Patrick,
I offered the passage precisely as evidence that crowds at exorcisms *were*
rather more loose and relaxed, than solemn. It doesn't take much effort to
read "against the grain" of this description: Just because the source is
recommending a highly disciplined atmosphere doesn't mean that this was
acheived -- in fact, I think it indicates the reverse. I assume that the
laughing crowd, badly-behaved women (were they expected to be chattering?
flirting?), wandering dogs, and constant movement in and out of the Church
would be the normal state of comportment, and that the proscriptions of this
text would be extremely difficult to enforce. It sounds much like shrines
I've visited in India, from the highly social atmosphere down to the animals
wandering in.
The passage quoted is from a 15C- exorcists' manual, edited by Franz in his
wonderful compilation of blessings, conjurations, and exorcisms. Exorcists'
manuals are a fairly new source in the 15C- and seem designed, in part, to
replace exorcistic healings at saints' shrines (based on community consensus
as to whether the saint has healed the sufferer), with a more hieratic,
text-based ritual healing, enacted by a consecrated officiant. Exorcists'
manuals are pretty common in the archives, but have not received much
attention. Since my main research interest is spirit possession, I've looked
at a number of them.
--Nancy Caciola
History, UC-San Diego
At 11:21 AM 10/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I am intrigued by the passage from A. Franz that Nancy Caciola cites,
>because it flies in the face of the evidence I work with, in which
>exorcisms are dramatic and messy affairs. What period exactly is Franz
>writing about, and what is his evidence? Of course, the need for such
>instructions may well suggest that things were done precisely the opposite
>way. You don't need to legislate against violations people aren't
>committing.
>
>Patrick Nugent
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|