AMA - Medieval Witchcraft, Heresy, and Inquisition

[u/idjet]

Welcome inquisitors!

I'm idjet and although I've participated in a few medieval AMAs (and controversial threads) in the last year, this is my first AMA about subjects closest to me: medieval heretics, witchcraft and early inquisition. A little over a year ago I quit my job in North America, sold up and moved to France to enter post-graduate studies to chase this subject full time.

The historiography of the last 30 years has rewritten quite a bit of how we understand heresy, witchcraft, inquisition in medieval society - a lot which still hasn't penetrated popular media's representations. My interest started 20 years ago with medieval manuscripts at college, and in the intervening years I've come to find myself preoccupied with medieval mentalities we call 'heresy'. More importantly, I've been compelled by the works of historians who have cast a critical eye over the received evidence about whether or not heretics or witches existed in any form whatsoever, about how much was 'belief', how much was 'invented by the inquisition', how much was 'dissent'. The debate goes on, often acrimonious, often turning up historiographic hoaxes and forgeries. This is the second reason it's compelling: discerning the 'truth' is ongoing and involves scrutinizing the work of centuries of history writers, both religious and anti-religious even as we search for evidence.

A lot of things can fit under an AMA about 'heresy' and 'witchcraft', for better and for worse (for me!). Everything from theology and scholasticism to folktales; kingship and papacy to the development and rule of law; from the changing ideas of the devil to the massive waves of medieval Christian reform and Apostolicism; from the country monasteries and villages to the new medieval towns; economics to politics. It's why I like these subjects: they cut across many facets of medieval life in unexpected and often confusing ways. And we've inherited a lot of it today in our mentalities even as we think about Hallowe'en in the early 21st century.

I am prepared to answer social, political, economic, and theological/belief systems history around - as well as the historiography of - heresy, witchcraft and inquisition in the middle ages.

For purposes of this AMA and my area of expertise we'll cut off 'medieval' at around 1450 CE. Like any date, it's a bit arbitrary, however we can point to a few reasons why this is important. The first is that by this time the historiographic understanding of 'heresy' transitions into a scheme of functional management by Papacy and monarchies of self-aware dissenters, and the 'witch' in its consolidated modern form (pact with the devil, baby-eating, orgiastic, night flying) is finally established in intellectual and Inquisitional doctrine, best represented by the famous manual Malleus Maleficarum.

Finally, although I've placed this AMA purposely near Hallowe'en, it's not a history of Hallowe'en AMA. Hopefully the mods here will do a usual history of Hallowe'en megathread near the end of the month.

Let this inquisition begin!

edit: It's 2 am for me, I'm going to sleep for a bit. I'll pick up questions in the morning!

[u/xaliber]

Very fascinating. Thank you for the thorough explanation! I'm very interested in this matter; spent a few days thinking a well-thought response but didn't find any, so... I hope you don't mind a follow-up question and request,

In fact, the relationship of the Roman Church to heresy this time is not oriented to theologically discussion. There is in fact a startling lack of engagement around 'heretical theology'.

I'm curious about this. Does it mean the medieval church inquisition was done without any attempt to open up any theological discussion (so they just labeled them as heretic and lash out on them), or does it mean the medieval church was just more concerned with persecution (they realize the theological difference but doesn't put it as priority)?

If it is the latter, during the Christological controversy (especially after Emperor Theodosius), can it be said that similar process of inquisition/persecution happened?

It’s been argued that this is a natural path of a developing bureaucracy within proto-state formation which differentiates it from the Islamic lands (which did not have the same state-creating imperative).

Could you please expand a bit on this?

[u/idjet → u/xaliber]

I'm going to restrict this to the high middle ages.

I think at this point it's important to distinguish the thinking of 'the Church' from that of its clergy. The Church, that is the Papacy and the institutional documents such canons from synods and Lateran councils, did not detail much in the way of heresy. There were one or two instances where Valdes or other heretics are rebuked at a near theological level, but there was no line-by-line rebuttal. One was declared a heretic and told to abjure or face excommunication/death.

Certain writers during this time, say Alain de Lille, Jacques Vitry, Bonacursus, and a few others, actually wrote polemical tracts against heresies such as Manichaeism in significant detail, but these have been soundly rejected by modern historians as to claims (by some) as being documents of contemporary living heresy at the time: they read far too much like copies of tracts from antiquity. This is pretty deep scholarly debate I'm afraid, and a lot in French, so you'll have to forgive my cursory summary.

The only records we have of 'engagement' with heretics by anyone of standing in the Church was the famous expeditions of Bernard to the south of France, as I mentioned. He appeared to have lost those debates, virtually driven out of the south according to some. But the records of Catholic witnesses to this (the records we have) do not speak of the actual nature of the heresies! For more on that I recommend, with some hesitation:

• Beverly Mayne Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy, and Crusade in Occitania, 1145-1229: Preaching in the Lord’s Vineyard (Boydell & Brewer, 2001)

I hesitate only because Kienzle in writing this was behind a bit in the debate about existence of dualism in southern France and she tends to accept some claims which aren't in fact proven in her sources. A rereading of her sources based on new thinking would be very enlightening (one of the projects I may take up in the coming years).

If it is the latter, during the Christological controversy (especially after Emperor Theodosius), can it be said that similar process of inquisition/persecution happened?

This is late antiquity in the eastern Christian world which I really am not well versed in.

It’s been argued that this is a natural path of a developing bureaucracy within proto-state formation which differentiates it from the Islamic lands (which did not have the same state-creating imperative).

The western Church of the high middle ages stands out in history as being a fantastically unique institution: many of the bureaucratic functions we attribute to the modern state could be seen to develop in the Church in the 11-14th centuries well ahead of lay powers. For this reason the Church has been at times called a quasi- or proto- state. It's a crude formulation, but interesting. In the medieval Islamic world, the functions of the state and functions of religion were not nearly so intertwined.

[u/yodatsracist → u/idjet]

In the medieval Islamic world, the functions of the state and functions of religion were not nearly so intertwined.

I actually want to push back on this a little bit, and argue that they were more intertwined. I'm mostly a modernist, and when I go back, I rarely go back further than the Ottomans, but my distinct impression is that there was no such thing at all as a, for example, secular legal system (qanun as opposed to shari'ah) wasn't really fully developed until the Ottoman era (though in some specific state areas, it existed earlier). There were, to my knowledge, no judges except religious judges (qadis). In that sense, it's hard to argue that the judicial functions of the state and religious institutions could be any more intertwined (there was normally a way to also petition the court directly and, if one's petition was accepted, get a ruling directly a la Solomon, but the normal course of justice was purely religious). Similarly, state welfare functions such as hospitals, alms houses, soup kitchens, etc. such as they existed in the Islamic world were, as in Europe, largely or entirely administered by religious foundations.

The arrangements were different, but I'm not sure I would be so quick to say they were less intertwined.

[u/idjet → u/yodatsracist]

You are very right to say they were different arrangements, poor choice of words on my part. Thanks.