Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:11:38.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Decretists and the “Deserving Poor”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Brian Tierney
Brian Tierney
Affiliation:
Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In spite of all the complex controversies concerning the interplay of religious ideas and economic forces at the end of the Middle Ages the investigation of the pre-existing medieval poor law has been rather neglected by modern scholars. Evidently enough attitudes toward the relief of poverty are as significant as attitudes toward the acquisition of wealth in gauging the climate of economic thought in any given age. Yet, apart from studies on hospital administration, little has been done in this field of medieval research since the pioneering works of Ratzinger, Emminghaus, Ehrle, Uhlhorn and Ashley in the nineteenth century. Since then the attitudes of social welfare experts to the problems of poor relief have radically changed and a great mass of source material unknown to the earlier writers, notably the work of the medieval canonists, has come to the attention of historians. Both these facts suggest a need for some reconsideration of medieval attitudes to the poor and to the relief of poverty.

Type
Research Article
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , June 1959 , pp. 360 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 360 note 1 Ratzinger, Georg, Geschichte der kīrchlichen Armenpflege (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1868Google Scholar); Emminghaus, Albert, Das Armenwesen und die Armengesetzgebung in Europäischen Staaten (Berlin, 1870Google Scholar); Ehrle, Franz, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Reform der Armenpflege (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1881Google Scholar); Uhlhorn, G. G. W., Die Christliche Liebestätigkeit in der alien Kirche (Stuttgart, 1882–1890Google Scholar); Ashley, W. J., An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory, I, ii (London, 1893Google Scholar). For bibliography of modern works on medieval hospitals see Imbert, Jean, Les hôpitaux en droit canonique (Paris, 1947Google Scholar).

page 360 note 2 The records of manorial law constitute another type of source material that has been little used by historians of poor relief. The value of this material was pointed out by Page, F. M., “The Customary Poor Law of Three Cambridgeshire Manors,” Cambridge Historical Journal, III (1929–1931), 125–133Google Scholar.

page 360 note 3 In recent years a whole spate of books and articles has appeared on the political theories of the canonists. Some of this work is discussed in the article, “Some Recent Works on the Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists,” Traditio, X (1954), 594–625Google Scholar. Their social and economic theories have not attracted so much attention except as regards the doctrine of usury. On this see McLaughlin, T. P., “The Teaching of the Canonists on Usury,” Mediaeval Studies, I (1939), 81–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar; II (1940), 1–22; and Nelson, B. N., The Idea of Usury (Princeton 1949Google Scholar).

page 361 note 4 A sketch of this “legal philosophy” is attempted in the book Medieval Poor Law (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1959Google ScholarPubMed). Ermenegildo Lio has recently been investigating the nature and extent of a man’s obligation to contribute to the support of the poor in the works of the scholastic theologians. See especially his article, “Le obligazioni verso i poveri in un testo di S. Cesario riportato da Graziano,” Studia Gratiana, III (Bologna, 1955), 51–81Google Scholar, which gives references to Fr. Lio’s earlier studies on this theme.

page 361 note 5 The basic reference work on the canonists and canonistic manuscripts of this period is Kuttner, Stephan, Repertorium der Kanonistik (Città del Vaticano, 1937Google Scholar).

page 361 note 6 Emminghaus, op. cit., 6.

page 362 note 7 Ehrle, op. cit., 10–24.

page 362 note 8 Sidney, and Webb, Beatrice, English Poor Law History, I(London, 1927), 4–5Google Scholar, “The diligent student can pick out all down the centuries, from the more statesmanlike Catholic writers, isolated sentences pointing to the duty of practical wisdom in almsgiving… But the overwhelming tendency of regarding alms as an act of piety, like fasting and prayer principally from the standpoint of the state of mind of the giver was in the direction of dismissing all considerations with regard to the character of the recipient.”.

page 362 note 9 D. 42 post c. 1.

page 362 note 10 D. 86 post c. 6.

page 363 note 11 D. 86 cc. 14–18.

page 363 note 12 D. 86 cc. 7–9.

page 363 note 13 C. 5 q. 5 c. 2 and C. 23 q. 4 c. 37, “Melius est cum severitate diligere quam lenitate decipere. Utilius esurienti panis tollitur, si de cibo securus iustitiam negligebat quam esurienti panis frangitur ut iniustitiae seductus acquiescat.”

page 363 note 14 Die Summa Decretorum des Magister Rufinus, ed. Singer, H. (Paderborn, 1902)Google Scholar, Summa ad D. 42 post c. 1, pp. 100–101. See infra, Appendix A.

page 363 note 15 Rufinus did not give any reference for this text, but later canonists often quoted it as being in scripturis or in evangelio. It does not in fact occur in the Scriptures, though it might have been suggested by Eccles XII. 2, “Benefac iusto et invenies retributionem magnam.”

page 363 note 16 Cant. Canticorum II. 4.

page 364 note 17 The Summa Parisiensis on the Decretum Gratiani, ed. McLaughlin, T. P. (Toronto, 1952Google Scholar), Summa ad D. 42 c. 2, p. 38. “Non debet esse delectus quin omnibus subveniatur quibus potest, et erit delectus et in dispersione et in distinctione honoris personarum.”

page 365 note 18 Die Summa der Stephanus Tornacensis iiber das Decretum Gratiani, ed.Schulte, J. F. V. (Giessen, 1891Google Scholar), Summa ad D. 42 c. 2, p. 62.

page 365 note 19 MS Paris BN 14997, fol. 15 v. The passage continued, “In elemosina autem delectus est habendus personarum ut potius suis quam alienis, infirmis quam sanis, mendicare erubescenti quam effronti, egenti quam habenti et inter egentes prius iusto quam iniusto des. Hec est caritas ordinata, unde Dominus, ‘Desudet’, inquit ‘elemosina in manu tua…’ Item Augustinus, ‘Donare histrionibus vitium immane est non virtus…’ E contra Iohannes Chrisostomus, ‘Si quis sacerdotem se nominat, scrutare. Si pro nutrimento postulat non examines.’ Verum hec sibi non contradicunt, ut si postulantium vita nescitur et omnibus sufficimus omni petenti tribuatur. Cesset examinatio unde non agnoscitur petentis persona. Si vita cognoscitur delectus habeatur.”

page 366 note 20 Summa ad D. 42, MS Munich, Staatsbibliothek 16084, fol. 6 r b, “Hospitalitas in duobus consistit, in hospitis receptione et elemosine largitione. Circa elemosinam ista considerari solent, qualitas petentis, facultas tribuentis, res petita et modus petitionis. In prima discretio est habenda. Primo subveniendum est parentibus, deinde filiis, deinde familie, deinde aliis notis, deinde omnibus, set prius christianis, deinde infidelibus, quia dicit apostolus, “Operantes bonum ad omnes, maxime tamen ad domesticos fidei” (Gal. VI. 10). Facultas eius qui dare debet, a n dives sit an pauper. Res petita consideranda est, an pretiosa sit an minus bona, an delitiosa sint fercula an rusticana, quia vero peccare dicitur qui delitiosa et voluptuosiora fercula pauperibus prestat. Modus petitionis; refert enim an solius Dei intuitu requirat an vi vel more mimico velit extorquere. Pro Deo petenti non denegatur, secundo denegari debet, quia quod ioculatoribus datur demonibus immolatur.”

page 366 note 21 Summa ad D. 25 post c. 3 MS Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek Can. 38, p. 7, “Huius prohibitionis ratio potuit esse huiusmodi. Ex eo enim pretio quo quis emit lautos cibos qui sufficiant tribus pauperibus poterant emi tot de communibus qui sufficiant forte x, et melius est pluribus dare modicum quam uni totum… Vel ideo quia sicut infirmatur dives si utatur vilibus ut infra d. xli Non cogantur (c. 3) sic infirmantur pauperes si utantur preciosis. Sicut de quodam Galienus narrat qui de arato ad regnum est vocatus et dum uteretur preciosis cepit deficere nisi ad consueta nature transmitteretur.” Huguccio added a third reason why delicacies were not to be given to the poor, “Scilicet quia inde pauperes provocantur ad et excitatur irritamentum gule.” (Summa ad D. 25 post c. 3, MS Admont, Stiftsbibliothek 7, fol. 36 vb.)

page 366 note 22 Summa ad D. 42 post c. 1, MS Paris BN 15994, fol. 13 ra, “In hospitalitate autem non esthabendus delectus personarum: d. lxxxvi Non satis (c. 14) contra. Et in evangelio, ‘Desudet elemosina in manu tua’ etc. contra. In canticum canticorum, ibi ‘Ordinavit in me caritatem’ glossa ‘Primo Deus diligendus est, secundo parentes, inde filii, postea propinqui, qui si boni sunt malis filiis sunt preferendi’. In evangelio mathei, ibi, ‘Omni petenti te tribue’, glossa ‘Si non das r em d a vel benedictionem vel correctionem’ contra. Solvo. Consideranda est persona petentis ut non detur nisi honestis et illis potius qui ministrant spiritualia secundum verbum evangelii, d. lxxxvi Donare (c. 7), v q. v Non omnis (c. 2), in quo casu locuta prima duo contra. Facultas dantis, etiam ubi persona petentis est honesta ut d. lxxxvi Non satis (c. 14) ibi Est et alia, quo casu intelliguntur iii contra. Causa petendi ut in sequenti capitulo, Quiescamus (c. 2), d. lxxxvi Qui venatoribus (c. 8)… Quantitas petiti ut di. lxxxvi Non satis ibi misericordia tamen, quibus casibus iiii contra. Excepta ubique ultima necessitate ut d. lxxxvi Non satis ibi Pasce (c. 21). Vel aliud est in helemosina ut in predictis contra, aliud in hospitalitate ut hic.

page 367 note 23 Infra, Appendix B.

page 367 note 24 Infra, Appendix C.

page 368 note 25 Summa ad D. 86 C. 14, MS Rouen, Bibliothéque muncipale 743, fol. 40 r, “Set quero utri citius subveniendum esset, vel patri qui iniustus est vel alii qui iustus est. Item si iudeus ad fidem conversus videret patrem suum adhuc iudeum et obstinatum indigentem utrum citius deberet dare et illi subvenire quam christiano et iusto. Item ubi concurrunt duo istorum, puto conditio, etas. Quid in hoc casu faciendum est? Utrum citius deberet dare nobili indigenti vel seni. Sic potest queri in aliis duobus concurrentibus. Item si teneantur duo ab hostibus, alter iustissimus, alter iniustissimus et nisi statim redimantur, interficiantur, uter est redimendus? Et videtur quod iniustissimus quia si redimatur adhuc poterit corrigi. Si autem interficiatur statim transit ad gehennam. Iustus autem statim ad gloriam. Unde non videtur quod ita necessarium sit eum redimere sicut et alium. Hoc autem non est precise verum.

page 369 note 26 Summa Parisiensis ad D. 86 post c. 6, ed. cit. p. 67, “In subveniendo, si omnibus potest, non debet esse delectus. Sed in modo subveniendi, quod hie dicit quibusdam sicut mimis et joculatoribus, prohibemur dare eo respectu quia sunt joculatores, cum alias non essemus daturi.” Summa Elegantius ad D. 86, MS Paris BN 14997, fol. 41 r, “Histrioni quia membrorum et vultus transformatione corporis sui ludibrium exhibet dare vitandum est, sed si arta necessitate laboret et huic et venatori subvenire officii est. (Ubi ergo legitur talibus dandum non esse, subintelligendum est ob causam professionis sue.)” The words Ubi ergo … professionis sue, lacking in the Paris MS, are supplied from MS Bamberg Can. 39; they also occur in MS Vienna, Staatsbibl. 2125. Sicardus, Summa ad D. 42, MS Bamberg Can. 38, p. 125, “Histrionibus aut meretricibus, venatoribus non est dandum quia qui donat istis non donat homini set arti nequissime … nisi in necessitate; tune enim das homini non arti.” (cf. infra Appendix B).

page 369 note 27 Infra, Appendix D.

page 370 note 28 Summa ad C. 5 q. 5 c. 2, MS Admont, Stiftsbibliothek 7, fol. 191 vb.

page 370 note 29 Summa ad D. 86 c. 7, MS Admont 7, fol. 110 va, “Dare ystrionibus … Istis dare causa inanis glorie pro exercitio sui vitii peccatum est. Set in necessitate dare eis intuitu pietatis peccatum non est … nam vitium in talibus non est fovendum, set natura substentenda est.”

page 371 note 30 On this, besides the passage quoted in Appendix D, see Summa ad D. 86 c. 14, MS Admont 7, fol. I l l r b, “Primo enim debemus subvenire domesticis fidei et postea alienis a fide, et intelliguntur ea que hie dicuntur cum equaliter indigent domestici et alii vel plus domestici, set si alii plus indigeant, puta ad mortem, primo eis subveniendum est, ut infra eadem, Pasce (c. 21). Item quod hie dicitur intelligitur cum extraneus a fide (non est nobis pater vel filius vel consanguineus. Tune enim extraneus a fide) preponi debet alii, scilicet domestico fidei.” (Words non est… a fide supplied from MS Vatican lat. 2280.)

page 371 note 31 C. 1 q. 2 c. 5.

page 372 note 1 The words non est dandum, lacking in the Bamberg ms., are supplied from MS Paris BN 4288.

page 373 note 1 The words Si vero … c. prox., lacking in the Admont MS, are supplied from MS Biblioteca Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 2280.