I was initially looking for something to do with god parents or the churching of women. I have never heard of the churching of women before so I looked up the notes 50, 52, and 53 on pages of 54-57 of Grimes. Two different sources were cited. One by Shahar and one by Cressey. I wanted to read Shahar's book Childhood in the Middle Ages because it was the one cited for churching and gossiping but it was checked out. Birth, Marriage and Death: ritual, religion and the life cycle in Tudor and Stuart England by David Cressey was cited for churching and gossiping and god parents but was also checked out. So I took out another book by Cressey and read one of the chapters called Baptised Beasts and other Travesties: Affronts to rites of passage, because it sounded odd and I thought I could learn more about Christian baptism as a rite of passage. Grimes discusses the baptizing of infants as a birth rites in the section called Begreasing and Bespewing Poor Infants, from pages 49-55.
In this chapter of his book, Travesties and Transgressions in Tudor and Stuart England, David Cressy gives many examples of people who mocked the Christian infant baptism by baptizing animals. All the examples Cressy gives happened in the mid 1500's to late 1600's.
Grimes states why at this time in the mid 1500's to late 1600's it was so important to have infant baptisms on page 53 of his book, "The baptism of newborns, especially before 1640, was religiously and socially obligatory. The early Christian practice of postponing baptism so it would coincide with Easter was no longer in force, so unless there were extenuation circumstance surrounding a birth, baptism was mandated to occur without delay on the Sunday or holy day after delivery. Theologically considered, the rite resolved the newborn's ambiguous status-a baby was incapable of committing a sin but was nevertheless tainted by original sin."
What was regularly happening during this period was people were taking their animals, for example horses, cows, chickens, dogs and cats, into the church, up to the font, sprinkling water on the animals' heads and making the sign of the cross on their foreheads. Grimes points out how the Tudor and Stuart Christians used these aquatic symbols. He says "although the rite itself did not make the connection explicit, baptismal water was easy to associate with amniotic fluids, the 'liquor' in which the unborn swam." (Grimes, Pg 53) This mockery of the sacrament infuriated the church folk of the time and these people had to go to court. These mock baptisms upset the church because it made the church and it's sacred space profane. (Cressy, Pg 178)
There were more mockeries were happening as well to offend the Christians, not just mock baptisms. There was mocked marriages as well as holy communion. For example in 1554 a cat was hung up gibbet style, dressed in priest's clothes holding a piece of paper in it's toes that was made to look like a wafer. (Cressy, pg 175) Another rite of passage that was mocked at this time was the churching of women. In 1635 four villagers of Derbyshire conducted a mock churching of a cow. (Cressy, pg 179)
These mockeries serve as good examples of how much importance people put on these rites of passage. When bringing a common domesticated animal in to the sacred and holiest of rituals you were really insulting the church and making a big statement. When tried in court people would face harsh charges. People recognized and deeply valued these rites of passage and didn't want them messed with. Baptism and rites of passage are for humans, not animals.
From what I understand about animal baptisms is that between mid 1500 and mid 1600 in Tudor and Stuart England there was many mock baptisms of animals done purposefully to offend the Christian church. The travesties were not dangerous and didn't hurt anyone in order to perform these.
So why did some people perform these mock baptisms? Cressy notes Edwards view on this. Cressy says "It could be taken as a symptom of irreverence and irreligion, to which the young and the reprobate were ever prone. It could also be attributed to sectarian teaching that disparaged the baptismal ceremonies of mainstream Protestants. This was Edwards view." (Cressy, Pg172)
Some people, at this time, were against baptizing children. Grimes states that, "radical religious reformers contemptuous of infant baptism because of its lack of biblical support insisted that adults be baptized again, hence their name, Anabaptists. By insisting on the inefficacy of infant baptism, Anabaptists effectvely eliminated Christian birth rites." (Grimes, pg 54) I would think it was because they thought children were not conscientious of being baptized and baptism should be left for adults. "Anabaptists, according to Edwards, insisted that 'tis as lawful to baptise a cat, or a dog, or a chicken, as to baptise the infant of believers." This Christian rite of passage also involves appointing of Godparents. These mock baptisms usually included appointing 2 fake godparents as well as all the other things involved in baptisms.
Cressy points out that at many of these mock baptisms involved drinking. So he seems to imply that these people who were against baptism would get a few beers in them and then would go and perform one of these travesties. An example is, "Drunken disorder led to the mock Christening of a dog at East Brent, Someenset, in 1620 'to the great profanation of the holy sacrament of baptism.'" A lot of the examples Cressy gives involves drinking. What significance this has I don't know. I don't think this really devalues the point that people were against baptising and performed these mock baptisms to prove a point. Although I get the impression that a few people may have baptised their pets because they wanted them to be blessed and saved. Cressy notes that some anthropologists think this. (Cressy, pg183)
Cressy gives an example of mock churching of women. Four drunk villagers in the town of Derbyshire stuffed a cow into the church. They read to her and took her up to the font. "Keith Thomas cites this churching of the cow as part of the "desanctification of religious ritual in the wake of popular Protestantism."
So how were these people punished by the church and the law? They were tried in court. Different penalties were given depending on the severity of what they did. For example 5 boys in 1662 in Oxfordshire got off with just the court making them "perform public penance in the very church where they had sprinkled the cat." (Cressy, pg 178) Because they said they didn't use the words "baptise" or "Christen" and said they did it "out of indiscreet wantonness. There was given another example of where God punished them: out of the four that performed the churching of the cow, "one became dumb, one blind, another mad, and the fourth suffered a broken neck." Grimes points out that people got into trouble if they didn't have their infants baptized as well. "There were penalties, stiff ones, for clergy or parents who did not promptly baptize the children in their care." (Grimes, pg 53)
In conclusion I think one of Cressy best points is at this time of mock baptisms and other travesties is when he say this, "Though isolated and unusual, these mock baptisms form different periods had several points in common. They brought together, in an incongruous and insulting manner, common domesticated animals and the holiest rituals of the church. By sprinkling the horses and cats with water and giving them names in parody of the ritual by which babies become Christians, they profaned the sacred ceremony and blurred the boundaries between humans and beasts. Baptisms saved souls, animals have no souls, and the young men(for the most part) who staged these travesties imperilled their own salvation, so pastoral counsellors might argue." (Cressy, pg 182)
From what I understand by reading this chapter is that
some people (probably mostly Protestants) really disagreed with the baptizing
of babies and these mock baptisms were a way to show this disagreement
and make it publically noticed. Christians really believed in this right
of passage and were disgusted and frightened when they thought it might
be tainted or screwed with. Christians really believed that they needed
to be baptised in order to go on with life or else they believed they could
be in serious trouble of not transforming either mystically or into the
community membership. These were the functions of infant baptism at this
time. (Grimes, pg53) That is why people who performed mock baptisms were
punished. This chapter makes me realize how seriously people think and
believe what the rituals they perform will do for them. I see this as an
example that ritual is held in importance as a personal transformation
as well as a social one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Using Grimes as a starting point, I have decided to take a further look into Aidan Kavanagh's The Shape of Baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation. Grimes notes this work on page fifty of Deeply Into the Bone where he begins to discuss the movement of baptism from a Christian initiation rite to that of a birth rite.
Kavanaugh addresses this movement in chapter two which is entitled The Ritualization of Christian Initiation. Kavanagh states that although the process is slow, liturgies, like baptism, will go through changes over time and geography. To illustrate this process Kavanagh looks at the framework of three different baptisms: one from Syria, one from the Graeco-Latin traditions of North Africa and Palestine, and one from the Graeco-Latin traditions of Rome.
In the Syrian baptism, the individual being baptized is anointed with olive oil. Then they are plunged into the water three times; once each for each member of the Holy Trinity. After this, they participate in the ritual of the Eucharist, or the breaking of the bread. Kavanagh mentions at this point that the anointing with oil in Syrian baptisms is viewed with as much importance as the water bath, (40).
In the Graeco-Latin traditions of North Africa and Palestine, the individual being baptized would be taught the ways of the Lord, and how to pray to Him. They would then begin a fasting that would last until the baptism was completed. They would then be "washed in water" (43) then brought to the congregation and join in a prayer. After this prayer, the Eucharist would be performed as well as "the kiss of peace" which is an actual kiss, echoing the kiss Judas betrayed Jesus with.
Alternately, in the Graeco-Latin traditions of Rome, the individual being baptized goes through a ritual process of six steps. First, they are taught the ways of the Lord. Second, they are anointed with oil while they renounce Satan. Thirdly, they are given the water bath. Fourth, they are anointed again, this time in thanksgiving rather than blessing and purification. Fifth, the bishop lays his hands on them and invokes the Holy Spirit. Finally, the newly baptized individual participates in the Eucharist, (46).
Two of the major differences between these three rites are 1) the stress on preparatory teachings in the Graeco-Latin traditions, and 2) the anointing with oil. Kavanagh states that the preparation for baptism was highly important in the Graeco-Latin traditions, as it is in these traditions that many gentiles began joining, and converting.
The anointings range from the Syrians having one before the water bath, the Graeco-Latin traditions of North Africa having one after (of which Kavanagh's example is missing), and the Graeco-Latin traditions of Rome having one before and one after, (52).
From here Kavanagh talks about the early Roman tradition of the catechumenate and its role in the transformation of baptism. The catechumens were those that were studying to become members of the church. They would go to classes and pray, but they could not give "the kiss of
peace" because they had not been baptized yet and were still "impure." To make sure that the catechumens were living their lives according to the Bible they would undergo a test called a "scrutiny" that would basically look at everything they did in their lives after they had begun their studies. Before Easter, the elder catechumen were prepared for their baptism. They were fed salt to purify their minds and bodies and were presented with the four Gospels, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. They would then be exorcized with oil and told to go home and wait for their baptism, (61).
At their baptism, the bishop would pray over and bless the water. All those that were going to be baptized would remove their clothes and jewelry. From there they would enter the water, one at a time and be dunked under the surface. They would be anointed with oil, dried off and clothed. When they got back to the congregation, the bishop would give each one of them ten coins and pray for "the gift of the sevenfold grace," (63) and this act confirmed them.
Traditionally, newborns were to be baptized first, and "must also be kept from feeding at the breast," (67). Over time though, the catechumen became largely made up of very young children and newborns, as most firmly rooted Christian families were bringing up their children in their faith. Because of this, the scrutiny tests were stopped because there really was not too much to scrutinize.
In 1905, Pius X decided that members of the church should partake of the Eucharist more often. He also reduced the age of first communion from adolescence to "the dawn of the use of reason in early childhood," (69). Infants were baptized and then, a handful of years later, received first communion. The catechumenate was no longer a practice, but the initiatory process of Christianity was now divided up into four sacraments: baptism, penance, communion, and confirmation, (70).
My initial grasp of Kavanagh's work was very shaky. I can only assume that he is some sort of Christian scholar, considering the other works he has written: Elements of Rite: A Handbook of Liturgical Style, On Liturgical Theology, The Mystery of Christian Worship, Confirmation: Origins and Reform, as well as Initiatory Theology. Because of Kavanagh's obvious wealth of knowledge regarding Christian philosophies and liturgies, he expects his reader to have an already grounded, somewhat advanced knowledge of Christian ideas. I needed additional, introductory resources to throughly understand his points and information. Personally, I had no knowledge of the "pascha," the "kiddush-meal Eucharist," "pneumatike," or "the kiss of peace," and I only had a passing knowledge of "the Didache." In my opinion, this text would be more beneficial to a reader with a broader knowledge of Christianity.
Often in his notes for his second chapter, Kavanagh cites E. C. Whitaker who has written Baptismal Liturgy, and The Documents of Baptismal Liturgy, as well as Gabriele Winkler who wrote Koriwns Biographie des Mesrop Maéstoc° :èUbersetzung und Kommentar , and Studies in Early Christian Liturgy and Its Context .
Grimes uses Kavanagh's work as a base for his argument and demonstration of the transformation of the Christian rite of baptism. Grimes states that baptism has moved from a rite that initiates members into a group to a rite that takes place at birth. Not having fully read Kavanagh's book The Shape of Baptism, I can only comment on this in regards to chapter two. Since Kavanagh illustrates the gradual change and ritualization of baptism in this chapter in particularly the place and importance of newborns, I believe that Grimes has used this work as a solid springboard to launch himself into his arguments. From what I have read, Grimes has not distorted Kavanagh's work; he has just magnified key issues to make his point.
Personally, I would have to agree with both Kavanagh and
Grimes. Historically, baptism was an initiation rite used mostly for adults
who made the conscious decision to enter into the church congregation.
When Christianity was new, I highly doubt that a newborn child shimmied
his way over to Jesus, John the Baptist, or any of the apostles and requested
to be baptized. The converts to Christianity would have been adults and
continued to be adults for quite some time following. Just like I only
know three children that are involved with the newly formed (1950s) Wiccan
faith, the only children originally converted to Christianity would have
done so because of their parents converting. As these converts grew up
and had their own families, they would (mostly) want to raise their children
up in the Christian faith from the time that they were born. Thus, it is
only natural that the purpose of Christian baptism shifted as the Christian
faith matured.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baptisms by Women
The overview
Baptisms belonged to the priesthood. It was the privilege and duty of the clergymen to perform baptisms. The ceremony was performed as the clergymen stood at the font and read from the Book of Common Prayer, to administer the sacrament . Only in emergencies, like the absence of a priest and an unbaptized child appeared likely to die, could any male or female Christian conduct a baptism. There was even an abbreviated version of the service available in the Book of Common Prayer, for private use. In emergencies, the words "N, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost," were enough. Since childbirth was mainly a female affair, it was most likely a midwife who performed these baptisms. These emergency baptisms were the reason why midwives were examined for their religious conformity.
Although baptisms by women were not all that unusual, they were not accepted, and some places even tried to prevent it. Members of the church, traditionalist and reformers did not accept the idea of women performing any kind of religious office.
One man by the name of Richard Hooker accepted and defended the practice of baptisms performed by women, in matters of urgency. There are also records fo the Elizabethan episcopal administration which show favouritism. While they preferred baptisms to be performed in churches, on holy days, by ordained ministers, with the book of Common Prayer, they also recognized the importance and necessity of the ceremony. People wanted their child baptized whether it be a minister or midwife, as they believed the child would not be able to enter heaven otherwise. "The general line of the Elizabethan church was that baptisms by women was undesirable but not absolutely intolerable."(page 119)
There was much uncertainty surrounding these baptisms. Were those baptized by women truly baptized? Should those baptized by women by baptized again, or at least brought directly to church for Christian recognition? It was said that a baptism was a baptism no matter who performed it. But the Elizabethan John Greenwood argued that without ministry there was no sacrament.
The Book of Common Prayer states that survivors of emergency baptisms be brought to church so the priest can examine whether the child be lawfully baptized or not. Up until the 19th century, those baptized by midwives were considered to be only half baptized.
The Context
The section "Celebrating New Life" under the sub heading "Begreasing and Bespewing Poor Infants" in Grimes text is what led me to this text. The quote Grimes uses can be found in a book by David Cressy, entitled Birth, Marriage, and Death. I was able to find this book at the library located on campus.
As stated in the overview, the section dealt with the controversy surrounding baptisms performed by women during emergencies. Although it was not unusual it was not overly accepted. Grimes discusses this as well. He writes that up until the 17th century "lay people had been authorized to perform the rite, if the situation were dire and it appeared a child might die." (Page 55) Midwives took over in these cases. However, male clergy disapproved and construced a ceremony for those who survived these baptisms. It was within this ceremony Grimes takes his quote, " If thou be not already baptized, I baptized thee." Grimes discussed in this reading the importance of rites. It is that reason why the clergy did not want to risk an unvalid version being performed by a midwife. They also did not want to risk repeating it "inadvertently on the same person." (Page 55)
I must admit after reading the section in David Cressys' book, I have a better understanding of what Grimes is saying. Reading Grimes' quote alone within the paragraph or section it is contained, is not enough. I found the reading as a whole, quite interesting, as before I knew was not aware of any of this.
The Reflection
After reading the section by David Cressy, it did not surprise me how unaccepted baptisms performed by women were. At this time women did not hold any significant roles in society. Midwives were probably the most significant during the 16th and 17th century. Women were not held in the highest of opinion in the eyes of men. Now to put this with religion, only makes the matter worse. Religion plays a crucial role in society and in peoples lives, so I understand why these matters were taken seriously. I understand families wanting their childs' baptism to be performed by a member of the clergy. In this case, there was no uncertainty in the minds of parents surrounding their Christian recognition. However, on another note, like stated in the text, when it came down to it, parents did not care who performed the ceremony. They just wanted to ensure their childs' acceptance into heaven. The problems lied with clergymen, traditionalist, and reformers. Clergyman are tied to their beliefs and traditionalist do not like change. I personally do not see a problem with a women performing one of these baptisms. But i suppose one must keep in mind the time in history we are dealing with. I think society has a lot to do with peoples fears and opinions. Perhaps if it were accepted within the religion, these baptisms would not leave so much uncertainty among the people.
**** Shelley Snook****
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shawn Stevenson
I read "The Conversion of the Jews" by Philip Roth. In that book there is a chapter called "Reconstructing the Rite" where the details of circumcision are worked out in detail. The circumcision rite is written out as if it were a play. There are many mentions of taking the historical evolution of the rite into consideration. The chapter is heavily laden with Jewish theology and methods of studying rabbinic texts. He goes over the issues with transcribing a Jewish ritual because there is no one original text with an exact book on instructions. Various sects have adopted prayer books but there are a few little differences in the narrative of the rabbinic interpretations. It is the author's opinion that the circumcision rites are a culmination of a thousand years of theological research that got grouped together to form the reality of the rite. The interpretations of the text are outlined in the interpretations of the Old Testament. Genesis 1:1 for instance has been used in the context of the authors' particular age many different ways. Rabbis have always used the saying to demonstrate the capability of the creation myth in a world after Plato. Some used it as proof the that the Torah was the template for the physical universe and using that reasoning from the Bible an eleventh century man in France convinced a lot of people that Israel was the rightful property of the Jews. (I'm not sure how this happeneda lot of knowledge of Jewish traditions is assumed from the reader.. unfortunately Mr. Roth's faith was misplaced in me).
One sentence had a lot of pertinence, "The same confusion that goes on over Biblical canon is doubled in ritual". The script that followed was a man's interpretation and held no more stack than an interpretation of the Bible or the Torah. His use of ritual was backup heavily with all of the reasons he wrote it one way and not the other. He identifies himself as a historicist and not a spiritualist. He relied heavily on a standard guide used by Orthodox Rabbi's called the Hamadrikh. He said that it had a lot of historical value and didn't deal with a lot of the contested parts of the ritual like omitting strong words like 'bleed' for the comfort of those attending. Some very unorthodox Jews do not place a chair for Elijah at their ceremonies. The text that follows the preamble is a complete script of circumcision and naming. The notes are thick with footnotes and justification for every wording and a complete translation of Hebrew words.
Philip Roth wrote this chapter. Philip Roth is a very prolific artist in both fiction and non- fiction. According to his personal web site, Philip Roth was born in Newark, New Jersey, in 1933. He was educated at Bucknell University, where he received his B.A., and the University of Chicago, where he completed his M.A. and taught English. Afterwards, at both Iowa and Princeton, he taught creative writing . His first book was Goodbye, Columbus, whose title novella and five short stories present witty, ironic, and preceptive depictions of Jewish life in the U.S. in a flip, personal style. He is perhaps best known for his third novel, Portnoy's Complaint, a wildly comic representation of his middle-class New York Jewish world in the portrait of Alexander Portnoy, whose possessive mother makes him so guiltily insecure that he can seek relief only in elaborate masturbation and sex with forbidden shiksas. Since then, he has written in a number of different narrative modes, the most significant includes the series of Nathan Zuckerman novels (My Life As a Man, The Ghost Writer, Zuckerman Unbound, The Anatomy Lesson, and The Counterlife) and his postmodern autobiographies The Facts, Deception, Patrimony, and Operation Shylock. He currently lives in Connecticut.
He has a long list of awards including a 1998 Pulitzer Prize for American Pastoral and a Time Magazine Novel of the Year Award in 1993 for Operation Shylock. His entire list of publications goes back to the 1940's and includes mostly Jewish topics in all forms. There are too many publications to really take the time to count. I found a study guide on the Ball State University (Indiana) for his book Ghost Writer which is part of the ciricullum for a Jewish literature course.
There is a book authored by Allan Cooper called Phillip Roth and the Jews. In this book Roth is established as the father of the American Jewish lobby. He is seen as a sort of American folk hero for pushing Jewish art and culture in post war climate. The are panel discussions that bear his name on the topic of religious tolerance and harmony between Christian, Muslim, and Jewish traditions. I see some in his books that some of the Jewish interpretations of scripture is favored over any other takes. He is devoutely Jewish. He has dedicated his life to furthering the cause of the Jewish people in America. That is basically the piece of information that one needs to sort of see through this chapter. I don't put much faith in the claims that he is the head of a syndicate that controls Hollywood and the media to sort of manufacture consent for Americans to support the Jewish causes. Most of those sources can be traced back to writing and people who are openly anti-sementic.
iii
I found this article very helpful when understanding not
so much the exact specifications of the act of circumcision itself but
rather the act of reconstructing a rite according to historical and theological
standpoints. At no point does Roth attempt to have the be all and end all
of the Jewish rite however he does arcticulate the difficulty in undertaking
such a rite. Likely the same difficulty if someone were to transcribe a
wedding or a funeral to an alien who had no knowledge or experience to
base his insight on. Circumcision is a little unknown to our culture and
therefore his dedication to portraying it accurately is appreciated if
not very nesecary for undertaking something like this. I was a little let
down by his exclusion of the interpretation of other faiths of certain
rituals and passages from the old testament. I'm not sure if I was 'ok'
in assuming that an American Jew would consider other audiences to his
book about Jewish rites and theology. All and all the points that stands
out are his good clear writing technique. (I would most certainly consider
reading his more famous works of fiction...namely the one that won the
Pulizter Prize...if not to read a good book but to learn more about Jewish
culture from an well established writer who is bent on educating people
about his culture) and of course his scientific undertaking of ritual.
This part was void of personal experience and therefore useful for understanding
the rite as a standalone entity rather the personal meanings. That is important
but perhaps wasn't the purpose of this chapter. It's purpose was academic
exercise in transcribing a rite.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The People With The Children
This reading is on godparents and their role in baptism along with the roles that parents have. The parents did not really have a role in the baptism of their child in the 1500's. The mother didn't have a role because of the traditional one month period after the birth that was needed to recover. The father had a very small role in the baptism because it was " the man's responsibility to arrange for his child's baptism. He, after all, was the æprincipal governor' of the household." Also the father could be present at the baptism but was not allowed to speak.
The godparents were "involved in networks of honour and obligation with other members it the laity and their roles were only partially regulated by the church." The traditional way god parenting calls for two godfathers, one godmother for a boy and one godfather ,two godmothers for a girl. The Church of England permitted the presence of the both of the godparents at both public and private baptism's. The godparents, in most cases, were elders of kin and belong to the same generation as the parents. Godparents were supposed to be there basically for the spiritual support or "the renunciation of the devil" but most of the time got caught up in the social aspects and got buried in the "secular considerations."
If a godparent could not make it to the baptism they would send a deputy to represent them and to report back to them. This happened a lot to people in the higher class. For example the book mentions of Pepys who must have been of noble blood because he had several invitations to be a godparent. But he could not be at all of them and sent a deputy to oversee for him.
Godparents are also expected to give a gift to the godchild. Among the elite it was customary to give a silver spoon to the child. The godparents were also expected to become the soul provider in the case of the parents death. Also they were obligated to include the godchild in their will.
Connecting the Texts
Grimes's text covered a lot of ground this semester but I chose godparents and baptism as my resource. The quote I chose was in the chapter called "Begreasing and Bespewing Poor Infants". Yhe quote is on page 54 of grimes's text and was written by David Cressy. The book that Cressy wrote is called "Birth, Marriage, and Death." And the quote that grimes used is on page 160.
Grimes uses Cressy's quote to get the point across that the godparents were originally there for spiritual support but have strayed from the traditional intentions. Grimes says that godparents were supposed to act as "avuncular benefactors"(quote from Cressy) but many do not. Grimes also mentions the "conventional gift" to a godchild is a silver spoon. Both of these ideas came from Cressy's reading. Grimes uses the quote well and I think that he agrees with Cressy on this subject. My Critical Review
I am going to be honest and tell you the main reason I chose this topic. It is because i had a difficult time trying to find a book in the library and on the internet. When I finally found a book that was available, this was the topic I chose, Godparents and Baptism.
I think that it is kind of weird that the Godparents had more of a role in the baptism of a child than the parents did. I know that my Godparents were and still are friends with my parents and are from the same generation as my parents. Also in my overview I mentioned that each sex of Godchild has a different number of Godfathers and Godmothers. A boy has two Godfathers and a girl has two Godmothers. I can't imagine why this would be. Also why would the father be allowed to be at the baptism and not be able to speak? Maybe if the parents wait until the mother was done her recovery time, would both parents be allowed to be present at the baptism?
There were several other topics in Cressys' book that interested me. When I seen that the traditional time for recovery after birth was one month I wanted to know why and who made this rule of thumb. I found out that in the 15-16th century the time that a women was given to recover after birth was different for the sex of the child.