cured, but his mouth remained a bit cured and his speech somewhat unclear. Die Akten des Kanonisationsprozess Dorotheas von Montau, 27, 128, 154, 289. 40 Il Processo per la canonizzazione di San Nicola, p. 606: ‘dixit quod in sua persona aliquando sensit iuvamina temporalia de inijirmitate sua, cum ipsum fratrem Nicolaum pro se ipso rogavit’. 41 ‘Indice voci scienza medica’, in Il Processo per la canonizzazione di San Nicola, p. 673. Amsterdam University Press 180 JENNI KUULIAL A attempts to limit the number of phenomena understood as miracles. Follow- ing the views of Thomas Aquinas, several theologians were of the opinion that a true miracle was an event contrary to nature, for God and saints could act outside the normal laws and patterns of nature. In De potentia Aquinas divided miracles into three different types: those that were above (supra), against (contra), or apart from nature (praeter naturam). Cures initiated by saints and not occurring through the gradual work of nature belonged to the last group. Moreover, Albertus Magnus (d. 1280) made a distinction between miracula and mirabilia, while Gervase of Tilbury (d. 1235) deijined mirabilia as phenomena which do not appear natural to people, but which can, nevertheless, be initiated by a saint. 42 Presumably, Andreas Accursi understood his experiences as something like mirabilia, being less wondrous by nature than a proper miracle. That his case ended up recorded in Nicholas of Tolentino’s hearing in the ijirst place is explainable by him testifying about Nicholas’s fama and his high social status, as elite men were considered to be the most trustworthy witnesses. 43 At the time of the hearing, Andreas was a professor in Naples and the judge of appeal of King Robert. 44 He was, however, originally from Camerino, where his witness account was recorded, which may have influenced his summons to testify. The other explanation is that a preceding witness, Conellus Actonis, notarius et mercator, also from Camerino, testiijied that Andreas had once told him that Saint Nicholas liberated him from a seri- ous bout of inijirmitatem flancorum. There is a rather striking difference between the diagnoses given by Conellus and Andreas, as according to Conellus, the next morning Andreas showed him the kidney stone which had caused the pain. 45 42 Goodich, Miracles and Wonders, pp. 20-22; Wilson, Miracle and Medicine, pp. 64-67, 121-22; Wittmer-Butsch and Rendtel, Miracula. Wunderheilungen im Mittelalter, pp. 66-67. 43 The preference given to wealthy witnesses was ordered in the decretals of Gregory IX. Krötzl, ‘Prokuratoren, Notare und Dolmetscher’, pp. 122-23. See also Farmer, Surviving Poverty, pp. 50-56. On the selection of witnesses, see Golinelli, ‘Social Aspects in Some Italian Canonization Trials’; Katajala-Peltomaa, Gender, Miracles, and Daily Life, pp. 23-70; Lett, Un procès de canonisation, pp. 140-60. 44 Lett, Un procès de canonisation, p. 319. 45 Il Processo per la canonizzazione di San Nicola, p. 310: ‘Et ostendit sibi testi unum lapidem quod eicerat illa nocte per virgam.’ There is another witness in the hearing mentioning morbus flancorus, but she did not describe the symptoms. Il Processo per la canonizzazione di San Nicola, p. 193. In the ‘Indice voci scienza medica’, in Il Processo per la canonizzazione di San Nicola, p. 666, her condition is labelled as arthritis. Based on Conellus’s testimony, this, however, does not seem plausible, especially as flancus refers to the flank area of the back where the kidneys are located. See du Cange, et al., Glossarium, t. 3, col. 519b. Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 181 A comparable case was briefly recorded in the hearing of Saint Philip of Bourges in 1265, during which a cleric called magister Gerardus related that he was frequently troubled by gutta, which was alleviated by prayers to the Saint. 46 Here too the reasons for the case’s recording can be found elsewhere: Gerardus was primarily testifying about another miracle he had experienced, in which he had doubted Philip’s sanctity and fallen ill as a punishment. He himself interpreted that illness as gutta as well, whereas the other four testifying churchmen did not report Gerardus’s continuing health issues.47 Obviously, here Gerardus’s earlier experiences had an influence on his interpretation of the later gutta, which, however, was not interesting for the commissioners. 48 A different type of alleviation, where the saint was allegedly involved only once, was investigated in the canonization hearing of Dauphine of Puimichel (1284-1358), the Countess of Sabran, conducted in 1363. Bertranda Bartholomea, who lived in Dauphine’s household for a long time, testiijied about several of her miracles in vita. One of them concerns the cure of Francisca de Mari, who resided in the castle of Robert of Anjou. For ijive years Francisca had suffered from a headache so severe that it made her unable to see or hear anything, until Dauphine’s touch healed her. The commissioners wanted to know how long Bertranda had seen the said Francisca after the cure, to which she replied she had seen her without the headache for three or four months and heard from her that she did not experience the aforementioned pain, but that during those months she felt some pain, only it was not as severe as before. 49 Francisca de Mari is mentioned several times in Dauphine’s process: she was a companion and a distant relative of King Robert’s second wife, Sancha of Majorca (1285-1345), moving in the same circles as Dauphine and her husband Saint Elzéar of Sabran. She did not, however, give a deposition in the hearing, nor does any other witness mention her cure.50 Perhaps it had not become well known in their circles because it was not complete, but it 46 BAV, Vat. lat. 4019, fol. 71r. 47 The other depositions are on BAV, Vat. lat. 4019, fols. 71r-73v. 48 The other witnesses were not asked about Gerardus’s second miracle, nor is it recorded in the summary of Philip’s miracles in BAV, Vat. lat. 4020. 49 Enquête pour le procès de canonisation de Dauphine de Puimichel, p. 309: ‘non sencierat dolo- rem predictum; sed lapsis dictis mensibus, audivit dici ab eademmet quod dolorem predictum senciit, sed non tantum graven ut solebat, ante curacionem factam per tactum dicte domine Dalphine, ut supra deposuit.’ Dauphine’s process includes other cases too where she has cured a person’s severe headache. See ibid., pp. 358-59, 367-69. 50 Enquête pour le procès de canonisation de Dauphine de Puimichel, pp. 56, 164, 174, 339. Amsterdam University Press 182 JENNI KUULIAL A is also typical of Dauphine’s hearing that many of the miracles, especially those not included in the articles, only have one witness. Due to the scarcity of such miracle accounts we can only make guesses, but it seems plausible that the cures or alleviations like those of Andreas, Gerardus, and Francisca – even if not labelled as miracles – were more com- mon than the records tell. Even if one does not wish to diagnose medieval miracle beneijiciaries, many illnesses do have relapses or remissions, and some heal or at least improve with no medical intervention.51 And no matter what the actual physical or psychological mechanisms between the nar- ratives are, it seems evident that alleviation was already a great personal relief, which saints could bring about. Smaller relapses and returns of the condition were also not necessarily given that much emphasis. Alicia de Lonesdale, for example, reported briefly that one night after the cure she felt pain in the parts of her body that had been paralyzed.52 In the process of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, a poor woman called Heideradis testiijied about the cure of her epileptic son, saying that no signs of the earlier ill- ness appeared in him, except that once a rigidity (rigor) struck him, but he remained seated and did not fall.53 Expected Partial Cures It is also noteworthy in the testimony of Andreas Accursi that he speciijied that the occasional alleviation of his podagra was exactly what he had asked for, instead of praying to receive a full cure. In the hearing of Saint Nicholas of Tolentino, there is another case where the protagonist similarly invoked the saint hoping to get better instead of getting cured. A youth called Mathiolus Angeli was unable to walk for two years and moved around sitting on a small cart, asking for alms. One of the witnesses of his miracle, magister Mercatante Iohannis Adambi, testiijied that he saw Mathiolus lying on a cart in front of the house of Pucius Johannis. Mercatante Iohannis then said to Pucius that it would be a beautiful miracle if Saint Nicholas cured that cripple. Hearing this, Mathiolus responded that he wished Saint Nicholas would give him a great grace so that he could walk on his own on 51 For the occasional attempts to explain medieval miracles by modern scientiijic standards, see e.g. Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 54-65, 78; Scott, Miracle Cures, pp. 74-46, 122-27, 129-30, 146-48. For criticism of such an approach, see e.g. Van Dam, Saints and Their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul, p. 84; Yarrow, Saints and Their Communities, pp. 10-11. 52 BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fol. 68r. 53 Quellenstudien, p. 245. Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 183 crutches. Mercatante Iohannis and other men helped Mathiolus to Pucius’s house, where they commended him to Saint Nicholas, asking the Saint to cure him so that he could walk on crutches, and adding that he did not wish for a major grace, but that would sufijice.54 In her deposition, Mathiolus’s sister said her brother wanted to be cured just so that he would not have to sit on that cart, which he would donate to the Saint.55 Mathiolus’s wish was granted, and soon he indeed was able to walk on crutches. Interestingly, Pucius Johannis, who testiijied about Nicholas’s vita and another miracle, did not mention Mathiolus at all.56 Mercatante Iohannis Adambi, on the other hand, gave a lengthy testimony including passages about the Saint’s life as well as three other miracles.57 It is possible that otherwise the miracle would not have received attention in the hearing. Here again, we get a glimpse of the ambiguous scale of ‘disability’ in the hagiographic sources: many protagonists asked for the cure of a situation similar to that of Mathiolus’s cured state. Interestingly, when interrogating the witnesses about the stability of Mathiolus’s cure, the commissioners used the word sanus, healthy.58 His partial cure was also called a miracle, which is perhaps less surprising, considering that it happened as an immediate result of the vow. Moreover, Mathiolus’s sister informed the commissioners that he walked well or healthily on his own, although on crutches.59 Unusual as it is, Mathiolus’s case is a ijine example of what Ronald Finucane writes about the medieval perception of illness or health being social generalizations, and that ‘whether someone was cured [was] little better than a consensus 54 Il Processo per la canonizzazione di San Nicola, p. 215. The division between ‘miracle’ and ‘grace’ was still somewhat hazy at this point, although it appears that Mathiolus and perhaps the others present as well made some difference between the two concepts. The distinction started to develop in the sixteenth century. See Finucane, Contested Canonizations, p. 24, note 31. 55 Il Processo per la canonizzazione di San Nicola, p. 270: ‘per se nollet maiorem gratiam: solummodo quod non esset sibi necesse iacere et sedere in dicta carrecta, et dictam carrectam portaret ad archam suam.’ 56 Pucius’s testimony is on Il Processo per la canonizzazione di San Nicola, pp. 228-31. 57 Il Processo per la canonizzazione di San Nicola, pp. 213-18. 58 Il Processo per la canonizzazione di San Nicola, p. 216: ‘Interrogatus quanto tempore post miraculum factum vidit eum sanum, dixit quod per duos menses et ultra ire cum croceis et non in carretta ut consueverat.’ 59 Il Processo per la canonizzazione di San Nicola, p. 271: ‘Interrogata quanto tempore post miraculum factum vidit eum sanum, dixit quod ab inde postea nunquam vidit eum protractum, immo per se ambulabat optime, licet cum crociis.’ Amsterdam University Press 184 JENNI KUULIAL A of opinion’.60 In other words, health or the lack of it was deijined primarily by the community, as was a miraculous cure.61 The personal viewpoint, albeit connected with the communal one, is equally crucial in this case. It is noteworthy that the initiative to ask only for a partial cure came from Mathiolus himself and that the Saint did not give him more than he asked. It is possible that Mathiolus indeed thought that not asking for a ‘major grace’, as the account puts it, might help his cause. In general, saints rarely gave the petitioners more than they prayed for. These cases could be compared with those where a newborn child is in danger of dying without baptism, and a vow is made asking that the saint would let the infant live so that it could be baptized.62 In a majority of such cases the child indeed dies in infancy after baptism, although there are occasional exceptions.63 It is of course possible that at least some of the witnesses interpreted the partial nature of the miracle afterwards by adjusting their own wishes accordingly. It has also been proposed that one reason for why partial cures are so rare in the dossiers is that they were considered to be caused by the lack of personal devotion or not confessing one’s sins beforehand,64 which, if prevalent, may have made people unwilling to report such cases. On the other hand, it is probable that for most medieval people, the sense of complete physical well-being was rare overall.65 Moreover, according to David Gentilcore, in the early modern era – presumably also pertaining to the Middle Ages – a full recovery was not even necessarily the main wish or expectation of a sick person.66 The limits of the curing methods 60 Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 73. 61 This aspect of health and illness with regard to Ancient Greece has been thoroughly analysed in Grmek, Les maladies à l’aube de la civilization occidentale, who writes (p. 12) that instead of being constituent elements of reality, diseases are explanatory models of it. In other words, illness or disease is a culturally deijined phenomenon rather than a physical one. 62 On these miracles, see Finucane, The Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 42-46 and also Arnold, Belief and Unbelief, pp. 134-36. 63 Such a case is, for example, recorded in ‘Processus de vita et miraculis Sancti Yvonis’, pp. 256-57. The mother was sure the foetus in her womb was dead and prayed to the saint that it could be baptized. The child was still alive at the time of the investigation, eleven years later. 64 Wittmer-Butsch and Rendtel, Miracula. Wunderheilungen im Mittelalter, p. 66. Confession was, in principle, a pre-requisite of a miraculous cure. See e.g. Yarrow, ‘Narrative, Audience and the Negotiation’, p. 70. Except for Les Miracles de Saint Louis, our sources are, however, quite silent about the matter. 65 See e.g. Scott, Miracle Cures, pp. 11-12. 66 Gentilcore, Healers and Healing, p. 186. In her study on medieval leprosy, Carole Rawcliffe writes that the cure of the illness was mostly deijined by becoming well enough ‘to walk again in public without shame’. Rawcliffe, Leprosy, p. 251. Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 185 were known, and the personal relief, even if the cure was partial, could be immense.67 After all, Mathiolus Angeli had been forced to ask for alms while unable to walk at all, and Alicia de Lonesdale also briefly mentioned that at the time of the inquiry she was living by the work of her hands and not forced to beg for survival.68 This kind of viewpoint is also visible in one of the most peculiar partial cures of later medieval miracle testimonies, recorded in Pope Urban V’s hearing conducted in Avignon in 1376-1379.69 The case concerns the time of a battle between the ruler of Milan, Galeazzo II Visconti (c. 1320-1378), and the Marquis of Montferrat (presumably John II, 1321-1372). When Galeazzo’s troops were conquering a village called Locarno, local nobleman Jacobus de Farmentono continuously spoke against them. As a punishment, they cut his tongue, destroyed his eyes, and cut his arm, presumably seeing it as a powerful threat for other inhabitants of the town.70 Jacobus remained in that state for 43 days, when Franciscan brother Anthonius de Morosio told him to make a vow to Urban V. In his heart, Jacobus promised to build a chapel in the saintly Pope’s honour if he gave him back his speech. From then on, Jacobus was able to talk without a tongue.71 Although Jacobus eventually received a miraculous cure, he certainly continued his life as an impaired person, for the account says nothing about the possible cure of his eyes or hand. Re-growth of amputated limbs is generally missing from medieval canonization records, with the excep- tion of some tongues,72 but that Jacobus remained also blind is somewhat 67 See also Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 75. 68 BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fol. 68r. 69 The text most likely consists of the articles based on which the inquest was supposed to be conducted. See Vauchez, La sainteté en Occident, pp. 369-72, 660. 70 Mutilation was not an exceptional punishment in medieval Europe, although how prevalent it actually was is somewhat unclear. It is known, however, that in the late Middle Ages, it was gradually favoured over other punitive measures. It appears unclear whether the punishment Jacobus faced was regulated by the law, for as Irina Metzler writes, ‘juridical’ is a rather ambiva- lent term, but during wartime the victors undoubtedly thought they were acting judiciously when assailing the vanquished. Metzler, A Social History of Disability, pp. 11-35. 71 Actes Anciens, pp. 432-33. 72 In Thomas Cantilupe’s process there are three tongueless boys: Johannes, Philippus, and Hugo. The information given about Hugo is very sparse, but on Philippus and Johannes we have lengthier depositions and they are both also mentioned in the Hereford proctors’ list of the miracles. BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fols. 90r-v, 105r-v, 186r-188r, 204r-209v, 242r-v, 274r, 291r. Moreover, Thomas Cantilupe’s miracula in Exeter College Manuscript 158 describes the cure of a mute man whose tongue had been torn out by thieves. Goodich, ‘Miseries of Dulcia St. Chartier (1266) and Cristina of Wellington (1294)’, p. 111. Saint Francis of Assisi also cured a boy with no tongue. Vita Prima S. Francisci Assisiensis, pp. 113-14. Nicholas of Tolentino’s hearing also includes a Amsterdam University Press 186 JENNI KUULIAL A surprising. It has been concluded that aural and speech impediments were among the most severe in medieval society, and they could also cause legal problems for those in possession of wealth or those who were potential heirs, even though losing one’s ability to stipulate after the inheritance did not make the person lose it.73 As Jacobus’s promise to build a chapel shows, he was a man of some means, and therefore the legal issues may at least partly explain the nature of his wish. In addition to Andreas Accursi, Mathiolus’s and Jacobus’s cases are the only ones I have found where the protagonists so clearly articulate their wishes for a partial cure. The fourth vow that can be read as not asking for a perfect cure comes from the Breton hearing of Charles of Blois from 1371. Iohannes le Maignen had been unable to see with his left eye from his youth until his mid-twenties, when he also lost the sight of his right eye. During the following thirteen years, he made futile pleas to several saints, until he ijinally heard about the miracles of Charles and made a vow, asking to be cured so that he would at least be able to walk without being guided.74 Iohannes indeed got the sight back in his left eye and completed his vow by making a pilgrimage. Iohannes stated that he walked there without a guide and, furthermore, that he walked better than his wife who had two seeing eyes, which further illustrates the ambiguousness of ‘non-blindness’ in medieval society.75 It is possible that Iohannes was aware that a partial cure could be considered as a lesser miracle, because he speciijied that he walked better than his wife. Presumably, he used ‘walking well’ as a syno- nym for seeing well, because being able to walk alone was an established manifestation of being cured of blindness.76 rather curious case in which an amputated ijinger is re-attached to the hand. Il Processo per la canonizzazione di San Nicola, pp. 464-66, and the Hereford proctors’ list of Thomas Cantilupe’s miracles lists the cure of a man whose thumb was ‘horribly amputated’. BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fol. 270r. 73 See e.g. Metzler, ‘Reflections on Disability’. 74 BAV, Vat. lat. 4025, fol. 178v: ‘mihi visum dare velitis in tantum ad minus quod valeam sine ductore per vias incedere, et promitto vobis quod sepulchrum vestrum visitabo.’ 75 For example, eye-glasses were in general use in northern Italy by the turn of the fourteenth century, but not available to everyone. Frugoni, Books, Banks, Buttons, pp. 14-16. Then again, even today blindness is legally deijined differently in different countries, from severely reduced eyesight to complete blindness. See e.g. Pereira and Conti-Ramsden, Language Development, p. 3 76 Being unable to walk alone and needing a guide was the most common way of proving blindness in canonization testimonies. Kuuliala, Childhood Disability and Social Integration, pp. 55-57. Similar expressions are common also in earlier miracle stories, and the miracles of blind people recorded at shrines often include mentions of the pilgrims arriving with a guide. Metzler, Disability in Medieval Europe, pp. 175-76. Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 187 As mentioned above, the conceptions of what was ‘natural’ were es- sential for the scholastic discussion of miracles. The views are visible in the thirteenth-century miracle collections recorded at saints’ shrines and often in the witness accounts of canonization hearings, as well as occasionally also when the original condition of the miraculé is described as ‘unnatural’.77 There are two cases in Les Miracles de Saint Louis, which, however, show the other side of the coin, and are also related to our current topic.78 The ijirst example concerns a woman called Hodierne, who was limping (boiteuse) since birth. She was around 40 years of age when she was struck by a condition which made her unable to walk at all if she did not use something for support. After two years she made a pilgrimage to Saint Louis’s shrine and was cured. According to the narrative, before the illness she had been a healthy woman, walking on her own without a cane, and performing her other tasks like any other healthy woman, although she ‘limped by nature’. After the cure she was again described as healthy and capable of carrying out her tasks like other healthy women.79 The other case portrays the cure of Marguerite, a sister at the Parisian convent of the Filles Dieu. A condition struck her left hand and her left leg, which she could no longer put on the ground. She had to walk with a cane, which she was not used to. According to the narrative, before that she had been making silk purses and had walked well and freely, and although she was limping (boisteuse) on her left side, she had been able to put her left foot on the ground. After making a pilgrimage to Saint Louis IX’s shrine in Saint-Denis, she was again able to do her tasks, walk without the cane, and put her foot on the ground, although she was limping.80 The ijinal words of the records of Hodierne’s and Marguerite’s cases come from the pen of Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, but there is no reason to assume that similar notions about their ‘natural’ limping and ability to take care of everyday tasks would not have been made in the original witness accounts. 77 This aspect has been thoroughly studied in Wilson, Miracle and Medicine. 78 Medieval theologians and philosophers wrote about the origins and naturalness of especially congenital malformations with varying views. According to Thomas Aquinas, a mutilated body is ugly, for all things must have the parts which belong to them. On the other hand, some writers shared Augustine’s views expressed in City of God, stating that even monsters are divine creatures and belong to the order of nature. See Metzler, Disability in Medieval Europe, pp. 49-51 and also Jaritz, ‘“Young, Rich, and Beautiful”’, pp. 61-63. 79 Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, pp. 96-97. For further discussion about Hodierne and Marguerite, see Kuuliala, Childhood Disability and Social Integration, pp. 45-47. 80 Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, pp. 101-04. See also Farmer, Surviving Poverty, p. 129. Amsterdam University Press 188 JENNI KUULIAL A These narratives ijinely demonstrate the ambiguousness of what, in the end, was ‘impairment’ or ‘disability’ in the Middle Ages. As stated by Miri Rubin, binary classiijications such as health/sickness or sanity/madness do not function properly when discussing medieval bodies,81 as these two miracles illustrate. As long as the two women were able to fulijil their social roles and do their work, they had no inijirmity to be healed; that only began when they were disabled by their conditions. And although the condition to be cured seems to have been an aggravation of earlier states, it is questionable whether these miracles can even be read as partial ones. A miraculous cure healed the one condition or problem for which the saint was asked for help; it did not change what was considered ordinary for the person in question, or conditions for which the cure was not asked.82 As was the case with many other beneijiciaries in Louis IX’s miracles, the emphasis on them being able to function like ‘other healthy women’ deijined their cures in the eyes of the writer, and most likely also in the eyes of the community, as is suggested by the two such mentions in the surviving depositions.83 After all, it has been argued that the whole concept of ‘normal’ did not exist before the nineteenth century. The prime concept was that of ‘ideal’, which no human is ever able to achieve.84 There is the possibility that cases like Hodierne’s and Marguerite’s were more common than one would think when reading medieval miracle narra- tives. The descriptions of cures in Guillaume de Saint-Pathus’s collection are exceptionally rich. However, in the other, much more summarized record of Louis IX’s miracles compiled at the royal court before the actual hearing by Guillaume de Chartres, Hodierne’s original or remaining limp is not 81 Rubin, ‘The Person in the Form’, p. 115. 82 There is an interesting remark pointing this out in Peter of Morrone’s hearing. A boy called Francesco had been deaf and mute since birth. After his father took him to visit the saint, he gradually got his hearing and speech back. According to the father, at the time of the investiga- tion the boy heard well and spoke intelligibly, except that he did not produce the words in a distinctive manner due to an impediment caused by ijire when the child was an infant. ‘Die Akten des Kanonisationsprozess’, p. 220. The other two witnesses for the miracle (pp. 221-23) did not mention the remaining impediment. On the contrary, one of them stated that the boy grew well. Another case showing this is recorded in Saint Yves of Tréguier’s process, where a blind man fell into a well and was rescued by the saint. He was not, however, cured of the blindness. ‘Processus de vita et miraculis Sancti Yvonis’, pp. 235, 281-82, 284-90. Charles of Blois’s dossier also depicts a case where a man is in danger of dying without confessing a mortal sin. The saint revives him so that a priest can be fetched, and the man dies after confession. BAV, Vat. lat. 4025, fols. 134v-137v. 83 ‘Fragments de l’enquête faite à Saint-Denis’, pp. 26, 30. 84 Davies, Bending over Backwards, p. 105. See also Wells, ‘The Exemplary Blindness of Francis of Assisi’, pp. 69-70. Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 189 mentioned (Marguerite’s miracle is not included in that collection).85 The same holds true for both miracles in a ijifteenth-century version of Louis’s miracula.86 Although Guillaume de Chartres’s version was recorded before the hearing and before Guillaume de Saint-Pathus’s re-telling, this suggests that at least occasionally, when the miracle story was narrated in a simpler form, the original, mild inijirmity was not essential for proving the miracle or the powers of the saint.87 Marks of Impairment – Marks of the Miraculous As the miracles of Hodierne and Marguerite show, there is a ijine line between a ‘partial’ and a ‘full’ miraculous cure. First, as has been mentioned, gradual cures were common in all types of miracle collections, and occasionally it is difijicult to deijine which was in question. In Saint Louis IX’s miracles, there are two cases in which a person is cured of childhood muteness; one in his twenties, the other as a child. Both of these beneijiciaries received a sudden, physical cure – the ijirst had been deaf as well and the cure manifested in him suddenly hearing voices. Both were taught, little by little, to speak after the miracle.88 The saint thus gave them the physical ability to speak, but not the ‘mental’ ability that is learned as a result of childhood socialization. In this sense these examples can be compared to the gradual cures of physical impairments, which resemble our notion of physical therapy.89 One may also speculate that whether or not the cure was ‘complete’ at the time of the hearing depended on the time span between the miraculous events and the inquest. A youth cured of gutta by the merits of Saint Yves of Tréguier was, for example, recorded as having weak limbs due to the recently cured inijirmity.90 Secondly, there is a large number of miraculous cures in which the pro- tagonist receives a full miraculous cure, but small marks of the condition 85 Guillaume de Chartres, ‘De vita et actibus inclytatae recordationis regis Francorum’, p. 40. 86 BNF, MS Fr. 2829, fols. 93r, 120r-v. 87 For the changes in the re-telling of miracles in their later forms, see Hanska, ‘From Historical Event to Didactic Story’. 88 The miracles are in Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, pp. 50-54, 108-12. 89 See Metzler, Disability in Medieval Europe, p. 183. 90 ‘Processus de vita et miraculis Sancti Yvonis’, pp. 247-48. The inquest was held in summer 1330, between Midsummer and the feast of Saint Peter in Chains (1 August), and the said miracle had occurred a week before Midsummer. For a similar remark, see Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, p. 50. Amsterdam University Press 190 JENNI KUULIAL A remain. The mildest version of these marks are various scars that appear after a condition with ijissures or wounds was cured,91 and sometimes the remaining scars were mentioned when the commissioners added their own comments after examining the miraculé.92 That such marks were actually expected to remain is suggested by the testimonies regarding the cure of a girl called Francesse in Peter of Morrone’s (later Pope Celestine V) inquiry from 1306. The girl’s mother and uncle stated that it was impossible to remain without scars, both being consoled by the marks’ small size.93 Francesse’s family seems to have been of the opinion that scars are an inevitable result of being cured of ijistulas, even if the cure was attained by saintly intervention, which had its limits too. At the same time, such marks were often seen exactly as proofs and signs of a miracle. In addition to the remaining scars as marks of cured ijistulas, wounds and apertures, protuberances or lumps, or even an inclined head, could act as such proofs.94 Sometimes the wordings used underline the idea. After being cured of a severely disabling condition by the merits of Urban V, a nobleman called Johannes de la Garda reported that only his right index ijinger remained curved, bent, and deformed as a sign of his inpotentia.95 In the same way, when Franciscan brother Ricardus de Insula testiijied in Thomas Cantilupe’s hear- ing about his cure of warts that covered his whole body, he reported that one small wart remained on his left index ijinger. Ricardus had taken holy orders after the cure, and because he had to celebrate the mass, he was troubled by the wart. Ricardus tried to remove it, but it simply changed its location to a hardly discernible spot – ad commendacionem dicti sancti Thomae.96 In many cases there was a question as to whether the remaining marks after the miraculous event would count as still ‘impairing’ the miraculé 91 See e.g. ‘Processus canonizationis S. Ludovici’, p. 228: ‘nichil remansit de dicta inijirmitate in tibiis suis nisi cicatrices dumtaxat, nec post aliquid sensit de dicto morbo.’ 92 BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fol. 65r; Enquête pour le procès de canonisation de Dauphine de Puimichel, p. 504; Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, p. 70; Quellenstudien, p. 231. 93 ‘Die Akten des Kanonisationsprozess’, pp. 247, 251. See also Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, p. 50. Obviously, such remarks were not a norm. As an example, in the hearing of Charles of Blois, hot polenta burns the legs of the son of a nobleman. The depositions, however, state that no scars or marks remained. BAV, Vat. lat. 4025, fols. 93v-95v. 94 ‘Processus de vita et miraculis Sancti Yvonis’, pp. 212, 246. 95 Actes Anciens, pp. 288-89: ‘in signum sue inpotentie remansit digitus suus manus dextra curvus, plicatus et difformis’. 96 Ricaruds’s testimony is in BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fols. 62v-64r. The reason the remaining wart burdened him presumably derives from the rules concerning the bodily faultlessness of the clergy. Deformations in hands, especially if they hindered handling the Eucharist, were among the most severe impediments. See Salonen and Hanska, Entering a Clerical Career, pp. 9, 123. Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 191 somehow.97 However, no matter the level of severity of the remaining symp- toms, even partially cured beneijiciaries reinforced the fama of a cult.98 The remaining symptoms are by far the most common in the case of long-term impairing conditions, but there is sometimes mention of physical marks after resuscitations.99 These beneijiciaries, who often were children, were equally living examples of the miraculous.100 In his discussion on the matter, Ronald Finucane interprets the remaining marks as the stigmata of the non- privileged groups.101 However, as shown by some of the examples discussed above concerning those from higher social ranks, these marks were not the sole privilege of the less affluent but could be carried by the elite as well. When writing about Thomas Becket’s miracles curing leprosy, Carole Rawcliffe has noted that in quite a signiijicant number of them, the Saint performed a partial cure to ‘keep his votaries in a state of abject repentance, to punish them for residual sins, or, more charitably, to leave behind some small proof of a greater miracle’.102 The cures discussed here have somewhat different connotations due to the source type and the special cultural 97 See BAV, Vat. lat. 4019, fols. 59r-60r for a girl whose eyes remained sensitive to ijire and light, and Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, pp. 168-71, for another girl who did not grow as strong and tall as other women. 98 For fama in canonization dossiers, see Krötzl, ‘Fama sanctitatis’, and Lett, Un procès de canonisation, pp. 357-78. 99 As an example, a French boy Giefrein, who had died after falling into a cellar, remained pale, and his eyes were cloudy, but unfortunately the narrative does not elaborate on how the boy’s vision was affected. Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, p. 67. Paleness, or lack of good colour, was also recorded in the canonization hearing of Thomas Cantilupe. See BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fols. 141v-142v, 155v-157r. The physical signs of resuscitation could vary. The mother of a boy had closed his nostrils when testing if he was really dead. After he was revived, he lived for twelve years, having a nostril closed. ‘Processus de vita et miraculis Sancti Yvonis’, p. 125, and a Breton girl once resuscitated said that she felt occasional pain in her kidneys. BAV, Vat. lat. 4025, fol. 92r. One may speculate that after such near-death experiences some symptoms would have been relatively common due to the lack of oxygen. This was possibly the case with a boy called Nicholas, resuscitated by the merits of Thomas Cantilupe. The commissioners recorded that at the time of the hearing, some eight years after the incident, Nicholas was languidus (‘weak, dull’) and they asked after his health. Nicholas stated that after the miracle he often felt heavy. He was described as very simple-minded (simplex erat multum); therefore, the commissaries decided not to investigate him further. BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fols. 158v, 160r-165r. 100 The most obvious example of this kind of thinking is the resuscitation of Johanna la Schir- reue in Thomas Cantilupe’s hearing. At the age of 25, almost twenty years after the miracle, Johanna still refused to marry against her parents’ wishes, and was generally called virgine sancti Thome. The testimonies, which are in BAV, Vat. lat. 4015, fols. 123r-140v, have been edited in Finucane, The Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 169-206, and extensively analysed in Katajala- Peltomaa, Gender, Miracles, and Daily Life, pp. 60-61, 76-82, 90-91, 169-70, 277-79. 101 Finucane, The Rescue of the Innocents, pp. 139-40. 102 Rawcliffe, Leprosy, p. 177. Amsterdam University Press 192 JENNI KUULIAL A meanings of leprosy. The punishing aspect therefore remains absent,103 but the physical marks recorded in the canonization dossiers – and undoubtedly the many such cases which did not end up being ofijicially recognized – con- tinued to deliver the message of the miraculous, making the beneijiciaries’ bodies surfaces on which the saint’s power were visible. How this affected the beneijiciaries’ self-image and status in their social sphere, especially if the remaining symptoms still hindered their functional abilities, can only be speculated. We may get some idea, however, of Guillot dit le Potencier’s case. As a result of the miracle, he had gotten rid of his crutches, and yet, twelve years later, he was still going by the nickname deriving from the aids he once used. This does not have to be solely a result of his miraculous, possibly partial cure, as nicknames deriving from physical characteristics were generally common and not stigmatizing.104 It may nevertheless be seen as an example of the life-long influence of not just the cure but also its aftermath, which could deijine people for the rest of their lives, making them live on as someone both miraculously cured and impaired at the same time. Conclusions Miracles resulting in partial cures were rarely investigated in canonization documents, but a closer look at the sources unravels quite a large number of cases in which some traces of the preceding condition are still visible at the time of the inquest. The occasional sources we have of the evaluation of such miracles show that from a theological point of view, they were not necessarily considered to be ‘real’ miracles. This, however, does not lessen their signiijicance for the people experiencing them, for whom alleviation was a great relief, allowing them to fulijil their social roles again. For the beneijiciaries and their social sphere, ‘healthy’ could mean ‘non-disabled’, and ‘miracle’ was something that resulted in this hoped-for situation. Despite their rarity, the most obvious partial cures do not seem to have been futile from the hagiographers’ point of view either. This is demon- strated by the narratives of Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, as well as Alicia de Lonesdale’s cure mentioned in the canonization bull. Even though in the latter case the partial nature of the miracle was omitted, it was recognition of the miraculous nature of her cure, despite the curialist’s opinion. What is 103 Leprosy miracles are extremely rare in later medieval canonization documents; therefore, comparisons are not possible. 104 See Metzler, ‘What’s in a Name?’. Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 193 more important for our current topic, however, is that everyone testifying about her cure called it a miracle, and it was publicized in the Hereford cathedral. At the grassroots level, therefore, the personal relief and the contrast between the original situation and the result of the invocation were what constituted a miraculous cure, as was the case with Mathiolus Angeli in Saint Nicholas’s hearing. In both these cases, the commissioners and/or notaries of the hearing recorded the cures as miracles, making no distinction from full recoveries. At the same time, the possibility of a gradual cure, as well as the necessity of traces remaining after ijissures and wounds, was recognized. The commissioners of the hearings seem to have had a rather matter-of-fact attitude towards the mechanisms of healing. Whether a miracle was partial or not appears often relatively equivocal. Much more common than clear partial cures are full recoveries after which some minor traces of the original condition remain. These marks can be compared to the stigmata, acting as potent signs of God’s power on Earth. However, the line between a ‘partial cure’ and a ‘mark’ was at best wavering. Especially when thinking of all the miracles experienced by people, not just those that ended up ofijicially recorded, it is plausible that the bodies of most of the ‘partially’ cured beneijiciaries were equally considered to carry the marks of the miracle. From a communal point of view, miraculous cure was, in the end, deijined within the social sphere. Sainthood was equally constructed in a community, in which the ‘health’ or ‘healing’ of individual bodies played a crucial role. Bibliography Unprinted Sources Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City (= BAV) – MS Vat. lat. 4015: Inquisitio de ijide, vita et moribus et fama et miraculis recolende memorie domine Thome de Cantilupo quondam episcope dicte ecclesie Herefordensis. – MS Vat. lat. 4019: Testes super uita et conuersatione Philippi quondam Bituricensis archiepiscopo. – MS Vat. lat. 4020: Rubrica examinis canonizationis <Philippi> Archiepiscopo Bituricensis. – MS Vat. lat. 4025: Liber Canonizationis dominis Karoli ducis Bretanie. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris (= BNF) – MS Fr. 2829: Le Livre des faiz monseigneur saint Loys, composé à la requête du cardinal de Bourbon et de la duchesse de Bourbonnois. Amsterdam University Press 194 JENNI KUULIAL A Printed Sources Acta Sanctorum quotquot toto orbe coluntur vel a Catholicis Scribtoribus celebrantur, ed. by Société des Bollandistes, vols. 1-68 (Brussels and Antwerp: Société des Bollandistes, 1863-1887) (= AASS). Sancti canonizatio facta per Joannem XXII Papam, Oct. I, pp. 596-99. Actes anciens et documents concernant le Bienheureux Urbain V pape, ed. by Joseph Hyacinthe Albanès and Ulysses Chevalier (Paris: A. Picard, 1897). Die Akten des Kanonisationsprozess Dorotheas von Montau, ed. by Richard Stachnik with An- neliese Triller and Hans Westpfal (Vienna: Böhlau, 1978). ‘Die Akten des Kanonisationsprozess in dem Codex zu Sulmona’, in Monumenta Coelestiniana: Quellen zur Geschichte des Papstes Coelestin V, ed. by Franz Xaver Seppelt, Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte, 19 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1921), pp. 211-331. Enquête pour le procès de canonisation de Dauphine de Puimichel Comtesse d’Ariano, Apt et Avignon, 14 mai-30 octobre 1363. Édition critique, ed. by Jacques Cambell (Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1978). ‘Fragments de l’enquête faite à Saint-Denis en 1282 en vue de la canonisation de Saint Louis’, Mémoires de la Société de l’Histoire de Paris de l’Ile-de-France, 23, ed. by H.-François Delaborde (Paris: H. Champion, 1896), pp. 1-71. Guillaume de Chartres, ‘De vita et actibus inclytatae recordationis regis Francorum’, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, 20, ed. by Martin Bouquet (Paris: L’imprimerie Royale, 1806), pp. 27-44. Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis, ed. by Percival B. Fay (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1931). Il processo per la canonizzazione di S. Nicola da Tolentino, ed. by Nicola Occhioni, Collection de l’École française de Rome, 74 (Rome: École française de Rome, 1984). ‘Processus canonizationis S. Ludovici ep. Tolosani’, in Analecta Franciscana sive chronica aliaque varia documenta, Tomus VII. Processus Canonizationis et Legendae variae Sancti Ludovici O. F. M. Episcopi Tolosani, ed. by Collegium S. Bonaventurae (Florence: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1951), pp. 1-269. ‘Processus de vita et miraculis Sancti Yvonis’, in Monuments originaux de l’histoire de Saint Yves, ed. by A. de La Borderie, J. Daniel, R.P. Perquis, and D. Tempier (Saint-Brieuc: Imprimerie L. Prud’homme, 1887), pp. 1-299. Quellenstudien zur Geschichte der hl. Elisabeth, Landgräijin von Thüringen, ed. by Albert Huyskens (Marburg: Elwert, 1908). Vita Prima S. Francisci Assisiensis et eiusdem legenda ad usum chori, ed. by Collegium S. Bo- naventurae. Analecta Franciscana, Tomus X: Legendae S. Francisci Assisiensis (Florence: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1926). Literature Stanko Andrić, The Miracles of St. John Capistran (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2000). John H. Arnold, Belief and Unbelief in Medieval Europe (London: Hodder Arnold, 2005). Robert Bartlett, Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013). C. du Cange et al., Glossarium mediae et inijimae latinitatis (Niort: L. Favre, 1883-1887). Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 195 Leigh Ann Craig, Wandering Women and Holy Matrons: Women as Pilgrims in the Later Middle Ages, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, 138 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). Lennard J. Davies, Bending over Backwards: Disability, Dismodernism, and Other Difijicult Posi- tions (New York: New York University Press, 2002). Joshua R. Eyler, ‘Introduction: Breaking Boundaries, Building Bridges’, in Disability in the Middle Ages: Reconsiderations and Reverberations, ed. by Joshua R. Eyler (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2010), pp. 1-10. Sharon Farmer, ‘Manual Labor, Begging, and Conflicting Gender Expectations in Thirteenth- Century Paris’, in Gender and Difference in the Middle Ages, ed. by Sharon Farmer and Carol Braun Pasternack (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), pp. 261-87. Sharon Farmer, Surviving Poverty in Medieval Paris: Gender, Ideology, and the Daily Lives of the Poor, Conjunctions of Religion and Power in the Medieval Past (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005). Ronald C. Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims: Popular Beliefs in Medieval England (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995 [1977]). Ronald C. Finucane, The Rescue of the Innocents: Endangered Children in Medieval Miracles (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000). Ronald C. Finucane, Contested Canonizations: The Last Medieval Saints, 1482-1523 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2011). Bianca Frohne, Leben mit “kranckheit”. Der gebrechliche Körper in der häuslichen Überlieferung des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts. Überlegungen zu einer Disability History der Vormoderne (Af- falterbach: Didymos-Verlag, 2014). Chiara Frugoni, Books, Banks, Buttons, and Other Inventions from the Middle Ages, trans. by William McCuaig (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003). M. Cecilia Gaposchkin, The Making of Saint Louis: Kingship, Sanctity, and Crusade in the Later Middle Ages (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006). M. Cecilia Gaposchkin, ‘Louis IX and Liturgical Memory’, in Memory and Commemoration in Medieval Culture, ed. by Elma Brenner, Mary Franklin-Brown, and Meredith Cohen (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 261-76. David Gentilcore, Healers and Healing in Early Modern Italy (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998). Hans-Werner Goetz, ‘Vorstellungen von menschlicher Gebrechlichkeit im frühen Mittelalter’, in Homo debilis. Behinderte – Kranke – Versehrte in der Gesellschaft des Mittelalters, ed. by Cordula Nolte (Affalterbach: Didymos-Verlag, 2009), pp. 21-55. Paolo Golinelli, ‘Social Aspects in Some Italian Canonization Trials. The Choice of Witnesses’, in Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge. Aspects juridiques et religieux, ed. by Gábor Klan- iczay, Collection de l’École française de Rome, 340 (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2004), pp. 165-80. Michael Goodich, Vita perfecta: The Ideal of Sainthood in the Thirteenth Century (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1982). Michael Goodich, ‘The Politics of Canonization in the Thirteenth Century: Lay and Mendicant Saints’, in Saints and their Cults: Studies in Religious Sociology, Folklore and History, ed. by Stephen Wilson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 169-88. Michael Goodich, ‘Miseries of Dulcia St. Chartier (1266) and Cristina of Wellington (1294)’, in Voices from the Bench: The Narratives of Lesser Folk in Medieval Trials, ed. by Michael Goodich (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), pp. 99-125. Michael Goodich, Miracles and Wonders: The Development of the Concept of Miracle, 1150-1350, Church, Faith, and Culture in the Medieval West (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). Amsterdam University Press 196 JENNI KUULIAL A Mirko D. Grmek, Les maladies à l’aube de la civilization occidentale (Paris: Payot, 1983). Jussi Hanska, ‘From Historical Event to Didactic Story. Medieval Miracle Stories as a Means of Communication’, in Changing Minds: Communication and Influence in the High and Later Mid- dle Ages, ed. by Christian Krötzl and Miikka Tamminen, Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae, 39 (Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2013), pp. 87-106. Gerhard Jaritz, ‘“Young, Rich, and Beautiful”: The Visualization of Male Beauty in the Middle Ages’, in The Man of Many Devices, Who Wandered Full Many Ways: Festschrift in Honour of János M. Bak, ed. by Balázs Nagy and Marcell Sebők (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999), pp. 61-78. Sari Katajala-Peltomaa, Gender, Miracles, and Daily Life: The Evidence of Fourteenth-Century Canonization Processes, Studies in the History of Daily Life, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009). Sari Katajala-Peltomaa, ‘Recent Trends in the Study of Medieval Canonizations’, History Compass, 8:9 (2010), 1083-92. Gábor Klaniczay, ‘Miracoli di punizione e maleijicia’, in Miracoli. Dai segni alla storia, ed. by Soijia Boesch Gajano and Marilena Modica (Rome: Viella, 2000), pp. 109-36. Gábor Klaniczay, ‘Proving Sanctity in the Canonization Processes (Saint Elizabeth and Saint Margaret of Hungary)’, in Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: Aspects juridiques et religieux religieux – Canonization Processes in the Middle Ages: Legal and Religious Aspects, ed. by Gábor Klaniczay, Collection de l’École française de Rome, 340 (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2004), pp. 117-48. Gábor Klaniczay, ‘Speaking about Miracles: Oral Testimony and Written Record in Medieval Canonization Trials’, in The Development of Literate Mentalities in East Central Europe, ed. by Anna Adamska and Marco Mostert (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), pp. 365-95. Rachel Koopmans, Wonderful to Relate: Miracle Stories and Miracle Collecting in High Medieval England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011). Christian Krötzl, ‘Parent-Child Relations in Medieval Scandinavia According to Scandinavian Miracle Collections’, Scandinavian Journal of History, 14 (1989), 21-37. Christian Krötzl, ‘“Crudeliter afflicta”. Zur Darstellung von Gewalt und Grausamkeit in mit- telalterlichen Mirakelberichten’, in Crudelitas. The Politics of Cruelty in the Ancient and Medieval World, ed. by Toivo Viljamaa, Asko Timonen, and Christian Krötzl, Medium Aevum Quotidianum, Sonderband, 2 (Krems: Medium Aevum Quotidianum, 1992), pp. 121-38. Christian Krötzl, Pilger, Mirakel und Alltag. Formen des Verhaltens in skandinavischen Mittelalter (12.-15. Jahrhundert), Studia Historica, 46 (Helsinki: Suomen Historiallinen Seura, 1994). Christian Krötzl, ‘Prokuratoren, Notare und Dolmetscher. Zu Gestaltung und Ablauf der Zeugeneinvernahmen bei spätmittelalterlichen Kanonisationsprozessen’, Hagiographica, 5 (1998), 119-40. Christian Krötzl, ‘Miracles au tombeau – miracles à distance. Approches typologiques’, in Miracle et Karama. Hagiographies médiévales comparées, ed. by Denise Aigle, Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses, 109 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), pp. 557-76. Christian Krötzl, ‘Fama sanctitatis. Die Akten der spätmittelalterlichen Kanonisationsprozesse als Quelle zu Kommunikation und Informationsvermittlung in der mittelalterlichen Gesellschaft’, in Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: Aspects juridiques et religieux reli- gieux – Canonization Processes in the Middle Ages: Legal and Religious Aspects, ed. by Gábor Klaniczay, Collection de l’École française de Rome, 340 (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2004), pp. 223-44. Jenni Kuuliala, Childhood Disability and Social Integration in the Middle Ages. Constructions of Impairments in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Canonization Processes, Studies in the History of Daily Life, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016). Amsterdam University Press HEAVENLY HEALING OR FAILURE OF FAITH? 197 Anthony Lappin, The Medieval Cult of Saint Dominic of Silos (Leeds: Maney Publishing, 2002). Didier Lett, Un procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge. Essai d’histoire sociale. Nicolas de Tolentino, 1325, Le Nœud gordien (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2008). Simi Linton, Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity (New York: New York University Press, 1998). Irina Metzler, Disability in Medieval Europe: Thinking about Physical Impairment during the High Middle Ages, c.1100-1400, Routledge Studies in Medieval Religion and Culture (London: Routledge, 2006). Irina Metzler, ‘What’s in a Name? Considering the Onomastics of Disability in the Middle Ages’, in The Treatment of Disabled Persons in Medieval Europe: Examining Disability in the Historical, Legal, Literary, Medical, and Religious Discourses of the Middle Ages, ed. by Wendy J. Turner and Tory Vandeventer Pearman (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2010), pp. 15-50. Irina Metzler, ‘Reflections on Disability in Medieval Legal Texts: Exclusion – Protection – Compensation’, in Disability and Medieval Law: History, Literature, Society, ed. by Cory James Rushton (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013), pp. 19-53. Irina Metzler, A Social History of Disability: Cultural Considerations of Physical Impairment, Routledge Studies in Cultural History (London: Routledge, 2013). Roberto Paciocco, Canonizzazioni e culto dei santi nella christianitas (1198-1302) (Assisi: Edizioni Porziuncola, 2006). Katharine Park, ‘Medicine and Society in Medieval Europe, 500-1500’, in Medicine in Society: His- torical Essays, ed. by Andrew Wear (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) pp. 59-90. Miquel Pérez Pereira and Gina Conti-Ramsden, Language Development and Social Interaction in Blind Children (Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 1999). Procès de canonisation au Moyen Âge: Aspects juridiques et religieux religieux – Canonization Processes in the Middle Ages: Legal and Religious Aspects, ed. by Gábor Klaniczay, Collection de l’École française de Rome, 340 (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2004). Carole Rawcliffe, Leprosy in Medieval England (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2006). Miri Rubin, ‘The Person in the Form: Medieval Challenges to Bodily ‘Order’’, in Framing Medieval Bodies, ed. by Sarah Kay and Miri Rubin (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), pp. 100-22. Kirsi Salonen and Jussi Hanska, Entering a Clerical Career at the Roman Curia, 1458-1471, Church, Faith and Culture in the Medieval West (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2013). Robert A. Scott, The Gothic Enterprise: A Guide to Understanding the Medieval Cathedral (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003). Robert A. Scott, Miracle Cures: Saints, Pilgrimage, and the Healing Powers of Belief (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2010). Tom Shakespeare, Disability Rights and Wrongs (London: Routledge, 2006). Pierre-André Sigal, L’homme et le miracle dans la France médiévale (XIe-XIIe siècle) (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1985). Laura Ackerman Smoller, ‘Deijining the Boundaries of the Natural in Fifteenth-Century Brittany: The Inquest into the Miracles of Saint Vincent Ferrer (d. 1419)’, Viator, 28 (1997), 333-60. Raymond Van Dam, Saints and Their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). André Vauchez, La sainteté en Occident aux derniers siècles du moyen âge d’après les procès de canonisation et les documents hagiographiques, Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 241 (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1981). Benedicta Ward, Miracles and the Medieval Mind: Theory, Record and Event 1000-1215 (London: Scholar Press,1982). Amsterdam University Press 198 JENNI KUULIAL A Scott Wells, ‘The Exemplary Blindness of Francis of Assisi’, in Disability in the Middle Ages: Re- considerations and Reverberations, ed. by Joshua R. Eyler (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2010), pp. 67-80. Thomas Wetzstein, Heilige vor Gericht. Das Kanonisationsverfahren im europäischen Mittelalter (Cologne: Böhlau, 2004). Louise Wilson, Miracle and Medicine in Medieval Miracula ca. 1180-ca. 1320 (Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Unpublished PhD Thesis, 2011). Maria Wittmer-Butsch and Constanze Rendtel, Miracula. Wunderheilungen im Mittelalter. Eine historisch-psychologische Annäherung (Cologne: Böhlau, 2003). Simon Yarrow, ‘Narrative, Audience and the Negotiation of Community in Twelfth-Century English Miracle Collections’, in Elite and Popular Religion, ed. by Kate Cooper and Jeremy Gregory, Studies in Church History (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2006), pp. 65-77. Simon Yarrow, Saints and Their Communities: Miracle Stories in Twelfth-Century England, Oxford Historical Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Website ‘WHO | Disabilities,’ http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/ Amsterdam University Press