On the topic of the Panormia, and to add to what Tom has already said, you might
want to visit the edition in progress on which Martin Brett and I have been
working on since 1997. It is still in progress, but it offers a critical,
manuscript-based alternative to Migne, PL 161. See:
http://WTFACULTY.WTAMU.EDU/~bbrasington/
Bruce Brasington
Tom Izbicki wrote:
> The problem with using the Panormia for the period after 1215 AD is that
> the Fourth Lateran Council, in canon 50, restricted the prohibition to the
> 1st through 4th degrees of consanguinity. Also of interest, canon 52 tries
> to regulate the use of hearsay evidence in testimony about degrees of
> consanguinity and affinity..=
>
> Tom Izbicki
>
> At 09:22 PM 12/1/2000 +0100, you wrote:
> >Dear Brenda!
> >
> >Perhaps, you could find useful information about consanguinity and
> >legitimation of children in the Panormia of Ivo of Chartres, Liber VII,
> >especially Cap 76 ff. "In quo ramusculo consanguinitatis legitima fieri
> >connubia possint." See, e.g., Migne's Patrologia Latina 161, col 1299ff.
> >
> >Although your problem is not answered there"expressis verbis" , it seems
> >that consanguinity was regarded by Ivo and his predecessors exclusively as a
> >biological , but not as a juristic phenomenon: E.g. "Conjugem ducere sicut
> >non licet Christiano de SUO sanguine usque ad septimam gradum, sicut etiam
> >nec licet de consanguinitate uxoris suae conjugem ducere propter carnis
> >unitatem..." (Cap 79). Consanguinity could be defined by ONE parent, as a
> >minimum. E.g: "Avus enim et avia TAM EX PATRE QUAM EX MATRE accipiuntur..."
> >(Cap 90. ex Isidoro of Sev.). As regards Alain Fergent, I think that
> >bastardy of a daughter HADVISA could not justify a marriage between his
> >grandchildren, by any way. Probably one of the sources is false.
> >
> >More later, in a personal letter!
> >
> >Best wishes
> >
> >Werner
> >
> >PS: Hadvisa is NOT the same name as Heloisa!
|