Dear Erin Copenbarger,
The canonists I am most familiar with are the ones who wrote on the
Continent during the classical period (1140-1350 or thereabouts). My
impression (without actually doing a search of my notes) is that my lads
often refer to OT practices such as concubinage, polygyny, and the like, but
then launch into distinctions of one sort or another that lead to the
conclusion that those practices were OK then, but are no longer OK because
since the Incarnation the rules have changed.
I suppose it may be possible that they were explicitly concerned to
refute arguments of the sort you find in the Hibernensis.
JAB
At 12:18 AM 5/17/96 +0100, Erin Copenbarger wrote:
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 18:44:59 +0100 (BST)
>From: Erin Copenbarger <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: canon law and concubinage
>
>I am currently working on marriage in early medieval Ireland. In the
>Irish canon law collection of the 8c known as the Hibernensis, the canon
>lawyers have used the Old Testament to justify concubinage and polygyny
>which were apparently common practices amongst the Irish aristocracy.
>More generally, the Irish canon lawyers found justification for many
>other Irish practices, such as marriage within the bounds of
>consanguinity, in the Old Testament. Was this a common device in other
>countries in general and specifically with regard to marriage? (This is
>really directed at you Professor Brundage)
>Erin Copenbarger
>
>
James A. Brundage
History & Law
University of Kansas
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|