Folia Theologica et Canonica 3. 25/17 (2014)

IUS CANONICUM - Anne J. Duggan, The paradox of marriage law: from St Paul to Lateran IV (1215)

THE PARADOX OF MARRIAGE LAW: FROM ST PAUL TO LATERAN IV ( 1215) 199

although Isidore had not in any way associated the Roman stemmata with incest.39 Although Burchard’s own definition in Book xix (Corrector) was much less specific,40 and the range of female relations listed in the book on fornication (xvii) was little more than the Levitican list, extended to first cousins and spiritual relationships,41 because of their placement in the book de incesili, the seven-generation stemmata were firmly associated with the definition of incest. Even more seriously, where Roman law had counted back from one spouse to the common ancestor and forward to the other, so that first cousins were in the fourth degree, Burchard counted forward from the common ancestor to the spouses, so that first cousins were in the second grade, second cousins in the third grade, and so on, thus greatly extending the range of relationship within which lawful marriage was prohibited.

Not only was Burchard’s Decretum the most widely distributed collection of canons in the eleventh century,42 but its version of the Gregorian letter and his extended definition of incest influenced Pope Nicholas II’s decree at the Lenten Synod (1059)43 and Alexander II’s settlement (1063) of the dispute between

Marriage, 139-159, at 146-149, 152; ibid., 153-159, for an excellent short introduction to the subject. It should be noted that the 874 council of Douzy also applied Isidore’s Roman stemmata to incest: MGH, Concilia, IV. 583-584.

39 The discussion of family structure, with the consanguinity table, is in Etymologiae, IX.5-6; incest is defined separately in ibid., V.26 §25 and x. 148.

40 Decretum, XIX (PL CXL. 959), Accepisti uxorem cognatam tuam, vet quam cognatus habuit? separari debes ab ea, et poenitere juxta modum cognationis: quia sancti Patres et sancta ilio- rum statuta incestis conjunctionibus nil prorsus veniae reservant, neque numerum generatio- num definiunt. Sed id statuerunt, ut nulli Christiano liceat de propria consanguinitate seu cog- natione uxorem accipere, usque dum generatio recordaretur, cognosceretur, aut memoria retineretur. Quia sanctus Gregorius [II. 715-731, in the Council of Rome, 721] dicit: ‘Si quis de propria cognatione, vel quam cognatus habuit, in conjugium duxerit, anathema sit.' But cf. the ambiguous instruction sent to St Boniface, leader of the mission to Germany, by Gregory III C.732, Progeniem vero suam quemque usque ad septimam observare decernimus generationem: MGH, Epistolae selectae, I. Berlin 1916, no. 28, at 51. It is unlikely, in fact, that families could count collateral relations beyond three, or possibly four, generations.

41 Decretum, XVII.8 (PL CXL. 920), De ilio qui cum duabus sororibus, cum noverca, vel cum so- rore sua, vel cum amila vei materiem sua, vel cum filia patrui, vel avunculi sui, vel cum filia amitae, vel materterae suae, vel cum nepte sua, vel cum commatre, vel cum filiola quam de fonte suscepit, vel ante episcopum tenuit fomicatus fuerit. Attributed to an unknown council of Mainz, its source was probably Rhabanus Maurus (PL CX. 487): Pokorny, R., Das Dekret des Bischofs Burchard von Worms: Textstufen - frühe Verbreitung - Vorlagen, Munich 1991. 229. The Levitican list did not exclude first-cousin marriages. Jacob and Rachel, for example, were first cousins.

42 Kéry, L., Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 400-1140): a Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature, Washington DC. 1999. 133-155. The catalogue of books in the library of the monastery of Le Bec in Normandy, copied in the twelfth century, described the Collectiones Bucardi as ‘necessary for handling both ecclesiastical and secular affairs (tarn ad ecclesiastica quam secularia négocia pertractanda necessarie)’ : PL CL. 777.

43 Mansi XIX. 898, c. 11 : Ut de consanguinitate sua nullus uxorem ducat usque ad septimam generationem, uel quousque parentela cognosci poteri! (MGH Constitutiones, I. 548), repeated by Alexander II in 1063: PL CXLVI. 1290, c.9.