Zentralität in der Peripherie: Kirchengebäude als Orte des »Sonderfriedens« in den frühmittelalterlichen leges
In the early middle ages, specific protective rights were granted, among others, to church buildings. While legal historians investigating the legal protection of church buildings up till now stressed the jurisdictional concept of a »higher peace«, cultural history has drawn attention to the concept...
| Published in: | Rechtsgeschichte |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Print Article |
| Language: | Undetermined language |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Klostermann
2015
|
| In: |
Rechtsgeschichte
|
| IxTheo Classification: | SB Catholic Church law |
| Further subjects: | B
History 500-900
B Middle Ages B Legal protection B Church building |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | In the early middle ages, specific protective rights were granted, among others, to church buildings. While legal historians investigating the legal protection of church buildings up till now stressed the jurisdictional concept of a »higher peace«, cultural history has drawn attention to the concepts of sanctuary and immunity. Drawing upon sources spanning from the Lex Salica to the capitularies and canon law of the 9th century, the present article argues that peace, sanctuary and immunity are not to be understood as rooted in one concept, as is generally done, but rather they have to be understood as different legal concepts that only occasionally come together. Furthermore, I propose that the protection of church buildings is not an expression of taboo related to the sacral sphere of the king or the sacrality of the church building, but instead must be seen as rooted in a concept of honor that includes a spatial dimension and can be traced back to the motif of ⊲fear of God⊳, but is ultimately guaranteed by law. The different concepts thus refer to the notion of churches not just as cult centres, but public protected areas, whose protection is part of a complex and comprehensive effort to restrict ⊲self-help⊳. From the perspective of the issue of centrality and periphery, the example clearly shows that this opposition is completely dissolved because places were created, instituted through legal protection, even at the periphery. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1619-4993 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Rechtsgeschichte
|