Dear Gary,
I did not mean to suggest that Ranier Fasani was a sodomite, however in
the Statuti del comune di Bologna relativi alla Societa della Vergine
(published in G.G.Meersseman, Ordo fraternitatis, II, 828), Rubr. CXLVI,
specific reference is made to the exlusion of sodomites. Even more
specifically, Rubr. CXLV states that the confraternity was established
to honor God and the Virgin and "ad vitandum et delendum sodomitii vitium
et hereticam pravitatem". In Vol I, p. 455 Meersseman takes note of the
various interpretations of sodomite: some arguing that it is a synonym for
heretics or one kind or another (without implying any specific sexual
fault), some that it refers to usurers, and others that it means what it
says, namely sodomites.
Michael Goodich
On Mon, 2 Dec 1996 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Michael Goodich's comment is (as usual) intelligent and considered. About
> the Perugian flagellants of 1260: There is something about sodomy, if I
> remember correctly (all my notes are at home), in the "Lezenda de Fra
> Rainero Faxano" which emphasizes sin in a context of eschatological
> anxiety. But the historical Fra Rainero had a wife and family, so, unless
> he was bi-sexual (for which, of course, there is not a scrap of
> evidence)... I would also like to stress that the flagellants struck
> themselves on the upper shoulder-blades, where Christ carried the cross. In
> this devotional practice there is, absolutely and positively, no hint of
> sexual stimulation, contrary to what certain popular accounts imply. As for
> the flagellant confraternities, I'll look up the rules I have to see if
> there is any 'exclusion of sodomites' clause. (And can't we abandon that
> ill-chosen and hateful term, 'queers', which carries with it too many
> negativities to be neutral in a proper academic context?)
>
> Gary Dickson
> University of Edinburgh
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|