medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Paul's take on this is correct. A couple of precisions bearing on the sense of this nicely worded privilege.
1) While the grant is to the abbot of Moissac (singular), the text switches over to the abbots (plural) of Moissac and of any other Cluniac monastery when it comes to stipulating who shall first profess obedience to the abbot of Cluny before using the pontificals so granted. This switch can be read both as a prophylactic against future "misunderstandings" by making it clear that the proviso extends beyond the particular incumbent at Moissac at the time of the grant and as foundational language to which similar grants to other Cluniac abbots may refer in some abbreviated fashion (e.g. "the abbot of X is granted the use of pontificals under the same conditions as apply to the abbot of Moissac.").
2) While there may very well be an intent to avoid quibbles over hierarchical seniority, the actual phrasing of the privilege speaks to avoiding injury or insult to superiors and to the avoidance of haughtiness from a daughter house via-a-vis its mother.
Some typos/scannos:
FOR Papre READ Papae
FOR Moysiaecensis READ Moysiacensis
FOR consessisse READ concessisse
FOR honoreni READ honorem
Text compared with the original here:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1086219.zoom.f1058.pagination.langEN
TinyURL for that: http://tinyurl.com/l4ghnl
Best,
John Dillon
On Thursday, June 25, 2009, at 12:11 pm, Paul Chandler wrote:
> I think the sense of this is simply that the abbot of Moissac is
> granted the
> privilege of pontificalia, but may not actually use them before making
> his
> obedience to the abbot of Cluny, which is superior to the other monasteries
> of the Order. And I imagine that this is to avoid any quibbling about
> hierarchical seniority being calculated from the date of assuming this
> privilege, rather than from the fixed status of the mother-house. But
> I
> defer to John Dillon's expertise or to anyone else who has a better
> explanation.
>
> However, I've forgotten the exact point of the original question. -- Paul
> Chandler
>
>
> 2009/6/25 Christopher Crockett <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
> >
> > Rupin's source in Marrier's _Biblioth. Cluniac._ ("ad lib,II,
> > p. 165") is one of Quercetani's notes to Peter the Venerable's _De
> > Miraculis_
> > (Bk. II, cap. xxv, col. 1324), wherein Peter mentions Moissac
> --quite in
> > passing, as best i can tell.
> >
> >
> > here's the relevant section of Q's note (sections between _ and _
> are in
> > italics):
> >
> > IN ABBATEM MOYSIACENSEM ASSUMPTUS....
> > Extat autem & Innocentij Papre priuilegium in Chartulario Clun. quo
> > continetur
> > ipsum, _Abbati Monasterij huius Moysiaecensis Cluniac. Ordinis,
> > Caturicensis
> > diocesis beneficentiae suae manibus ampliatis, fauore Ordinis usum
> > Pontificalium consessisse. Sed ne gratia impensa subditis, grauis esset
> > eorum
> > superioribus vel infesta, aut filii per honoreni eis exhibitum superbirent
> > contra matrem_, precibus Abbatis & Conuentus Clun. inclinatum, inhibuisse
> > quoque, _quod Abbates qui eidem Moysiacensi & aliis Clun. Ordinis
> > Monasteriis
> > de caetero praeessent, donec Abbati Clun. obedientium fecissent,
> > Pontificalibus non uterentur._
> >
> >
> > it's all Latin to me, folks.
> >
> > any idle thoughts welcome.
> >
> > i can supply .pdf's of the relevant pages to anyone who wishes to
> see the
> > whole context.
> >
> > c
**********************************************************************
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
