Talk:Constitutions of Melfi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The statement "using reason and logic to dismiss the superstitious foundations of the ordeal; for example, it was recognized that the natural buoyancy of the human body was responsible for causing a person to float in the trial by water, not his guilt or innocence" sounds funny to me. People understood buoyancy and they never actually believed that guilt or innoncence caused flotation or sinking: they believed that God, for the cause of justice, would cause a guilty man to sink when there was no other way to determine responsibility for a crime, no? If Frederick's legislation dismissed the ordeal of water on the basis of buoyancy, it seems to have been inadequate in explaining why that method doesn't work. Just food for thought. Srnec 19:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, it's poorly worded. I'll take another stab at it (especially since I realized I have the Liber Augustalis among the pile of books on my floor). Adam Bishop 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it a bit, I hope it's better now...I don't want to overwhelm the article by focusing on ordeals, I was just doing a bit of work on this for crusader Jerusalem and the Liber Augustalis was tangentially related to that, as one of the first examples where 12th-century rationality finally began to be applied to old legal customs. Adam Bishop 20:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's better with the quotes. Thanks. Srnec 05:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick I or II

While I understand the opposition to "Frederick I of Sicily," calling him "Emperor Frederick II" may imply that his being emperor had something to do with the Constitutions, which it didn't. He promulgated this legislation as king of Sicily. "Frederick II" without a qualifier seems to imprecise to me and "Frederick Stupor Mundi" is hideous, in short, I think he should at least be called king of Sicily and the term "emperor" avoided. Srnec 14:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)