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 c...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | deu |
Published: |
Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory
2015-01-01
|
Series: | Rechtsgeschichte - Legal History |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://data.rg.mpg.de/rechtsgeschichte/rg23_068czock.pdf |
id |
doaj-cdd4e1d292fe488f860eb48b2b9539f9 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-cdd4e1d292fe488f860eb48b2b9539f92021-03-02T05:44:27ZdeuMax Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal TheoryRechtsgeschichte - Legal History1619-49932195-96172015-01-01Rg 23688110.12946/rg23/068-081975Zentralität in der Peripherie: Kirchengebäude als Orte des »Sonderfriedens« in den frühmittelalterlichen legesMiriam CzockIn 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.http://data.rg.mpg.de/rechtsgeschichte/rg23_068czock.pdfMPIeR |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
deu |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Miriam Czock |
spellingShingle |
Miriam Czock Zentralität in der Peripherie: Kirchengebäude als Orte des »Sonderfriedens« in den frühmittelalterlichen leges Rechtsgeschichte - Legal History MPIeR |
author_facet |
Miriam Czock |
author_sort |
Miriam Czock |
title |
Zentralität in der Peripherie:
Kirchengebäude als Orte des »Sonderfriedens«
in den frühmittelalterlichen leges |
title_short |
Zentralität in der Peripherie:
Kirchengebäude als Orte des »Sonderfriedens«
in den frühmittelalterlichen leges |
title_full |
Zentralität in der Peripherie:
Kirchengebäude als Orte des »Sonderfriedens«
in den frühmittelalterlichen leges |
title_fullStr |
Zentralität in der Peripherie:
Kirchengebäude als Orte des »Sonderfriedens«
in den frühmittelalterlichen leges |
title_full_unstemmed |
Zentralität in der Peripherie:
Kirchengebäude als Orte des »Sonderfriedens«
in den frühmittelalterlichen leges |
title_sort |
zentralität in der peripherie:
kirchengebäude als orte des »sonderfriedens«
in den frühmittelalterlichen leges |
publisher |
Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory |
series |
Rechtsgeschichte - Legal History |
issn |
1619-4993 2195-9617 |
publishDate |
2015-01-01 |
description |
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. |
topic |
MPIeR |
url |
http://data.rg.mpg.de/rechtsgeschichte/rg23_068czock.pdf |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT miriamczock zentralitatinderperipheriekirchengebaudealsortedessonderfriedensindenfruhmittelalterlichenleges |
_version_ |
1724242378369269760 |