In the early medieval
period, Halitgar of Cambrai compiled the “Roman” Penitential. Paired with
Bailey’s exploration of magic in in the Middle Ages, the document can
illuminate the ways in which magic was practiced, legitimized or condemned at
the time. The penances address an array of magical or sacrilegious offences,
some of which appear to reflect a struggle against or lingering fear of pagan
rituals comingling with Christianity. For instance, it states, “If anyone eats
or drinks beside a [pagan] sacred place...he has communicated at the table of
demons” (Kors 56-57). Therefore, the “pagan” and the “demonic” were linked,
especially in the eyes of the Church, because they represented a combined
threat to Christian authority. Such safeguards of authority are exemplified further
in the following penance, “If anyone makes or releases from, a vow beside trees
or springs or by lattice, or anywhere except in a church, he shall do penance
for three years” (Kors 56). As this demonstrates, individuals were not supposed
to engage in ritualistic practices without oversight by the church.
In this manner, church officials both recognized the power of rituals,
even in relation to magical purposes, and desired to contain such power. Bailey
explains that “priests were widely regarded as ritual experts...There was
almost no...spell or charm that was not widely believed to be more effective if
a priest performed it” (Bailey 91). Thus, priests were obviously leaders of the
local ritual scene, which made the maintenance of a stark division between
religion and magic more difficult. The centrality of priests to the practice of
magic can even be evidenced in the recommend punishments: one particular act of
magic required six months of penance from a layman and in comparison, five
years from a priest (Kors 56). Finally, this penitential upholds Bailey’s idea
that magic would be considered negative when it did not “maintain and protect
basic conditions of well-being and modest prosperity” (Bailey 81). For example,
one penance discusses the consequences for a “conjurer- up of storms,” while
another speaks of interference in the birth of children (Kors 56). Essentially,
people who utilized magic to disrupt the patterns of life and the well-being of
a village were the ones pinpointed for magical use. Typically, as this penitential
suggests, rituals and magical practices were highly integrated into daily life,
religion, and authority, even if not always in a positive manner.
Was there a strong
intersection between religion and magic in the medieval period?
Bailey, Michael.
Magic and Superstition in Europe. Plymouth: Rowan and Littlefield, 2007.
Print.
Kors, Alan C., and
Peters, Edward. Witchcraft in Europe 400-1700, A Documentary History (Second
Edition), Halitgar of Cambrai: The Roman Penitential, p. 54-57. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. Print.
Sadie, I found this post to be very thought-provoking, especially after our discussion over the Roman Penitential today in class. I am interested in how penance was enforced, seeing as how the church certainly did everything in its power to restrict ritualistic practices that did not pertain to religion. I also found it interesting that despite the priests' efforts to limit outside rituals, they were highly focused on harnessing the power of rituals for their own use. Great post.
ReplyDeleteSadie, I enjoyed reading your post on Halitgar's penitential. These punishments by the church really give an insight into the way that the Roman Church viewed the practice of non-Church-sanctioned rituals. It makes one wonder if these punishments, or rather means of leading the astray back to the Church, symbolize the fear of a loss of power and control throughout the Roman Church. Was the papacy and its officers concerned with magic, or losing people to a different way? Thanks again for the post!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this post. I found the point about making and or releasing from a vow in places other than the Church causing one to owe penance very interesting. I was really interested by the use of the word vow. I just wonder if that includes any promises or oaths of servitude. Personally when I hear the word vow I immediately think of a wedding. I try not to narrow down ambiguous phrases but I do wonder if this was directed towards weddings or just anything in general.
ReplyDeleteBen--your question got me thinking! I don't think it has to do with weddings as there was no clear necessity to be married in a church for most of Middle Ages, esp. in 800/900s. I think we can at least substitute "oath" for vow--in that it clearly wants you to make a promise under God, not under a stream! It's possible we could also consider "religious vow" like some of the lower orders in the Church--novice towards priesthood, deacon, etc. I could not find more specifics. Those are two good options to avoid around rivers and trees--go to the church!!
ReplyDelete