Note 477 — XII. PETER DAMIANI.

Quicumque sacerdotum, diaconorum, subdiaconorum ... concubinam palam duxerit vel ductam non reliquerit, ... præcipimus et omnino contradicimus, ut missam non cantet, neque evangelium vel epistolam ac missam legat, neque in presbyterio ad divina officia cum iis qui præfatæ constitutioni obedientes fuerint, maneat; neque partem ab ecclesia suscipiat.—Concil. Roman. ann. 1059 c. 3.

It is evident here that the opprobrious epithet “concubine” is applied to those who were as legally wives as it was possible to make them. Damiani, indeed, admits it, and even intimates that concubine was too honorable a word to be applied to the wives of priests—“Illorum vero clericorum feminas, qui matrimonia nequeunt legali jure contrahere, non conjuges sed concubinas potius, sive prostibula congrue possumus appellare” (Opusc. XVIII. Diss. iii. c. 2). After this period it will be found that the wives of priests were rarely dignified with the title of “uxores,” although ordination was not yet an impediment destructive of marriage.

It is as well to observe here that at this period and for some time later the position of the concubine had not the odium attaching to it by modern manners, and this should be borne in mind when reviewing the morals of the Middle Ages. The connection was a recognized and almost a legal one, following the traditions of the Roman law, by which it was legitimate and permanent, so long as the parties respectively remained unmarried. A man could not have a wife and concubine at the same time (Pauli Sentent. II. 20), nor could he legally have two concubines together (Novel. XVIII. c. 5). Not only were such regulations thus promulgated by Christian emperors, but the relationship was duly recognized by the Christian church. The first council of Toledo, in 398, enjoined upon the faithful “tantum aut unius mulieris, aut uxoris aut concubinæ, ut ei placuerit, sit conjunctione contentus” (Concil. Toletan. I. c. 17), showing that either connection apparently was legitimate, and this is quoted at the commencement of the tenth century, as still in force, by Regino (De Discip. Eccles. Lib. II. c. 100). A half century later, about 450, Leo I. was actually appealed to to decide whether a man who quitted a concubine and took a wife committed bigamy—which Leo reasonably enough answered in the negative (Leon. Epist. XC. c. 5). The principle of the Roman law was still the rule of the church in the 9th century, for a Roman synod held by Eugenius II. in 826 declared “Ut non liceat uno tempore duas habere uxores, uxoremve et concubinam. De illo vero qui cum uxore concubinam habet, præcipit, ut si admonitus eam a se abjicere noluerit, communione privetur.” (Pertz, Legum T. II. P. ii. p. 12.) The view entertained of the matter at the time under consideration may be gathered from a canon of the councils of Rome, in 1052 and 1063, suspending from communion the layman who had a wife and concubine at the same time (Concil. Roman. ann. 1059 c. 12: ann. 1063 c. 10)—whence we may deduce that a concubine alone was hardly considered irregular. During the latter part of the succeeding century we find the concubine a recognized institution in Scotland, for the laws of William the Lion, after stating that the wife was not bound to reveal the crimes of her husband, adds “De concubina vero et de familia domus non est ita; quia ipsi tenentur revelare maleficia magistri sui, aut debent a servitio suo recedere” (Statut. Willelmi c. XIX. § 9). In England, late in the thirteenth century, Bracton speaks of the “concubina legitima” as entitled to certain rights and consideration (Lib. III. Tract. ii. c. 28 § 1, and Lib. IV. Tract. vi. c. 8 § 4). In Spain, at the same period, the son of an unmarried noble by a concubine, was noble (Juan Perez de Lara, in Arch. Seld. 130, Bib. Bodl.), and in the Danish code of Waldemar II., which was in force from 1280 to 1683, there is a provision that a concubine kept openly for three years shall be held to be a legitimate and legal wife (Leg. Cimbric. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. Ed. Ancher); while the elaborate provisions for the division of estates between legitimate and illegitimate children, contained in the code compiled by Andreas Archbishop of Lunden, in the 13th century, show that certain legal rights were recognized in the latter (Legg. Scan. Provin. Ed. Thorsen pp. 110-2). Indeed, in the Norwegian law of that period, when the king left no legitimate sons the crown descended to illegitimates (Jarnsida, Kristendoms-Balkr, c. III.). In Bigorre, concubines, under the name of Massipia, were recognized by law, and formal notarial contracts were drawn up, as late as the close of the fifteenth century, specifying the price to be paid and the duration of the connection; and when the man was already married he sometimes engaged to marry the massipia in case of his wife’s death during the term (Lagrèze, Hist. du Droit dans les Pyrénées, Paris, 1867, p. 377). We must therefore bear in mind that, until the rule of sacerdotal celibacy became rigorously enforced, the “concubina” of the canons generally means a wife, and that for some time afterwards the concubine was by no means necessarily the shameless woman implied under the modern acceptation of the term.