| Abstract | Paper -a:
According to the Aquitanian monk, Ademar of Chabannes, the local interdict was a 'nova observantia', introduced at the end of the 10th century. By closing all churches in a whole area and prohibiting the burial of the dead in consecrated ground, clerics hoped to incite the innocent faithful into rebellion against the culprits. According to Ademar, the penalty served to cover up the deficiencies of personal excommunication, directed at the 'lawless' nobles, in the context of feudal 'anarchy'. Writing his unpublished PhD on the origins of the interdict, the 19th-century historian A. Howland relied on Ademar's account to explain the development of the interdict in the 11th century. However, recent historiography criticizes the theory of feudal 'anarchy' to the extent that Howland's explanation for the interdict's origins must be re-evaluated. This paper aims to do so by looking at early and high medieval developments in legal, ecclesiastical, and political history.
Paper -b:
The proposed paper discusses the origins and transmission of a Latin maxim concerning the limitations of power. From its origins in late Antiquity - for example in the works of Ambrose - to its presence in the polemics of the Reformation, the maxim 'quia privilegium meretur amittere, qui concessa sibi abuitur potestate', provided authors with a handy way to discuss the accountability of those in power. In particular, the paper would focus on the maxim's reception by Gratian (D 74 c. 7) and the decretists, though attention would also be paid to some of the more locations where the maxim landed, for example the medieval Sverri's Saga, where it comments on the friction between crown and bishops.
Paper -c:
The aim of this paper is to show that Danish legal procedure according to the Danish Provincial Laws, especially the Law of Jutland from 1241, was highly influenced by learned law. This did not mean that the king and his legal advisers just took over the old Roman or the expanding Canon law and introduced their institutions and material law in their own lawmaking – on the contrary. In addition to a moral-ethical Christian approach to defining justice, the Roman-Canonical law of the 13th century delivered a lot of tools concerning legal institutions and procedure that the secular ruler could apply in building up a legal system in support of his rule. Thus, the Danish kings and their advisers took what they could use and transformed it according to the given local circumstances and their ability to carry it into effect.
|
|---|
