INCEST: Sexual intercourse between those who are allied by ties of consanguinity or affinity. Canon law followed in this field in the track of the Roman law, though with various modifications. With the Mosaic law in mind, a distinction was made between inceatw jtaras ditini, the violation of the prohibitions contained in Lev. xviii. and xx., and incesttta juris hummni, the violation of other laws on the subject. Another distinction is made between incestus simplex and qualifimtua or con junctus, the latter being where it is complicated by the addition of some other crime, such as adul- tery or bigamy. Punishments for this offense became more severe under the later Roman im perial law (Cod. Theod. iii. 12; Cod. Juwri. v. 5). Section xii. of Justinian's Novella prescribes that both men and women guilty of it shall forfeit their property, and those of a higher station shall be banished. The specific cases became more numer ous under the canon law, which treated affinity on the same footing with consanguinity, and even regarded the spiritual affinity contracted by joint sponsorship in baptism as an impediment to marriage. Special attention was paid to the pro visions of the Mosaic law, as by the third Synod of Arles (538), the Synod of Tours (567), and in numerous passages of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decre tals. In all these places incestuous offenders are treated as personce infames, who lose their 'civil rights and must undergo penance, while, of course, the connection itself must be dissolved in the abso lutely inadmissible cases. Gratian shows his agree. ment with this conception by including the author ities referred to in his Decretum. The more minute later treatment of the question may be seen in Ferraris's Btbtiotheca canonira, s.v. Luxuria. In the Middle Ages the punishment of incest, as of other sins of the flesh, was partly regulated by the Church, partly by the civil government. AS the latter gradually came to take a more independent line, it followed the principles of the Roman law; thus, for example, the penal ordinance of Charles V. in 1532 points to the punishments of that code, though in practise they were gradually mitigated.

(E. Friedberg.)

Bibliography: Bingham, Origines, XV I., xi.' 3-4, XXII., ii. 3; J. Freisen, Geschichte des kanonischen Eherechts, pp. 575 sqq., Tübingen, 1888; KL, vi. 629.