While "Vigor ecclesiasticus" isn't exactly a canonistic term of art, it is
a phrase that does appear with considerable frequency in the sources, e.g.
Gratian, C. 35 q. 9 c. 2: "Ecclesiastici quippe vigoris ordo confunditur,
si aut temere illicita presumantur, aut non concessa impune teneretur."
Other examples appear in the _Wortkonkordanz zum Decretum Gratiani_, comp.
Timothy Reuter and Gabriel Silagi, MGH, Hilfsmittel, No. 10, 5 vols.
(Munich: MGH, 1990).
This phrase is also often used as if it were interchangeable with the very
similar-sounding "rigor ecclesiasticus," for which I suspect medieval
scribes may at times have mistaken it. I also wonder if the author or
copyist of your passage may be an example of that. I am aware of a couple
of medieval definitions of "rigor ecclesiasticus" that may help you. Both
are from Johannes Teutonicus' _Glossa ordinaria_ to Gratian's Decretum. At
D. 45 c. 9 v. _disciplina_ I find: "disciplina, id est rigor siue pena."
Again at D. 50 c. 25 v. _detrahendum est_: "Et nota quod aliud est rigor,
aliud est ius, aliud est dispensatio. Rigor est quidam excessus iuris et
quedam austeritas facta ad terrorem.... Et rigor non est seruandus, nisi
ubi timetur exemplum mali ... quandoque rigor est idem quod subtilitas
iuris...."
Cheers,
JAB
At 11:12 AM 2/23/00 -0500, you wrote:
> "" "" "" for both words, since the author uses different Latin ones.
> The passage is from the Miracula s. Viviani Figiaci, BHL 1328, _AB_ 8
>*1889): 26-277, and describes a peace council near Aurillac.
> "" (13.24-29.)
>
> I have rendered this:
> ""
> "" """"""
> Is either one appropriate?
> ""?
>
> With gratitude in advance,
>
> Patrick Nugent
>
> __________________________________
> Patrick J. Nugent
> Earlham College
> Richmond, Indiana 47374 USA
>
> (765) 983-1413
> [log in to unmask]
> __________________________________
James A. Brundage
History & Law
University of Kansas
<[log in to unmask]>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|