<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf8'?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/1.1/JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article dtd-version="1.1" article-type="book-review">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id>TMR</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>The Medieval Review</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">1096-746X</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Indiana University</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">20.11.06</article-id>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>20.11.06, Eichbauer/Summerlin, The Use of Canon Law in Ecclesiastical Administration, 1000-1234</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Thomas Izbicki</surname>
            <given-names/>
          </name>
          <aff>Rutgers University</aff>
          <address>
            <email>tizbicki@emeritus.rutgers.edu</email>
          </address>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date publication-format="epub" date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2020">
        <year>2020</year>
      </pub-date>
      <product product-type="book">
        <person-group>
          <name>
            <surname>Eichbauer, Melodie H., and Danica Summerlin, eds</surname>
            <given-names/>
          </name>
        </person-group>
        <source>The Use of Canon Law in Ecclesiastical Administration, 1000-1234, Medieval Law and Its Practice</source>
        <year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year>
        <publisher-loc>Leiden, Netherlands</publisher-loc>
        <publisher-name>Brill</publisher-name>
        <page-range>pp. xii, 279</page-range>
        <price>€121.00 / $146.00 (hardback)</price>
        <isbn>978-90-04-36433-2 (hardback)</isbn>
      </product>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright 2020 Trustees of Indiana University. Indiana University provides the information contained in this file for non-commercial, personal, or research use only. All other use, including but not limited to commercial or scholarly reproductions, redistribution, publication or transmission, whether by electronic means or otherwise, without prior written permission of the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.</copyright-statement>
      </permissions>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <p/>
    <p>This book falls within the series Medieval Law and Its Practice. However, it
                    might be called <italic>The Diversity of Medieval Canon Law</italic>. The
                    editors' introduction underlines the changes in the study of medieval canon law
                    in recent decades. These changes emphasize the detailed study of individual
                    legal texts, the use of philology in these studies and the grounding of law in
                    regional practice, especially before the vulgate text of Gratian's <italic>Decretum</italic> became dominant in the university-level study of
                    law. The collection concludes with a Postface by Bruce Brasington underlining
                    the ways in which pre-Classical canon law was approached not as a system but as
                    a set of options which could be chosen in the pursuit of results.</p>
    <p>The studies in between underline these themes with well-documented examples. John
                    S. Ott studies the papal judges delegate from the province of Reims in the early
                    twelfth century. Those who were studied were bishops with histories of
                    involvement in local cases, including as facilitators of agreements on
                    controversial issues. Ott concludes, rightly, that the papacy assigned cases to
                    respected prelates whose interventions in cases were likely to be well received.
                    Mia Münster-Swendsen tackles the documentation of the resignation of Archbishop
                    Eskil of Lund. Eskil was on the losing side of Danish politics. The response of
                    Pope Alexander III to the archbishop's query about resignation is presented as
                    deliberately ambiguous, stating the principle of non-resignation while allowing
                    Eskil to gain release from a losing situation by giving up his episcopate.</p>
    <p>The second pair of studies is more theoretical. Melodie Eichbauer compares the
                    opinions on property issues, including tithes, of Gratian and Stephen of
                    Tournai. Although Gratian once was regarded as a monk, the author reveals how
                    the <italic>Decretum</italic> favors the rights of bishops in those
                    matters. Stephen, a long-time Augustinian abbot before being elevated to the
                    episcopate, favored the interests of monasteries. Jason Taliadoros tackles a
                    very theoretical topic, the extent to which twelfth-century canonists can be
                    cited in support of Brian Tierney's thesis that medieval writers opened the way
                    for an idea of permissive natural rights. The author tests Tierney's thesis
                    especially against the writings of the jurist Vacarius, underlining where his
                    subject diverges from that line of thought. That approach raises the question
                    whether all twelfth-century jurists have to agree with Tierney's line of
                    argument as a step toward an ideology of personal rights.</p>
    <p>The fifth and sixth studies focus on councils. Greta Austin deals with the 1023
                    Council of Seligenstadt. Although Burchard of Worms participated, his <italic>Decretum</italic> was not the sole source of the canons. The
                    bishops drew on what the author calls a farrago of canons when formulating
                    decrees. This shows how little a council felt obligated to use a well-known
                    collection when legislating. Danica Summerlin does a similar study of the 1200
                    Council of Westminster. Archbishop Hubert Walter and his bishops were aware of
                    the canons of Alexander III's Third Lateran Council (1179). Although Third
                    Lateran is regarded as a general council, there is no evidence that the English
                    bishops felt obligated to turn all of Alexander's conciliar decrees into a
                    complete set of local enactments.</p>
    <p>Stephan Dusil and William L. North both deal with emerging jurisprudence. Dusil
                    shows the Second Lateran Council (1139) issuing a canon annulling the marriages
                    entered into by higher clergy (subdeacons, deacons and priests). This canon
                    abandoned an older acceptance of those marriages as legitimate. The canonists
                    gradually develop this prohibition into an impediment to valid marriages. North
                    presents an intriguing study of the thought of the reformer Bonizo of Sutri.
                    Bonizo developed some of the <italic>dicta</italic> Gratian used in the
                        <italic>Decretum</italic>. The texts he wrote sought to teach aspiring
                    clergy how to interpret the many canons in circulation in the late eleventh
                    century.</p>
    <p>The remaining contributions differ from one another. Kathleen G. Cushing examines
                    the use of canon law in the <italic>libelli de lite</italic> from the time
                    of Gregory VII. Both the pope's supporters and his foes used these sources. Both
                    appealed to the law as supporting them. In no case did their use of the canons
                    presage the formal canonical jurisprudence which took shape in the new-born
                    universities. Like Roger Reynolds, Louis I. Hamilton sees differences between
                    canon law and other genres of writing as scarcely discernible in the eleventh
                    and twelfth centuries. This study looks at the use of Scripture in the<italic>Collection in 74 Titles</italic> and the exegetical text by Bruno
                    of Segni. Those works display that lack of strong methodological boundaries.
                    Hamilton rightly sees the appeal to Scripture in the reforming context as
                    creative, all the more so since it was not part of a tidy drive toward uniform
                    ecclesial structures.</p>
    <p>Overall, this useful collection extends our reach beyond tidy boundaries
                    separating canon law and other genres. It shows too a creative interplay between
                    shared texts and local practice. Instead of simply blazing the way for the
                    vulgate version of the <italic>Decretum</italic> and its commentators,
                    these prelates, clergy and lay authorities applied their wits to a complex
                    heritage in a lively pursuit of remedies for the problems they faced day to
                    day.​</p>
    <p/>
  </body>
</article>
