Talk:Roman Inquisition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Magnitude

How big an enterprise was this? How many people charged, convicted, executed? --AxelBoldt

I think this is impossible to say. Apart from a spanish secretary of local section, who wrote in 15th century that more than 13,000 people were executed in the 40 years he held this charge, we don't have other similar documents. Most likely, inquisitors and related assistants were aware it wasn't wise to leave around documentation about.

About "staff", first of all it is impossible to distinguish Roman branch from others (with reference to this aspect, at least), so we should look at the generality of apparatus; apart from that, it is impossible as well to define a proportion, because where papacy had more power, they could also use soldiers/gendarms of local ordinary army/police, so virtually any soldier could be asked to do something for inquisitors in the territories in which the Church had good relationships with local governments (in other words, most of western developed states). We could imagine that, being it organised as a tribunal, they could have a basic "employment" of let's say 30-50 people per each local section - at least - as a rough calculation of essential structure. However, some sections were secret.

Finally, it is deeply controversial whether some "missions" and "operations" (i.e., Hawaii, Usa indians, etc) should be included in the story of inquisition or not, so I find it's very hard to discover these numbers (I would eventually be very interested, though). I can tell you that in time I studied deeply the history of Sardinia, where proportions are so little that usually every detail can be retrieved, but in this matter we only know of some spanish officers, and never detailedly - we don't know how many cases happened in a population that only in 20th century grew over the million.

If anyone has any detail please add! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.145.193 (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2002 (UTC)

Where are any or all of thse numbers coming from? In fact, there are figures on prosecutions, convictions, and punishments available for various parts of Europe - a friend of JHKemp and mine is working steadily on the figures for the dioceses of Bamberg and Wurzburg. There is a problem of survival of records and interpretation, but the work is possible. Estimates like those given above, and the conflation of 'mission' and 'inquisition' are not very useful. Inquisitions were judicial bodies.

If you want to conflate genocide or alleged genocide of the missions with the actions of inquisitions, you're on the wrong track. On the other hand, if you want to talk about the figures for inquisitional practices in Latin America, there is lots of professional history to rely on -- there are lots of monographic studies on actual inquisitions in Peru and Mexico, for instance. I am not an specialist in the Early Modern, so all that is beyond me. MichaelTinkler

I am aware that we may find something about some entities (and I am happy someone is working on it and has the possibility to do it), but I am not convinced that we can achieve a completeness in describing the organisation, in the terms of AxelBoldt's question at least. In some places (I dare to believe, in many places) there aren't any records. In mentioned Sardinia at the beginning of 20th century (but this had happened before too) most of the registries and documents saved in the churches of small villages, were destroyed by fire, supposedly because of particular instructions given to local priests. Reconstructions are consequently based on other sources, perhaps sometimes on oral tradition (in latter case with proportional "scientific" value). This could have happened in other areas too. Not very useful, it is true, to answer Axel precisely or completely. But this is how it is (IMHO).

Let's specify: I would be very glad to know more, to read documents and studies that could help in having a precise scheme of what happened, in numeric terms too; I am only uncertain about the possibility of reaching a complete acknowledgenment, and I keep in mind that censorship and other inetrventions on documentation might have applied. Don't forget that Carafa was the same one of fig-leaf-campaign against Michelangelo.

I knew there were many studies about genocide, and I suspected there could have been others too I would never know. I have seen there are sources for numbers too: K.Deschner, i.e., in Opus Diaboli (Hamburg 1987) says Torquemada executed by fire more than 10,000 eretics.

I don't want to conflate anything, and the controversial point is not personally mine, but has been reported by several authors. Like every judicial body, there were "soldiers" that had to give execution to condemnations and other orders (arrests, etc.). In many cases these troops were the same that conquered places committing genocides. Whether alleged execution of orders pretendedly given by Sant'Uffizio was honest or not for each specific case, is not what I am going to judge at all. I just record today that some authors consider this coincidence of condemnations and genocides made by same soldiers as an extension of inquisition's activity.

About this point, do you know who's on a wrong track? Hard to believe, but it's Pope John Paul II, who in the occasion of recent conferences at Santa Marta (1998) talked about church's acquiescenza, specie in alcuni secoli, a metodi di intolleranza e persino di violenza nel servizio della verità as a final comment to theologist Cardinal Etchegaray's comments on religious persecutions. In these studies at Santa Marta, the Church suggested to finally admit that even hiberic inquisition was not only, or not mainly, directed by laical power (There is one and only inquisition, and even the existance of several historical variants does not vary the ecclesiastical charachter of the institution).

Besides there is the Enciclica Tertio Millennio Adveniente (1994) and the fact that some parts of Catholic church are explicitly against "milder" revisionism about this arguments (while some others are obviously in contrast). You see, there could be some controversial points.

I hope your friend's results can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.144.88 (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2002 (UTC)

Of course it was more than the laity, but please don't project backwards any idea of centralized, Curial (Roman) control on the European Catholic church of the pre-modern and early modern eras. Torquemada did not take orders from Rome. Period. I don't know who K Deschner is (as I say, the inquisition was invented AFTER my period of interest, and I don't bother with reading about it much), but from what I have read 10,000 sounds very, very high. Let me point out that a book Called Work of the Devil does not sound like a serious (i.e., dull and careful) history, but a popular history. That is, untrustworthy. Yes, there's a lot to apologize for, but let's allow professional historians to give us some idea of the numbers.

On another point, the pre-modern world was not lacking for people who may have wished to be autocrats in the late modern, 20th century sense. Elizabeth I of England and her secret service tried very hard, but they were up against the usual problem of lack ofeficincandechnlgy The pre-modern world never carried off the efficiency of state control we take for granted in the modern world. This is not to excuse any of their activities, but to try to bring a sense of proportion to the conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelTinkler (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 February 2002 (UTC)

On the other hand, some municipalities were quite efficient at record-keeping. What was usually destroyed in those convenient fires were not inquisatorial records (of which, let me point out, they were not ashamed), but tithe records (i.e., records used to charge taxes). MichaelTinkler—Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 27 February 2002

Talking specifically about this island for a minute, after those convenient fires nothing was found about inquisition, or very, very little (a couple of officers declaring that they could not reach a certain area - Posada - because of many bandits and pirates, something like that, nothing of particularly relevant - we only know about some tribunals of early 14th century and particularly meant against sardinian Templars). Should we conclude that inquisition was absent from Sardinia in 16th century? I think not.

We may read a worried letter of 1566 by Cagliari's bishop (spanish Antonio Parragués de Castillejo) regarding ashaming behaviours of priests (robberies - in churches too - or rapes, magic ceremonies, paganism, illegitimate sons with ecclesiastic privileges, and much more), therefore we have a proof that some documents, even when unelegant for the church's general appearance, were stored and could survive; but we cannot read about inquisition.

The question is: do any documents have been written on inquisition or not?

If not: was it because inquisition was absent from Sardinia (still quite pagan today, let's imagine at the time) or differently from the rest of the continent, local inquisitors hadn't left any records?

If yes: have they been destroyed, are they hidden somewhere, or what happened to them? And why we do have some "uncomfortable" documents (as mentioned letter) and not other ones?

Priests, perhaps, destroyed (or made unavailable) eventual proofs of what they felt was starting to be less appreciated than in the past (Napoleon, on the continent, wasn't very glad with inquisition). Whatever the reason, finally we don't have numbers from that island.

On taxes: honestly, it is from tax registries (i.e. Liber Fondachi - mainly of Pisa - same as for sicilian defetari, though less on a cadastrian side) that we are able to understand today important elements of Sardinian history, specially regarding the period from 13th to 16th century. These were not destroyed. This nasty island seems to be quite reluctant to obey to the rules of continental history.

Now, Sardinia means very little in the whole matter, but I stopped to this little area because I think that, missing numbers from here, we will not achieve absolute completeness on the point. Following question is: are we sure only Sardinian numbers will be missing?

Will we be able to answer the famous question, if not by proportions?

About bibliography, I am sorry for the scarce pedigree of Mr. Deschner, I had quickly "googled" for numbers and would certainly have enjoyed more famous signatures among those who tried to collect numbers (this was the first question). I wasn't able to see "professional historians" during this quick search, Deschner I found, Deschner I put.

Opus Diaboli, just because we are here, corresponds effectively to your english translation, but also recalls another Opus, "slightly" different (never translated, AFAIK, always named in latin), that seems to be granted a certain consideration in Vatican neighborhoods (= all over the world). Therefore the title is an indication of the author's position about this organisation (of which I am not going to talk); title is not NPOV by itself, but this doesn't necessarily mean at sight that all what is inside must be necessarily wrong, unless we are enrolling with either of the two barricades, and I am not. Nevertheless, the book contained a number.

Waiting for professional numbers, then; it's from the beginning of this page me too I am asking for them.

Reflecting on general habits at the time, I agree we should recall some facts for a better description. The contracts of feudalism (more or less real estate purchase acts) often contained clauses that were much worse than inquisitors' practices: faculty of killing or mutilating servants an so on, at the simple wish of the Baron, needless of better justified reasons as religious or moral ones; the Baron simply could order whatever he liked. This allows to conclude that, in a certain way, Inquisition was a less cruel mechanism than some local powers.

Torquemada "worked", with a huge authonomy, for Catholic Spain. I thought no one was discussing this. The Pope (or let's say the Cardinal, reporting his words) apologized for him too, declaring a moral responsibility on the Church as superior than the kings' one. In his words is a claim for central responsibility (not the local distribution of orders) of the Church, not in mine obviously, although a pope's word usually deserves attention.

We could at this point wonder why then the pope said that. Excess of humble mea culpa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.188.175 (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2002 (UTC)

After a quick internet only survey, so far as I can tell, in the period you seem to be concered about, Sardinia was not subject to any Italian power, but was part of Aragon and then of Spain. I'm glad to know that you realize that the inquisitions were were neither more nor less cruel than the general cultures in which they operated. For numbers on the Spanish Inquisition, see Kamen (listed as further reading on either Spanish Inquisition or on Inquisition). MichaelTinkler —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 28 February 2002

As a partial answer to the basic question, a page was finally found searching for this author: [1] (scroll down to two concise tables).

This regards however a part of the phenomenon, which entirety still seems far to be achieved. Doubts about completeness of data remain, unless you can anticipate us that the book contains them.

Where have you read that Sardinia was under italian power??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.191.156 (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2002 (UTC)

Sardinia was not subject to any Italian power, but was part of Aragon and then of Spain. See above. I share your doubts about completeness. Historians are skeptical people. I am becoming more skeptical of your interest in reading what I have to say, given your last comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelTinkler (talk • contribs) 07:00, 28 February 2002 (UTC)

I simply can't find a reason why you should recall me that Sardinia was part of Aragon: I could never say anything different.

I am reading you very attentively, instead, as ever, and am wondering what could had give you the idea that somewhere I could have considered Sardinia as a part of Italy at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.191.156 (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2002 (UTC)

I have said and repeated that Sardinia was not 'Italian'. I repeat my earlier comment: any inquisitorial process on Sardinia (which seems to be your interest) was subject to the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps I thought you were ill-informed about authority in medieval and early modern Europe because you are posting these queries on talk:Roman Inquisition rather than on talk:Spanish Inquisition. MichaelTinkler —Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 28 February 2002

Issuance of Declarations

From what little I've read, the CDF issued a "Declaration Against Certain Errors of the Present Day" on June 24 1973 in response to Hans Kung of Tubingen Infallible? An Inquiry. I wish to bring to the forum the notion that many clergy have insisted that their has been an 'inquisitorial mentality' that still holds Rome. A petition was signed to ask for due process in the Roman authorities manner of dealing with theologians that differed from them. --L Hamm 23:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Commment about naming convention

This was not the Roman Inquisition. It was the Catholic Church.The authorities at the time were clergy.174.79.178.170 (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Robert Helms

Redundant links

This section is about "The others" after Copernicus and Galileo. Galileo is already mentioned in the sub-section directly above, as well as linked twice too. Therefore this minor change to remove his name and the link already given twice. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Relocation of phrases

The sentence: "Galileo died under house arrest, and Campanella was imprisoned for twenty-seven years." was moved to the section "Galileo". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed references

Fixed the reference No. [5] [Ginzburg, Carlo (1980) The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth Century Miller, (translated by John and Anne Tedeschi) Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, ISBN 0-8018-4387] Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1