The Real Inqueistion! Raz read, Hans approved.

[PDH]

     2) My comments concern the west - hence the reference to the fall of the "Western Empire.". The continuing persecution of heresy in the Eastern Empire at a time when no such activity is being recorded in the west reinforces the point.  Where you have a centralizing authority that is demanding compliance with a defined doctrinal orthodoxy, heresy becomes an issue; in particular there is a tendency for religious differences to become politicized and political differences to become "heresied". And what's interesting is that the moment when that process begins to take off in Western Europe roughly coincides with the origins of the Inquisition.  My view is that is no coincidence.

I actually wrote my thesis on this - it is the defining of borders with an organizing church following the year 1000 that led to definitions of heterodoxy - indeed it requires such organizing to create such definitions.  You get interesting side by side persons such as Robert d'Arbrissel and Henry of Lausanne who fall on either side of such definitions, one a holy man and the other a heretic.  Of course, I tried to (mis)use anthropological theory in my thesis, in my case the works on liminality by Victor Turner, and that made my stuff an incomprehensible mash.

[Razgovory]

Raz - 1) Witchcraft and heresy are different things.

         2) My comments concern the west - hence the reference to the fall of the "Western Empire.". The continuing persecution of heresy in the Eastern Empire at a time when no such activity is being recorded in the west reinforces the point.  Where you have a centralizing authority that is demanding compliance with a defined doctrinal orthodoxy, heresy becomes an issue; in particular there is a tendency for religious differences to become politicized and political differences to become "heresied". And what's interesting is that the moment when that process begins to take off in Western Europe roughly coincides with the origins of the Inquisition.  My view is that is no coincidence.

No, belief in witches was the heresy.  I think you are picking a very convenient time and place to make your stand.  The period between the Fall of the Western Roman empire and the High Middle Ages is rather famous for a lack of written evidence of anything.  I doubt there is a large corpus of court cases regarding theft that have survived in 8th century Britain though I suspect theft was still illegal in that time and place.  If there is a gap where the dark ages occur in written records I suspect is has more to do with the fact it was occurs in the dark ages rather then some change in policy.

[The Minsky Moment]

No, belief in witches was the heresy. 

Belief in witches was orthodox.  It was granted that witches could have occult power, thus the need for action against them. 

I think you are picking a very convenient time and place to make your stand.  The period between the Fall of the Western Roman empire and the High Middle Ages is rather famous for a lack of written evidence of anything. 

That's a bit of an exaggeration.  There are literate clerics and some of their work survives.  There are also some chronicles, even a decent amount of legal and administrative material, especially from the Carolingian period.

It is true that this is a very low literacy period, and thus the elites of that time were not likely to have highly articulated concepts of doctrinal orthodoxy.  Also a period where neither states (if anything could be called that) or the structures of the catholic church have the capacity to police or enforce such complex norms.

[Razgovory]

No, belief in witches was the heresy. 

Belief in witches was orthodox.  It was granted that witches could have occult power, thus the need for action against them. 

I think you are picking a very convenient time and place to make your stand.  The period between the Fall of the Western Roman empire and the High Middle Ages is rather famous for a lack of written evidence of anything. 

That's a bit of an exaggeration.  There are literate clerics and some of their work survives.  There are also some chronicles, even a decent amount of legal and administrative material, especially from the Carolingian period.

It is true that this is a very low literacy period, and thus the elites of that time were not likely to have highly articulated concepts of doctrinal orthodoxy.  Also a period where neither states (if anything could be called that) or the structures of the catholic church have the capacity to police or enforce such complex norms.

I don't think it was the orthodoxy of the time to believe in witchcraft.  St. Augustine argued that belief in witchcraft was itself heresy.  I found something on this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Episcopi  It states that the belief that people can do magic is heresy because it's only occurring in people's minds.  Charlemagne dictated that accusing people of witchcraft was heresy and punishable by death.  So here is an example of a dark age potentate passing a law to punish a heresy with death.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think that text is very helpful for your position.  Gratian is writing in 1140s, which granted is a fewer decades before the investigations in the Languedoc, but many years after the Carolingian period.  Gratian is one the earliest formalizers of canon law, so his collection reflects the transition towards uniformity and centralization. In that context it isn't surprising seeks to define folk beliefs in the language of heresy.

But your own link indicates that was not necessarily the view either before or after. The change in terms from maleficium to magicum is quite significant, as maleficium implies actual injury.  The earlier versions of the text do take the view that belief in transfiguration is illusory and makes one an "infidel".  However, the use of the term malificium suggests the belief that although "witches" could not truly transform their physical bodies they still could cause harm to others.  Nothing in the text states otherwise. And sure enough, as you link explains, this was the position taken in later years by the Church - that the Canon Episcopi was not a general denial of the efficacy of witchcraft (a position itself held to be heretical!) but rather a more narrow denial of the power of physical transfiguration.

[Razgovory]

It's very clear you are reading it differently then me.  The relevant section was taken from the Caroligian period, and reflects the ideas of that time.  From what I understand that the devil can affect the mind of sleeping person, and make them think they can cast demonic magic, but it is something they can in fact not do, and Big Chuck's laws reflect this religious idea making the belief(and more importantly the accusations) a criminal matter.

[The Minsky Moment]

Are there any examples of Charlemagne executing people for the heresy of belief in witchcraft?

Anyways two point:
1) yes we disagree on the reading.  I don't see anything in there denying that witches can harm others through curses, etc.  It does seem Gratian in his later formulation attempts to address that by changing the key wording.  But it is also true that the later Church appears to have adopted my reading of this.

2) I could be wrong about this.  I don't think it changes the broader point - namely that the organs of the medieval and Renaissance Church were complicit in the persecution of heretics and their role in that regard was not primarily amelioratory.  Let's say you are correct and the Carolingians were aggressively punishing the heresy of witch belief and due to the vagaries of time or poor record-keeping we don't have accounts of the executions.  But then they were doing so on the basis of an ecclesiastical canon.  It is unlikely that Charles woke up one day and decided that accusations of witchcraft, rather than being dealt with in the conventional way of sanctions for false testimony, should instead be treated as a theological error.  Such an idea would have gotten into his head from his educators and advisors.  I.e. churchmen.   The earliest recorded version of Canon Episcopi of course is well after Charlemagne's death, but it was commissioned by the Archbishop of Trier.

[crazy canuck]

I think you are picking a very convenient time and place to make your stand.  The period between the Fall of the Western Roman empire and the High Middle Ages is rather famous for a lack of written evidence of anything.  I doubt there is a large corpus of court cases regarding theft that have survived in 8th century Britain though I suspect theft was still illegal in that time and place.  If there is a gap where the dark ages occur in written records I suspect is has more to do with the fact it was occurs in the dark ages rather then some change in policy.

You adopt a common misconception - ironic given the topic of the article you quoted in the OP.  We actually know a fair amount about the codes of law developed during this period of time by various Kingdoms, local customary law and mercantile law which largely survived the collapse of the Empire in the West.  We also know a fair amount about what had been lost to them and then "rediscovered" in terms of the study and adaptation of Roman law (starting in the university of Bologna and then spreading to other places in the 11th century).  We also know a fair amount about the degree to which canon law and secular laws intersected and the conflict that eventually arose between the two - which is part of the point Minsky is making.

A very good source for all of this information can be found in Law and Revolution.  It is a lengthy and at times densely packed read but well worth the effort.  http://www.amazon.com/Law-Revolution-Formation-Western-Tradition/dp/0674517768

[Razgovory]

I think you are picking a very convenient time and place to make your stand.  The period between the Fall of the Western Roman empire and the High Middle Ages is rather famous for a lack of written evidence of anything.  I doubt there is a large corpus of court cases regarding theft that have survived in 8th century Britain though I suspect theft was still illegal in that time and place.  If there is a gap where the dark ages occur in written records I suspect is has more to do with the fact it was occurs in the dark ages rather then some change in policy.

You adopt a common misconception - ironic given the topic of the article you quoted in the OP.  We actually know a fair amount about the codes of law developed during this period of time by various Kingdoms, local customary law and mercantile law which largely survived the collapse of the Empire in the West.  We also know a fair amount about what had been lost to them and then "rediscovered" in terms of the study and adaptation of Roman law (starting in the university of Bologna and then spreading to other places in the 11th century).  We also know a fair amount about the degree to which canon law and secular laws intersected and the conflict that eventually arose between the two - which is part of the point Minsky is making.

A very good source for all of this information can be found in Law and Revolution.  It is a lengthy and at times densely packed read but well worth the effort.  http://www.amazon.com/Law-Revolution-Formation-Western-Tradition/dp/0674517768

We were talking about individual cases here.  See if you can find me 5  documented individual court cases of theft in 8th century Northumbria.

[crazy canuck]

Your claim is that we don't know how theft, for example, was dealt with.  That claim is incorrect.  In the case of many Kingdoms, in particular the Germanic Kingdoms, we have their codes of law which proscribe exactly what was to occur in a variety of circumstances.  I think you are beginning to miss the forest for the trees here.

[viper37]

Prior to 1200, there was no widespread heretical movement to speak of that posed some kind of threat to monarchs or local lords. 

actually, I think you are wrong.  But it really depends on the notion of "widespread".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Christianity#First_millennium
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology
for a short summary of the various chrisitan movement of the 1st millenium.  Reading more about each movement will reveal a lot of persecutations either by the Church or the secular authorities.

So, if by widespread you mean something as big as the Protestant Reformation wich affected many countries in Europe and created wars between nations, so no, it wasn't widespread.  But it was important enough that their believers were persecuter.

[crazy canuck]

Prior to 1200, there was no widespread heretical movement to speak of that posed some kind of threat to monarchs or local lords. 

actually, I think you are wrong.  But it really depends on the notion of "widespread".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Christianity#First_millennium
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology
for a short summary of the various chrisitan movement of the 1st millenium.  Reading more about each movement will reveal a lot of persecutations either by the Church or the secular authorities.

So, if by widespread you mean something as big as the Protestant Reformation wich affected many countries in Europe and created wars between nations, so no, it wasn't widespread.  But it was important enough that their believers were persecuter.

I think you missed the point.   Before there was orthodox belief it had be created.  Much of the history of the early Church is the story of how orthodoxy was defined and then enforced. The links you posted deal with that process.  Minsky's reference was to the fact that once orthodoxy was established there was no widespread heresy to deal with that posed a threat to secular rules until roughly 1200.

[Capetan Mihali]

A really masterful job on the spelling there, Raz -- botched at a level Tim and HVC can only aspire to.

[The Minsky Moment]

Prior to 1200, there was no widespread heretical movement to speak of that posed some kind of threat to monarchs or local lords. 

actually, I think you are wrong.  But it really depends on the notion of "widespread".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Christianity#First_millennium
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology
for a short summary of the various chrisitan movement of the 1st millenium.

Well the first link refers to the various imperial-era ecumenical councils that established Church doctrine.  Clearly heresy was a big issue then, in the sense that both doctrine and heresy were being defined.  But these were councils held under Roman imperial auspices; after Chalcedon, the wiki piece has nothing to say about heresy in the West.  So that seems to support the point.

Ditto for the second link which refers to various beliefs that arose in the 1st through 3rd centuries and were suppressed in the 300s.

[The Minsky Moment]

We were talking about individual cases here.  See if you can find me 5  documented individual court cases of theft in 8th century Northumbria.

Patrick Wormald put together a compilation of Anglo-Saxon lawsuits; there are 18 cases of theft listed.  You can Google to get more info on this.

Theft of course was a common offense compared to heresy.  Charlemagne had a healthy sense of the value of propaganda and a bevy of clerks and friends to supply it; if he really was busy burning heretics its the sort of thing one would expect to see.  Robert II's heresy executions do show up clearly in the historical record, even though France in the 1020s was probably a less well-organized state than the Carolingian empire. 

Of course if anything at the level of the Albigensian Crusade had happened in the Carolingian era, it is inconceivable it wouldn't have shown up the chronologies and writings extent from the era.