|
The use of torture was authorized in 1252 by Pope Innocent IV. In Spain, it is estimated that torture was used in about 1/3 of all cases. (Hroch, p. 146) The purpose of torture was to exact confessions. Since some people questioned whether confessions received under torture were valid, the accused would be asked to verify what they had admitted under torture several hours later. If they refused to validate their confession, they would be subject to more torture.
Popular methods of torture included flogging, burning, the rack, and the roasting of feet over burning coals. In Spain and Italy, the garrucha was popular – the victim’s hands would be tied behind their back, and they’d be lifted off the ground by a rope tied around the wrists.
In Spain, another method of torture was oft employed - the water torture (tortura del’agua). In this scenario, the victim would be bound to the rack, with his head lower than rest of his body. The mouth would then be forced open (sometimes with cloth), and water would be forced into the mouth. The victim would risk suffocation if he did not “confess”.
“Their form of proceeding is an infallible way to destroy whomsoever the inquisitors wish. The prisoners are not confronted with the accuser or informer. Nor is there any informer or witness who is not listened to. A public convict, a notorious malefactor, an infamous person, a common prostitute, a child, are in the holy office, though no where else, credible accusers and witnesses. Even the son may depose against his father, the wife against her husband.” - Voltaire (Jones, p. 88)
To late-20th century Americans, the methodologies of the Inquisition are understandably horrifying. The Inquisition created an atmosphere where the denouncing of real or imagined sins of neighbors, business partners, even family members was encouraged. The accused had almost no rights – no right to a lawyer, no right to know who their accusers were, and no right to know the nature of the charges leveled against them. Torture was used in many cases to extract confessions. The methodologies and the ferocity of the Inquisition stood as unique in the history of Western civilization until the Nazis and Communists of the 20th century.
In this section we’ll examine how the Inquisitor went about his job, and what the experience of the accused might have been.
“Listen to me, citizen! I am no heretic: I have a wife, and sleep with her, and she has born me sons. I eat meat, I tell lies and swear [activities forbidden to Cathar perfecti], and I am a good Christian.” – Jean Tisseyre, Toulouse (Oldenbourg, p. 288)
Typically, the cycle of the Inquisition would start with the Inquisitor and his entourage (Tomas Torquemada traveled with 50 mounted bodyguards, and 200 foot soldiers) visiting a particular town or parrish. The Inquisitor would often preach to the population in the town square or church about the sin of heresy. An Edict of Faith was often published by the Inquisitor, giving detailed instructions as to how to spot a heretic (either in other people, or in yourself!)
Typically, a 1-4 week Term of Grace followed in which voluntary confessions were sought. Those that stepped forward voluntarily and admitted to their heresy were often given limited punishment. Also during this period the Inquisitor would start accumulating information from denouncers – those that were reporting heresy in others. This was, of course, a covenient way to do away with a business or personal rival (although there was one safeguard, which will be described later). Sometimes the Inquisitor would call upon a whole parish or city to testify. In 1245/6 inquisitors in the Toulouse area called on 8,000-10,000 people to testify! (Hamilton, p. 42)
After the period of grace, everyone in the parish or city that had not voluntarily confessed was at risk of being denounced. The Inquisition only required evidence of two witnesses for prosecution. And, as pointed out by Voltaire in the preamble of this section, the inquisitors were not very choosy about who could bring the denunciation. Wives and husbands could testify against each other. Convicted heretics and convicted criminals could denounce others.
Once a person had been accused, he or she was politely summoned to appear before the Inquisition. Such an appearance was not a requirement, but failure to appear was taken as evidence of guilt. During the Inquisiton, several inquisitors wrote “handbooks” for budding inquisitors. The excerpt below gives advice to the inquisitor on how to handle an early interrogation of a suspect:
“The inquisitor should behave in a friendly manner and act as though he already knows the whole story. He should glance at his papers and say: ‘It’s quite clear you are not telling the truth’ or should pick up a document and look surprised, saying: ‘How can you lie to me like this when what I’ve got written down here contradicts everything you’ve told me?’ He should then continue: ‘Just confess – you can see that I know the whole story already’”. - Nicholas Eymeric, Directorium inquisitorium (Hroch, p. 145)
Inquisition trials were held in secret. Suspects were not told the names of their accusers; however, they would be asked for a list of people that might bear them ill will. If the names of the denouncers were on the list, the accused was often set free (clever suspects would often present very long lists!)
The accused were not able to call witnesses in their own defense, nor (during most of the Inquisition) were they allowed to have counsel present. (In some areas, lawyers for the accused were allowed, but if the accused were found guilty of heresy, the lawyer could also be so charged, for having defended them!)
The accused were often put into Inquisitorial prisons during the time between arrest and sentence. In Spain, this period would often last for 3-4 years. During imprisonment, the accused usually had to pay their own expenses. This fact, and the fact that suspects found guilt of heresy often had to forfeit their property, meant that the Inquisition was often targeted against the wealthy rather than the poor. During the period of imprisonment, the accused was not allowed to talk to anyone other than the inquisitors.
Since the primary stated goal of the Inquisition was to save souls, suspects were continually encouraged to confess to their heresy. Those that admitted their “guilt”, and were willing to give the Inquisition names of other potential heretics, were often let off with penances. Penances could include:
Pilgrimages to local shrines, or to Rome, Compostella, Canterbury, etc.
Once a relapsed or unrepentant heretic was found guilty, they were handed over (or “relaxed”) to the secular authorities for punishment. This was not just an jurisdictional issue. The Church had a motto - “the Church shrinks from blood” (ecclesia abhorret a sanguine). Based on this motto, the Church itself would not administer the death sentence. Rather, this was left to local secular authorities. The chosen method for administering capital punishment – burning at the stake, was partially chosen because it did not shed blood.
The families of heretics that were burned typically had their property confiscated by the secular authorities. In Spain, descendents of heretics could not serve in public office, couldn’t enter holy orders, and couldn’t become physicians, tutors of the young, or advocates.
The Act Of Faith
The final scene of the Inquisitorial process was the Act of Faith (an auto-da-fé in Spain and 16th-century Italy, sermo generalis in the early days of the Papal Inquisition). Often, the accused did not hear their sentence until the day of the auto (those that were sentenced to death would be told the night before).
The Act of Faith was held in public, typically in a town square or (in Italy), inside a local church. They were often huge public spectacles. In 1660, an auto-da-fé held in Seville lasted for three days, and was attended by 100,000 people. On June 30, 1680, an auto-da-fé held in Madrid lasted for 14 hours, and had 50,000 spectators. The longest part of the auto-da-fé was the reading of sentences. With often hundreds of convicted heretics, the sentencing could take many hours.
Once the sentences had been read, those sentenced to death were led to the place of burning (quemadero in Spanish). Those that repented after being sentenced to death would be offered the courtesy of being garroted to death before being burned. Those that refused to recant (often Cathar perfecti, Lutherans and Calvinists in Italy and Spain, etc.) were burned alive.
Those burned at the stake would often have ghoulish company. It was common practice to sentence the dead to burning. The dead would dutifully be disinterred and placed next to the still living victims. As horrifying as this spectacle might seem, there was a pragmatic reason for charging, sentencing, disinterring, and burning the dead – the goods of their families could be confiscated. |
