Modeling systems of sentencing in early inquisition trials: Crime, social connectivity, and punishment in the register of Peter Seila (1241–2)

Figures & data

Figure 1. Data collection and modelling workflow. An illustration of how textual features in Peter’s source text are collected as CASTEMO statement data, then analyzed for crime and social content for the data projection. The example CASTEMO statement has been presented in simplified form, with only the pertinent action, actants and their modifiers (“frequency” property applied to action; “social category” property applied to direct object actant).

Table 1. Pilgrimage weight scale.

Route	Destinations	Round-trip distance / other factors	Score
Local	Le Puy	c. 500 km	1
	Saint Gilles – Le Puy	c. 800 km	1.5
	Saint-Gilles – Le Puy – Saint-Léonard de Noblat – Saint-Martial de Limoges	c. 950 km (distance calculated from Gourdon, since only given there)	2
South	Santiago de Compostela	c. 2000 km	4
	San Salvador de Oviedo – Santiago de Compostela	c. 2000 km, extra stop	4.5
North	Saint-Denis	c. 1150 km	2.5
	Canterbury	c. 1800 km, Channel crossing	4
	Saint-Denis – Canterbury	c. 1800 km, Channel crossing, extra stop	4.5
Rome	Rome	c. 2500 km	5

Table 2. Primary penances – pilgrimages.

	Ascension 1241		Advent 1241		Lent 1242		Total
Pilgrimage weight	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
1	4	5	4	5	5	3	26
1.5	9	12	12	8	1	6	48
2	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
4	25	13	0	1	14	4	57
5.5	51	25	19	14	30	22	161
6	24	20	0	2	12	9	67
8	16	13	0	1	0	0	30
8.5	2	3	0	0	0	0	5
9.5	15	11	0	1	0	2	29
10	15	14	0	0	6	10	45
10.5	5	15	0	0	0	2	22
11	0	0	7	17	0	0	24
15.5	0	1	0	0	0	0	1

Table 3. Primary penances – crosses.

	Ascension 1241		Advent 1241		Lent 1242		Total
Crosses (primary) years	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
1	0	0	0	1	0	2	3
2	0	0	1	0	2	5	8
3	0	0	0	1	0	1	2

Table 4. Primary penances – Constantinople.

	Ascension 1241		Advent 1241		Lent 1242		Total
Years	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
1	16	0	8	0	3	0	27
2	20	0	10	0	1	0	31
3	14	0	11	0	4	0	29
4	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
5	1	0	1	0	0	0	2
7	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
8	0	0	1	0	0	0	1

Table 5. Intensifying penances – crosses (alongside beyond-local pilgrimage).

	Ascension 1241		Advent 1241		Lent 1242		Total
Years	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
1	0	20	3	11	0	3	37
2	0	5	0	0	0	0	5
3	1	2	0	2	0	1	6
5	0	0	1	0	0	2	3
7	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Indefinite	0	0	0	1	0	2	3

Table 6. Intensifying penances - maintenance fines (alongside any primary penance).

	Ascension 1241		Advent 1241		Lent 1242		Total
Years	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
1	0	0	7	5	1	1	14
2	0	0	1	1	0	0	2
Indefinite	0	0	7	3	5	0	15

Table 7. QCA conditions and their derivation from the general data projection.

Variable	Boolean Transformation (i.e., =1)	QCA condition: first analyses	QCA condition: second analyses
Sex	“f” (female)	F: Female	F: Female
Seeing and Seeking	>1 Once recurrence or >0 Multiple recurrence	S: Recurrent Seeing and Seeking	N: Non-Ritual Complex/Recurrent
Information Exch.	>0 (any recurrence cat.)	I: Information Exch.
Resource Exch./Practical Support	>0 (any recurrent cat.)	P: Resource Exch/Practical Support
Communing	>0 (any recurrent cat.)	C: Communing
Belief	>0 (any recurrence cat.)	B: Belief
Ritual	>0 (any recurrence cat.)	R: Ritual	R: Ritual
Interaction with Unnamed Heretic/s	All “heretic” interactions > 0 AND ≥ all Wald. interactions	H: Majority "Heretic" Interactions	H: Majority "Heretic" Interactions
Interaction with Unnamed Waldensian/s
Interaction with Named Heretic
Interaction with Named Waldensian

Table 8. QCA necessity tests (first analyses including all crime conditions, n = 620).

Sentence outcome	Necessary Conditions	Consistency	Coverage
Constantinople	f *	1	0.25
	H	0.99	0.23
	Solution	0.99	0.35
Beyond-local pilgrimage with crosses	H	0.96	0.13
	Solution	0.96	0.13
Beyond-local pilgrimage without crosses	r + h	0.97	0.79
	Solution	0.97	0.79

Consistency threshold: 0.95.

Uppercase letters stand for presence of condition; Lowercase letters stand for absence. * stands for AND; + stands for OR.

Table 9. QCA truth table (second analyses) – Constantinople (n = 620).

F	R	N	H	Number	Consistency	Outcome
0	1	1	1	92	0.86	1
0	0	1	1	149	0.08	0
0	0	1	0	69	0.01	0
1	0	1	0	92	0	0
1	0	1	1	71	0	0
1	1	1	1	53	0	0
0	1	1	0	40	0	0
1	1	1	0	21	0	0
0	0	0	1	17	0	0
1	0	0	1	10	0	0
0	0	0	0	3	0	0

Consistency threshold: 0.8.

Rows with fewer than 2 cases have been classified as remainders and are not shown.

Table 10. QCA truth table (second analyses) - beyond-local pilgrimage with crosses (n = 620).

F	R	N	H	Number	Consistency	Outcome
1	1	1	1	53	0.87	1
0	1	1	1	92	0.04	0
1	0	1	1	71	0.03	0
1	0	1	0	92	0.01	0
0	0	1	1	149	0.01	0
0	0	1	0	69	0	0
0	1	1	0	40	0	0
1	1	1	0	21	0	0
0	0	0	1	17	0	0
1	0	0	1	10	0	0
0	0	0	0	3	0	0

Consistency threshold: 0.8.

Rows with fewer than 2 cases have been classified as remainders and are not shown.

Table 11. QCA truth table (second analyses) - beyond-local pilgrimage without crosses (n = 620).

R	N	H	Number	Consistency	Outcome
1	1	0	61	0.98	1
0	1	0	161	0.81	1
0	1	1	220	0.8	1
0	0	1	27	0.22	0
1	1	1	145	0.08	0
0	0	0	4	0	0

Consistency threshold: 0.8.

Rows with fewer than 2 cases have been classified as remainders and are not shown.

Table 12. QCA necessity test and truth-table analysis - Constantinople (second analyses, n = 620).

Necessary Conditions	Consistency	Coverage
f *	1	0.25
N *	1	0.16
H	0.99	0.23
Solution	0.99	0.38
Sufficient Conditions	Consistency	Raw Coverage	Unique Coverage
Complex Solution
f*N*R*H	0.86	0.86	0.86
Solution	0.86	0.86	N/A
Intermediate solution (assumptions: F to contribute when absent, all others when present)
f*N*R*H	0.86	0.86	0.86
Solution	0.86	0.86	N/A
Parsimonious solution
f*R*H	0.85	0.86	0.86
Solution	0.85	0.86	N/A

Necessity test – consistency threshold: 0.95.

Truth-table sufficiency analysis – frequency threshold: 2; consistency threshold: 0.8.

Uppercase letters stand for presence of condition; Lowercase letters stand for absence. * stands for AND; + stands for OR.

Table 13. QCA necessity test and truth-table analysis - beyond-local pilgrimage with crosses (second analyses, n = 620).

Necessary Conditions	Consistency	Coverage
N *	0.98	0.09
H	0.96	0.13
Solution	0.96	0.15
Sufficient Conditions	Consistency	Raw Coverage	Unique Coverage
Complex Solution
F*N*R*H	0.87	0.84	0.84
Solution	0.87	0.84	N/A
Intermediate solution (assumptions: all factors to contribute when present)
F*N*R*H	0.87	0.84	0.84
Solution	0.87	0.84	N/A
Parsimonious solution
F*R*H	0.87	0.84	0.84
Solution	0.87	0.84	N/A

Necessity test – consistency threshold: 0.95.

Truth-table sufficiency analysis – frequency threshold: 2; consistency threshold: 0.8.

Uppercase letters stand for presence of condition; Lowercase letters stand for absence. * stands for AND; + stands for OR.

Table 14. QCA necessity test and truth-table analysis - beyond-local pilgrimage without crosses (second analyses, n = 620).

Necessary Conditions	Consistency	Coverage
r + h	0.97	0.79
N	0.98	0.65
Solution	0.95	0.83
Sufficient Conditions	Consistency	Raw Coverage	Unique Coverage
Complex Solution
N*h +	0.86	0.49	0.16
N*r	0.81	0.80	0.46
Solution	0.83	0.95	N/A
Intermediate solution (assumptions: H and R contribute when absent; N contributes when present)
N*h +	0.86	0.49	0.16
N*r	0.81	0.80	0.46
Solution	0.83	0.95	N/A
Parsimonious solution
N*r +	0.81	0.80	0.80
R*h	0.97	0.16	0.16
Solution	0.83	0.95	N/A

Necessity test – consistency threshold: 0.95.

Truth-table sufficiency analysis – frequency threshold: 2; consistency threshold: 0.8.

Uppercase letters stand for presence of condition; Lowercase letters stand for absence. * stands for AND; + stands for OR.

Table 15. Descriptive statistics (n = 620) of numerical crime variables.

Crime Category (frequency)	People with crime >0	Mean crimes per person	Standard deviation
Seeing and Seeking – Once	353	1.17	1.81
Seeing and Seeking – Multiple	230	0.43	0.62
Information Exchange – Once	361	0.97	1.27
Information Exchange – Multiple	106	0.2	0.47
Resource Exchange/Practical Support – Once	352	1.1	1.44
Resource Exchange/Practical Support – Multiple	118	0.24	0.55
Resource Exchange/Practical Support – Being	23	0.05	0.26
Communing – Once	184	0.48	0.99
Communing – Multiple	29	0.06	0.33
Belief – Once	199	0.42	0.7
Ritual – Once	179	0.54	1.19
Ritual – Multiple	62	0.14	0.48
Ritual – Being	4	0.01	0.08

Table 16. Descriptive statistics (n = 620) of categorical variables.

Predictor	Category items	Counts	Mean CPI
House	no / yes	447 / 173	7.16 / 10.65
Interacted with Unnamed “Heretics”	no / yes	192 / 428	5.85 / 9.16
Interacted with Unnamed Waldensians	no / yes	357 / 263	8.81 / 7.22
Interacted with Named “Heretic”	no / yes	594 / 26	7.88 / 14.12
Interacted with Named Waldensian	no / yes	599 / 21	8.23 / 5.52
Interacted with Sentenced	no / yes	556 / 64	8.10 / 8.46
Kinship to Sentenced – Textual	no / yes	508 / 112	7.71 / 10.07
Kinship to Sentenced – Inferred	no / yes	437 / 183	7.87 / 8.77
Sex	f / m	249 / 371	7.84 / 8.33
Period	Ascension 1241 / Advent 1241 / Lent 1242	350 /126 /144	7.89 / 9.78 / 7.31

Table 17. Multiple regression model result (n = 620) for the dependent variable of combined penance Index (CPI), R²=0.570, F(df regression = 24, df residual = 595) = 94.444, p < 0.001, AIC = 1073, BIC = 1180.

Predictor	Coef.	Std. Error	p Value	CI [0.025	0.975]
Intercept***	3.33	0.39	<0.001	2.57	4.1
Seeing and Seeking – Once	0.16	0.08	0.052	0	0.33
Seeing and Seeking – Multiple***	0.96	0.18	<0.001	0.62	1.3
Information Exchange – Once***	0.56	0.11	<0.001	0.34	0.78
Information Exchange – Multiple***	1.19	0.25	<0.001	0.7	1.69
Resource Exchange/Practical Support – Once***	0.79	0.08	<0.001	0.63	0.94
Resource Exchange/Practical Support – Multiple**	0.66	0.21	0.002	0.25	1.08
Resource Exchange/Practical Support – Being***	4.21	0.45	<0.001	3.33	5.09
Communing – Once	0.16	0.12	0.186	−0.08	0.39
Communing – Multiple*	0.74	0.35	0.037	0.04	1.43
Belief – Once***	1.08	0.18	<0.001	0.74	1.43
Ritual – Once***	0.79	0.12	<0.001	0.56	1.02
Ritual – Multiple***	3.08	0.27	<0.001	2.54	3.61
Ritual – Being***	13.15	1.31	<0.001	10.58	15.72
House [yes]*	0.65	0.23	0.014	0.13	1.16
Interacted with Unnamed “Heretics” [yes]*	0.74	0.33	0.024	0.1	1.39
Interacted with Unnamed Waldensians [yes]***	−1.23	0.32	<0.001	−1.85	−0.6
Interacted with Named “Heretic” [yes]*	1.16	0.55	0.033	0.09	2.23
Interacted with Named Waldensian [yes]**	−2.09	0.65	0.001	−3.37	−0.81
Interacted with Sentenced [yes]	−0.17	0.41	0.676	−0.98	0.63
Kinship to Sentenced – Textual [yes]	0.08	0.34	0.804	−0.57	0.74
Kinship to Sentenced – Inferred [yes]	0.24	0.23	0.367	−0.24	0.66
Sex [male]	0.22	0.22	0.324	−0.21	0.64
Period [Advent 1241]*	0.7	0.32	0.031	0.06	1.33
Period [Lent 1242]	0.32	0.27	0.27	−0.21	0.86

The asterisks alongside the predictors indicate their statistical significance: no asterisk = not significant; * = p ≤ 0.05; ** = p ≤ 0.01; *** = p ≤ 0.001

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available in its supplementary materials.