[Sca-cooks] period traditions

[Laura C. Minnick]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, david friedman wrote:

> Huette writes
>
> >I think that using a lack of case law as evidence it
> >didn't happen is poor scholarship.  You appear to be
> >making the assumption that the serfs/peasants were
> >empowered enough to be able to bring a complaint
> >against their local lord, who probably was also the
> >local magistrate.
>
> If the Droit really existed, it should have showed up in lots of
> legal contexts other than someone complaining against it--most
> obviously in cases where the lord was claiming the right and someone
> else was disputing the facts on which it was based.

Thank you, Your Grace! This is very much what I'd intended to say. If it
was indeed a legal right, it has to turn up in the records somewhere.

I think I know what Huette is getting at though, whih is the idea tha they
were completely powerless against their lord, which is however not
true. There is plenty of case law with peasants going to court because the
lord has stepped of their rights as regarding land, labors, etc. And it
was not unknown for them to go over his head if they were not heard. As to
sexual sins, such as the lord preying on their daughters (or sons), those
cases don't generally go to the lord, but to the church courts, usually to
the bishop.

> I've seen this question hashed out before. So far as I can tell, the
> Droit is a myth--there is little or no evidence that it existed.
>
> >As for stating that such was against canon law, while
> >that is true, just because such laws are written
> >doesn't prove that they weren't broken or ignored by
> >local authorities.
>
> The question isn't whether anyone ever committed adultery. It isn't
> even whether any lords ever abused their power to take the virginity
> of other people's brides. The question is whether they had a legal
> right to do so--whether there actually was a feudal custom, called
> the "droit de seigneur," giving them that right. It would be a bit
> surprising to find a legal right in direct violation of canon law.

The fact that the legal speed limit on I-5 is 65 mph certainly doesn't
mean that we don't break it all the time. It does mean that when one gets
caught, as I did Friday night, there are consequences.

Also, the Canon Law has very little to do with the civil codes- the civil
codes have little to say about sex and marriage because that is the
purview of the Church. Where this might connect the two is the issue of
rape- which is what we are talking about- and the interference in a legal
marriage. Taking a woman against her will is a serious civil offence. Not
against the woman, but against her family and/or husband (worth noting
that the codes against _raptus_ are pre-Christian era for teh Franks and
Saxons as well as the Lombards- taking a man's bride and or despoiling
a virgin was punished with death). Adultery is ometimes a civil offence
(it was in Saxony) though not always. But it was always a serious offence
against church law, and was punished in the Bishop's court. Put the two
together and you have a nice kettle of fish...

I am sure that the occasional lord did terrible things. But he had no
legal right to do so, and he could be prosecuted.

My point being- I have read a great deal of medieval law. I have seen a
LOT
of weird things come up, including marriage cases that ought to be on
Jerry Springer. The only places I have seen the exercise of Droit de
Seingeur is in fiction, the examples most readily coming to mind being
Walter Scott, and 'Braveheart'. This does not mean that it couldn't have
happened, but then, they could have worn Ruritainian Purple Feathers while
they did it, yes?

Lack of evidence against it is not a positive proof.

Is it just me, or is everyone cranky today?

'Lainie
-yes, the state patrol clocked me going 84. I didn't know a Volvo diesel
could go that fast!