medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Christopher, my introduction of the "pious woman" was a bit tongue in
cheek because, even without knowing much about Adela, I am sure that
"pious" cannot be a sufficient description of any person in her
position. And every charter is written for a purpose, so we never can be
content to take it at face value. But excommunication was not just a
weapon of the Church to oppress fearful lay persons (and/or clergy!) but
very useful for laypersons as well (to oppress other laypersons and/or
clergy). It is much more rewarding to burn a few of your opponent's
villages if he is excommunicated, and at least some of his supporters
will not turn up to help him because the would incur excommunication as
well if they did.
> in *this* context, Adela's "petition" just might not have been quite an act of
> "piety" --or, at least, it was Piety tempered with very real practical
> considerations.
I am sure that this is often the case
> why would she agree to give that up and see the church "reformed" (i.e., the
> secular canons replaced by those who would live under a Rule)?
this was happening all over Europe at the time
> Adela could probably have dealt with any "offenders" of her church's liberty
> without any particular help from the distant bishop.
yes, but if you have two weapons at your disposal, why use only one? It
is perfectly common to protect (at least on parchment) with threats of
eternal damnation (as many lay charters do) or, if you can, excommunication
> 1) Pride
> 2) Tough-Minded Pragmatism
I would count a "pious act" in favour of the/a church to compensate for
all this as some kind of pragmatism as well
> clearly, in his charter, Ivo disposes of whatever disturbers of the church's
> "liberty" there might have been by invoking the threat of his power of
> excommunication in the sentence beginning "Nos itaque..."
>
> it is the *next* sentence ("In infirmitate...") that i am curious about.
>
> that one, it seems to me, is a gratuitous invocation of the threat, a
> redundant one, really unconnected to the one about the church's liberty.
why? The people who will not be visited by the priest etc are clearly
the violatores and their fautores mentioned before, but they get the
chance to offer satisfaction for their offence - which is what they are
meant to do. Ivo is just making sure that everybody knows what
excommnication means. He does not impose an interdict or threaten to do so.
This does not contradict your theory that Ivo and Adela, who obviously
are co-operating here, may have had some other issues in mind as well.
> i still maintain, however, that i don't believe i have ever seen such a
> specific use of the threat of excommunication (for having the presumption to
> die without a priest)
to die without a priest is the consequence of being excommunicated.
> in a charter of this period.
is there never a threat of excomunication at all (in the region) or is
there just no explanation, as Ivo is giving?
Best, Herwig
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|