In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

[5] Vengeance and Law in Eleventh-Century Worms Burchard and the Canon Law of Feuds Greta Austin n At the beginning of the eleventh century, Burchard, bishop of Worms, composed the Decretum, a massive compilation of canonical materials in twenty books.1 From the outset, Burchard sought to identify basic concepts that were constants in the canonical tradition. He believed that the existing books of canon law were chaotic and inconsistent .2 To make the canons agree with one another, he checked them against overarching scriptural principles that he found in the Bible and the canonical tradition.3 Yet how did Burchard go about identifying these principles and applying them in the Decretum? We can see better how he derived these principles by looking at his changes to a canon concerning feuds.4 Earlier books of laws and penances had required only a few 66 1. For general information on the author and his work, R. Kaiser and M. Kerner, ‘Burchard I, Bischof von Worms’, LMA 2 (1983) 946–51; T. Kölzer, ‘Burchard I., Bischof von Worms (1000–1025)’, in: Decretorum Libri XX (ed. Cologne 1548; repr. Aalen 1992) 7–23. The thousandth anniversary of Burchard’s ascension to the see of Worms prompted the publication of two volumes of essays on his life and accomplishments: Bischof Burchard von Worms 1000–1025, ed. W. Hartmann (Quellen und Abhandlungen zur Mittelrheinischen Kirchengeschichte 100; Mainz 2000); and Burchard I. in seiner Zeit, ed. T. Müller, M. Pinkert, and A. Seeboth (Beiträge aus den Archiven im Landkreis Eichsfeld 1; Heiligenstadt 2001). 2. See Burchard’s comments in his preface to the Decretum, ed. G. Fransen and T. Kölzer (Cologne 1548, repr. Aalen 1992) 45, trans. Robert Somerville and Bruce Brasington, Prefaces to Canon Law Collections in Latin Christianity: Selected Translations, 500–1245 (New Haven, CT 1998) 99. 3. G. Austin, ‘Jurisprudence in the Service of Pastoral Care: The Decretum of Burchard of Worms’, Speculum 79 (2004) 943–48. 4. In what follows, I will use ‘vendetta’, ‘retribution’, and ‘feud’ interchangeably. For a more differentiated treatment of the terms, applicable particularly during the later Middle Ages, see O. Brunner, Land and Lordship: Structures of Governance in Medieval Austria, trans. from German (ed. Graz 19584 ) by H. Kaminsky and J. Van Horn Melton (Philadelphia 1992) 16. years’ penance for killing someone in a feud. The canons had assumed that private vengeance was an extenuating circumstance that made the action, in essence, more understandable . Burchard, however, took no such moderate view of the offense. For murders committed to avenge a relative, he increased the penance to seven years—the standard penance for all intentional homicides. He also identified a scriptural reason for refusing toallowprivatevengeance.Burchard’salterationstothecanonlawhadalong-termeffect because they, instead of the earlier versions, were absorbed into the canonical tradition. In the case of feuds, Burchard’s interest in changing the canon law was not purely abstract and based on principle. As bishop, Burchard struggled with the problem of feuds. The first part of this paper will provide social context—the feud that got out of control between the familia (or dependents) of Worms and that of Lorsch. The second part of the paper will describe how Burchard discussed and responded to the problem of feuding within his own familia in his Lex familiae, the ruler’s law governing his familia. Finally, within this context, we will examine his alterations to a canon in the Decretum on feuding. The Social Context: Feuds in Worms In a small, ‘face-to-face’ community like Worms, the feud was probably an accepted part of the fabric of life. But one feud between the familia of Worms and that of Lorsch spiraled out of control. The two groups had engaged in ‘long-standing and regular conflicts’, inveteratas et frequentes contentiones, on account of their ‘unfading hatred’, inmarcidas inimicitias. Both had carried out ‘countless’ murders, according to Henry II’s charter of December 1023.5 The situation had escalated to the point where the king intervened. Henry II mandated severe punishments—including branding—for those who killed, carried out ambushes, or entered someone’s house and beat him up. Although the charter does not explicitly use the word vindicta or even faida, it describes a cycle of revenge and violence—in short, a feud. That a feud had spiraled out of control does not mean necessarily that the custom of the feud itself was flawed. The threat of a feud could deter violence. Faced with the prospect...

Share