The medieval Inquisition: A study in religious persecutionGorham, Charles T. (Charles Turner)
History
The medieval Inquisition: A study in religious persecution
Gorham, Charles T. (Charles Turner)
Inquisition
The provisions of this Bull were strictly enforced, and it is
significant of the state of public opinion that it aroused no effective
resistance. By a later Bull of 1265, Pope Urban IV confirmed its
instructions, and made the Inquisition supreme in all countries. It
became a maxim of law that all statutes which interfered with the
Inquisition were void and their authors punishable. The Holy Office had
a free hand, and was not liable to excommunication in the discharge of
its sacred duties, or to suspicion by even a Papal Legate. Nicholas IV
gave a finishing touch by making the Inquisitors’ commissions perpetual.
Bishops were not liable to be judged by Inquisitors, but nevertheless
had to obey them, and, though at times they tried cases of heresy in
their own courts, they were compelled to allow an Inquisitor to take
part in the sentence.
Popular feeling, it is true, occasionally revolted against this tyranny;
but, as any one who in any way opposed the Inquisition was thereby
excommunicated, the resistance was easily and remorselessly crushed. The
tenacious memory and sleepless vigilance of the Inquisition hunted out
persons who years before had said a kind word to a heretic, or sent a
copper to a sick person under suspicion. Public confidence was destroyed
by the general dread that a careless word might ruin a man; that stories
might, unknown to him, be circulated about him and come to the
Inquisitors’ ears; that an enemy might secretly and safely gratify an
old grudge, until at last poor wretches would inform against others
rather than be themselves betrayed.
It was a rule of the Inquisition that all testimony should be taken down
in the presence of two impartial persons unconnected with the
institution, but sworn to absolute secrecy. This precautionary act of
justice was soon disregarded, and the bulky documents of the Inquisition
were generally held to be unworthy of trust. In some of the revolts
against its tyranny the populace were careful to destroy the records,
for it was well known that the Inquisitors had an unpleasant habit of
discovering among them facts damaging to those whom they desired to
injure.
As if the Inquisitors themselves were not dangerous enough, they were
allowed to employ a swarm of hangers-on known as Familiars (by a
pleasing fiction they became part of the family), who were permitted to
carry the arms denied to ordinary civilians, and who enjoyed immunities
and powers which they abused with the utmost freedom. For the most part
they were a rabble of unruly ruffians, who squeezed money out of people
under the threat of accusing them of heresy or of impeding the
Inquisition in its beneficent duties. Any restriction in the number of
these rascals was resented as unlawful; but the State did sometimes, as
at Venice in 1450, succeed in reducing their numbers. They were wholly
unnecessary, as the Holy Office could command the services of the State,
as well as the assistance of the clergy and of the civil population.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account