I think he failed to make the important distinction between the Spanish Inquisition, which was under the control of the Monarchy, and the Papal Inquisition. They were not the same thing and worked differently.
I do specifically mention the Spanish Inquisition which was notorious for its use of torture but I don’t really distinguish between two organisations that burn people to death for their opinions. For the sake of clarity and out of interest I asked ChatGPT which told me “Both the Spanish Inquisition and the Papal Inquisition were efforts by the Catholic Church to suppress heresy, but there are some key differences between them: Origins: The Papal Inquisition was established by Pope Gregory IX in the 13th century, while the Spanish Inquisition was established in the late 15th century by the Spanish monarchs Isabella and Ferdinand. Geographical scope: The Papal Inquisition was primarily active in Italy and other parts of Europe, while the Spanish Inquisition was primarily active in Spain and its colonies in the New World. Legal jurisdiction: The Papal Inquisition was an ecclesiastical court, meaning that it had jurisdiction over matters relating to the Church, such as heresy and blasphemy. The Spanish Inquisition, on the other hand, was established as a state institution, meaning that it had the power to investigate and prosecute crimes that were seen as threats to the stability of the state, including heresy. Methods: The Papal Inquisition relied on a system of inquisitors who would investigate allegations of heresy and hold trials to determine guilt or innocence. The Spanish Inquisition, by contrast, was notorious for its use of torture as a means of extracting confessions from suspects. Overall, while both the Papal Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition were attempts to suppress heresy and maintain the power of the Catholic Church, they had different origins, geographical scopes, legal jurisdictions, and methods.”
@@LaurenceShafe You may dislike either or both of those institutions. But they were different and operated under different political logics. In principle they were no different from the prosecuting Protestant states. In Sweden, for instance, being Catholic was a capital offence; not being Lutheran was an offence, even if you were some other kind of Protestant; being Jewish was an offence (Jews were not allowed in the country until 1781); women convicted of witchcraft were buried alive. All in the name of Lutheran orthodoxy.
@@danhanqvist4237 I agree with you, they were all appalling. Of course, with my art historian hat on they were all interesting reflections of the social, political and religious culture of the period.
@@LaurenceShafe It's an interesting period, with lessons for us today. There was ideological polarisation and an eagerness to use state violence to silence the other side and to enforce orthodox conformity. There was a struggle between (academic) obscurantism and sceptical rationalist science. State dirigism not only of culture but the economy was prominent.
Very interesting, thank you!
I can’t believe this has only a couple of views.
The portrait of Venus .. almost blood like a pin-up .. Something that Alberto Vargas would have done ... just my opinion..
Thank you for such an interesting and informative talk
Wonderful talk thank you.😊
I think he failed to make the important distinction between the Spanish Inquisition, which was under the control of the Monarchy, and the Papal Inquisition. They were not the same thing and worked differently.
I do specifically mention the Spanish Inquisition which was notorious for its use of torture but I don’t really distinguish between two organisations that burn people to death for their opinions. For the sake of clarity and out of interest I asked ChatGPT which told me
“Both the Spanish Inquisition and the Papal Inquisition were efforts by the Catholic Church to suppress heresy, but there are some key differences between them:
Origins: The Papal Inquisition was established by Pope Gregory IX in the 13th century, while the Spanish Inquisition was established in the late 15th century by the Spanish monarchs Isabella and Ferdinand.
Geographical scope: The Papal Inquisition was primarily active in Italy and other parts of Europe, while the Spanish Inquisition was primarily active in Spain and its colonies in the New World.
Legal jurisdiction: The Papal Inquisition was an ecclesiastical court, meaning that it had jurisdiction over matters relating to the Church, such as heresy and blasphemy. The Spanish Inquisition, on the other hand, was established as a state institution, meaning that it had the power to investigate and prosecute crimes that were seen as threats to the stability of the state, including heresy.
Methods: The Papal Inquisition relied on a system of inquisitors who would investigate allegations of heresy and hold trials to determine guilt or innocence. The Spanish Inquisition, by contrast, was notorious for its use of torture as a means of extracting confessions from suspects.
Overall, while both the Papal Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition were attempts to suppress heresy and maintain the power of the Catholic Church, they had different origins, geographical scopes, legal jurisdictions, and methods.”
@@LaurenceShafe You may dislike either or both of those institutions. But they were different and operated under different political logics. In principle they were no different from the prosecuting Protestant states. In Sweden, for instance, being Catholic was a capital offence; not being Lutheran was an offence, even if you were some other kind of Protestant; being Jewish was an offence (Jews were not allowed in the country until 1781); women convicted of witchcraft were buried alive. All in the name of Lutheran orthodoxy.
@@danhanqvist4237 I agree with you, they were all appalling. Of course, with my art historian hat on they were all interesting reflections of the social, political and religious culture of the period.
@@LaurenceShafe It's an interesting period, with lessons for us today. There was ideological polarisation and an eagerness to use state violence to silence the other side and to enforce orthodox conformity. There was a struggle between (academic) obscurantism and sceptical rationalist science. State dirigism not only of culture but the economy was prominent.
@@danhanqvist4237 Thank you for your considered and balanced analysis. We certainly need such thinking today.