Dear Gary et al.,
I have culled the following information out of Meersseman's 2 volume *Ordo
fraternitatis. Confraternite e pieta dei laici nel medioevo* Rome, 1977:
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.
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..."
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.
I hope all of these citations are clear, and no necessary wording is
missing.
All of this leads me to suspect that the reference to sodomites is not
merely a synonym for Cathars, who were branded as 'buggers', but refers in
fact to homosexual behavior. Either the mendicants were fearful of a vice
which was marginal or barely existent (like anti-Semitism in societies
where Jews are barely to be found, if at all, or anti-Communism in places
were barely a Red is to be found), or there was indeed some kind of
'problem'. I think it may all remain speculative unless we can get a hold
of some contemporary trials for sodomy. Is such a thing to be found in the
archives of the central and northern Italian towns?
Michael Goodich
On Thu, 5 Dec 1996 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I am very grateful to Michael Goodich, who has raised some interesting
> points about 'the sin of sodomy' and the flagellants of 1260, and the
> confraternities of 'disciplinati' which the movement produced. (I haven't
> had time yet to check the confraternity statutes, but will do so.)
>
> Here is the crucial passage in a puzzling text the 'Lezenda de Fra Rainero
> Faxano' (ed. E. Ardu), pp. 93-98 of *Il Movimento dei Disciplinati* (Centro
> di Ricerca e di Studio sul Movimento dei Disciplinati) (Perugia, 1962,
> reprinted 1986):
>
> [San Bevignate, a local saint, 'canonized' by the Perugians themselves,
> says to Fra Rainero, pp.95-96:]
q>
> 'Et dico tibi quia propter peccata innumerabilia et turpia, scilicet
> sodomitarum, feneratorum et propter corruptionem fidei christiane, scilicet
> propter incredulitatem patarenorum, gacarorum*, pauperum Leonis, et aliorum
> multorum, volebat Dominus mundum subvertere...'
>
> *one MS reads Gazarorum, another Hereticorum. (Could this be a corruption
> of Passagiani? Otherwise, what? I should write to Malcolm Lambert! The
> Passagiani are the only possible sect mentioned in "Ad abolendum")
>
> There are four surviving MSS. of the 'Lezenda de Fra Rainero Faxano', none
> earlier than the XIVth century, none from Perugia. The text contains local
> knowledge of Perugia and its saints, but seems inaccurate otherwise. For
> example, the three sins that threaten God's apocalyptical wrath against the
> world: sodomy, usury, heresy. Perugia was a citadel of orthodoxy. The
> heretical sects mentioned appear to have been non-existent there. Nor was
> there a conspicuous amount of banking/usury in the city, or no more than
> what one would expect in a town much smaller than, say, Florence. As for
> crimes of homosexuality, there is also nothing extraordinary, certainly
> nothing noteworthy c.1260. Nevertheless, sodomy is mentioned first; it
> gets star billing! (Michael, what do you make of this?)
>
> Gary Dickson
> University of Edinburgh
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|