> Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 07:21:37 -0500 (CDT)
> From: "James A. Brundage" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: canon law and concubinage (fwd)
> To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
> Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
> 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]
>
>
From: Dr John France, University of Wales, Swansea
Rodulfus Glaber approved of the Norman dukes and seems to have
accepted the transmission of their office through `concubines' and he
defends it by OT precedent and that of the illegitimate birth of
Constantine the Great.
In my edition (OMT,1989) references:
a. pp.164-5 in passing
b. pp.204-5 for defence
John France
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|