Talk:Constitutions of Melfi

Middle Ages High‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitutions of Melfi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509094644/http://www.stupormundi.it/Liber_augustalis.html to http://www.stupormundi.it/Liber_augustalis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]