The Real Inqueistion! Raz read, Hans approved.

[Razgovory]

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.

My claim is that just because I can't find individual cases of the state killing people for heresy doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

[Razgovory]

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.

Any of them 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.

My claim is that just because I can't find individual cases of the state killing people for heresy doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it did happen?

[alfred russel]

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.

Charlemagne wasn't killing heretics because he was killing pagans. He didn't need to focus on heretical movements to find areas to exert control, and opposition figures had better alternatives than forming christian sects/heretical movements to galvanize rebellions.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Charlemagne wasn't killing heretics because he was killing pagans. He didn't need to focus on heretical movements to find areas to exert control, and opposition figures had better alternatives than forming christian sects/heretical movements to galvanize rebellions.

Otherwise orthodox Christians "formed" Christian sects/heretical movements to galvanize rebellions?

[Razgovory]

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.

My claim is that just because I can't find individual cases of the state killing people for heresy doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it did happen?

Yeah, the opening OP.  An lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of lack.  Especially in the Dark Ages.

[alfred russel]

Otherwise orthodox Christians "formed" Christian sects/heretical movements to galvanize rebellions?

Go back to the  Christological debates and the Council of Chalcedon. Everyone was christian. The debates were vigorous and highly political. The topics were mind numbingly esoteric--the Catholic Church today is like "yeah, everyone was basically saying the same things, but they were just semantic differences".

In places and times without the separation of church and state, modest differences in religious practice get amplified either as a reasons to exclude from power, extend influence, oppose the state, etc. It's a process that creates movements whereas before there might simply be folk religious practices that no one paid much head.

[crazy canuck]

Otherwise orthodox Christians "formed" Christian sects/heretical movements to galvanize rebellions?

Go back to the  Christological debates and the Council of Chalcedon. Everyone was christian. The debates were vigorous and highly political. The topics were mind numbingly esoteric

Not for the people involved.  Your point seemed to be that heresies were "formed" as a to galvanize rebellions.  That seemed an odd position to take.  If that is not what you meant to say then maybe you could clarify your meaning.

[Siege]

[Siege]

[Valmy]

[alfred russel]

Go back to the  Christological debates and the Council of Chalcedon. Everyone was christian. The debates were vigorous and highly political. The topics were mind numbingly esoteric

Not for the people involved.[/quote]

Of course not. But then they weren't just arguing about how to phrase the relationship between the divinity and humanity of christ: they were fighting for power and teh christological debates provided a religious purpose and context.

Your point seemed to be that heresies were "formed" as a to galvanize rebellions.  That seemed an odd position to take.  If that is not what you meant to say then maybe you could clarify your meaning.

My point was that in places and times without the separation of church and state, modest differences in religious practice get amplified either as a reasons to exclude from power, extend influence, oppose the state, etc. It's a process that creates movements whereas before there might simply be folk religious practices that no one paid much heed.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, the opening OP.  An lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of lack. 

Yeah.  But.  Lack of evidence isn't itself evidence either.  It's still lack.

And for the Carolingian period there is evidence of a heresy - what Alcuin and other Carolingians called "Adoptionism".  Since we only have one side of the story the exact nature of what was at issue isn't certain, but it did involve accusations and proceedings against Spanish prelates.  And ultimately it led to the conviction and imprisonment of the Bishop of Urgell.  BUT NOT EXECUTION.  The punishment was exile and house arrest, interesting of itself. 

I would tentatively advance two related hypotheses about the Carolingian period:
1) The secular and religious powers of the period - Emperors, Popes, Bishops - were not enormously concerned about regional folk beliefs.  I don't think there is any questions that there were folk beliefs out there not consistent with orthodox doctrines such as they were  - the fact that the numerous sources don't discuss organized efforts to combat this is evidence of a sort.

2) The Adoptionist controversy suggests some concern about doctrinal disagreements among the elite. But the Urgell incident also suggests that was not so much a life-and-death struggle for souls and purification but probably had something to do with the Carolingian and their allied churchmen asserting control over the new marches of Catalonia.

[crazy canuck]

My point was that in places and times without the separation of church and state, modest differences in religious practice get amplified either as a reasons to exclude from power, extend influence, oppose the state, etc. It's a process that creates movements whereas before there might simply be folk religious practices that no one paid much heed.

The historical record seems to disagree with that conclusion.  Before there was a separation between church and state (ie before the Church became embroiled with these jurisdictional battles with local kingdoms) there was a high degree of tolerance for folk religious practices and what the Inquisition would later consider to be heresy.  It is only after the Church gets into the business of taking over the jurisdiction of determining what practices should be considered heretical that the blood starts to flow.  As I said, it is smoke and mirrors to make the argument that the Inquisition didn't actually kill anyone.

[Agelastus]

IIRC from when I studied the period at University one of Charlemagne's laws banned the veneration of any Angels not explicitly named in the Bible. The more things change, the more they stay the same...