Talk:Spanish Inquisition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spanish Inquisition article. |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
| Archives: 1 | ||||
| Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated B-Class) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| WikiProject Echo (Spanish) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[edit] Archive
I've archived the previous talk page as it was becoming unmanageably long. If anyone feels the need to copy back recent discussions, please do so. Hobomojo 05:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Asterisk
What is the meaning of the asterisk in the second sentence? Eli lilly 23:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Otranto
I once read that the massacre at Otranto in 1480-1481 was an inspiration for the inquistion. Fvdham 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lead section
The lead section of an article is supposed to be a summary of the article. Someone moved the entire lead section into the body of the article and called it "summary". Brilliant. Now someone can write a proper WP:Lead section by summarizing the article and we can have TWO summaries. -- 71.191.36.194 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is this article for real?
This treatment renders the inquisitions as some sort of judicial process, a bureaucracy, and relatively benign with only some torture - but only in interrogation and never as punishment (that's okay then). Quite remarkable. Oh, and by the way, interesting that the authors think burning humans alive at the stake (after first burning their face black - "bearding") does not qualify as "torture as punishment". Historical revisionism in action. -- 62.25.106.209 18:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) ..Actually those thing appear to be myths spread as religious propaganda, when in reality the church didn't kill people - it was the secular state. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp
-
- I'm sorry, but the National Review can hardly be considered a scholarly source; it is not subject to peer review by historians, and announces its political slant unabashedly.PJtP (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
And it has been shown not may very killed at all http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3809983.stm --IceHunter 21:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was taught the same thing in a history class at my University. Keep in mind the inquisition couldn't judge people outside the church. But it did have quite a few who made false conversions under duress then when they returned to their previous beliefs got hauled before the inquisition. Not everyone got burned at the stake though, a lot of this has been made out to be much more volatile that it truly was. --Kraftlos (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If anything this article doesn't go far enough in the direction of demystifying the inquistion. The inquisition in Spain was extremely well-organized and governed by clearly established procedures, all of which could be proven by the meticulous records it had kept. We have tomes and tomes of primary documents on hundreds if not thousands of cases, with the transcript of the interrogations, the method of torture (if applied), and the that authorized it, the witnesses, etc. Far more than what you would expect from, say, a medieval CIVIL court. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.67.160 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mamelujo
Look, in a section on historiography, it is not only appropriate, but important, to set out the arguments of previous historians. You continually want to remove them as "discredited". True, there have been revisions, but Lea is still considered fundamental to Inquisition historiography. It is also inappropriate to plagiarize from another writer's work. As for the section on torture, it is hardly "better cited", since it relies on a Catholic periodical, while the section previously relied on neutral historians. The author is also in error on his figures about the percentage of those tortured, confusing the percentage put to the stake (2%) with the percentage who suffered torture. The author also does not cite his sources, thus there is no way to track his assertions any further, where as the cited historians in the previous version are well footnoted. Hobomojo (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the ONLY English anthology on the primary sources of the inquisition disagrees with you. The inquisitorial records are absolutely clear. The only authorized method of torture was by suspension, rack and water, and the application of torutre can only be authorized by a tribunal of inquisitors. This can be backed up by the transcrips of the interrogations and torture sessions themselves. -Chin Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.67.160 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dismissing Fox's "book of Martyrs"
Dismissing Fox's "book of Martyrs" without even a look at the historical reference to lieutenant-general M. de Legal is not presenting a true history of the Spanish Inquisition and its affect on Protesants. Also Monty Python had a movie "Yellowbeard" that should be added to the entertainment section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talenblackhawk (talk • contribs) 04:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Fox's Book of Martyrs was rightly dismissed by scholarship. Look at when and where it was written. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.67.160 (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] sorry, i messed up footnotes
Hi Folks - sorry. i have no idea what i did wrong. I added some footnotes, and now the whole section is a mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimicifugia (talk • contribs) 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
used undo and was able to fix footnotes--Cimicifugia (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora
[edit] Early Years Not Important?
- HI Cimicifugia! I rolled back your edits because they introduce substantial bias into the article. Quoting Ben-Sasson in the lead is a bad idea, since it puts undue emphasis on the issue of conversos, that only occupied the Inquisition during its early years (save for a stint in the 1640-1650s). Besides that, it is recognized as an unreliable source, see the AHR review for the reasons why. The book burning section duplicates information in the section on censorship, and introduces pure black-legend falsehoods. Llorente is widely acknowledged to be an unreliable source due to his partisanship during the struggles of the 1820s-1830s. Hobomojo (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Hobomojo - what is AHR? Isn't it important to be clear that the conversos were the original motivation for the institution of the Inquistion? This is a key fact few people know. To me saying"only in the early years" gives it undue deemphasis. What is your reference for making your POV on this the determinative one? If it is merely your own opinion, then it is not privileged to be the only one that appears in Wikipedia. I have trouble believing Ben-Sasson is an unrelibalbe source - please provide your references for that. You are obviously very expert in this area, which I am not. --Cimicifugia (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia
The AHR is the American Historical Review, the journal of the American Historical Association. Ben-Sasson's work is reviewed there, not all that favorably. Yes it is important to be clear that conversos were the original motivation for the Inquisition, which the article does. Citing Ben-Sasson in the lead, which should be a general overview of the article, puts undue emphasis on this point. I would strongly disagree that "few people know" the origins of the Inquisition as a response to conversos. The Inquistion lasted until the 19th century, and most of its victims over the long period were not conversos. Hobomojo (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Haven't we been through this already?
From the section above: As for the section on torture, it is hardly "better cited", since it relies on a Catholic periodical, while the section previously relied on neutral historians. The author is also in error on his figures about the percentage of those tortured, confusing the percentage put to the stake (2%) with the percentage who suffered torture. The author also does not cite his sources, thus there is no way to track his assertions any further, where as the cited historians in the previous version are well footnoted.
There is no way to find out where the author is getting his figure of 2% since he doesn't footnote the article. Kamen finds 7-11% in the 16th and 17th cent. citing Garcia Carcel and Bennassar and suggests that in the late 17th cent it was even higher. (p. 189). See page 199 for the 2% figure on those put to the stake. If you can come up with the source of the 2% figure for those tortured, I would be happy to see it, since it conflicts with other sources. Looking at another of Madden's articles on the Inquisition, it appears that his source might be the 2000 Vatican report, which would mean he's referring to the Roman inquisition, not the Spanish. Hobomojo (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Why is so little said about profit as motive?
I'm not an expert on Spanish Inquisition, but I was browsing Henry Charles Lea who dedicates several chapters (A History of the Inquisition of Spain Volume 2: Book 5 - Resources) to the topic to monetary gain from confiscation and fines. Is Mr. Lea no longer considered an authority on the topic? Is there an expert on the topic who can redress this issue? Kea2 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Profit is listed in the article as one among a number of motives for instituting the Inquisition. It would be difficult to argue that it was a motive for its continued existence, however, since the vast majority of those denounced were humble peasants, priests, etc. i.e. folks without substantial assets. Kamen's review of the primary and secondary literature includes "Whatever the income form confiscations at any time, it is safe to assume that the tribunals did not grow appreciably wealthier, or at least did not keep up their temporary wealth for long periods." p. 151. His section on finances runs from p. 148-157.
- Lea still has much to offer, though Mamelujo would say he's been completely discredited. In the century since he wrote his massive history, there has been a lot of very fine-grained work done on many aspects of the inquisition, including finances. His conclusions need to be taken with a healthy grain or two of salt. Hobomojo (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What is meant by "even sentence to the galleys"?
This is apparently does not mean "sentenced to the gallows", as for hanging, as hanging is not referred to elsewhere in the article as a possible punishment. The ultimate punishment was burning at the stake, which does not involve "gallows". So does this mean the accused was sentenced to serve as an oarsman on a "galley" (ship)? Anyone know? DarylNickerson (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sentence to the galleys was sentencing to be an oarsman. Probably tantamount to a death sentence, just slower. Hobomojo (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Eastern Orthodox Population
Were the few (if any) Eastern Orthodox Spanish persecuted? Possibly foreign diplomats, merchants? 71.194.63.161 (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- From what I understand, only those who were members of the Catholic church were subject to the authority of the inquisition. Though, non-catholics weren't particularly well-liked in medieval Spain, they weren't hauled in to court. --Kraftlos (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Further reading or bibliography addition (1)
In relation to the section Spanish_Inquisition#Repression_of_Jews, for consideration. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Wheelwright, Jeff; Warren, Scott S. (October 2008), "The Secret of San Luis Valley", Smithsonian 39 (7): 48–56, ISSN 0037-7333, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/san-luis-valley.html, retrieved on 2008-10-26, "(subtitle) The discovery of a cancer gene among some Hispanic Catholics in southern Colorado supports the theory that they're descended from "secret Jews" who fled the Spanish Inquisition"
[edit] Henningsen-Contreras statistics
I've added the table with the data about the number of trials and executions according to the statistics of Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras. Since the authors themeselves admit that their statistics is far from being complete, I've compared the numbers given by them with the numbers that appear from other available sorces for the respective tribunals. I've based primarily on William Monter, Frontiers of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily, Cambridge 2003. CarlosPn (discussion) 31 Oct 2008 22:15 CET
[edit] Moriscos
Hi Tim-- If you read the paragraph following the sentence you deleted, you'll see that the Moriscos were not finally expelled from Spain until the 17th century. Not to difficult to draw from that that the treatment they received was more lenient than that given to the Jews who were expelled in 1492. But I added a cite anyway. Please familiarize yourself with the literature before making rash and unfounded edits. Hobomojo (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removing "History" Section
I'm removing the "History" section and putting it here, if anything can be salvaged. This section started with these edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spanish_Inquisition/Archive_1#First_paragraph_changes and the series of discussions that followed. As someone above pointed out, at some point, an expanded lead paragraph was transferred to the body of the article and titled Summary, then History. Now some gadfly has come by and tagged a number of sentences with fact tags, though the citations appear in the body of the article. The original rationale was to have a section accessible to children, but this is obviously not achieving its goal, simply producing more complication and confusion. I agree, there are citations below that could and should be integrated into the body of the article, but for the time being, let's just remove it and focus on the article rather than a highly condensed and compressed version of the article.Hobomojo (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
History The Spanish Inquisition was used for two important reasons: one was based on politics and the other was religion. The tribunal was an institution that had precedents in other Inquisitions.
In the 15th century, as the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon united under the Catholic monarchs and concluded the Reconquista with the conquest of Granada, anxiety grew about the cultural unity of the country. People became anxious and suspicious about the hundreds of thousands of Jews and Muslims who had recently converted to Christianity, called conversos or, derogatively, marranos. Many people doubted the sincerity of these conversions. Indeed, many Jews and Muslims accepted baptism to escape violent anti-Jewish outbursts around 1400 and anti-Moorish violence in the 1520's. In 1492, by the Alhambra Decree, the government ordered all remaining Jews who would not convert to Christianity to leave the kingdoms; in 1526 the same was mandated for Muslims. Then, around the 1540s, the Spanish Inquisition turned its fire on the Protestants in Spain in an attempt to put together a single nation.
Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs' decision to found the Inquisition, such as increasing political authority, weakening opposition, doing away with conversos, and acquiring new properties and treasure.
Ferdinand II of Aragon pressured Pope Sixtus IV to agree to an Inquisition controlled by the monarchy. Ferdinand threatened to withdraw military support at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome. Sixtus IV later accused the Spanish inquisition of being overzealous and accused the monarchs of being greedy. The Pope issued a bull to stop the Inquisition but was pressured into withdrawing it.[1]
During the 16th century the church found a new enemy: Protestants, about 100 of whom were burned as heretics. The Inquisition made an index of prohibited books which were found to contain heresy. Converts from Islam, called moriscos (Moors), were also targeted by the Holy Office. The Spanish Inquisition was an institution at the service of the monarchy, but it had to follow procedures set up by the Holy See.
Most of the inquisitors had a university education in law.[citation needed] The procedures would start with Edicts of Grace, wherein people were invited to step forward to confess their heresy, and to denounce other heretics.[citation needed] Those so denounced were detained.[citation needed] A defense counsel was assigned to the defendant, a member of the tribunal itself, whose role was to advise the defendant and to encourage him or her to speak truthfully.[citation needed] A Notary of the Secreto meticulously wrote down the words of the accused. The archives of the Inquisition, in comparison to those of other judicial systems of the era, are striking for the completeness of their documentation.[citation needed]
The percentage of cases where torture was used as a means for gaining confessions varied, but, in general, was quite rare. [2] [3] According to a joint BBC/A&E documentary, in the city of Valencia of over 7,000 documented cases, less than 2% experienced any torture at all. It usually lasted no longer than 15 minutes. Fewer than 1% of the prisoners were tortured more than once. Sentences varied from fines to execution (also rare - below 2%[3]) and those condemned had to participate in the ceremony of auto da fé (act of faith). The arrival of the 18th century slowed inquisitorial activity; the Inquisition was dissolved by Napoleon's brother King Joseph Bonaparte, and although it was nominally re-established with the Borbon restoration it was definitively abolished on July 15, 1834.
From the mid-16th century to the mid-17th century, a time when Europe was torn apart by Catholic-Protestant strife, various European Protestant intellectuals[who?], who generally had minimal or no direct access or experience of the Inquisition, began to write what has come to be known as the Black Legend.[citation needed] It was part of Protestant polemic in support of the Protestant Reformation.[citation needed] With the gradual ebbing of religious hostilities, professional historians began investigations, and revealed a detailed, nuanced and less exaggerated picture of the Inquisition.[citation needed]
