Hincmar of Rheims: De uxore Bosonis
Edition: MGH Epistolae
Karolini Aevi VIII, pp. 81-87, no. 135
Transmission: Paris
BnF. lat 2866, fols.120-124v.
Dating: Autumn 860
Trans. by Rachel
Stone, with assistance of Charles West
Hincmar, by name not merit bishop of Rheims
and servant of the people of God, to the sacred convention.
A certain person put certain matters to blessed Ambrose, for
the explanation of which Ambrose invited him the next day to the church, where beginning
a sermon, he said: ‘I came to discharge a debt to my creditor’. And now I too
provide the solution to the question proposed to me yesterday, when I was not
able to reply to the lord Gunther [Archbishop of Cologne], for three reasons.
Namely, that we were again and again advised to draw back (revertendum), and since there were many
wise men present in the convention, of whom some were striving to set things out,
but others to bring them to an end (absolvere),
I, compelled by necessity, was forced by such speed more to confuse words together
than to set them out, before another might snatch the sentence from me, from my
very lips, so that a mouth could not suffice to utter what convulsed memory could
supply.[1]
But also, just as is written: ‘He who strongly presses the
udders expresses butter, and he who vehemently milks brings forth blood
[Proverbs 30:33]’, I feared lest if I were to respond rashly and hastily I
would decide with the mind of the flesh, since my heart, occupied in other
things, had left me and the serene light of my little intelligence (intelligenticula) was not in or with me.
Therefore I delayed until the hand were perhaps to be stretched forth, according
to the prophet, which would nourish me with the volumen of understanding. For as often as it is stretched forth, so
often the things that we did not know before are revealed to us by divine
grace.
About which matter, let us set out the question of the lord
Gunther, and let us provide a solution from the largesse of God’s grace, according
to the grasp of our understanding. If, he says, the wife of Boso [Ingiltrude]
should come to us and should be publicly confessed, saying
‘I have by my own fault cuckolded
(adulteravi) my husband. Therefore, terrified
by fear of death, I have fled to you, who are the deputy of God, so that you
might both save me for God and free me from mortal death, which threatens me
from the part of my husband’:
ought I to impose public penance on her, which she might
carry out in my diocese (parrochia),
into which she has fled, separated from her husband; or ought I to return her
to the same husband, under such a condition that he in no way kills her, but
after penance keeps her in marriage? So that if he should kill her, he should
know that he will be punished by ecclesiastical condemnation, since it is a
crime (nefas) for anyone placed in
public penance to be killed by anyone.
We reply. That woman, born, baptized, nourished, grown up,
enriched with the inheritance of property, in your diocese or anyone else’s: Boso,
born not only in another diocese but in another province, and led through all
the steps into full manhood [perfectum
virum], staying under the care of another bishop, obtained her according to
human and divine law from those to whom she belonged. He betrothed (desponsavit) endowed and honoured with
public nuptials that woman and associated her to him in the bond of marriage (coniugii copula) and made her one body
and flesh with him, just as is written: ‘There will be two in one flesh; now
they are not two but one flesh’; and ‘What God has joined let not man separate
[Matthew 19:5-6].’ Except perhaps [separated] forever by consent on account of
continence, whereby they are joined all the more, the more spiritually; or
separated for a time, so that they may be free for prayers and then return
again into the marriage itself, lest they should be tempted by Satan because of
incontinence. Or if separated in the case of fornication, let them thus remain as
they are, that is unmarried (innupti)
and separated, or be mutually reconciled.
In what way can you separate and hold under penance the
inferior part of the body of that person, who lies under the providence of
another, who cannot even remain continent for prayer without the consent of the
superior part? ‘For the woman does not have power of her body, but the man, and
the man does not have power of his body but the wife [1 Corinthians 7:4]’. ‘The
husband ought to render the debt to the wife and the wife to the husband [1
Corinthians 7:3]’, so that they are not tempted by Satan because of
incontinence.
Whichever of them does not do this, unless he sends
her away for the sake of God by agreement, makes his equal (par), nay rather his body, commit
adultery. If you should impose penance on this woman, who is part of the body
of a man of another diocese, without the consent of the rector and the husband,
you act against church rules, and as Pope Leo teaches, you will be deprived of
the communion of honour.
And again: If you place your hand on this woman through the
law of penance, and that member should follow her head – for the man is the
head of the woman – into another province under the oversight of another bishop,
who will take care of her penance? Who will attend to her tears and confession,
which he has not heard, so that she may be reconciled according to the canons?
Who will place his hand on her for reconciliation, since the sacred rules
decree that no bishop may receive someone placed under the hand of another
bishop for reconciliation, nor may receive someone who has been reconciled
without the letter or consent of the reconciler? And in what way will you judge
part of the body, nay rather, the human being of another bishop and diocese? Nay
rather, you will despise penitential judgement. Since it is written what St
Gregory in his decrees explained hence: ‘if you should pass over through the
harvest of your friend, you will rub the ears of grain with your hands, and you
will eat, but do not use your sickle, or reap with your sickle’. That is, [you
may] hurry to draw people of another diocese into the body of Christ which is
the Church by example of preaching and deeds – however, in such a way that you do
not despise your simpler (simplicior)
brother, lest you fall into ruin and a noose, that is vainglory of the devil –,
but do not permit using either the sickle of judgement or reaping with the
sickle of judgement, that is to cut into or cut off [from the body of Christ].
Just as Boso himself says, he raises no reproach [crimen] against the same woman who is
his flesh, but for the sake of the order of the apostolic lord [the Pope], he
is prepared to forgive this hardly small negligence: that she removed himself
from his service, and as much as she could made him to commit adultery; and
sending him away against authority and justice and delaying in other kingdoms for
around three years, she is so contumacious towards his mandate, so that compelled for such a long time nor would she
return to him. So, it remains that the king in whose realm she dwells,
according to the chirograph of our kings, should have her brought to the
presence of her husband. And you, O bishop in whose diocese she delays, since
this is not for the king, just as St Gregory orders about these who flee to the
church; if necessity demands, you should ask and demand security from her
husband about preserving equity to her, and after this let a missus of the state [respublica] restore the wife lapsed in flight
back to the husband.
If this man [Boso] should break his oath and should be
disobedient to the apostolic warning, then let the bishop to whose care he pertains
stretch forth canonical judgement in him.
But if the woman who
has confessed adultery or been legally convicted of it escapes uninjured, the
same bishop should subject her to penance by ecclesiastical law, as is
recognised by secular law to be sensible and customary, so that evils which are
perpetrated may be amended in those places in which they were legally proved to
have been perpetrated. Apart from this, nothing seems to me to be done: either
we carry out the admonitions of the apostolic lord or we shall incur judgement.
But about the oath [sacramentum]
that you might demand for impunity of life and limb, if thus the quality of
deed should demand it, at the expense of the law (legali privatione), because she fled as if to clerical piety, since
she demanded your help, that is episcopal help. You ought to ponder subtly what
St Gregory decreed to be sought also for those who flee to the holy shrine,
namely the preservation of equity, lest you should be seen or be said to want
to confound and destroy the status and order and vigour not only of the church
but also of the whole world, and to hinder the apostolic doctrines and of
apostolic men. They not only observed the law as promulgated by Christian kings
and commanded them to be observed, but also demanded them to be promulgated,
just as is to be found many times in the canons of Carthage and the African
council and of other councils, and the decrees of the apostolic seat. Whence
also St Gregory based admonitions to John the Defensor and also to others entirely
on legal edicts, and St Gelasius wrote to the emperor Anastasius:
‘For if’, he said, ‘the bishops
of religion themselves obey your laws, as much as it pertains to the order of
public discipline, knowing that rule (imperium)
is conferred on you by heavenly disposition, nor also in secular matters are
they seen to resist the sentence of exclusion (exclusae sententiae), then I plead that it befits you by that affection
and it is fitting to obey them, who are assigned with the requesting of venerable mysteries.
And St Leo writing to Bishop Turibius of Astinas says:
‘By merit, our fathers in whose
times this impiety of heresy [Priscillianism] broke out, instantly acted through
the whole world, so that the impious madness should be driven from the universal
church; then also the princes of the world thus detested this sacrilegious
madness, so that they overthrew its author with very many disciples by the
sword of public laws. For they saw every care of honesty would have been snatched
away, every bond of marriage would have been dissolved and both divine and
human law would have been subverted, if it had been allowed to people of this
kind ever to live with such a declaration. That severity long benefited the ecclesiastical
mildness, which, even if it flees cruel punishments, content with priestly
judgement, yet is helped by the severe constitutions of Christian princes, as
those who fear corporal judgement sometimes run back to spiritual remedy. But
because a hostile invasion occupied many provinces and the tempests of war shut
off the execution of laws, and because travel among the priests of God began to
be difficult and conventions became rare, secret treachery found liberty on
account of public perturbation, and it has been roused by these evils to the
subversion of many minds, by whom it ought to be corrected’.
Read Book 16 of the Roman law, read the decree of Damasus,
hurry through the letters of Leo
and of the other popes sent to
the emperors from diverse councils, read over the edicts of the emperors
promulgated about heretics at the request of the popes, study the capitularies
of our Caesars. You will find how much the severity of law has profited and
does profit not only ecclesiastical mildness, but also the peace to be hoped
for and the tranquillity to be cultivated of all Christianity. For wisdom, that
is Christ the virtue of God, and the wisdom of God, said: ‘Through me kings
reign and the compilers of laws discern just things [Proverbs 8:15]’ and the
Apostle: ‘Indeed the law is holy and the mandate holy and just and good [Romans
7:12]’. Whence Ambrose: ‘The gospel word witnesses that the mandate is
understood to be the law; for it says: “If you should want to come to life,
keep the mandates [Matthew 19:17]”. And the same Apostle: “The law is placed
because of transgressions [Galatians 3:19]” and “The law is not laid down for
the just, but for the unjust and the unsubdued, the impious and sinners,
evil-doers, contaminated, patricides and matricides, homicides, fornicators,
sleepers with males, kidnappers, and liars, and if anything else is opposed to sound
doctrine” [1 Timothy 1:9-10]’. And again: ‘For those who rule are not to be
feared by those working good, but evil [Romans 13:3]’. Whence Ambrose: ‘He
calls these kings princes who are created for the sake of correcting life and
prohibiting adverse things, having the image of God, so that the remainder may
be under one’. And again the same Apostle: ‘But do you want not to fear power?
Do good and you will have praise from it [Romans 13:3]’. Hence the same doctor:
‘Praise also then rises from
power, when someone is found innocent. “For he is a minister of God to you in
good things [Romans 13:4]”. It is therefore clear that rectores are given lest evil happen. “But if you should do evil, be
afraid. For he does not bear the sword without reason [Romans 13:4]”. That is
therefore that he threatens that if should be defied, he will avenge. “For he
is a minister of God, a judge in wrath of him who does evilly [Romans 13:4]”.
Since God established the judgement to come and wants no-one to perish, he
ordained rectores in the world, so
that by means of terror, they should be to men like teachers [paedegogi], educating them about what
they should keep, lest they should fall into the penalty of the judgement to
come. “Therefore be subject not only because of anger,” that is present revenge,
“but also because of conscience [Romans 13:5].” Rightly he says the subjected
ought to be not so only because of anger, that is present revenge – for He
prepares punishment – but because of the
judgement to come, since, if they should
escape here, their punishment awaits them, where they will by punished, with
conscience itself as an accuser’.
And St Cyprian in the ninth grade of abuse says ‘that it
behoves a king not to be iniquitous but to be a corrector of the iniquitous.’ And
again there among other things: ‘he ought to curb thefts, punish adulteries, drive
the impious from the earth, not allow parricides and perjurers to live, not
allow his sons to act impiously.’ And blessed John Chrysostom in homily 16 of
the Gospel of Matthew says:
‘“Hear, said the Lord, that it
was said in former times, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. [Matthew
5:38]” He did not hallow that law so we might scratch out each others’ eyes,
but so that by the dread which we fear to suffer it from another, we ourselves
might also avoid permitting anything of that kind, so that also he who should
not want to desist from cruelty by goodness of will itself, at least would be
forced by fear to spare the eyes of their neighbours. But if that is said to be
cruel, then to coerce homicide and adultery would also be said cruel. But those
words are those of the senseless, and of those crazy with the greatest madness.
For I fear to say these things are cruel, so that I might thoroughly teach iniquitous
things contrary to this, as general reason certainly also perceives.
For you say that since he ordered
an eye to be taken for an an eye, it is therefore cruel; but I reply that
unless he had ordered it, then truly very many would have been such as you wrongly complain that he is (qualem tu eum falso esse conqueriris). And
finally, let us imagine in speech that all law has been dissolved, nor does anyone
dread punishment for deeds of this kind, but it is wholly allowed to all evil
people
, and to adulterers and homicides and thieves and perjurers
and parricides to use their customs. Would not under this license a single confusion
of iniquity entangle all equally? Would not cities, fora, homes, seas and all
the world have been utterly filled with a thousand crimes and slaughters? For
if even with dominating laws, vigorous threats and terror, scarcely are the
wills of evil restrained, then if even this defence had been absent, by what
reason could evil have been checked? Or what pestilence would not erupt in the
life of people? Not yet is only that cruel, namely to permit the evil to do
what they might want, but also there is another cruelty certainly nothing less
than this, that is to neglect and despise the injured person and undeservedly
afflicted person.
Tell me, if someone collecting wild
and perpetually malign men together had armed them with swords, and had ordered
them to go round the whole city and to strike down anyone they met, what could
be more savage than this? But if indeed another were to bind and violently
constrain those who had been armed by the first, and free from their iniquitous
hands those who were to be killed, what in that region would be found more
humane? Transfer this example therefore also to the law. For that which orders an
eye to be taken for an eye, giving sinners a fear as of executioners, is found
similar to him who I said hinders those armed people. But he who decreed no
penalty at all to those who harm, let him seem to you to have armed iniquity
and to have imitated him who instructed those evil men with swords and hence sent
death upon the whole city. Do you not see how these precepts are not only of no
cruelty, but indeed of the greatest piety?’
And in the letters of blessed Gregory, he who should want to
read will very often be able to find him punishing malefactors and the
iniquitous with an appropriate revenge.
Whence, dearest brother, consider that to act or protest against
this is not only to confound the laws of piety, but is also to bring in
troubles for priestly innocence and the criticism of purity, and to impose the
blasphemies of derogation. Evil-sayers will say: ‘Paul said “Not only those who
do, but also those who consent to those doing are worthy of death [Romans 1:32]”,
he [Gunther] did not permit the iniquitous to be coerced’. Whence also the Lord
through the psalmist, says to one such as this priest: ‘Why do you explain in
detail my justice, and take up my witness through your mouth? In truth you
hated discipline, you used to run with the thief and you placed your portion
with adulterers [Psalm 50:16-18] ’. For one does not cherish evil men if one
loves good, but loving the person and hating the sin which is his, let him act,
and let him not oppose what is decreed by God, through the authors of the law,
discerning justly.
And iniquitous women and perverse men will say: ‘Let us do
what we want, and we shall go to church or the bishop and we shall be unpunished’.
As a result, our ministry (ministerium)
will be blameworthy and we will be contemptible, that is despising legal
justice set down by God for the unjust,
since every individual just law does not
have a fault (crimen), lest it be
unjust, and yet it punishes the guilty man
(criminosus), so that it may truly be just. And from the region, some
will cry out: ‘Scripture says: “Do not be over-righteous [Ecclesiastes 7:16]”; “Blessed
also are the merciful [Matthew 5:7]” and “The judgement will be without mercy of
him who does not act with mercy [James 2:13]” and “Mercy overreaches judgement
[James 2:13]”, and the Lord to the adulteress: “Nor do I condemn you. Go and
sin no more [John 8:11].” And you O priest, to whom ought you to show mercy
except to the wretched, and you close the the bowels of compassion for him by
not showing compassion, are you free from punishment in this? Cautiously and
discretely aware of this relaxation (derogatio)
of each part in respect of those serving the sacred mysteries, blessed Gregory
wrote to the former consul Leontius, warning:
‘Your Glory ought to remember
that you have never received my letters for the commendation of someone, unless
so that you may offer your protection, as justice favours. For it is shameful
to defend what one has not first established to be just. I indeed love people
because of justice, but I do not disregard justice because of people’.
And to the defensor of Rome: <87>
‘You ought to provide ecclesiastical
protection, whether you have received my letter, or even if they have not been
sent, under such moderation, so that if someone is implicated in public thefts,
they should not seem unjustly defended by us, lest we should transfer into
ourselves in any way the opinion of those doing bad things, by daring an indiscrete
defence. But as much as it behoves the church, help those you are able by
admonishing and by applying the word of intercession, so that you may both
offer aid to them and not pollute the opinion of the holy church.’
But also about these who would flee to the thresholds of churches,
and also to the temples of sanctuary themselves, he wrote to Bishop John of the
city of Cagliari:
‘if there is a question about
those who perhaps take refuge in churches, the case ought to be so disposed so
that neither they themselves suffer violence, nor those who are said to be
oppressed may suffer condemnation. Therefore let it be your care that those who
are involved e promise by oath to them about preserving law and justice, and
let them be admonished through all things to leave and render account for their
actions.’
This, lords and brothers, I have placed for your wisdom, on
the request of the above written venerable co-bishop in your hearing. If it should
not seem sufficient to him for his question, he will be able to read in the
pages of the saints, and to find more widely from our mediocrity in the 22nd
and 28th solutions to the questions which I was asked by others.[2]
Since indeed I made reference above of the chirograph of our
kings, I have taken care to add what was constituted by these there:[3]
‘And since the peace and
tranquillity of the kingdom is accustomed to be disturbed through wandering men
(vagi homines) who by tyrannical
custom lack reverence, we wish that when one of these comes to whichever one of
us so that he can evade reason and justice for what he has done, none of us
will receive him or keep him, unless he is led to right reason and the
emendation due. And if he evades right reason, let everyone together in whose
kingdom he has come pursue him, until he is led to reason, or is destroyed (deletur) from the kingdom.
It should be done similarily to someone
who has been corrected or excommunicated for some capital and public crime by
any bishop, or who commits a crime and changes kingdom and king’s government (regimen) before excommunication to avoid
receiving the penance that is due, or carrying out what has been legitimately
received; and meanwhile in his flight even brings with him his incestuous
relative (incesta propinqua), or nun,
or abductee (rapta) or adulteress,
whom it is not licit for him to have. Let such a person be carefully investigated,
after the bishop to those care he pertains has let us know, lest he find any
place for delaying or hiding in the kingdom of any one of us, and infect our
faithful followers and those of God with his disease. But let him be compelled
by us or by the ministri of the state
[res publica], and together with his diabolical
plunder (praeda) whom he brought with
him, let him return to his bishops and accept the due penance for whatever
public crime, or be compelled to carry out the penance he has legitimately
received.’
No comments:
Post a Comment