joedad

Could someone point me to some decent information concerning the difference between a secular court and a religious court, specifically during those Europen times when witches and heretics were tortured and executed? What made courts "secular?"

I ask because I am having trouble imagining any such proceedings occurring apart from religious influence, and in the case of Europe specifically, christian religious influence.

I do understand the nature of fear and persecution and how disasters and such things as the black plague have an influence, but I cannot comprehend a secular court existing in Europe at this time. Is it because these secular courts were in fact christian secular courts, and as such were simply unable to separate themselves from religious influence? But perhaps I am getting ahead of myself. Any suggestions?

judge

I don't know about the dates you mentioned but the only book I have seen which may help you understand the roots of this is, Law and Revolution, the formation of the western legal tradition, by Harold Berman.

The bible led to a view that no one human institution had absolute sovereignty. The civil goverment had certain areas where it ruled and the church had other areas and the family also.

In some instances one could appeal to the Church if the civil government was not "doing the right thing".

IIRC Proffessor Berman sees the roots in the Gregorian reformation or Investiture struggle if the 11th or 12th century.

Today of course things have changed so much that this no longer the case. All hail caesar! :notworthy

Toto

From Merriam-Webster online:

"Secular" in that context does not mean what it means in America today. The meaning is what I have bolded above.

Secular refers to worldly, not subject to canon law. But there was no separation of church and state in those days. The King ruled by divine right, the Bible was incorporated into the laws of the nations. So those secular courts would not have been "non-religious," just not under direct church control.

Bede

Joedad,

As judge says the distinction was between Church courts - those actually run by the clergy according to canon law - and civil courts, those run by lay judges according to Roman (or common in England) law. It is certainly true that civil courts were open to religious influences but they were not clerical institutions. They were certainly Christian although didn't always act that way.

The civil courts were ultimately answerable to the civil ruler, such as the prince or duke or city council. They had a widening competence though the period you mention while church courts slowly lost their power. For instance, canon law as a subject was abolished in England in the 1540s as part of the reformation.

Church courts were more lenient than civil courts (which is why everyone was trying to get their case heard in one); they were also more professional until the eighteenth century as the clergy tended to be better educated then the laity. Finally, they tended to spearhead legal reform which was then picked up by the secular courts. Heretics and witches were always better off before a church court as for heretics, they could never recieve the death penalty for a first offence if they relented. Witches were rarely convicted and even when they were almost never executed by church courts (effectively handed over the secular arm but it means executed).

Books? James Brundage "Medieval Canon Law" comes recommended by my MA supervisor who is an inquisition specialist. I found it useful and easy to read. On witchtrials, "The Witch Hunt in Early Modern Europe" by Brian Levack is the standard work now. Most books on heresy are more interested in heretics than the machinery that dealt with them. Edward Peter's "Inquisition" is dry, brief but to the point at least. The relevant bits of "Religion and the Decline and Magic" by Keith Thomas are very helpful on England. My MA dissertation involved the inquisition so I'm not so hot on civil law.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason