GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-05 > 1084923415


From: Nathaniel Taylor <>
Subject: Re: [OT] her bowels ?
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:36:55 GMT
References: <547EC375.60AE33F2.007FA2F6@aol.com>


In article <>,
wrote:

> In a message dated 5/18/2004 2:04:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> writes:
>
> > "He married Maud, younger daughter (and in 1287 coh.) of John de Vaux, son
> > of Sir Oliver de Vaux. She probably predeceased her husband, and was
> > buried in Pentney Priory, Norfolk, her bowels in the wall at Belvoir."
>
> Ugh. Was it common for someone to have their bowels buried seperately ?

Reasonably so, in the 13th & 14th centuries. 'Bowels' does not refer,
as in modern usage, specifically to the intestines: it is generally a
synonym for the entrails, or for some of the internal organs. For
persons who wished burial or commemoration in more than one place,
removal of some organs from the corpse was a common means to this end.
The heart of Robert Bruce, for example, traveled to Spain (it was
supposed to travel to the Holy Land, but that proved impracticable for
those to whom it was entrusted).

There was, however, a theological disincentive: a countervailing anxiety
that it was important the body be buried whole (not necessarily
preserved or embalmed, just not separated), because of the handicap
corporeal dispersion might present at the Resurrection. On this see
Carolyn Walker Bynum, _Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity,
200-1336_ (Columbia UP, 1996).

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/

This thread: