medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
As already pointed out, those are two extremely garbled ideas. 1. This
is a confused recollection of the custom of "church ales" (see Wikipedia
under "parish ale".) Yes, the nave would be used for this on occasion,
but later on a separate building would be used. 2. That is a confused
recollection of what would happen if the Cistercians took over your
land. What actually happened, at e.g. Rievaulx, was that the parish
church became the "capella ante porta" (or vice versa, of course) to
which (but only to which) women *were* admitted.
I would recommend that you burn the textbook in question - if you are
unable to find a suitable medieval (or early modern) litutgy for the
purpose, I'm sure your colleagues in 20th century history could arrange
a suitably edifying "living history" event. Either way, you should "name
and shame" the book to the rest of us so that we can avoid it.
John Briggs
On 14/11/2013 03:47, John Shinners wrote:
>
> Two questions about claims in a textbook I use:
>
> 1. “In some cases” the village church and tavern “were actually the same
> building, though not at the same time.” I’ve never heard this and it
> seems at the least “uncanonical.” True?
>
> 2. “In some northern areas [of Europe], women were forbidden from
> entering their parish church or even setting foot on its land.” This
> one seems especially unlikely to me, except perhaps during the few weeks
> before they were churched after childbirth. Could it be true?
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: subscribe 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: unsubscribe 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/medieval-religion
|