Roger Pearse

When someone makes allegations of fraud, intending to demonize the owners of wide lands and so seize that property, a wise man will be a little sceptical of those allegations, made with such urgency, such outrage, and so profitably to those making them.

What the true facts are I don't claim to know. So I thought I wouldn't commit to any position on this.

I don't think there's any doubt about that.

When a greedy man or baron seeks to steal something belonging to others, he has several options. One of the favourites is to claim that the "others" do not really own it; to cast doubt on their claim, or to engage in character assassination aimed at suggesting that they don't deserve to own it, even if they do. The next step is for the greedy to claim to act on behalf of "more deserving" but powerless people -- ideally those whose claims cannot be denied by any fair man -- who perhaps would or could never have acted themselves. Then he can claim to be acting "rightly" in seizing the property. And, funnily enough, very little if any of that property ever ends up in the hands of those who supposedly justified the seizure. Curious, that.

If we read our history we see this motif again and again. It is a standard approach in despotisms, where there is no real security of property; first the demonisation, then the claim on behalf of the "innocent" or "victims"; then the seizures and executions. Every persecution begins with a demonisation, a "discovery" of wrong-doing by those who are to be targetted.

Thus I wonder about some of these cases. All the evidence was conveniently burned. Did Henry's agents fake some of the fakes? Bring them with them, as it were?

Henry had no legal claim to the abbeys. His seizures were done by intimidation and violence, and he turned everything he seized into cash and spent the lot in a handful of years. There may be people who believe he acted out of principle, but if so I have not met them.

Likewise the debunking of the "Donation of Constantine" by Lorenzo Valla was done at the behest of the King of Aragon, who intended to seize the papal states and wanted a justification to show that the papal moral claim was invalid.

And so on it goes. It's wise for us to keep our scepticism turned on when we see a standard scam in operation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Not at all. I observe his faults of logic and education and reason purely because, as an atheist, I burn with hatred for him and his superstitious nation, and dance naked around a dark altar every evening sacrificing tramps to the evil god Tharg in order to damn his soul. Why else would I make that observation?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Keith&Co.

Atheists supporting evil gods. Even your satires have to include strawmen.

bacht

I wonder if this argument is partly based on the low literacy rates in western Europe before 1100. Since few rulers could read Latin they were somewhat at the mercy of clerics who could. Of course in the Dark Ages no real estate was safe anyway, with waves of Germans, Vikings and Normans wreaking havoc.

Solo

But you have committed yourself to a position on this, Roger; you impute a simple low motive (robbery) to the actions of Henry VIII. But the situation seems to have arisen from much more complex issues. Are you aware that the first monastic seizures under Henry were seeking to restore the lapsed religious character of monastic life, and were authorized by a papal bull secured by cardinal Wolsey ?
Curious is that you completely omit the most obvious context to the "dissolution acts" which was Henry's seeking to eliminate what he believed was an agency of Rome which opposed him as the head of the Church of England. The link I have provided to the Wiki article (above) gives I believe a balanced view of Henry's motives which appear to be on the whole political.

Jiri

lpetrich

Roger Pearse, you have listed what you consider ulterior motives for concluding that some medieval relic or document is a forgery. Please describe to us what you would consider convincing evidence of medieval fraudulence.

Consider the case of Rev. William Buckland:
William Buckland in Retrospect

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Goat

What ulterior motives do you think that Rev. William Buckland might have had for concluding that St. Rosalia's bones were really goat bones? To me, he came to that conclusion by his knowledge of comparative anatomy -- St. Rosalia's bones looked like goat bones to him.

Or, for that matter, concluding that some supposed blood was really bat urine?

andrewcriddle

The process begun by Wolsey was (according to the article cited) intended to amalgamate small monasteries and convents with larger ones. This is quite different from the Dissolution of Monastic Life as such, which is what the later program achieved.

The Dissolution was based on 'evidence' of monastic misconduct which (according to the article cited) was was far from objective. Andrew Criddle

Solo

Hi Andrew,
I don't see where the article is saying that the authority that Wolsey received from Clement VII. intended to amalgamate monasteries. That Wolsey started the process of monastic suppression (he favoured funding of colleges with the proceeds) under Henry is a well-known and accepted fact and examples of it are are cited by the wiki arrticle (; for more see e.g. page 17, of the essay here.).

I don't have illusions about the agenda of Cromwell and his commission of inquiry. But the suppression certainly was not as simply motivated as Roger would have us believe. BTW, the article also mentions that while 'the vice and excesses may have been biased and exaggerated' they were also chronicled by Thomas More, himself to be victimized by Thomas Cromwell's unfairness.

Best,
Jiri

Toto

At the risk of dragging this even further away from pre-modern history, the official newspaper of the Italian bishops published an article by cult-apologist Massimo Introvigne, dredging up the fact that Goebbels had mounted a campaign against the Catholic Church in 1937 based on charges of pedophilia. However, even he had to admit that there was some basis in fact for the charges.Pointing out some bad motive on the part of one's accuser is not a defense.

Roger Pearse

Try reading my comments in full, rather than mixing up two separate issues.