Burn Them All!: Witches, Heretics, and Rebels!

[Celebrim]

Corrupting the youth was the charge that Plato said his accusers brought against him.

Good to see someone still reads Plato. 'Corrupting the youth' was one of two charges brought against Socrates, or perhaps a blanket charge which covered the specific charges (how he had corrupted the youth). The other charge, or the specific charge depending on how you look at it, was that he was 'teaching foreign gods' and specifically, that Socrates didn't believe in the gods. Although all the charges were trumped up and his real 'crime' had been claiming that the leading political figures of Athens were ignorant, both charges stemmed mostly from Socrates claim that the Greek myths were not reliable stories about the gods. In other words, Socrates was questioning the authority of Greek 'scripture', and its for this reason that we are lead to believe by Plato that figures like Meletus first came to despise Socrates.

Now, that's not exactly punishment for heresy because those doing the punishment didn't particularly care what the people they punished believed or didn't believe--what was important was that they make the required sacrifices or perform the ritual prayers or worship. Heresy requires a codified system of belief which is not typical of ancient, historical polytheism.

Agreed. 'Heresy' is a philosophical crime, and most polytheistic religions aren't particularly philosophical. So I don't think it's a coincidence that when Greek philosophy flowers, we see documentation of philosophers being punished for heresy.

It's also worth noting that for most ancient polytheistic religions we have very little legal documentation, so we really have no idea whether or not they punished anyone for crimes equivalent to 'heresy'. They might have. They might not have. Suggesting that they did or did not is more a matter of opinion and tells us more about what people want to believe than what actually happened. Considering that even the Spainish inquisition only executed 60 people for witchcraft over the course of 400 years, and only 27000 for heresy (and executed fewer than 5000), it seems entirely probable to me that there were sparce convictions for equivalent crimes in polythiestic dynasties but that these simply never became part of the historical record. Then again, that's just an opinion. As an aside, I find that this is a typical misunderstanding people have of history. I think people underestimate the gaps we have in the historical record. Consider that we have zero, zilch, nada on the actual practice of historical druidism, for example.

 

[fusangite]

As just one noted example, what do you think Socrates was executed for?

Political dissent. He backed attempts to reimpose tyranny on Athens and abolish the democracy. So, they executed him for sedition. Sedition <> heresy.

EDIT: The fact that he was an "atheist" was also part of the charges against him certainly. And I covered the question of "atheism" as it was understood in the ancient world in my post.

The problem with "atheism" was not what people believed; it was their refusal to participate in or contribute to civic rituals that people believed made the crops grow, etc. People certainly were persecuted for withholding their participation from certain rites but this should not be conflated with heresy because their beliefs were irrelevant to the persecution. What mattered was their involvement in civic affairs.

Simply put, Socrates was executed for being an enemy of Athens. He wanted their gods, their rituals and their political system to fail. As you can read in Plato, Socrates never denied the existence of the gods and his beliefs about them had nothing to do with his persecution. Otherwise, the Academy would have been permanently banned for continuing to teach his cosmology. But it was not.

Errr.... I don't see the sharp bright-line distinction between heresy and rebellion that you are making here.

In some cultures, you are quite right. There is a big overlap.

Or rather, I do, but I don't think that the cultures that criminalized heresy did.

Agreed. Even when heretics claimed loyalty to early modern absolutist states, their claims were not believed.

This is the pretty obvious reason why much of the harshest treatment of religious dissenters in European history occured under monarchs who had unified the church and the state under themselves.

There are many reasons religious dissent became a major issue in the 16th century. That is certainly one.

 

[Slapzilla]

Heresy is fun, for what is it but Treason against a Church. If a Church, Monarch or any kind of ruling body creates absolute control over something that society needs (for society's protection, of course) then any uncontrolled ability for someone outside the approved circle will become demonized as a heretical, treasonous, monstrous threat. The Nazis did it. Witches are a visible, demonizable scapegoat for any group wanting to consolidate divine spellcasting.
Any secret society of intellectuals and concerned important people would have many levels of insulation. The 'lay' members meet in secret and discuss ideas on how to handle a particular situation. From the Church's hegemony, power drunk Deacons, tithe accountability etc. Ideas on solutions get filtered up through the network to the 'Inner Council' (or whatever) and decisions are made on implementation. All decisions are made through the filter of quiet, gentle, unnoticed pressure towards the desired goal. Framing a society's conversations and guiding conclusions is a function of politics. A secret opposition party working to move society's affections away from the rulers is, in essence, both form and function of a rebel movement. There will always be militants, but there will also always be forethoughtful, concientious people working for the betterment of all.
Think of the tactics of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and even Robin Hood.
In a Lawful society, being tardy could be an insult. Freedom is dangerous because it allows something uncontrolled. How tight is your society? What constitutes a crime? Is punishment meant to punish an individual or frighten ne'er-do-wells?

 

[Celebrim]

Political dissent. He backed attempts to reimpose tyranny on Athens and abolish the democracy. So, they executed him for sedition. Sedition <> heresy.

That is a perfectly good explanation for why he was executed. But neither sedition nor treachery was what he was charged with. There are very good reasons for that. For one, while he was almost certainly a supporter of the junta that temporarily overthrew Athenian democracy, the supporters of the junta had been granted amnesty. For another, the charge of sedition or treason would have been alot harder to prove to the Athenians, both because of Socrates record of service and because he'd never really said and didn't believe anything that was clearly in opposition to Athens.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that the charge of heresy is often merely a convienent cover for political or economic issues, but nonetheless, when a charge of heresy is made it is as you say "sedition <> heresy".

The problem with "atheism" was not what people believed; it was their refusal to participate in or contribute to civic rituals that people believed made the crops grow, etc. People certainly were persecuted for withholding their participation from certain rites but this should not be conflated with heresy because their beliefs were irrelevant to the persecution. What mattered was their involvement in civic affairs.

But again, while this is all generally true, it doesn't have much to do with the trial of Socrates. Socrates was not put on trial for refusing to participate in civic rituals or refusing to offer sacrifices for the very good reason that Socrates appears to have continued to participate in these rites. If Socrates had been known for his failure to venerate the gods publicly or communally, then this evidence would have certainly been brought up at his trial. What Socrates got tried for was 'corrupting the youth', and among the crimes which this covered was teaching that the orthodox myths about the Greek gods were wrong. What the trial of Socrates was about was not that he failed to worship the gods, but rather that his conception of the gods was very different than the orthodox one. The charges against Socrates were very much about what Socrates believed, and not what he did, and the trial reflects this.

Simply put, Socrates was executed for being an enemy of Athens. He wanted their gods, their rituals and their political system to fail. As you can read in Plato, Socrates never denied the existence of the gods and his beliefs about them had nothing to do with his persecution. Otherwise, the Academy would have been permanently banned for continuing to teach his cosmology.

I think it is very clear from the dialogues that many of Socrates most vehemenent opponents are very much concerned with Socrates beliefs about the gods. And I don't think that it follows that the fact that the Academy continued to be Socratic proves that the trial wasn't about what Socrates believed. First of all, because I fully concede that the stated crimes in the trial and the actual underlying reason he ran afoul of the law might be different (for another example, see the trial of Joan of Arc). And secondly, because I would guess that the real reason the whole Academy wasn't gone after was political expediency. The Academy wasn't banned from teaching Socratic thought for the same reason than the Democrats didn't try to go after the leaders of the anti-Democratic junta. Athens was simply politically too fragile, and an attempt to go after any large political block wholesale would have risked civil war. Socrates was executed because he persisted in being a very public embarassment to the current political leaders and because he was popular in the wrong circles, but the charge he was tried for ('corrupting the youth' and 'teaching foreign gods') was very much heresy in as many words.