Marriage Litigation in the Western Church, 1215–1517

From the establishment of a coherent doctrine on sacramental marriage to the eve of the Reformation, late medieval church courts were used for marriage cases in a variety of ways. Ranging widely across Western Europe, including the Upper and Lower Rhine regions, England, Italy, Catalonia, and Castile, this study explores the stark discrepancies in practice between the North of Europe and the South. Wolfgang P. Müller draws attention to the existence of public penitential proceedings in the North and their absence in the South, and explains the difference in demand, as well as highlighting variations in how individuals obtained written documentation of their marital status. Integrating legal and theological perspectives on marriage with late medieval social history, Müller addresses critical questions around the relationship between the church and medieval marriage, and what this reveals about both institutions.

Cultures of Calvinism in Early Modern Scotland

This chapter highlights recent work on the history of Calvinist culture in Scotland between the Reformation of 1560 and the end of the reign of James VI and I (1567–1625). It looks at both disciplinary culture and the ways in which Calvinism manifested in familial, social, noble, and intellectual life. While cumulative research on the system of church courts and the ‘culture of penitence’ has led to a much better understanding of everyday religious life, this chapter suggests a variety of directions in which future research could be taken. These include examining the pace at which Reformed culture embedded itself in Scottish society post-Reformation; the role of the nobility in religion; the experience of religious life in relation to gender and sexuality; the legacy of Renaissance humanism; and the roles of Reformed scholasticism and neo-Latin in intellectual life.

The “Tatar Marriage” between the Widow and Youn­ger Brother of Andrei Mstislavich of Chernihiv

Research objectives: To study Russian-Horde relations in the period of formation of Russian principalities’ dependence on the Mongol Empire and the ulus of Jochi – a historical phase connected with a 1246 trip of a Russian prince and the widow of his elder brother to Batu. This elder brother, Prince Andrei, had been executed earlier by the Mongols. The aim of the work is to clarify the causes and consequences of the conflict situation that arose as a result of the refusal of Andrei of Chernihiv’s relatives to permit a marriage “according to the Tatar custom”. Research materials: Russian chronicles and collections of Church law (Just Measure, canonical answers of Metropolitan John II [1080–1089]), the so-called “Books of the Pilot”, princely statutes (Statute of Prince Yaroslav of the Church courts), religious letters, the Lyubetsky Synod, as well as some Latin and Muslim sources. Results and novelty of the research: Based on an analysis of the information contained in Old Russian sources of Church law, chronicles, princely religious letters, the reports of the papal diplomat John of Plano Carpini and accompanying representatives of the Franciscan mission, C. de Bridia and Benedict of Poland, as well as sources containing information about the legal norms and customary law of the Mongols (e.g. the travel accounts of William of Rubruck, Marco Polo, and Ibn Battuta), the author comes to the following conclusions: Batu’s demand for marriage between the widow and younger brother of the previously executed Prince Andrei Mstislavovich of Chernihiv “according to the custom of Tatars” fully corresponded to Mongol customary law. However, it came into sharp contrast with two canonical prohibitions of Russian Church law: the ban on marriages of closely related individuals and marriage without a Christian wedding. Possible practical reasons for the Mongol marriage demand could include the desire of the authorities of the ulus of Jochi to exclude the younger brother of Prince Andrei from the number of contenders to rule the Chernihiv Principality, the desire to test the political loyalty of applicants for the inhe­ritance of the executed prince, and an aim to eliminate the dual rule which was ostensibly established in the Chernihiv Principality after the death of its previous ruler. The refusal of the brother and widow of Andrei of Chernihiv to comply with the Batu’s demand caused a strong reaction of the Horde’s authorities, ending in a ritual of forced marriage. This ritual was accompanied by a series of humiliating processes, one of the likely goals of which was to demonstrate to the Russian ruling elites the priority of Mongol legal norms over the legal norms of states that were politically dependent on the Jochids.

THE PHENOMENON OF DUALITY (BINARITY) IN THE HISTORICAL AND LEGAL TOPOI OF ANTIENT RUSSIA

Предметом анализа статьи является дуальность/бинарность русского правового дискурса в историко-культурном пространстве Руси. Автор исходит из того факта, что в отличие от королевств Западной Европы становление русской правовой традиции было обусловлено отсутствием у русских книжников интереса к абстрактному теоретическому мышлению, в связи с чем византийские юридические кодексы не могли быть освоены и воспринимались как «елинские борзости». По мнению автора, возникновение и становление русской правовой традиции необходимо рассматривать сквозь призму бинарности русской культуры. Это проявилось в диглоссии правового дискурса русичей. Памятники правовой мысли Руси можно четко разделить по сферам регламентации исходя из языка, на котором они были написаны. Собственно русское протоправо было записано на русском языке, в то время как византийские юридические кодексы переводились на церковнославянский язык. Византийское право использовалось в церковных судах для регламентирования отношений церковных людей и для регулирования области администрирования, традиционные же русские нормы (Русская Правда) задействовались в сфере повседневной жизни. Данная дуальность определяла облик русского правового дискурса вплоть до XVII в. The subject of the article's analysis is the duality/binary of the Russian legal discourse in the historical and cultural space of Russia. Russian legal tradition was formed in contrast to the kingdoms of Western Europe due to the lack of interest in abstract theoretical thinking among Russian scribes, which is why the Byzantine legal codes could not be mastered and were perceived as «ellin sophistications». Russian legal tradition should be viewed through the prism of the binary nature of Russian culture, according to the author. This was manifested in the diglossia of the legal discourse of the Rus. Monuments of legal thought of Russia can be clearly divided into areas of regulation based on the language in which they were written. Russian proto-law was written in Russian, while the Byzantine legal codes were translated into Church Slavonic. Byzantine law was used in Church courts to regulate the relations of Church people and to regulate the field of administration, while traditional Russian norms (Rиsskaya Pravda) were used in the sphere of everyday life. This duality defined the appearance of Russian legal discourse until the 17th century.

Ecclesiastical Discipline and the Crisis of the 1680s: Prosecuting Protestant Dissent in the English Church Courts

This article argues that as a part of the Tory reaction (1680–5) England's church courts were revived and utilised in the prosecution of religious dissent. The records of the church courts in three deaneries in and around London demonstrate that the numbers of prosecutions in the courts increased significantly in the early 1680s after the defeat of the Exclusion Bill and that the vast majority of these prosecutions were for religious offences. This brief flowering of persecution sought to ‘exclude the excluders’ and to remove political and religious dissidents from positions of secular power and from parish vestries.