What do you think?
Rate this book
العرب والمسلمون في الأندلس
مقدمة المترجم:
هذا الكتاب هو ترجمة فصل طويل من كتاب في أربعة مجلدات بعنوان "محاكم التفتيش في إسبانيا"0
"A History of the Inquisition of Spain"
ومؤلفه "هنري تشارلز لي"0
"Henry Charles Lea"
والفصل موجود في المجلد الثالث، بعنوان: تنصير العرب والمسلمين (الموريسكو) وطردهم.
هذا الكتاب هو ترجمة فصل طويل من كتاب في أربعة مجلدات بعنوان "محاكم التفتيش في إسبانيا"0
"A History of the Inquisition of Spain"
ومؤلفه "هنري تشارلز لي"0
"Henry Charles Lea"
والفصل موجود في المجلد الثالث، بعنوان: تنصير العرب والمسلمين (الموريسكو) وطردهم.
216 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
1 person is currently reading
70 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 14, 2022
ذا الكتاب هو ترجمة فصل طويل من كتاب في أربعة مجلدات بعنوان "محاكم التفتيش في إسبانيا"0
"A History of the Inquisition of Spain"
ومؤلفه "هنري تشارلز لي"0
"Henry Charles Lea"
والفصل موجود في المجلد الثالث، بعنوان: تنصير العرب والمسلمين (الموريسكو) وطردهم.
لم أشعر أنه كتاب مترجم .. فالترجمة فائقة الدقة
ومن حيث المحتوى .. فهو يتحدث عن الفترة التي تلت سقوط غرناطة وكيف تم تنصير من بقي من العرب والسلمين ولم يُهاجروا والذين يسمون بالـ"الموريسكو" وذلك بالإقناع ثم بالإجبار على مدى نصف قرن من الزمان .. اسلوب الكاتب كان منصفا لهم كثيرا ومبينا ظلم المسيحيين الأصل الذين استولوا على الأندلس من أيدي المسلمين.
"A History of the Inquisition of Spain"
ومؤلفه "هنري تشارلز لي"0
"Henry Charles Lea"
والفصل موجود في المجلد الثالث، بعنوان: تنصير العرب والمسلمين (الموريسكو) وطردهم.
لم أشعر أنه كتاب مترجم .. فالترجمة فائقة الدقة
ومن حيث المحتوى .. فهو يتحدث عن الفترة التي تلت سقوط غرناطة وكيف تم تنصير من بقي من العرب والسلمين ولم يُهاجروا والذين يسمون بالـ"الموريسكو" وذلك بالإقناع ثم بالإجبار على مدى نصف قرن من الزمان .. اسلوب الكاتب كان منصفا لهم كثيرا ومبينا ظلم المسيحيين الأصل الذين استولوا على الأندلس من أيدي المسلمين.
June 7, 2024
VOLUME 3 OF A FOUR-VOLUME SET
Henry Charles Lea (1825-1909) was an American historian, civic reformer, and political activist. He also wrote a 3-volume ‘A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.” This first volume was originally published in 1907. Following are some representative quotations from the book.
“To the modern mind the judicial use of torture, as a means of ascertaining truth, is so repellant and illogical that we are apt to forget that it has, from the most ancient times, been practised by nearly all civilized nations. With us the device of the jury has relieved the judge of the responsibility resting upon him in other systems of jurisprudence. That responsibility had to be met; a decision had to be reached, even in the most doubtful cases and, where evidence was defective and conflicting, the use of torture as an expedient to obtain a confession, or, by its endurance, to indicate innocence, has seemed, until modern times, after the disuse of compurgation and the judgements of God, to be the only means of relieving the judicial conscience. It was admitted to be dangerous and fallacious, to be employed only with circumspection, but there was nothing to take its place. That it should be used by the Inquisition was a matter of course, for the crime of heresy was often one peculiarly difficult to prove; confession was sought in all cases and, from the middle of the thirteenth century, the habitual employment of torture by the Holy Office had been the most efficient factor in spreading its use throughout Christendom, at the expense of the obsolescent Barbarian customs… “ (Bk. 6.7)
“We shall see that occasionally tribunals abused the use of torture, but the popular impression that the inquisitorial torture-chamber was the scene of exceptional refinement in cruelty, of specially ingenious modes of inflicting agony, and of peculiar, persistence in extorting confessions, is an error due to sensational writers who have exploited credulity. The system was evil in conception and in execution, but the Spanish Inquisition, at least, was not responsible for its introduction and, as a rule, was less cruel than the secular courts in its application, and confined itself more strictly to a few well-known methods. In fact, we may reasonably assume that its use of torture was less frequent, for its scientific system of breaking down resistance, in its long-drawn procedure, was more effective than the ruder and speedier practice of the secular courts … In this respect, the comparison between the Spanish and the Roman Inquisition is also eminently in favor of the former.” (Bk. 6.7)
“At every stage in the preliminaries, after reading the sentence, taking the prisoner down to the torture chamber, calling in the executioner, stripping the prisoner and tying him to the trestle, there was a pause in which he was solemnly adjured to tell the truth for the love of God, as the inquisitors did not desire to see him suffer… Women as well as men were subjected to this, the slight concession to decency being … a kind of abbreviated bathing-trunks, but the denudation seems to have been complete before these were put on... It was a universal rule that torture could be applied only once, unless new evidence supervened which required purging, but this restriction was easily evaded. Though torture could not be repeated, it could be continued and, when it was over, the patient was told that the inquisitors were not satisfied, but were obliged to suspend it for the present, and that it would be resumed at another time, if he did not tell the whole truth. Thus it could be repeated from time to time as often as the consulta de fe might deem expedient… It is impossible to read these melancholy records without amazement that the incoherent and contradictory admissions through which the victim, in his increasing agonies, sought to devise some statement in satisfaction of the monotonous command to tell the truth, should have been regarded by statesmen and lawgivers as possessed of intrinsic value. The result was a test of endurance and not of veracity.” (Bk. 6.7)
“[T]he Spanish Holy Office, so far from being the benignant and equitable procedure asserted by its representatives and re-echoed by modern apologists, was one which violated every principle of justice. The guilt of the accused was assumed in advance; the prosecution was favored in every way; the defence was so crippled as to be scarce more than a pretext, while the judge, who was in reality the prosecutor, was shielded, by impenetrable secrecy, from all responsibility except to the Suprema… the arbitrary power thus conferred was not always abused, for the individuals were not necessarily as vicious as the system, but the power existed and its exercise for good or for evil depended on temperament and temptation.” (Bk. 6.8)
“Although at first sight the use of the lash, as a persuasive to correct religious belief, may appear somewhat incongruous, it must be borne in mind that, under the euphemy of the discipline, it has always formed a prominent feature of penance, especially among the monastic orders where, in the daily or weekly chapters, it was liberally administered for all infractions of the Rule or other sins, as a preliminary to absolution. In fact, the touching of the penitent's shoulder with a wand by the priest in absolution from excommunication, is a symbol of the discipline which was anciently indispensable… All the offences subjected to the Inquisition were constructively heretical, and there never seems to have been any discrimination exercised between them. Indeed, we have seen that the lash was especially indicated for heretics who were tardy or variable in their confessions, and Judaizers are constantly seen to be subjected to it. Scourging was a favorite penalty which was lavishly and often mercilessly employed… Enslavement in the galleys, to labor at the oar, would appear to be even more incongruous than scourging as penance for spiritual offences. It was a Spanish device, unknown to the elder Inquisition, and had its origin in the thrifty mind of Ferdinand.” (Bk. 7.3)
“The condemnation of a human being to a death by fire, as the penalty of spiritual error, is so abhorrent to the moral sense and so oppugnant to the teachings of Christ, that modern apologists have naturally sought to relieve the Church from responsibility for such atrocity. On the surface a tolerably plausible argument can be made. The ministers of religion, the spiritual courts, the Inquisition itself rendered no judgements of blood… The execution of heretics was a matter purely of secular law and burning them alive is not prescribed in canon or decretal.” (Bk. 7.4) “The negativo--the man who denied his heresy in the face of what was deemed competent testimony of guilt--was classed as an impenitent heretic and doomed to relaxation. This was the inevitable logic of the Inquisition, although it led to the most tragic of all situations--that of being tortured to death in honor of the faith which the sufferer held. It was impossible, under the inquisitorial system, to allow a possible heretic to escape merely because he unflinchingly affirmed his orthodoxy, and yet when a man asserted it up to the brasero, knowing that it would not avail him, it was impossible not to recognize in him a true believer who would not save his body at the expense of falsely confessing apostasy.” (Bk. 7.4)
“The Act of Faith--the Auto de Fe--was the name by which the Spanish Holy Office dignified the Sermo of the Old Inquisition. In its full development it was an elaborate public solemnity, carefully devised to inspire awe for the mysterious authority of the Inquisition, and to impress the population with a wholesome abhorrence of heresy, by representing in so far as it could the tremendous drama of the Day of Judgement. It was regarded as an eminently pious duty… To insure a large attendance, an indulgence, usually of forty days, was granted to all present at the pious work. At the height of its power the Inquisition spared no labor or expense to lend impressiveness to the auto publico general, as a demonstration of its authority and of the success with which it performed its functions… the victims were marched on foot to the plaza, their hands tied with ropes across the breast, wearing sanbenitos of yellow linen with their names and the inscription "herege condenado," and bearing mitres on their heads. In the plaza they were ranged in tiers on a staging, while the inquisitors and their officials occupied another staging opposite. The sentence of each one was read and, although the culprits were numerous, the affair, commencing at 6 A.M., was over by noon, when the convicts were carried to the brasero or quemadero for burning.” (Bk. 7.5)
“As the apostasy of the enforced converts from Judaism was the proximate cause of the establishment of the Spanish Holy Office, so they continued to be almost the exclusive object of its energies, until the similar treatment of the Moors created, in the Moriscos, a class with even greater claims on its solicitude. The rooting out of the latter, however, in the early years of the seventeenth century, was so complete that they virtually disappeared from the records of the tribunals, while the Jewish New Christians remained, and, for more than another century provided the major portion of their more serious work. It had been easy, since 1391, to compel baptism by the alternatives of exile or death, but it had never been deemed necessary to supplement this by instruction in the new faith, or by efforts to effect a real conversion…So, when the expulsion of 1492, filled the land with a new multitude of neophytes, there was the same disregard of the duty of persuasion and instruction. The only utterances on the subject seem to assume that they would in some way instruct and fortify themselves in their new religion.” (Bk. 8.1)
“One of the most prominent reasons urged for the establishment and perpetuation of the Inquisition was the zeal of the crypto-Jews in proselyting … Judaism is a matter of race as much as of dogma; the Jews have never sought to convert the Gentiles and, in Spain of all lands, it was clearly preposterous that men, who could only exist by concealing their belief, would incur the certainty of detection and of pitiless punishment, by the unpardonable offence of seeking the apostasy of their Christian neighbors. What conversions there were were spontaneous, and these served to intensify the horror of Judaism and to keep alive the sense of danger arising from the presence of those suspected of cherishing the ancient faith.” (Bk. 8.1)
“One cannot help concluding that with time and reasonable treatment, there would have been no Morisco question to perplex the statesmen of Spain. The fate of the exiles parallelled that of the Jews in 1492, and indeed was even worse, for they were banished more precipitately, and were absolutely forbidden to return even as Christians.” (Bk. 8.2)
“A papal brief would be highly desirable, therefore, under which the tribunals, without scruple or fear of irregularity, could and should relax the guilty from whom danger to the republic might be feared, no matter what their dignity in Church or State, giving to the inquisitors full power to employ the rigor required by the situation, even if it went beyond the limits of the law… Having obtained authority to set aside the law, the Inquisition was prepared to impress the people with a sense of the danger of wandering from the faith.” (Bk. 8.3)
“The mere possession of books rendered the owner an object of suspicion and investigation. If this was the case with private collectors of all ranks, we can readily appreciate the endless troubles and ruinous prosecutions to which booksellers were exposed… This is merely an indication of the continuous warfare waged against culture and learning, from which no one was safe.” (Bk. 8.4)
Lea’s series of books on the Inquisition are “must reading” for anyone seriously studying the institution.
Henry Charles Lea (1825-1909) was an American historian, civic reformer, and political activist. He also wrote a 3-volume ‘A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.” This first volume was originally published in 1907. Following are some representative quotations from the book.
“To the modern mind the judicial use of torture, as a means of ascertaining truth, is so repellant and illogical that we are apt to forget that it has, from the most ancient times, been practised by nearly all civilized nations. With us the device of the jury has relieved the judge of the responsibility resting upon him in other systems of jurisprudence. That responsibility had to be met; a decision had to be reached, even in the most doubtful cases and, where evidence was defective and conflicting, the use of torture as an expedient to obtain a confession, or, by its endurance, to indicate innocence, has seemed, until modern times, after the disuse of compurgation and the judgements of God, to be the only means of relieving the judicial conscience. It was admitted to be dangerous and fallacious, to be employed only with circumspection, but there was nothing to take its place. That it should be used by the Inquisition was a matter of course, for the crime of heresy was often one peculiarly difficult to prove; confession was sought in all cases and, from the middle of the thirteenth century, the habitual employment of torture by the Holy Office had been the most efficient factor in spreading its use throughout Christendom, at the expense of the obsolescent Barbarian customs… “ (Bk. 6.7)
“We shall see that occasionally tribunals abused the use of torture, but the popular impression that the inquisitorial torture-chamber was the scene of exceptional refinement in cruelty, of specially ingenious modes of inflicting agony, and of peculiar, persistence in extorting confessions, is an error due to sensational writers who have exploited credulity. The system was evil in conception and in execution, but the Spanish Inquisition, at least, was not responsible for its introduction and, as a rule, was less cruel than the secular courts in its application, and confined itself more strictly to a few well-known methods. In fact, we may reasonably assume that its use of torture was less frequent, for its scientific system of breaking down resistance, in its long-drawn procedure, was more effective than the ruder and speedier practice of the secular courts … In this respect, the comparison between the Spanish and the Roman Inquisition is also eminently in favor of the former.” (Bk. 6.7)
“At every stage in the preliminaries, after reading the sentence, taking the prisoner down to the torture chamber, calling in the executioner, stripping the prisoner and tying him to the trestle, there was a pause in which he was solemnly adjured to tell the truth for the love of God, as the inquisitors did not desire to see him suffer… Women as well as men were subjected to this, the slight concession to decency being … a kind of abbreviated bathing-trunks, but the denudation seems to have been complete before these were put on... It was a universal rule that torture could be applied only once, unless new evidence supervened which required purging, but this restriction was easily evaded. Though torture could not be repeated, it could be continued and, when it was over, the patient was told that the inquisitors were not satisfied, but were obliged to suspend it for the present, and that it would be resumed at another time, if he did not tell the whole truth. Thus it could be repeated from time to time as often as the consulta de fe might deem expedient… It is impossible to read these melancholy records without amazement that the incoherent and contradictory admissions through which the victim, in his increasing agonies, sought to devise some statement in satisfaction of the monotonous command to tell the truth, should have been regarded by statesmen and lawgivers as possessed of intrinsic value. The result was a test of endurance and not of veracity.” (Bk. 6.7)
“[T]he Spanish Holy Office, so far from being the benignant and equitable procedure asserted by its representatives and re-echoed by modern apologists, was one which violated every principle of justice. The guilt of the accused was assumed in advance; the prosecution was favored in every way; the defence was so crippled as to be scarce more than a pretext, while the judge, who was in reality the prosecutor, was shielded, by impenetrable secrecy, from all responsibility except to the Suprema… the arbitrary power thus conferred was not always abused, for the individuals were not necessarily as vicious as the system, but the power existed and its exercise for good or for evil depended on temperament and temptation.” (Bk. 6.8)
“Although at first sight the use of the lash, as a persuasive to correct religious belief, may appear somewhat incongruous, it must be borne in mind that, under the euphemy of the discipline, it has always formed a prominent feature of penance, especially among the monastic orders where, in the daily or weekly chapters, it was liberally administered for all infractions of the Rule or other sins, as a preliminary to absolution. In fact, the touching of the penitent's shoulder with a wand by the priest in absolution from excommunication, is a symbol of the discipline which was anciently indispensable… All the offences subjected to the Inquisition were constructively heretical, and there never seems to have been any discrimination exercised between them. Indeed, we have seen that the lash was especially indicated for heretics who were tardy or variable in their confessions, and Judaizers are constantly seen to be subjected to it. Scourging was a favorite penalty which was lavishly and often mercilessly employed… Enslavement in the galleys, to labor at the oar, would appear to be even more incongruous than scourging as penance for spiritual offences. It was a Spanish device, unknown to the elder Inquisition, and had its origin in the thrifty mind of Ferdinand.” (Bk. 7.3)
“The condemnation of a human being to a death by fire, as the penalty of spiritual error, is so abhorrent to the moral sense and so oppugnant to the teachings of Christ, that modern apologists have naturally sought to relieve the Church from responsibility for such atrocity. On the surface a tolerably plausible argument can be made. The ministers of religion, the spiritual courts, the Inquisition itself rendered no judgements of blood… The execution of heretics was a matter purely of secular law and burning them alive is not prescribed in canon or decretal.” (Bk. 7.4) “The negativo--the man who denied his heresy in the face of what was deemed competent testimony of guilt--was classed as an impenitent heretic and doomed to relaxation. This was the inevitable logic of the Inquisition, although it led to the most tragic of all situations--that of being tortured to death in honor of the faith which the sufferer held. It was impossible, under the inquisitorial system, to allow a possible heretic to escape merely because he unflinchingly affirmed his orthodoxy, and yet when a man asserted it up to the brasero, knowing that it would not avail him, it was impossible not to recognize in him a true believer who would not save his body at the expense of falsely confessing apostasy.” (Bk. 7.4)
“The Act of Faith--the Auto de Fe--was the name by which the Spanish Holy Office dignified the Sermo of the Old Inquisition. In its full development it was an elaborate public solemnity, carefully devised to inspire awe for the mysterious authority of the Inquisition, and to impress the population with a wholesome abhorrence of heresy, by representing in so far as it could the tremendous drama of the Day of Judgement. It was regarded as an eminently pious duty… To insure a large attendance, an indulgence, usually of forty days, was granted to all present at the pious work. At the height of its power the Inquisition spared no labor or expense to lend impressiveness to the auto publico general, as a demonstration of its authority and of the success with which it performed its functions… the victims were marched on foot to the plaza, their hands tied with ropes across the breast, wearing sanbenitos of yellow linen with their names and the inscription "herege condenado," and bearing mitres on their heads. In the plaza they were ranged in tiers on a staging, while the inquisitors and their officials occupied another staging opposite. The sentence of each one was read and, although the culprits were numerous, the affair, commencing at 6 A.M., was over by noon, when the convicts were carried to the brasero or quemadero for burning.” (Bk. 7.5)
“As the apostasy of the enforced converts from Judaism was the proximate cause of the establishment of the Spanish Holy Office, so they continued to be almost the exclusive object of its energies, until the similar treatment of the Moors created, in the Moriscos, a class with even greater claims on its solicitude. The rooting out of the latter, however, in the early years of the seventeenth century, was so complete that they virtually disappeared from the records of the tribunals, while the Jewish New Christians remained, and, for more than another century provided the major portion of their more serious work. It had been easy, since 1391, to compel baptism by the alternatives of exile or death, but it had never been deemed necessary to supplement this by instruction in the new faith, or by efforts to effect a real conversion…So, when the expulsion of 1492, filled the land with a new multitude of neophytes, there was the same disregard of the duty of persuasion and instruction. The only utterances on the subject seem to assume that they would in some way instruct and fortify themselves in their new religion.” (Bk. 8.1)
“One of the most prominent reasons urged for the establishment and perpetuation of the Inquisition was the zeal of the crypto-Jews in proselyting … Judaism is a matter of race as much as of dogma; the Jews have never sought to convert the Gentiles and, in Spain of all lands, it was clearly preposterous that men, who could only exist by concealing their belief, would incur the certainty of detection and of pitiless punishment, by the unpardonable offence of seeking the apostasy of their Christian neighbors. What conversions there were were spontaneous, and these served to intensify the horror of Judaism and to keep alive the sense of danger arising from the presence of those suspected of cherishing the ancient faith.” (Bk. 8.1)
“One cannot help concluding that with time and reasonable treatment, there would have been no Morisco question to perplex the statesmen of Spain. The fate of the exiles parallelled that of the Jews in 1492, and indeed was even worse, for they were banished more precipitately, and were absolutely forbidden to return even as Christians.” (Bk. 8.2)
“A papal brief would be highly desirable, therefore, under which the tribunals, without scruple or fear of irregularity, could and should relax the guilty from whom danger to the republic might be feared, no matter what their dignity in Church or State, giving to the inquisitors full power to employ the rigor required by the situation, even if it went beyond the limits of the law… Having obtained authority to set aside the law, the Inquisition was prepared to impress the people with a sense of the danger of wandering from the faith.” (Bk. 8.3)
“The mere possession of books rendered the owner an object of suspicion and investigation. If this was the case with private collectors of all ranks, we can readily appreciate the endless troubles and ruinous prosecutions to which booksellers were exposed… This is merely an indication of the continuous warfare waged against culture and learning, from which no one was safe.” (Bk. 8.4)
Lea’s series of books on the Inquisition are “must reading” for anyone seriously studying the institution.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews