|
GEN-MEDIEVAL/soc.genealogy.medieval
Canon Law and Consanguinity
by Nathaniel L. Taylor
[Originally posted to soc.genealogy.medieval on 2 Dec. 1997, it first appeared in its final form on 23 Jun 1998]
A short exposition of the basics on consanguinity is found in Constance B.
Bouchard's article, "Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and
Eleventh Centuries," Speculum 56 (1981), 268-87, especially at 269-71.
To quote:
"Roman civil law [which was the code adopted by the early Church] had
forbidden marriages within 'four degrees' and had computed degrees by
counting from one prospective spouse up to the common ancestor and then
down to the other partner.... Marriages of first cousins, those between
people related within four degrees, were forbidden..."
to illustrate: 2
__|__
| |
1 3
|__ |
| | |
ego 2 4
"But in the first half of the ninth century, both the number of forbidden
degrees was increased--from four to seven--and the method of calculating
degrees was changed. Now, rather than counting up from one spouse to the
common ancestor and down to the other, one computed degrees by counting
generations back *only* to the common ancestor..."
to illustrate: x
__|__
| |
x 7
__|__ |
| | |
x 6 7
__|__ | |
| | | |
x 5 6 7
__|__ | | |
| | | | |
x 4 5 6 7
__|__ | | | |
| | | | | |
x 3 4 5 6 7
__|__ | | | | |
| | | | | | |
x 2 3 4 5 6 7
|__ | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
ego 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
[these two tables adapted from diagrams in Bouchard's article]
This new method of counting remained in force through the Middle
Ages, though in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 the number of degrees
within which marriage was prohibited was again reduced from seven to four:
x
__|__
| |
x 4
__|__ |
| | |
x 3 4
__|__ | |
| | | |
x 2 3 4
|__ | | |
| | | | |
ego 1 2 3 4
Note that in cases where two individuals descended in an unequal number of
generations from a common ancestor, the more distant descent governed the
degree of consanguinity:
x
__|__
| |
x 4
__|__ |
| | |
x 3 4
__|__ | |
| | | |
x 2 3 4
|__ | | |
| | | | |
ego 1 2 3 4
| | | | |
| | | | |
1 2 3 4 5
| | | | |
| | | | |
2 3 4 5 6
[etc.]
However, before & after 4th Lateran there was some disagreement in the use
of the "Roman" vs. the "Canon" or "Germanic" system of counting, as well as
difference of opinion about how to count people descended in an unequal number
of generations from a common ancestor. Many tables for use in measuring the
degree of consanguinity survive in medieval manuscripts--often they are quite
elaborate and beautiful. The best representative sample and study of the
tables is by Hermann Schadt, Die Darstellungen der Arbores Consanguinitatis
und der Arbores Affinitatis: Bildschemata in juristischen Handschriften
(Tubingen, 1982).
The rules were supposed to apply equally to aristocrats and to humble people.
Historians and genealogists see that the rules were often flouted in the case
of aristocratic marriages. As Todd Farmerie has pointed out, they often
married whoever suited them (economically, politically, etc.) and would
only allow consanguinity to interfere if the marriage wasn't working out
for other reasons. However, there are documented cases of churchmen
intervening blocking some proposed marriages--even royal ones--against the
desires of the parties themselves. Were these rules applied more stringently
to persons of lower station? It isn't possible to tell, because we have
virtually no documented examples of medieval non-aristocratic marriage in
which the ancestries of the couple ore known fully, even in the fourth degree.
The application and circumvention of consanguinity rules in non-aristocratic
medieval marriages is a matter for speculation.
NB: The documented cases of bishops blocking proposed consanguineous
marriages include two examples of apparent intended marriages of
illegitimate daughters of Henry I. Saint Anselm intervened in the Warenne
marriage, and Ivo of Chartres
in another. Both are discussed by Bouchard, and by R. W. Southern, The
Making of the Middle Ages (Yale, 1953), 79-80. Both involved
relationships in the sixth degree. I've got the text of Ivo's letter
buried somewhere in my office (his correspondence is in the PL).
|