>Vol. 1:
>p. 394: the Regola di fra Caro (1284), " c. 1. De modo examinandi volentes
>intrare ordinem. 2. Praecavendum est tamen sollicite, ne quis haereticus
>vel suspectus de haeresi, aut etiam infammatus, ad vitae observantiam
>istius quomodolibet admittatur..."
>p. 435: the Regola bollata issued to the Franciscan order of penitence by
>Nicholas IV reads :De modo recipiendi. 2. Praecavendum est tamen solicite
>ne quis [iret] hereticus, vel suspectus de heresi aut etiam infamatus, ad
>vite observationem ipsius..."
>Both of these codes refer to the prohibition on the admission of the
>'infamous', which I take to include sodomites, among others.
Dear Michael,
"suspectus vel infamatus" is a phrasing which I believe to recall as being
pretty common in legal documents of the time, meaning simply that a person
is believed either by the authorities (suspectus) or by public opinion
(infamatus) to be guilty of a certain crime, but without having yet been
fully examined and convicted. If there is nothing in the context of these
passages to indicate that the term **hereticus** itself is used as referring
to a crime rather of sexuality than of religious faith, then I would say
that in both passages there is not even a shadow of implication of sexual
misbehaviour.
>
>More important, however, is the material in volume 2:
>pp. 770-71 Meersseman deals with the Bolognese Societa della Vergine,
>which probably existed at least from 1249, if not earlier. He suggests that the
>confraternity assisted the Inquisition in the extirpation of sodomy.
>The relevant text is found on pp. 828-9. The statutes of the
>commune of Bologna, dated 1260-2, which contains material relevant to the
>Societa della Virgine (founded by the Dominicans under one Jacobinus,
>perhaps Jacobinus de Reggio):
>"Rubric CXLV De Societate Betate Marie conservanda. Ad honorem Dei et
>beate gloriose Marie virginis statuimus et ordinamus quod societas illa,
>que facta fuit et ordinata per fratrem Iacobinum et alios ordinis
>predicatorum ad honorem Dei et beate Virginis Marie ad vitandum et
>delendum sodomitii vitium et hereticam pravitatem [should be protected
>by the podesta, consuls etc. , and they should give the society
>and its captains] plena auctoritatem, auxilium et favorem quandocumque
>pecierint, ad causam persquendo sodomiticos et hereticos et ipsorum
>rectores (protectores?)."
>Rubric CLVI. De bannitis pro sodomitico non cancellandis. Statuimus et
>ordinamus quod illi qui positi sunt in banno communis bononiensis in
>occasione sodomiti vitii, ab eo tempore citra quo cepit ipsa societas
>[i.e. from the time the society began to exist] per potestatem, banniti
>sunt eiusdem communis ipsa occasione... "
>Rubric CLVIII. This chapter calls for the destruction of persons found in
>a house where sodomy is perpetrated, and the house is to be destroyed. It
>continues that "Et predicta statuta, facta ad postulationem fratris
>Iacobini pro honore et reverentia societatis domine Sancte Marie de Sancto
>Dominico, valeant et teneant et pro honore et reverentia societatis domine
>sancte Marie de fratribus minoribus..."
Here the case seems quite different, but even here I would consider the
remote possibility that 'sodomitic' might refer to some other vice like
usury or prostitution. Except that what you paraphrase as "destruction of
persons" in n. CLVIII seems to be a punishmet severe enough to prove your
point for homosexuality.
>
>On p. 1008, Meersseman prints Humbert of Romans' (minister general of the
>Dominican order) 26 May 1255 letter to the congregration of the Virgin at
>Bologna in which he writes: "...Fideli et grata fratrum nostrorum
>relatione didicimus quod devota vestra congregatio et laudabilis societas
>in honorem regine celi matris dei, beate Marie virginis, in domo nostri
>ordinis instituta ad Dei gloriam et ipsius Dei genetricis laudem ac
>devotionem fidelium necnon ad extirpationem et abolitionem nefarie sordis
>[which Meerseman takes to be sodomy] et confusionem filiorum diffidentie,
>proficit plurimum ..." [Precisely the same wording appears in Hubert's 25
>May 1255 letter to the congregation of the Virgin at Mantua, but is
>missing the bit about sodomites, i.e. "necnon...diffidentie]
>The term 'diffidentia' appears in both Ephesaians 2.2 and 5.6 as 'filios
>diffidentiae' which may be taken, I believe, to refer to the Sodomites.
In the case of Humbert's letter I would restrain from venturing any precise
interpretation, if the context does not offer more clear indications (I do
not regard the contextual use of Eph 2.2 and 5.6 as a clear or even as an
unclear reference to homosexuality). In classical Latin, "nefaria sordes"
would be "nefarious avarice", but it is true that patristic and medieval use
had extended the meaning of "sordes" to blameful/abominable sin in general
and had often shifted and once again restricted the meaning to 'impure'
sexual sins in particular.
Otfried
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otfried Lieberknecht, Schoeneberger Str. 11, D-12163 Berlin
Tel.: ++49 30 8516675 (fax on request), E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Homepage for Dante Studies:
http://members.aol.com/lieberk/welcome.html
ORB Dante Alighieri: A Guide to Online Resources:
http://orb.rhodes.edu/encyclop/culture/lit/Italian/Danindex.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|