CommunalPiety and theMendicants 439
was taken up with the arrest and interrogation of this more dangerous devi-
ant. Giuliano’s questioning before Guido and Omobono took place on the
same day that the experts gave their opinion on Bompietro. Fra Guido gave
Bompietro three days to prepare a defense.^131 The three days stretched to a
month while Giuliano testified, admitting that he had perjured himself be-
fore the inquisitor Florio and that he had failed to wear his penitential
crosses. But he denied that he was still consorting with heretics.^132 In light of
Bompietro’s testimony to the contrary, Giuliano was at first given three days
to reconsider. Then eight more days were added so that the inquisition’s
messenger Benincasa di Martino could announce the charges and solicit
defense witnesses in the Piazza Maggiore (the Platea Communis in front of
the government buildings) and in the streets around Giuliano’s house.^133 No
new witnesses were found, and Giuliano seems to have gone into hiding.
On 29 April, a panel of legal experts determined, in the light of Bom-
pietro’s testimony and Giuliano’s own admissions, that it would be legal to
try him in absentia as a relapsed heretic; the following day, the archdeacon
of Piedvenda, near Padua, Don Manfredo Maschara, presented an instru-
ment from Giuliano, giving him the power to represent him in court. By
presenting the ‘‘power of attorney,’’ Manfredo prevented the tribunal from
trying his client Giuliano in absentia. So, on 1 May, a messenger went to
summon Giuliano to appear in court and order Manfredo to appear with
his client by the following Friday. Don Manfredo came and admitted that
neither he nor Giuliano had paid the fine of £ 10 bon. incurred for failing to
respond to a lost earlier summons.^134 Both appeared before the court on the
following Monday, 11 May.
That morning, a panel of experts under the master of theology Fra Ram-
berto advised Guido that the evidence collected and the suspects’ confessions
had more than fulfilled the requirement of at least one trustworthy witness,
which was needed to permit judicial torture. The request for this advice is a
sign of Fra Guido’s ruthlessness in pursuing Giuliano; the register indicates
the use of torture on only one other occasion.^135 Since they already had the
testimony of the two witnesses required for a condemnation, the experts’
consent was probably solicited for the sake of eliciting new accusations. No
mention of torture appears in the depositions of either suspect on 11 May,
and perhaps it was not used, at least in the case of Bompietro. His deposition
repeats his previous testimony, admitting in addition that his wife had associ-
- Ibid., no. 90 , 1 : 129. On inquisition suspects’ right to a defense, see Walter Ullmann, ‘‘The De-
fense of the Accused in the Medieval Inquisition,’’Irish Ecclesiastical Record 73 ( 1950 ): 481 – 89. A defense
proctor, such as Manfredo Maschara, might be appointed by the judge if the defendant could not afford
one: ibid., 483.
132 .ASOB,no. 14 , 1 : 35 – 36. - Ibid., no. 91 , 1 : 129 – 30 ; no. 99 , 1 : 134.
- These matters are contained in ibid., no. 807 , 2 : 598 , and nos. 113 – 15 , 1 : 144 – 45.
- Ibid., no. 810 , 2 : 600 – 601. The other use of torture is recorded in ibid., no. 691 ( 2 August 1304 ),
p. 473.