On the face of it, medieval liturgical com- mentary is a particularly unappealing genre On communion for the modern reader. The function of such with the dead zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCB commentary in the Middle Ages was to articulate which rules for ritual had by the practice Megan behavior, previously been of particular behavior governed only liturgical com- munities. Once these rules had been estabMcLaughlin zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA lished, the)- were plained in some way. But what the authors then interpreted of these works sought to articulate a few general less principles, specific mass, rules liturgists articulated ritual behavior, thy Leays rigidly’ bound by tradition. quentb “ discovered” and interalere not al- Indeed, nele regulations they jre- and reinter- preted old ones in response to a varie[p of needs. count- aspect of the ous collection companied whole rites of passage The of barely intelligible by cryptic expressed through result is usually a tedi- dicta, ac- interpretations, in a less than the felicitous Latin. The commentaries This is evident in the way the commentators of the great sources of information and value are, tzjelfth and thirteenth centuries dealt with the dead. The liturgists of this period all agreed that the but rather for every and the Christian W hen medieval were not the offtce, the feasts of the calendar, life and death. preted rules for or ex- to modern as guides nevertheless, scholars, both on liturgical to the mental for the litling and that this was because “ ‘ we (the liuing] do not communicate with the dead. ” This represents a de@arture both from practice and from mentaT, which communion actual liturgical the tradition of liturgical had between emphasized com- the continuing world liturgy, neither tations were hledieval ering” of the bound by were constantly regulations and and even emotional. theological tradition by positing a change in the educated response to the dead. It appears and pastoral, to examine explore ways tradition. “ discovof criteria: but also aesthetic, In this essay I propose one of these the the reinterpreting to account for this departure one with the rules nor their interprerigidly liturgists new dealing old ones on the basis of a variety It may be possible elite’ s emotional in works the living and the departed faithful. from expect as practice nliddle Ages. For contrary to what bodies of the dead were not to be zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA present at masses might of new rules and to in which it was inter- that the scholars of the twelfth and thirteenth cen- preted. tury - unlike their predecessors - were experiencing proposed the dead as an alien it which were, though cloaked in traditional language, in spirit. And category. Liturgists and potentialb dangerous who shared this response may I shall argue that the liturgists this rule offered far from traditional have tried to limit ritual contact betre,een the dead I shall speculate and the livling by compartmentalizing the twelfth xJournal of hIrdie\al 0X04-4181/91/$03.jO History 17 (1991 0 1991 -Else\-ier the liturgy. explanations on what its appearance century may tell us about who for in the i 23-34 Science Publishers h.v. (Korth-Holland) 23 evolution “ The of medieval bodies present major twelfth and centuries. of those peculiar the dead, features Glorin Petri omission commentaries thirteenth with certain and of features kiss of but the liturgists bctlveen sharp living] is, Honorius the ivhich fo1 of the categories pcacc. Thcsc in the t\velftli masses masses then explained That fLneral> as a rite should not be impinged ceremonies suggests of mourning, upon by more jo).ful and that this can be prevented 1,). keeping funeral the corpse, around \vhich the turns, a\va)- from public Honorius a for the ‘*for the li\.- this distinction on the special ser\-ices. the mass. Honorius in term5 of’ a _4lle/uia the)- are do not communicate Thus, w-ith the dead,” the exclusion of the character and includes the peculiarities categories “ \Ve [the for the esclu- masses for the li\.ing of the dead them- sel\.es. The fjrst part of this \vork deals \\itll of rituals ol bases his argument sion of cada\rers fhm betxz-een the li\+ng and the dead. they all agreed. deal to coristruct bet\vcen distinction people, the dead. used them in ne\\ commentaries distinction The)- than that rather zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA dlleluin chants, and the In the Gemmn ccttimne, on the other hand. dead and other masses, ing.” in all of the of masses Lvere not new \vays in their but it is - if one can on the funeral, It occurs works of such a short passage, ivortli noting that this argument call it that - focusses such as the absence the peculiarities sharp not be in one form or another liturgical in the sections century, be made should at a mass for the li\ring.” This asser- tion appears the sensibilities. of the dead a brief of the mass explains are not chants passage Pntri and that the Gloria in this mass sung on for the dead. of jo)-, kvhereas because the mass itself represents mourning. an abrupt jump from the topic of mourninLg to that of the dead: “ truly. He tllen makes the bodies of the bodies of the dead from masses for the li\Ang dead should not he present at a mass for the was justified living, fcx- the). do not respond 1~).a denial of communion bc- t\veen the t\vo groups. Thcsr of ideas Honorius first the!. do not commm~icate appear Augustodunensis, the Gemmn have been tentati\.ely dated c‘ratnet~tnrium decades and in which the which clnimnc, Chapter is a sort ofcatcli-all Honorius Sa- to the first txvo of the t\vclfth centur)..’ of the Snunnzetzfntkm sage, in t\\‘o Cvorks discusses 95 pas- \rarious But this signifies that those ~.ho arc ‘dead in sin‘ and do not receil-c Christ cannot 1.12 1 in AlPI, Honorius the sacraments of he present at the commmiion of the living \vith Christ” attimnr, w4th U, and kvith the li\.ing. compares (Honorius, 172:583). the Gemmn Here, physically then, dead \\,ith the morall\- dead, those “ dead in sin.” He justifies the esclusion of the dead 1)). the of prayer for the dead, in zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHG no particuexample of’ unrepentant sinners excluded lar order. After mentioning the Allemet~to, the from the sacraments. The Gemmn ntzintcle I\TIS prayer for the dead in the canon of the mass, aspects he suddenly present not at public fitting LS?unmetztnrium, then during 95 “ bodies services explanation. should hccause mourning” in hIPI, goes on to the nest further 24 adds: There not be music is (Honorius, li2:798). subject, is not He \vitli no much to the first work in \\rhich the rule against presence \vas of corpses linked at masses to a denial the fbr the liling of commu- nion w+th the dead. The nest liturgist was SJohn Beleth, to mention \vho wrote these ideas his Summa de decades of the twelfth century (Douteil 1976a:30). Chapter 161 of the Summa, Beleth works In his ecclesiasticis of$ciis in the middle way methodically through the various special features of the mass and office of the dead. He mentions the absence of joyful chants in these mournful services, but devotes special attention to the omission of the kiss of peace. There is a threefold reason why the pa.1 is not given in the mass for the dead. The first is that this service. as we have said. signifies the three-day burial of Christ [i.e., the liturgy of the three days before Easter]. in which the pas is not given because of the kiss of Judas. The second is that we do not communicate with the dead, for they do not respond to us. This is why a corpse should never be in church while the mass of the day is celebrated, and if it is there, it should first be carried out into the vestibule of the church and afterwards be brought hack in for the mass of the dead - even if he is an emperor. The third reason is that, just as one loaf is made out of man) grains gathered together, and wine is pressed out of many grapes, so one church is constituted and assembled out of many faithful, some good and some bad. .Ind since, therefore, it is not known of any dead man whether he is in conformity with the church and at peace with his creator, we do not give the pas at [this] mass (Douteil 1976b:315-16). Honorius’ influence is evident in this, as in many other passages in the Summa. Ft:e find the same juxtaposition of ideas about communion and exclusion, expressed in much the same terms as in the Gemma animae. There are some significant differences in the ways Honorius and Beleth treat those ideas, however. In the first place, Beleth links them not to the absence of the Gloria Path and Alleluia, but rather to the omission of the kiss of peace, one of the primary gestures of ecclesiastical communion. This context further emphasizes the lack of communion between the living and the dead. At the same time, Beleth offers a very different argument to explain the exclusion of the dead from norius, spond” masses for the living. Like Ho- he states that the dead do not “reto the living, but he does not repro- duce his predecessor’s comparison dead as a group with excommunicate ners. Rather, in his third argument omission of the pax, he expresses about the status of dead individuals. of the sinfor the doubts These doubts justify his refusal to treat any of the dead as though they were in communion with the living. In this section of the Summa there is no trace of the argument that the “music” Sacramentarium services is not fitting during from the of public mourning. John Beleth, then, presents the rule and its explanation in somewhat stronger terms than had Honorius, but changes the grounds for his assertions. Sicard of Cremona, writing around 1200 (Boyle 1967:190), d evotes a long section of his .Ilitrale to rituals for the dead and their peculiarities. He follows Beleth in offering three reasons for the omission of the kiss of peace from masses for the dead. Indeed, they are essentially the same three reasons, although Sicard presents them much more briefly, and in a different order. One important change, however, occurs in reason - which corresponds with second his first Beleth’s one: The pax is not given at this mass, for we do not communicate with the dead. ITe are in the sixth age. but they are in the seventh. And so, when the mass of the day is celebrated, a corpse should not be within the walls of the church. But if a body is there, even if he is a pope or an emperor, let it be carried out into the vestibule of the church, then brought back in for the mass of the dead after the mass of the day has been sung (Sicard, 1bfitrale 9.50 in MPL 213:426). Sicard, then, omits the argument, found in both Honorius and Beleth, that the dead to the living, as well as “do not respond” 25 Honorius’ comparison between the dead and unrepentant sinners. and the idea that “music is not fitting during mourning.” On the other hand, he offers a ne\v explanation for the lack of communication bct~vccn the li\ing and the dead: the idea that the dead exist in a different age. The last text to be considered comes from that tionnle extremelv diz~inolurn influential ? J!j/icio,nnr I\-ork, of In the first place. no liturgist before Honorius cvcr arguccl that the dead should be cxcludcd from masses fbr the living. Neither did church councils legislate against the the Ra- zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLK presence of‘ a corpse at such masses, al\\‘illiam Duranti the Elder, composed bet\veen 1285 and 1291 (Kuttner 1967: 1 1 17). Duranti’s discussion of masses for the dead (Book 1’11: Chapter 35) fc)llol\.s Belch’s vc’r). closely. The only. important diffcrcncc is that hc inserts Sicard’s otxer\.ation about the sixth and scvcnth ages into the scconcl reason for Ilie omission of the kiss of peace, so that tions are presented as though they will be readil). recognized and accepted h>. all kvllo read them. ;\ comparison of these tests kvith other sources, llo\ve\.er, quick&. reveals their novelty. it reads: though the). did issue canons against giving the cucharist or the kiss of‘ peace to zyxwvutsrqpo clcacl hdies. Honorius and hi5 5ucccssors bvcrc, tlicn. proposing a ntw rule fbr the trcatmcnt of the dead. \\-hat is more, their rule did not perf‘ectl) reflect conteniporar~litui-gical practice. as clescril,ed in the customaries and liturgical hooks. Thloughout the Aliddlc Xgca mo5t peoplr \\.ere 1,uried as quickl!- as \\xs consoncnt \\-ith tlic 1xrfi)rniancc of a proper funeral, since it was olx.iousl\. undesirable to keep a body abo\.c ground for \.cr). long. Because of the rapiclit). with \\.liicli burial usually- took place, the twclics of the clcad \vt’re not, in fact. often present at masses fbr the li\,ing. ‘I’o this extent, the rule proposed The central four mo5t prominent AIiddle Ages. then, liturgists of llie all agreed that the bodies of the dead should not be present at masses for the li\in,g. Tllc!. also qqccd that this kvas because the dead and the li\.ing do not communicate. Bc).ond this point, licn\,ever, there \,vas consiclerahle \.ariation in their argument5 ~ a significant fact, to which I shall return later in this essa) . The tone of the passages in \\.llicll thcsc ideas appear is not particularl:clefensil-e. There are no yualif!,ing terms Lvliicli mi,glit suggest that an) thing ne\v or out of the orclinar) was being proposed. Indeed. the t\vo asser- 26 1,). the four liturgist5 dots correspond to the realities of liturgical practice. On tlir otliei hand, there are no signs in the sur\i\-ing liturgical hooks of‘an>- actual a\.ersion to the presence ofthe dead The first detailed at masses for the li\,ing. descriptions of hnrral ser\.ices, and the \\x\.s in which the\- kvc’rc intcgratcd into the regular CUUIIJofliturgical pra).er come fhni tlie monastic customaries of the clc~~cntll centur)-. i These describe llo~~~ the bodies of‘clcad monks were kvashcd and \.ested, then brought into church tbr the funeral mass. lx4brc being buried. Some of these customaries specifj. that the hod>- \\YIS to be interred usually as soon as the funeral performed complete 1984:362). (Hallinger however, church in the morning mass - made for their removal - cept under one exceptional was Others, call for the body to be left in the until later in the day, even though other masses were For example, performed in the late eleventh Archbishop monks being Lanfranc decreed of Canterbury should the prepare the then bring it into the choir of the church. the usual morning but the burial century that body of a dead brother for burial, the dead was to be performed there. A mass for at the time of mass, just after was to take place prime, after the during this mass ex- the feast of Saint-Victor, present condition: “ On if a dead person is at the hour of the principal let him be removed count of the procession and placed mass, from the choir on ac@roper processionem] in the crypt until after the mass . . . .” (Jocquk and Milis 1984:27 1). It should be noted that the body was to be removed on account passed of the elaborate through its patron; the implication not occur under ordinary Liturgical procession the church that on the feast of is that this would circumstances. communities do not seem nlissa zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA maior, the mass of the da)-, which was ha\re been troubled by the occasional celebrated suggest at that terce. Lanfranc the body in the later not was to be removed during this later mass (Knowles Even does nliddle 1967:103). Ages, were often simply left in church during masses for the living. scribed Paris, Such composed is de- in the twelfth centur)-, copied and recopied daughter after. a practice in the Liber ordinis of Saint-Victor houses for several It is worth torines noting actually commentary funeral centuries the Beleth, into account.’ own traditions carried pronouncements man)- but there- here that the Vic- possessed of John of and its liturgical and )‘et their ordo did not take his concerns the corpse Like for Saint-Victor about Presumably their more weight than his on this matter. other ordinis proposed customaries, different the Liber times of burial de- pending on Lvhat time of day the death had occurred. The workings of this s)-stem could be a little bodies complicated, of those who ins and mid-afternoon present in church was celebrated. but in practice died between would sometimes the matbe when the mass of the da) However, no provision ence of a corpse in church during masses for the living. leth, bodies was to pres- In a sense, Sicard problem and where were none existed than formulating practice. then, Honorius, Duranti before, a rule based rule. This is in itself rather curious, these For liturgists justified earl), medieval counter writers but is the way in their most of the arguments ployed run directly a rather on accepted what is even more interesting lvhich Be- creating they new de- to those used b) in discussing the re- lationship of living and dead in the liturgy.’ The exception one is the in the argument Ho- Sacramentarium, that norius offered “ music is not fitting during mourning.” Ar- guments of this kind had been used by the liturgists of the ninth through turies to explain for the dead. tators, phasizes Like Honorius, the special those in rather cen- of masses earlier this character as a time of mourning, cial character eleventh the peculiarities commen- passage, em- of the funeral than the spe- of the dead as a category of people. \\:hen we turn to Honorius’ other work, the Gemma animae, and to the works of John 27 Beleth, Sicard of Cremona Duranti, however, different, namely, and \l’illiam we find something a sharp very distinction hc- tlveen the living and the dead, expressed the phrase “ kt-e do not communicate the dead.” Such a strong alien to the early medie\A gical commentary, ed the bonds that linked by comparing twelf‘th- and was of litur- which had instead \t-ithin the IiturgJ-. This trated distinction tradition in with stress- li\.ing and dead point may be illus- the arguments thirteenth-century of the liturgists \t-it11those of their predecessors. III the Gemmu nnimw, the dead to sinners, raments physical Honorius excluded of the church. death played spiritual from the patristic medieval association \\.itll the moral had, of course, theological, compared from the sac- The death of of sin were careful therefbre on the departed of the church, \2.ho had a right to commemoration its liturgy, dominated early medieval in litur- gical commentar\-. John Beleth okered as his third reason fool the omission of the kiss of peace for the dead - c\clusion and, in masses by extension, of the dead from for the masses for the li\.ing; - the idea that one could not be sure \vhether an)- particular role in \vith God. to distin- emphasis as members kvritings period on. Ho\ve\,er, earl) liturgists This Augustinian faithful conformit). an important and liturgical met without baptism. nor to tlasten to reconciliation, if it shoutct haptxn that one is setmra~ect from this boct~ bv ctrt~ra~~ett or bad conscicncc. For I\ h> nrv rhcsc kings done. untes5 it is hccansc the faithful arc stilt mcmhcrs [of th? txxty]. c\rn \\hcn they arc cltd?” dead person w4tll the church This to the earl!, problem medieval and ~x5 also familiar liturgists, ciLed a \.ery different was in at peace but it eli- response from them. guish those “ dead in sin” from the departed In the fourth book of his Librr oJ$cialis, com- faithful, posed latter’s and they always continued church and emphasized mcmh+ip participation earl) ninth Augustine’s pra).er included centur), used in in Florus of L>.ons, for example, its in the canon - the litur,gy. XvritiIlg in the a passage L)r cir’itnfp Dei to explain for the dead the the .l~enwzto of the mass. from \vIly a - \vas between hlctz 823 responded and 835, to the question Amalar of \vhethcr the mass should he celebrated for all the dead. He cited a passage from Augustine’s De I‘UTC( pro mortuis, argued the dead, formed in Lvhicll the bishop that while masses the). should nevertheless these benefits ter indeed be passed could to those w:horn they neither come. Bet- be superfluous harm nor ben- that the) should be lacking to \vhonl the). benefit.“ ’ For Xmalar, then, as fbr Augustine, uncertainty about the status of the dead meant that all of the baptized should be pra),ed for. Once again, the early- medieval tendency Leas towx-d inclusion rather than exclusion. those 28 than “ so o\-er to whom and should that these should all be per- for all ~;ho have been baptized, that no one may efit, of Hippo do not benefit Sicard of Cremona, as we have seen, ar- gued that there was no communion living and dead because sixth between the living are in the age and the dead in the seventh. In authoritative For far from having this idea ran authoritative the same time. This scheme familiar history, corresponding creation, to the seven days of was well known to early medieval theologians and liturgists. They tended, however, to treat the living and the dead as part the of same historical continuum, within which the liturgy was constantly formed. Amalar, for example, per- in another tuo was sung instead of the usual il’fi- serere mei Deus. “ This is the sixth in the order he wrote, “ and yet it is assigned of psalms,” in place of the eighth, in the sixth because age of the world, God through liturgists. written support, counter which to were two certainly to all of the The first of these texts comes from letter of Pope Leo the Great, in 458 or 459. Narbonne Bishop Rusticus had sent Leo a number of of ques- tions on various matters of church discipline and law. In particular, he wondered about the status of those who died before completthat the ultimate up to God, but added “ we cannot communicommunicate communicnre non ,bossumus, does bear some re- and semblance ent indeed. tinuity He assumes For Amalar to the seventh and eighth. an identity office has just living (“ we” ) between been who will does not separate the it merely the church idea is expressed century collection the dead fered various someday their and its liturgy. arguments to justify the exclu- sion of the dead from masses for the living, been dis- is very differhere treatment for conof the liv- be excommunicate in communion. letter, but it was made papal letter, sometime Guimund in those who die in communion This last point remained cepted of- is arguing should remain A similar and Duranti in life should 1942:33-4). Sicard cate be from a tenth- we have ing and dead: those who were excommuniwhile of lessons for the office of Beleth, Leo with its mortuis its meaning in the church’s death, roles letter, to the texts However, and the living and modifies in a passage (Leclercq Honorius, the dead, celebrated, dead. Time dead; the sixth This 167 in should pray 54: 1205). (Leo, Ejktolne, MPL (Hanssens age leads directly in life” we, who are this psalm for the seventh 1948:427). status of these people was cate with the dead with whom we did not which are owed to the wicked in those ages” within texts a well-known cussing. the the strongest directly to some, and probably eighth age, that we may evade the torments whose this is oted that after of his zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Liber officialis ing their period of penance. Leo responded passage the office of the dead the psalm Domine ne in furore In fact, though, the most puzzling point in the whole matter. other words, the two groups do not exist in of seven ages of basis. implicit explicit this one written between 1088 and of Aversa a donation had from in Leo’s in another by Urban 1093. apparently and II Bishop prayed acfor a dead man who, while sinful, had never actually been excommunicated. sought approval Guimund for his action from the pope the and Urban gave it, noting that “ the blessed livingL and the dead do not communicate. Because of their unanimity, one might as- pope Leo, that illustrious sume whom but on one point they were all agreed: that this point had the strongest should not communicate doctor, said ‘we with the dead with we did not communicate in life.’ ” 29 LTlban concluded \ve sa)- conversely, that “it is clear, then, as that \t’c can communi- st~alp distinction irlg and masses bct\vcen masses for the Ii\.for the dead at all, \vllen it cate with the dead \vith xvhom \ve did comincvitahl>leads thein to reconstruct, 01 inunjcatc in lift” (Ur-ban, zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA l+islofrr~~, 73 in e\.en to disregard traditional interlxcta1\IPI, zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA 151357-8). tion51’ Earl) inclusi\.c medieval ivritcrs, then, had been No wr). satisractor)aiib\\w tioii is pwsibtc, gi\.cn the to this cfuwbrevity and ratlicr than esclusi\,e in tlicil lreatment of the zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA clcacl.Tllc). had mlobscurity of the tests in\ml\-ed. Hwvever. I phasized that those \\.lm died in communion do t1aL.e an ti~~potlicsis to propose. Alight remainecl in coniniuiiioii. and nwe, as a rc’not the emergence ora sharp distinction lxsult. entitled to he comn~cnloratccl in tllr tween the dead and ttlc living in the liturgiliturgy of‘ tlir church. ‘i’lie liturgists of tlic cal coninientaries of ttic t\tclf‘tli ancl tliirt\\.elf’tll and rhirteenth ccntuq nwc not m~renth centur!rcflcct a change in tllc cduaware or his tradition. The\. knerv tllc catcd Plite’s em/ionccl 1-esponsc to the dead? ;\ ugustinian texts cited I)\ Xnialar and ‘l‘tiis tvoulcl tic111 to cslhin how it \t’as that F~OIIIS. The) knr\\. Xmalal-‘s o11.11kvritings the titurgists all clcnicd communion \vith the on the liturg,. In f&t. se\-era1 of thcni cite dcacl, C’VCII though thr). did not agree on tllc passages on pra~.rr ti~i- rhc clcacl fioiil Xniagrounds fi)r that denial. For if the) ~ unlike Ial-‘:, Lihur 0Jf;ficiali.k in otlicr sections or their heir prcdccvssors in the cart>- Aliddle Xges commentaries. Sicard almost ccrtainl!., and bxv expwiciiciiig ttic zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcb dead as an alien the others very l~rol~ahl~- knexv the letters of‘ \vit bout kno\\-ing cractl>. u h>.. c‘ategor)., LA3, and zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA ~~rl,an I I. fOl_ those letters tqan tlicn ttlr.ir itrgunivnts fblloxved rahclthan to appwr early in in tile orius> Rcletli. hr major tlz-elftll Sicard canonical wntur! collcctiom .” And and lhranti the csclusion of‘ the dcacl tlic li\.ing and maintaiiicd for Honall arguecl !‘c’t, fi-on1 masses that “U.C do noI comn~unicate wirh the clcacl.” Ho\v arc LVC‘to accoun1 for this apparent disregard fi,l. alltllorit\-;~ Iii t1cfi.k noted that of‘ tlic. lituqists. it tlicv arc not prolnsing sliould 1)~ to cscoiii- nlunica1c the dead altogether when the\ L\ri tc mu l.olllllllllli~(l1111I.c m7rlui.r. Ka tlitlr, the\ arc sug,ycsting a strict co1~i~~a~t1iic1italiz~~lion of thy lituq), in which the dead \vilt c‘ontinuc to benefit fmni masses hl- the dcacl, CVCll tt1ougt1 ttwy Illa)’ not Ix plTsc11t at masses fbr the living. Tllmc lvritc‘rs do allow. thm. for ;I kind of‘ cotnmunion \\.ittl the dead. Rut ~11~ do the\- insist on such a SC) prcmdcd their conclusions. This \voulct also help 10 explain \\li\ ttic? clicl not l)rrsenI their 1.ielt.s as in an!. ~\-a!- modern or out of‘ ttlc ordinar>-, cwu though the)- struggled to support them lx transfbrming lraditional \-ivms on tlir relationship of‘ the li\iiig and tile dead. For if‘thcir position had its Ix~sis in intuition, ttirn the) woulct tia\,c pcl-cci\.ed it as natural. rahr7 rlien no\,cl. The fact that rrlaled changes \\we taking place around the s;mle time in a nu~n~m~ of‘ otl1ct- g~llln. Ii) pottiesis. pear to mitxbilicr .+p, the ghost in li\ing \\.tiicli occur the in horn C’WI‘) lrriod although it ha4 t t1at storic’s fiom IllCK ttiv stories support le11c1s Stories su~,gw”l ghost including tests, mcctical \\.ilh and to this dead aI)- collections of of the Alidcllt r.eccntl>. tmm a lY5ul’~~llcc mid-elc\~cntll ccntttr\ of‘ on (Farmer come 1985:231-2). somewhat But if ghosts more common, begin to take on a new character In early medieval saints, They as passive, appear enduring dead - are generally and dreams punishments in world or at most plaintively sistance.” after 1050. even pathetic in visions their to ap- on we also century type, one which in elite literature This was hlonastic story collections and twelfth begin the a corpse (Thorndike sociated the magical for the dead to make could, of ghost. the late often include tales in which an uncharitable monastic of- applied them then, living die.” have brings us back, masses enemies, Rituals an in for the evil to the wrong category This as- described of celebrating for one’s dead late to rituals At the end of the Peter the Chanter practice Fi- that mysterious attributed with the dead. twelfth century used in 1923a:780). there are indications order angry century lost its virtue if it came into contact with kind of stone, re- that a certain to since eleventh of Rennes magic, had not been at least, antiquity. eleventh but from the In the late Marbod ported powers were being next for as- mid-eleventh as well. for example, mutel) begging find another effects century, nally, Such feeble ghosts continue stories, other figures. the pear in later medieval seen, also texts the dead - not the but the ordinary depicted be- they effect if of people. however, to the re- lationship of the dead and the living in the liturgical commentaries. that liturgists, like I have the suggested authors of ghost ficial refuses to give the customary arms for stories a dead appears ning to react to the dead in new ways in the brother. The ghost finally and beats the official severely - an unheardof activity is worth for an early noting medieval only angry, but also endowed harm Ghosts But It with power to the living. were, with emotion rative gllost.‘0 that the ghost is now not twelfth then, becoming “ charged” and with power in some nar- power was not Middle limited Ages. to the spirits of the dead. The corpse also acquired and his successors commentaries Other attitudes Honorius of the dead of the early Middle struggled in their they the relationship and the departed the animate body of Christ members and the inanimate scholars towards thirteenth have noted the dead centuries. purgator) ” in the twelfth century thirteenth a change. He suggests bodies were being prescribed for various ailments. men became ache Thus, by physicians the teeth of dead the sov:ereign cure for tooth- in the works of doctors Hispanus, (Thorndike the future 1923b:496). human Pope Dead such as Peter John bodies XXI had ing of purgatory in in the twelfth the power to cure the sick, but by the early bits of ordinary corpse. Most Jacques century faithof the a change hsliddle Ages only the relics of the saints had Le Goff begin- to have felt more to redefine the living ful, between and In the earl) seem in the presence As a result, between were centuries. than had the liturgists a new kind of force in this period, especially texts. treatises, and thirteenth in medical and scientific medical uncomfortable Ages. texts from the central such and has linked notabl>-, the “ birth of with such that the understand- as a concrete geographical space arose in the context of a neM- devot iI$11 to earthly with values, a renewed argues growing which went hand in hand fear of death. that the twelfth century concern for the dead, He further witnessed a reflected in 31 the increase (Le Goff in suflyages 1984:230-3; 1985234-7). I agree that performed for them ritual contact betkveen the living and the see zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFED also Farmer dead. to cornpal-tmcntatize the offices of the concern for the dead and at- church, due. e\.en \vhite giving the dead thei] tention to their and thirteenth needs grc\v in the tlvelftll centuries (l\IcI~augtilin 1985:413-65). Unlike Ix Goff, ho\vever, I zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLK Notes do not see this as the sipn of a “IICM . sotidar- educated elite’s ansious response to tticir increased sense of alienation from the dead. The muttiptica~ion of services performed specificall)for the &/xv/Ccl faittifht reprcsents an attempt to rcconcitc the long-established tradition of liturgical commemoration \\4tti the grooving boundaries betlveen dead. ” It is diffcult desire to reinforce the ti\,ing and to accowlt for this ne\\ the the de- sire, although it ma). be related to othcl changes \vhich ha1.e been obser\,ed in this period in the relationship of the self (presumably at\va!,s Alembers ing more thirteenth of the educated ilitc lucre becomself-conscious in the t\velfih and centuries, defining themselves in part by defining li\-ing) groups to the to \vtlich “other.” the). did catworics which had ~XYY~seen as contiguous in the early lliddle Ages became polarized; differences were exaggerated and the “other” often came to be esperienced a5 alien, potentially dangerous, in need of’ strict control.” As \ve t1aL.e seen, the dci) 32 r3 SW. fi,r c\allq~lc. I\.0 of’ C:lwtrl5, I’c/mm,in, i. I 18 and 3.123 in SIPI, 161: 1239-W I~rurhi Grtr/ice/i C:. 2.1. q. 2. c. I <i~ltl3 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYX tFrittll,erg 1878:084&5). ‘1 E.q.. Aloriccn lW-t:300, 315-l 7. Hincnrnr. /h z~itiunr Urmoidi /~wthvfrri in LIPI, 12.5:I I 1.5%20. /o E.g.. Othloll~c~i‘St. Emmcl-xm, Libr,- i’l~I0Nw?I. 16 in 1iPL 146:3T l-2: Ih rrhts ,grtlir in .IlQori-mom,\lr>tio. IO j Rlabillon .tnd tl’.\cllcr\1738:~4001. .\ tliKrr- as identity formation in medieval and renaissance However, I can find no reference to such a magical Europe. Binghamton, NY. use of masses for the dead hetlveen the eighth and the Flint, V.I. 1972. The chronology of the works of end of the tIvelfth century. I? H onorius Augustodunensis. Revue bCnCdictine The growing sense of alienation from the dead 82:215-42. also ga~c rise to concern about or e\ren hostility toFlorus of Lyons. De expositionc missae. MPL 119: 1.5wards the devotion of economic resources to the 72. needs of the dead (Peter the Venerable. l>is;l,osilio wi zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Friedberg, E. (ed.) 1879. Corpus iuris canonici, 1. Jnmi/iaris Clunincuuic in %IPL 189: 1050-l; and see Second edition. Leipzig. \Vhite 1988:77). Ii Gear?. P. 1986. Echanges et relations entre lcs vivants This trend is cviclcnt in a number of arcas: foI et les morts dans la societe du haut moyen ;gc. Lvhen male scholars wrote about \vomcn esamplc. Droit et cultures 12:3-17. (Stuard 1987:164-6: but set Bynum 1986:261-2), Gregory of Tours. \‘itae patrum. MPL il: 1009-96. and xvhen Christian scholars. struggling to come to Hallinyr. K. (cd.) 1984. Consuetudinum saeculi terms Ivith Jewish Biblical scholarship. wrote about X/XI/XII monumenta non-Cluniacensia. Corpus Jews (Cohen 1986:606, 6 12-l 3). zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA consuetudinum monasticarum, 7.3. Siegburg. Hanssens. J. hl. (ed.) 1948. hmalarii episcopi opera liturgica omnia. 2. Studi e Testi, 139. Vatican zyxwvutsrqp C it) Hincmar. De \isionc Bernoldi presbyteri. ;2IPL l25:1115-20. Honorius :\ugustoduncnsis. Gcmma animac. LZPL Boyle. L. 1967, Sicardus of Cremona. New catholic 172:.541-738. encyclopedia 13: 190-9 1. Honorius .~ugustoduncnsis. Sacramentarium. LIPL Brown, P. 1981. The cult of the saints: its rise and 172:737-806. function in latin Christianity. Chicago. IVO of Chartres. Panormia. LfPL 161:1041-1344. Bynum. C. 1982. Did the twelfth century discover the JucquP, L. and L. hiilis teds.) 1984. Libcr ordinis individual? In: Jesus as mother: studies in the Sancti \‘ictoris Parisiensis. Corpus christianorum. spirituality of the high Middle Ages. Bcrkcley. continuatio mediaevalis. 61. Turnhout. Bynum. C. 1986. “,., And woman his humanity”: KnoTvIes, D. (ed.) 1967. Decreta Lanfranci monachis female inlager). in the religious writing of the later COIICantuariensibus transmissa. Corpus XIiddlc ;\ges. In: C. Bynum, S. Harrell and P. suetudinum monasticarum, 3. Siegburg. Richman (eds.). Gender and religion: on the comKuttner, S. 1967. Duranti, \Villiam, the Elder, -UC\\ plexity of symbols. Boston. catholic encyclopedia 4: 1 I 17. Chibnnll. M. ted.) 1973. Orderici \‘italis historia Leclercq. J. 1942. Un ancien recueil de lec;ons zyxwvutsrq pout aecclesiastica, 4. Oxford. les vigilrs cles defonts. Revue b@nCdictinc 54: Cohen. J, 1986. Scholarship and intolerance in the 16-40. medieval academy: the study and evaluation of Le Gaff. J. 1984. The birth of purgatory. Trans. .A. Judaism in European Christendom. American hisGoldhammer. Chicago. torical review 91:592-613. Leo I. Epistolae. MPL j4:593-1218. de Clcrcq. C. (ed.) 1963. Concilia Galliac. a. 51 l-a. hlabillon, J. and L. cl‘:\chery (eds.) 1738. hcta 693. Corpus christianorum, series latina. 148a. sanctorum ordinis sancti Benedicti. 9 (sacculi 6:2), Turnhout. \‘enice. Dombart, B. and A. Kalb (eds.) 1955. .iurclii Aupshlansi, G. D. [ed.) 1766. Sacrorum conciliorum n0x.a tini opera. pars MI\*. 2. Corpus christianorum. et amplissima collectio. 12. Florence. series latina. 48. Turnhout. McLaughlin. hl. 1985. Consorting with saints: prayer Douteil, H. (ed.) l976a and b. Johannis Beleth for the dead in early mcdic\~al French society. summa de ecclesiasticis officiis. 2 \.ols. Corpus (Ph.D. diss., Stanford Universit)-). christinnorum. continuatio mcdiaclalis. 41. Turn- zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLK Moricca, U. (cd.) 1924. Grcgorii magni dialogi. Fonti bout. per la storin d’Italia. 57. Rome. Duranti, \Y. 1592. Rationale divinorurn officiorum. Morris. C. 1972. The disco\,cry of the individual: Lyons. 1050-1200. London. Farmrr, S. 1985. Personal perceptions, co1lectix.c behJunier, C. (ed.) 1974. Concilia Africae, a. 345-a. havior: twelfth-ccntur>suffrages for the dead. In: 523. Corpus christianorum, series Iatina, 149. R. Treslcr (ed.), Persons in groups: social behavior Turnhout. Literature 33 34