In response to Professor Sloan's request, I am re-sending the edited
version of the interchange between Lucy Pick and myself, earlier today.
Apologies for any redundancy.
Carol Symes
Tutor in History and Literature
Harvard University
P.S. to Pat:
Gavin Langmuir addresses the topic of Jews allegedly killing Christian
children - with special reference to William of Norwich - in his article
"Thomas of Monmouth: Detector of Ritual Murder" _Speculum 58 (1984):
820-846. No doubt but that this notion was widespread. I have seen
vernacular French poetry from the 13th c. on little Hugh of Lincoln and
Prof. Robert Stacey at U. Washington recently found what we both think is
the MS of a play in French (from Bristol!) dealing with ritual murder by
Jews of Xian children.
Lucy, thanks for the Latin. Yep, I don't have Alberigo or Mansi here at
home, so I just reached down EHD. Those English translators ... However,
I don't think that "marriage" and "sexual congress" are all that different
in the minds of these folks, and they certainly weren't all that different
in canon law! Alexander III won that battle, as Charles Donahue, Jr. has
pointed out many a time. Sexual congress + words/vows in the future tense
= marriage (no ceremony needed, no parental consent, no formal exchange)
UNLESS there was a diriment impediment. Back to Square One, in that case.
And since difference of religion meant "no marriage," any union, however
serious, was automatically ruled out. That may be why the canon avoids
mentioning marriage: it is not, legally, an option. Unless, of course,
one partner converts. But of course such rules were flouted all the time .
. . that's what kept Church courts in business.
Thanks again,
Carol Symes
Carol Symes wrote:
>The fear expressed in Canon 68 is that Christians might unknowingly join
in
>marriage with Jews or Muslims. I do not excuse the prejudice at work
here.
> But it's interesting to remember that contemporary canon law recognized
>that there were certain "diriment impediments" to marriage, i.e.
>impediments that automatically dissolved a Christian union, on that
grounds
>that said marriage could not, in retrospect, have been canonical.
>Difference of religion was one, of course; but so was undeclared
difference
>in "status." Another was "name." That is, if you discovered after the
>fact that you had married someone who - for whatever reason - was
>_incorrectly labeled_ at the time of the solemnization, this was a
diriment
>impediment and a threat to the validity of the marriage. So there is, I
>think, a larger issue at stake.
>
>
Lucy Pick wrote:
>>>
I can't find anything about marriage in c. 68. The Latin reads:
In nonnullis prouinciis a christianis Iudeos seu Saracenos habitus
distinguit diuersitas, set in quibusdam sic quedam inoleuit confusio ut
nulla differentia discernantur. Vnde contingit interdum quod per errorem
christiani Iudeorum seu Saracenorum et Iudei seu Saraceni christianorum
mulieribus commiscentur. Ne igitur tam dampnate commixtionis excessus, per
uelamentum erroris huiusmodi, excusationis ulterius possit habere
diffugium,
statuimus ut tales utriusque sexus, in omni christianorum prouincia et omni
tempore, qualitate habitus publice ab aliis populis distinguantur, cum et
per Moysen hoc ipsum eis legatur iniunctum.
I don't think you can get a fear of marriage from "commiscentur" or
"commixtionis excessus" both of which I think simply to refer to illicit
sexual intercourse. "Commiscere" is used several times in the Vulgate, for
instance, to refer to sexual intercourse which crosses boundaries, and we
get "miscegenation" from Latin "miscere". Perhaps you had access to a
bowdlerizing translation. They abound. <<<<<<
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|