权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

De Heretico Forisfaciendo: Felony Forfeiture and the Punishment of Heresy

De Heretico Forisfaciendo：重罪没收和对异端的惩罚

基本信息

批准号：
AH/J007234/1
负责人：
Paul Cavill
金额：
$ 3.36万
依托单位：
University of Leeds
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Fellowship
财政年份：
2013
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2013 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FJ007234%2F1
关键词：
De Heretico Forisfaciendo Felony Forfeiture

项目摘要

In England during the late middle ages and the early modern period 'heretics' - those Christians who dissented from the Church's teaching on matters of doctrine - were widely persecuted. It was held to be the duty of the clergy and the crown to coerce erring Christians into retracting their views and to protect the rest of society from such false beliefs. Heretics who refused to recant or who, having previously renounced their views, then relapsed were burnt at the stake. Between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries about 400 men and women were thus condemned. While burning was the most dramatic, it was not the only punishment inflicted on condemned heretics, who also lost their lands and possessions. It is with forfeiture by heretics that this project is concerned. The confiscation of heretics' estates raises a number of questions: some are peculiar to this practice, while others apply generally to the enforcement of religious uniformity.One question specific to forfeiture that we could ask is who obtained a heretic's estate: the Church, the king or queen, the lord whose tenant the heretic was, the community in which he or she lived, or his or her family and friends? This project approaches the problem through the crown's interest in such an estate; one of several claims, its advantage to the historian is in leaving behind extensive evidence revealing the pursuit of this royal right. Indeed, most records relating to heresy forfeiture are found in the Exchequer, the department of government concerned with the collection of the crown's income. Answering our first question raises another: how was this royal right exercised and also evaded? The crown's efforts to secure a heretic's property - often against the interests of other parties (including the victim's family and friends) - depended on the work of its agents and on the co-operation of local communities in arranging and serving upon inquest juries. The degree to which ordinary people helped and also hindered the identification of heretics' estates illuminates popular reactions to the persecution. By looking at forfeiture, this project sees heresy in the same light as did contemporaries: as a felony, that is, a capital crime like murder, rape, and robbery. The bracketing together of these offences exemplifies the way in which the persecution of heresy combined religious and secular power. In theory, this meant harmonizing the international laws of the Church, the operation of church courts in England, the customs of the common law, and acts passed by parliament. In practice, this meant dividing responsibility between the clergy (who defined heresy and judged cases), the monarch (who aided the Church in detecting heretics and in enforcing its sentences), and laymen (who contributed by detecting and testifying against heretics). But how prepared was the crown to accept its merely supporting role, and laymen the subordination of their own laws to those of the Church? Forfeiture provides another perspective on the shifting balance between religious and secular authority. While the break with Rome undermined the Church's independence in punishing heretics and unsettled definitions of what beliefs were heretical, it did little to alter the conviction that heresy itself was a crime deserving severe punishment, of which forfeiture remained one element.

在中世纪晚期和现代早期的英国，异教徒--那些在教义问题上反对教会教义的基督徒--受到了广泛的迫害。它被认为是神职人员和王室的责任，迫使犯错的基督徒收回他们的观点，并保护社会其余部分不受这种虚假信仰的影响。拒绝放弃的异端分子，或者之前放弃了自己的观点，然后故态复萌的异端分子，都会被烧死在火刑柱上。在13世纪和17世纪之间，大约有400个男人和女人因此被定罪。虽然焚烧是最具戏剧性的，但这并不是对被判刑的异端分子的唯一惩罚，他们也失去了土地和财产。这个项目是与异端的没收有关的。没收异教徒的遗产引发了一系列问题：一些是这种做法所特有的，而另一些则普遍适用于宗教统一的执行。关于没收，我们可以问的一个具体问题是，谁获得了异教徒的遗产：教会、国王或王后、异教徒的房客所在的领主、他或她所居住的社区，还是他或她的家人和朋友？这个项目通过皇室对这样的遗产的兴趣来解决这个问题；作为几个主张之一，它对历史学家的好处是留下了大量的证据，揭示了对这一皇室权利的追求。事实上，大多数与没收异端有关的记录都在财政部找到，财政部是负责收取王室收入的政府部门。回答我们的第一个问题提出了另一个问题：这项皇室权利是如何行使的，也是如何逃避的？王室保护异教徒财产的努力--往往是违背其他各方(包括受害者的家人和朋友)的利益--取决于其代理人的工作以及当地社区在安排和服务死因调查陪审团方面的合作。普通人在多大程度上帮助和阻碍了异端财产的认定，说明了民众对迫害的反应。通过看待没收，这个项目与同时代的人一样看待异端：作为重罪，也就是像谋杀、强奸和抢劫这样的死罪。将这些罪行归类在一起说明了对异端的迫害是宗教和世俗权力相结合的方式。从理论上讲，这意味着协调教会的国际法、英格兰教会法院的运作、普通法的习俗以及议会通过的法案。在实践中，这意味着在神职人员(他们定义了异端和已判决的案件)、君主(帮助教会发现异端并执行其判决)和普通人(通过检测和作证反对异端)之间划分责任。但是，王室如何准备好接受其仅仅是支持的角色，而门外汉则接受他们自己的法律服从教会的法律？没收为宗教和世俗权威之间的平衡变化提供了另一种视角。虽然与罗马的决裂破坏了教会在惩罚异端方面的独立性，以及对什么信仰是异端的不确定定义，但它几乎没有改变这样的信念，即异端本身就是一种应该受到严厉惩罚的罪行，没收仍然是其中的一个因素。