Talk:Spanish Inquisition/Archive 2

Exact number of people executed by the Inquisition is not known nor it make sense to build any statistics based on non-existent and incomplete data. Here are some references

"No serious attempt will be made at any statistical approach, both because the figures - strongly affected by the accidental survival or destruction of evidence - would in any case be too small to prove very much, ...."

from: Brian Pullan: The Jews of Europe and the Inquisition of Venice, 1550-1670; I.B.Tauris, 1998 ISBN 1860643574, 9781860643576 page xiv

"The almost complete loss or destruction of the records of the Seville and Cordoba tribunals make it effectively impossible to substantiate accounts, in contemporary and latter sources, of the number of arrests and deaths i the early days, though surviving documentation of other tribunals, such as Ciduad Real-Toledo and Valencia, provide a clearer picture."

from: John Edwards: The Spain of the Catholic Monarchs, 1474-1520 Volume 5 of History of Spain; Wiley-Blackwell, 2000 ISBN 0631221433, 9780631221432 page 94

That is the reason for many historians going back to the historians that were closer to the inquisition times and who were able to see the documents now destroyed or lost. The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society^[4] claims:

Llorente, who wrote with calumness and had access to the archives of the tribunal, gives an approximate estimate of the number of executed under each inquisition general, from which it results that the total amount in Spain is about 32,000 persons burnt, either alive or after being strangled, 17,000 burnt in effigy, and 291,000 condemned to various terms of imprisonment, to the galleys, or subjected to other penalties. During the eighteen years of Torquemada's inquisitorship alone, about 8800 persons were burnt. This calculation does not include the Spanish colonies, nor the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, which were long subject to the Spanish Inquisition.

Cecil Roth ^[5] quoted Llorente, the ex-secretary of the Holy Office, giving the similar numbers: 31,912 burnt, 17,696 burned in effigy, and those reconciled de vehementi 291,450. The same author quotes Amador de los Rios stating that, between 1484 and 1525, 28,540 were burned in person, burned in effigy 16,520 and penanced 303,847.

Bear in mind that "penanced" actually means "condemned to various terms of imprisonment, to the galleys, or subjected to other penalties". Many of those who "penanced" died never being set freee.

TODO Completely remove Henningsen-Contreras statistics for the period 1540–1699 and Autos da fe between 1700–1746 sections (for their incompleteness and marginality) and rewrite the remaining text.

--71.178.112.40 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Llorente's and Rios' statistics have long been discredited. Edwards' remarks concern only the first (though most intense) years of the Spanish Inquisition. There exists a sufficient documentation to make reliable estimates for the period after around 1540. CarlosPn (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
    • References, please. Keep your opinion for personal use. About destruction of evidence I gave a 1998 year reference. Where are yours?--71.178.112.40 (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
      • References are in the article. The numbers given by Llorente and Rios have been discredited already in 19th century. See, among many others, H. Ch. Lea, History of the Inquisition of Spain, vol. IV, pp. 516 ff. The estimates of Llorente and Rios were based on entirely arbitrary assumptions about the annual average number of executions bu each tribunal per year. Modern estimates are based mainly on the annual reports of te local tribunals to Suprema. Hennigsen and Contreras have examined these materials and achieved the results presented in the article. The exact total number of executions will never be known but it is not the case that we are unable to say anything about the number of victims of the Spanish Inquisition. CarlosPn (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
        • References in the article are selected to 'prove' 2% of burned. As to Llorente and de los Rios, they are not discredited if finding an author who disagreed with them. Here is an Englishman who has full confidence in Llorente (Cecil Roth (1964) The Spanish Inquisition, W. W. Norton & Company, 1964 ISBN0393002551, 9780393002553 page 123). Moreover, Llorente's book is a 2010 republished book (by BiblioBazaar, 2010 ISBN 1147500436, 9781147500431), and the English language writing historians referenced him more than 9,000 times. So, this annuls your disqualification. Who is your H. Ch. Lea? The importance of Llorente's work is in "Thus he had access to materials now no longer in existence." as per The Historians' History of the World: Spain and Portugal, Volume 10 of The Historians' History of the World: A Comprehensive Narrative of the Rise and Development of Nations as Recorded by Over Two Thousand of the Great Writers of All Ages, Henry Smith Williams, Editor Henry Smith Williams, The Outlook Company, 1904 page 664. I can easily give similar account about de los Rios. Llorente's work is not "based on entirely arbitrary assumptions about the annual average number of executions bu each tribunal per year". It's based on the documents that were destroyed intentionally. "Modern" estimates are non-sensic for being narrowed on the reports which were never complete nor, even those once written, survived. You are using very narrow insight into this issue and, at the same time, pretending some authority by offering a strong opinion.--71.191.22.174 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Llorente's work is available online. His work is a very important one, but not because of his calculation of the number of victims, which is fantastic and greatly exeggarated. Llorente himself admits how he has achieved his numbers (pp. 575 - 583), and they are not based on documents. He has made several arbitrary assumptions based on a very small piece of evidence, some of them he has misread or perhaps even intentionally falsely presented. For example, ha stated that 16th century author Mariana gives the number of 2000 executions during a single year 1481 in the district of Seville alone. But actually Mariana gives this number not only for the year 1481 but for the "first few years" of Inquisition and not only for the district of Seville but for the whole Spain. Your question "Who is Henry Charles Lea?" is ridiculous. You should know that he is one of the most distinguished historians of the Spanish Inquisition, far more important than Llorente. He was a Protestant with strong anti-Catholic prejudice, but an honest historian. His analysis has proved without doubt that estimate of Llorente is a pure nonsense and no serious modern historian of the Inquisition accepts it. Even Cecil Roth on the very same page you cited commented: These figures are so enormous as to seem highly suspicious. Besides, Roth had written his book before the systematic examination of relaciones de causas has begun. And you may be sure that modern historians are well aware of the fact, that surviving documentation is incomplete. Academic literature on the Spanish Inquisition is very rich, especially in English and Spanish. You critisice my contribution to this article but apparently you are not familiar with this literature CarlosPn (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
          • BTW, the respective passage of the book of Brian Pullan that you have cited, concerns Inquisition of Venice (not of Spain) and does not refer simply to the calculation of the number of victims of the Inquisition but to the attempts of the statistical summaries of the categories of its victims, their views and attitudes CarlosPn (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
    • So, I see, what you do not like, you do not read. Llorente said, "These circumstances oblige me to found my calculations on the combination of certain data, which I found in the registers and writings of the holy office." So, you are still at yours: Llorente himself admits how he has achieved his numbers (pp. 575 - 583), and they are not based on documents.?! As to your conclusions, which is fantastic and greatly exaggerated, is it based on not reading more than H.C. Lea who was even not educated as historian and which was a scribe, not a scholar. What was it what Llorente some of them he has misread ? Name these documents and the archives containing them. As to Mariana, where Llorente said that this Mariana did not do what you claim he did? So, if there is no enough evidence, then how you could ever claim that there were only 2% burnt out of those convicted? Statistics is not calculating percentages based on incomplete and inaccurate data.--71.191.22.174 (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Llorente attributed to Mariana the statement about 2000 burnt during 1481 in the district of Seville alone on the pp. 36-37 and repeats it on the p. 575. I do not understand your question. That Mariana didn't say it has been recognised already by William Prescott History of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, the catholic, of Spain, Volume 3, 1838, p. 585. The summary of the opinions of the academic scholars about the Llorente's calculation can be found here. Besides, you should know also that, although many documents have been lost, the archives of the Spanish Inquisition are still one of the best preserved judical archives of the early modern period. There is enough evidence in these archives to make serious estimates of the number of its victims, at least for the period after 1540. This has been done by Henningsen and Contreras. But of course you may still believe Llorente and reject all academic literature on the topic. BTW, Llorente was also a scribe, he had no academic training. CarlosPn (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Llorente was a man who knew Roman Catholic Church inside out for holding very high position within that church for long, long time. Llorente had access to the documents to the highest scope and saw those who were destroyed. Offering authoritative There is enough evidence in these archives to make serious estimates of the number of its victims, at least for the period after 1540 is yet another of your nonsenses you are passing here. That's why Wikipedia cannot be referenced even in the works of our history courses students across USA and worldwide.--71.191.22.174 (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
        • A year ago, I've watched a PBS talk about the Spanish Inquisition. Two American university professors clearly stated that most of evidence about this crime in Spain was destroyed. Talking about accuracy here does not make sense. Any of the estimates can be accepted or rejected for some reason. I think that Llorente and Rios shall be referenced in this article along with others leaving it to the reader to choose what he likes. That is the way to improve this article. I do agree that any kind of statistics is meaningless here.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
        • That's not my nonsense - that's the opinion of academic scholars, such as Gustav Henningsen, Jaime Contreras, William Monter, Francisco Bethencourt, Ricardo Garcia Carcel, Henry Kamen, Jean-Pierre Dedieu, Edward Peters, Helen Rawlings, Andrea Del Col etc. But you simply don't want to know it. Your choice CarlosPn (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Llorente's and Rios' estimates belong now to the same category as 9 million witches burned during witch-hunt. They cannot be treated as equal to modern estimates CarlosPn (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• I hate taking side in this discussion, but I have to point at some findings:

"However, the most detailed set of trial statistics has come from Jean-Pierre Dedieu's exhaustive survey of the well-preserved records for the tribunal of Toledo, From 1483 until 1820 Dedieu counted 7,216 trials, but also found traces of several thousand other defendants judged before 1575; he estimated about 12,000 cases in all, ...."

from E. William Monter: Frontiers of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily, Cambridge University Press, 2003 page 30

"During the first 30 years of its life over half of all those tried by Spanish Inquisition were brought before tribunals. This was the period of maximum repression when victims were hounded out ..."

from Helen Rawlings: The Spanish Inquisition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2006 page 14

which make me see that it is clear that a lot of documentation about these crimes was lost. Thus, we cannot say that there is enough evidence in these archives to make serious estimates nor I see that any of the authors mentioned above ever said so. If we correct 44,000 cases studied by Henningsen & Contreras by the Dedieu's rate of correction, we'll quickly go to over 70,000 estimated trials and applying Rawlings statement that more than half of all cases happened in the first 30 years excluded by Henningsen & Contreras, then we are at 150, 0000 estimated cases. Bearing in mind that many documents seen by Llorente and de los Rios vanished, I would not discard their estimates as exaggerated. Another fact is H. Ch. Lea never visited Spain and never saw the documents that were available at the time he was writing his books about the Inquistion.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"hate to take sides"?! You and IP 71 are the same person. You already have a side. Don't insult our intelligence. As has already been explained, we go with scholarship on wikipedia. Nothing else really matters, especially not your personal interpretation of the data.Farsight001 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence!! All your comments are primitivism, ignorance, and stupidity.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

So no valid sources or scholarship to support your contention then?Farsight001 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Neverthless, I'll answer once more. Statistics of Henningsen and Contreras concern the period between 1540 and 1700, they do not cover the whole period from 1480 until 1820 and it is precisely remarked. Further, one should not overestimated the documentation known to Llorente. First, he was secretary of Suprema and had access to the documents of Suprema but not to the archives of the local tribunals. Further, it was simply impossible for him to read and to analyze all documentation he had accessed. His calculation of the number of victims is not based on the detailed examination of the documentation. As I has written above, he had made several assumptions based on the very small piece of evidence. He did not try to count all the trials he was able to get to know, with possible exception for the second half of 18th century. He took the numbers from a few tribunals for some short periods and extrapolate them. The modern scholars do the same, but they base on the far greater and more systematized piece of information. Furthermore, one should know what does it mean in this case that the majority of the documents are lost. This does not neccessarily mean that we are unable to reconstruct the numbers of trials and the penalties they had received. The archives of Inquisition contained documentation of different kinds. It is true that for the first period (until 1530) the majority of he trial records (minutes of the hearings of witnessess and accused etc.) has been lost. However, the sentences were pronounced in the public ceremonies autos da fe. Documentation of these ceremonies is preserved to much greater extent than minutes of proper trials. They often attracted considerable public attention and are recorded also in the external sources (chronicles, diaries etc.). Besides, inquisitors or their assistants were obliged to produce several reports for Suprema or for other internal use. From around 1540 all local tribunals had to provide to Suprema annual reports of their activities, including summaries of all cases. These reports are known relaciones de causa. Some archives (e.g. that of Cuenca) contain catalogs of cases or lists of those relaxed to the secular arms, whose sanbenitos should had been placed in their parochial churches forever. There exists abecedario de relajados in Valencia for the period 1485 to 1593, mentioned by Monter, Frontiers of heresy, p. 21 and H. Ch. Lea, vol. III, p. 562; or similar list compiled by the inquisitors of Llerena in 1576, see Lea, III, p. 167-168. Documents of the tribunal of Seville for the years 1481 to 1524 are entirely lost, but there are accounts of autos da fe preserved in the municipal archives, see Klaus Wagner, La Inquisición en Sevilla (1481-1524), in Homenaje...Carriazo, Sevilla 1973, III,pp. 439-460. Finally, it has to be remarked (cause I'm impressed that this is not clear for my adversary), that "estimation of the number of victims" means that the documentation is just incomplete and we're unable to establish the exact numbers, but there are attempts to establish approximate numbers basing on quite rich (when compared to other judical institutions of that period) preserved documentation. With complete archives there would be no need to make any "estimation" because the exact numbers would be known. Basing on the available materials it is estimated that Spanish Inquisition is responsible for 125000 to 200000 trials and between 3000 to 10000 executions. Some favour lower estimates (e.g. Monter, Kamen), some higher (Dedieu, Bethencourt), but the minimal and maximal borders are clearly defined. Any numbers higher or lower beyond this scope cannot be considered reliable, unless some new substantial evidence would be found CarlosPn (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning Llorente and what documents he saw, something more must be added. He claimed that he was unable to include the tribunals of Sicily, Sardinia and of America because he had no access to their documentation. This would mean that relaciones de causa were largely unknown to him. These tribunals provided similar annual reports as Iberian tribunals that are collected together with them in the archives of Suprema. Hennigsen and Contreras included them in their statistics. If Llorente had the access to this documentation, he would have been able to include Italian and American tribunals in his work. But he did not. CarlosPn (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm giving up. Each of your sentence, if taken apart from this response, might have some sense. But, whole response is a complete nonsense. Your conclusions are not supported by the names you counted. No one set minimal or maximal numbers based on the available documentation. that is just figment of your imagination. Your "he had made several assumptions based on the very small piece of evidence" is just one example of your figments. Then "modern scholars do the same, but they base on the far greater and more systematized piece of information". Then "Some favour lower estimates (e.g. Monter, Kamen), some higher (Dedieu, Bethencourt)"? Dedieu's work is dedicated to only to one tribunal - Toledo. Lea is a man who never set foot on Spanish soil and all his writings about Spanish Inquisition are based on works of other historians. What you wrote and what you are defending by hook and crook is not more than a blog.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Dedieu wrote not only about Toledo. He gave also the numbers for a whole Spain from 1480 until 1820: around 200000 trials and no more than 10000 executions. These numbers are given in Dedieu's L'Inquisition, they are cited also by Andrea Del Col, Inquisizione in Italia, p. 234; Francisco Bethencourt, The Inquisition. A Global History, p. 339-340. Both Del Col and Bethencourt cited also Garcia Carcel, who gives the numbers of 125-150 thousand trials and 3,5% of executions (4375 - 5250) during the whole operation of Spanish Inquisition. Spanish historian Jaime Contreras in 1994 BBC/A&E production, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" says that the total number of executions by the Spanish Inquisition was between 3000 and 5000. Contreras worked together with Gustav Henningsen on the project relaciones de causa. William Monter in Frontiers of heresy, p. 53, provides even lower number (2750), to which seems to have inclined also Henry Kamen and Helen Rawlings (although it is rather undestimation, because during first fifty years udoubtedly more than 1500 were burned at the stake, in one later article Monter slightly modified these figure). My conclusions are certainly supported. You are completely unfamiliar with the great majority of the academic literature on the topic. You got to know that Dedieu had written a book about tribunal of Toledo but you haven't even checked if he wrote something else on the topic. "He [Llorente] had made several assumptions based on the very small piece of evidence" - for you it's one of my figments. But this appears clearly from Llorente's own word. Have you noticed, that during almost all periods Llorente gave exactly the same numbers for each tribunal? Some local tribunals have well preserved archives and the examination of these archives brings the results disastrous for Llorente's calculation. The most striking example is that of Canaries. According to Llorente, this tribunal burned 1118 heretics in persona and 574 in effigie. The actual numbers are 11 (ELEVEN) burnings in person and 110 (one hunder and ten) in effigie, see La actividad procesal del Santo Oficio. Algunas consideraciones sobre su estudio. CarlosPn (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is examination by Joseph Perez, The Spanish Inquisition: A History, Yale University Press, 2006, ISBN 0300119828, 9780300119824, p. 170-173 about the number of victims f the Spanish Inquisition, ended with conclusion that Inquisition was responsible for fewer than 10,000 death sentences followed by execution, which is in accordance with the statements I've written above CarlosPn (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You are pretending to be a knowledgeable man, eh? First of all where exactly, on which page, of the Dedieu's book you see those 200 000? Moreover, there is a number of questions you did not answer yet: which documents Llorente did not understand and who set (and where) min/max numbers of those sentenced by the Inquisition in Spain. Please, stop talking about things not related to the questions you did not answer.--66.151.103.8 (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dedieu gives these numbers on the p. 85, putting them as maximal possible numbers. Who set min/max numbers - I've put the references above (esp. Del Col and Bethencourt), there is a general consensus among historians. Concerning Llorente: 1) He said that 16th-century author Mariana gives the number of 2000 burned in person in the district of Seville alone during the single year 1481. But actually Mariana gives this number for a whole Spain and for the whole tenure of General Inquisitor Torquemada (until 1498) 2) Llorente said, that contemporary author Bernaldez said that in Seville between 1482 and 1489 (so excluding the year 1481) seven hundred conversos were burnt in person. But actually Bernaldez gave this number for the period 1481 to 1488, and, moreover, it's likely that this number includes both executions in person as well as in effigie. Llorente falsified Bernaldez testimony in order to harmonize it with the alleged 2000 burned in the single year 1481 3) Llorente said that in Toledo during the first year of operation of Inquisition 200 people were burned. But from his own accounts of autos da fe celebrated in Toledo during this time clearly appears that only 27 were burned. Besides, in his appendix about number of victims Llorente does not refer to the archival documents of Inquisition of any kind.

The condensed examintation of his basic numbers for his estimation can be found here, but his misreading of Mariana has been revealed as early as in 1837 by American historian William Prescott: History of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic: Volume 3, p. 518. CarlosPn (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC) BTW, I've provided you with the example of Mariana in one of my posts listed above. CarlosPn (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the full quote of that page (Dedieu,p. 85):
Nous pouvons avancer quelques chiffres, avec prudence: dans toute l'Espagne, deux cent mille personnes au total ont dû passer devant lui, le tiers avant 1530; dix mille exécutions, au maximum, les quatre cinquièmes au cours des trente premières années; un procès pour cinq mille Espagnols, chaque année, à la fin du XVe et au début du XVIe siècle, un pour vingt mille ensuite, un pour cent mille au XVIIIe. C'est peu.
1. What Dedieu said here is 200 000 total (deux cent mille personnes au total; fr. total is not en. maximum). He passes this number to the reader with caution (avec prudence). Where he used the maximum word? He claims only ten thousand executions, to the maximum ( dix mille exécutions, au maximum). C'est peu. This is well above your 2% you are claiming in the article. Furthermore, Dedieu claims that 200 000 were put on trial out of which third of them before 1530. Now, we have a more contemporary author (Helen Rawlings: The Spanish Inquisition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2006 page 14) which contradicts Dedieu: "During the first 30 years of its life over half of all those tried by Spanish Inquisition were brought before tribunals." Both of them (Dedieu, 1987 and Rawlings, 2006) cannot be right. How could you reconciliate these two contradicting statements? If I accept Rawlings as closer to the truth, for knowing that initially the main Inquisition target was a large population of Moriscos and Jews, which was completely destroyed during the first 30 years, and accept Dedieu's numbers, then the total (not maximum) would be close to 270 000 which brings us closer to de los Rios' and Llorente's estimates. What is your 'scholastic' method here, may I ask you? You used the Google book search engine and entered the search string containing "Jean Pierre Dedieu" and "maximum" to get support for your false claim about Dedieu you wrote on this page. As it was mentioned before, by some user, "penanced" actually means "condemned to various terms of imprisonment, to the galleys, or subjected to other penalties". We cannot talk about executions and the number of executed if not including those who died in the Inquisition torture chambers never facing after any court in Spain. Wast majority of those sentenced to the slave work in mines and on galleys did not survived their sentence terms. If we estimate these no-trial and postponed death penalties, the number of executed could be tripled or quadrupled, i.e if accepting Dedieu's percentage (5%) we could come to 15 or 20% of executed.
2.This disagreement between Dedieu and Rawlings shows that there was no the maximum agreed upon as you claimed here.
3.You claimed that Llorente misunderstood some documents, but you did not say which ones. Here your response is not about the documents, it's about his supposed misinterpretations of other authors' findings.--216.52.207.75 (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

First above all, you and IP 71 and IP 66 are the same person. Please, stop making an impression that more users share your view (as it was mentioned above by some user...). But ad meriti:
#Dedieu did not use the word maximum in reference to the number of trials. But this is the highest number put by the modern scholar. Ricardo Garcia Carcel, Gustav Henningsen, Jaime Contreras and Agostino Borromeo accpeted lower numbers (125-150 thousands). All modern estimations range between 125 and 200 thousands. Nobody proposed higher number. Dedieu put these numbs "with caution", but this does not mean that he thought that it may be higher, it's rather a great adjustement for the lost documentation. Certainly, Dedieu's 200000 is not the same as 340000 given by Llorente. I've put further references (Del Col and Bethencourt) to support the statement about some consensus.
#If I accept Rawlings as closer to the truth (...) and accept Dedieu's numbers - No. This is not the case. It's true that Rawlings said (p. 14) During the first 30 years of its life over half of all those tried by the Spanish Inquisition were brought before its tribunals. But on the next page she put the following numbers: It has been estimated that, at most, around 2,000 people died at the hands of the Inquisition in the period up to 1530, while perhaps as many as 15,000 were ‘reconciled’ – disciplined, but not sent to the stake, which is not even close to Dedieu's ca. 70000. She clearly contradicts herself, since she referred to around 50000 trials between 1540 and 1700 (pp. 12-13).
# Dedieu claims that 200 000 were put on trial out of which third of them before 1530. Now, we have a more contemporary author (Helen Rawlings: The Spanish Inquisition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2006 page 14) which contradicts Dedieu: "During the first 30 years of its life over half of all those tried by Spanish Inquisition were brought before tribunals." Both of them (Dedieu, 1987 and Rawlings, 2006) cannot be right (...) This disagreement between Dedieu and Rawlings shows that there was no the maximum agreed upon as you claimed here - yes, the are considerable discrepancies between various estimates.The range I've given above is quite wide: 125-200 thousand, so there's a difference of 75000 between minimum and maximum. But it does not mean that borders are not established
The doubts concern particularly the initial period. These discrepancies may be partially atributed to the fact, that historians not always clarify what they are talking about. We know that several thousand persons in the initial period were reconciled under Edicts of Grace and formally were never brought to trial. Some statistics certainly ommit them. Example: Dedieu gives the number of 3196 trials inToledo from 1485 until 1530. But to these we should add as many as 5200 persons who were reconciled under Edicts of Grace. Furthermore, in the modern period some minor cases were concluded ad hoc (usually with small fines) during inquisitorial visitations, without formal trial. Statistics of Henningsen and Contreras initially included 49092 cases but this number was subsequently reduced to 44674 because such minor cases concluded without trial were eliminated. Dedieu suggests c. 130000 cases after 1530, this rather must include minor cases, keeping in mind statistics provided by Henningsen, Contreras and Teofanes Egido, which even with adjustments for the lost records would not bring the total number of formal trials higher than ~90000 between 1540 and 1746. This may be concluded basing on his own words that a total of 200000 persons were brought before the Inquisition, he does not refer here only to the formal trials.
#You say: <<penanced actually means condemned to various terms of imprisonment, to the galleys, or subjected to other penaltie. We cannot talk about executions and the number of executed if not including those who died in the Inquisition torture chambers never facing after any court in Spain. Wast majority of those sentenced to the slave work in mines and on galleys did not survived their sentence terms. If we estimate these no-trial and postponed death penalties, the number of executed could be tripled or quadrupled>> - any references for such revelations? Any evidence the Inquistion has ever sentenced anybody to the work in mines? Or that majority condemned to galleys died before the end of their term? Penanced in great majority received spiritual punishments - even "imprisonment" usually meant that convicted was sent to the monastery or put under some kind of house arrest (Kamen 1965, p. 198). Torture were rarely applied and Inquisition was generally milder than other contemporary courts. those who died under torture or simply before their trials were completed were usually burnt in effigie, and as such, they are included in the statistics for this kind of sentences.
# <<This is well above your 2% you are claiming in the article.>> - In the article actually there is a following statement: <<García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000; applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560–1700 — about 2% — the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Nevertheless, very probably this total should be raised keeping in mind the data provided by Dedieu and García Cárcel for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively>>. This does not mean that 2% were executed, but that 2% were executed between 1560 and 1700 and this is based on Henningsen-Contreras statistics. In the initial period this percentage was higher, as appears from Dedieu's and Garcia Carcel's statistics for Toledo and Valencia. However, their often cited numbers do not include the reconciliations under Edicts of Grace. Dedieu provides the following numbers foir Toledo until 1530 - 289 executions in persona, 428 in effigie, 2479 persons reconciled or absolved. This would mean, that 9% were executed in person and over 13% in effigie. But to these we should add as many as 5200 persons who were reconciled under Edicts of Grace, which would reduce the percentage of executions in persona to 3,5% and those in effigie to 5%. Garcia Carcel gives for Valencia (1484-1530) the number of 754 executions in persona, 155 in effigie, 1076 penanced and 12 declared innocent. However, this again refers only to the formal trials. At least 700 persons were reconciled under Edicts of Grace between 1484 and 1486 (Monter 1990, p. 13), additional 983 in 1488 (Lea, I, p. 243) and some 230 moriscos were reconciled in the same way in 1519 (Lea, III, p. 345). Adding these numbers, the percentage of executions in persona and in effigie would decrease from almost 38% to 19% and from 8% to 4% respectively.
#Concerning Llorente misinterpretations - my answer does not concern documents, because, as I've referred above, his calculation is not based on documents. I've used this word in wider sense, although the examples of misinterpretation of inquisitorial documents by Llorente can be also provided, one of them is clarified by Monter 1990, p. 257 and 262 (it concerns the alleged witch hunt in Navarre in 1507). However, Llorente's statistics are not based on documents, so these examples would be irrelevant for our discussion. But Llorente's falsifications of the statements of Mariana and Bernadez, which he used as basic for his calculations, are beyond any doubt CarlosPn (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• • It's good to see that there are people of common sense and sound mind: 66.151.103.8 (New York) AND 216.52.207.75 (Atlanta GA). Here is my response to "Penanced in great majority received spiritual punishments - even "imprisonment" usually meant that convicted was sent to the monastery or put under some kind of house arrest "
  • In 1567, at the beginning of the great naval buildup that led to the battle of Lepanto, the Suprema ordered that all penitents sentenced to perpetual imprisonment and the habit should have their sentences changed to at least three years of galley service (Inquisition and society in the kingdom of Valencia, 1478-1834 by Stephen Haliczer, University of California Press, 1990, page 81)
  • The worst penalties in the repertory of punishments were galley services in the King's fleet, which was first exacted by Aragonese inquisitors in the 1540s ... (The Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1614: an anthology of sources by Lu Ann Homzar, Hackett Publishing, 2006, page xxvii)
  • Christian doctrine demanded that repentant sinners be fortified in their faith; the galleys were one of the worst places imaginable to receive spiritual nourishment. But the Spanish Inquisition served the king as much as it served the church, and the king needed rowers. Spain galley fleet had grown until it required more than 8,000 men ... (Frontiers of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily by E. William Monter, Cambridge University Press, 2003, page 33)
  • They were also aware of the Spanish Inquisition's reputation for passing exemplary sentences on those found guilty of heresy, and that the punishments for this crime included execution. Several of the journeymen ... were fearful of meeting such an end or of being condemned to the oaring Spain's galley fleet... a sentence which, at least for the older ones among them, would be tantamount to a lingering death ( Journeymen-printers, heresy, and the Inquisition in sixteenth-century Spain by Clive Griffin, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 48)--71.191.19.40 (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    • These references confirm merely that the galleys were among the penalties used by the Spanish Inquisition, which I do not deny. But neither of them supports the theory that majority of those condemned to the galleys died. Besides, Inquisition was not the only court that condemned Spanish people to the galleys. You have cited Monter, Frontiers of heresy, p. 33. But read further this passage: Charles V, and especially Philip II, put increasing pressure on secular courts to sentence prisoners to the galleys whenever feasible. Inquisitorial galleys' sentences were usually applied for a period between 3 and 5 years, while secular courts sentenced for life (Kamen 1998, Polish ed. 2005, p. 188). The most common inquisitorial penalty were lashes and fines (ibid., p. 189). And what about "slave workng in mines?". You have proven once again your unfamiliarity with the topic we're talking about CarlosPn (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
      • "But neither of them supports the theory that majority of those condemned to the galleys died." - as an answer, see the text in bold above; moreover, you shall learn more than practicing a poor google book search. There are other sources about conditions and life of galley rowers, which will give you closer insight into the truth. I already provided one.
        
        Llorente did not provide any statistics, rather estimates, based on the Inquisition archives given to him by Joseph Bonaparte in 1808 when J. Bonaparte abolished the Inquisition. Most of that archives were destroyed.
        
        Advice 1: Do not distort and misinterpret references you are calling upon as you did with Dedieu, Llorente and other authors you are calling upon. As to Monter 1990, p. 257 and 262, Monter did not say anything about a document misinterpeted by Llorente; he says only that "He apparently misdated his source, since there was no Spanish Inquisition in Navarre in 1507 (it was introduced in 1513 after Ferdinand's conquest)"
        
        I did not say anything about slave work in mines - ask the person who said so.
        
        Advice 2: However, with a better google book search you could get some answers:
        
        "On previous occasions, civil and religious crimes were sometimes dismissed if a qualified Morisco offender was willing to work in the silver mines of Guadalcanal or the mercury mines of Almaden." (from Daily life during the Spanish Inquisition by James Maxwell Anderson, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, page 115).
        
        "However, for the chained men .... condemned prisoners on the galleys of the Most Catholic King of Spain or the Most Christian King of France, to serve at the oars was a form of living death. ....In Spain, debt, sedition, even petty crime could bring a sentence to the galleys. As the demand for oarsmen rose, so the flow of criminals through the courts who were condemned to the galleys Increased. Often those who had served their time at the oars and were due for release were held back."(Infidels: a history of the conflict between Christendom and Islam by Andrew Wheatcroft; Random House Digital, Inc., 2005, page 10)
        
        "Their sole function was to work themselves to death. Shackled hand and foot, excreting where they sat, fed on meagre quantities of black biscuits, and so thirsty they were sometimes driven to drink seawater, galley slaves led their lives bitter and short. The men, naked apart from a pair old linen breeches, were flayed raw by the sun; sleep deprivation on the narrow benches propelled them toward the lunacy; the stroke keeper's drum and overseer's lash - a tarred rope or dried bull's penis - whipped them beyond the point of exhaustion during long stretches of intensive effort when a ship was trying to capture or escape another vessel" (Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World by Roger Crowley; Random House Digital, Inc., 2009, page 77)
        
        "The emphasis on repression served various agendas. Morisco galley slaves provided essential manpower for the Spanish Mediterranean fleet, while fines and confiscations helped pay the salaries and running costs of the Inquisition itself, at a time when the Holy Office was in financial difficulties" (Blood and faith: the purging of Muslim Spain by Matthew Carr; The New Press, 2009, page 126)
        
        All together, your "encyclopaedic" approach here is to not see what you do not like, to disqualify, argue, deny obvious facts vs. to understand and correctly interpret, to go over nonsenses you already claimed or "clarifying" them by adding more irrelevant references, to gave the reader your version of the "truth" which, at the end, disqualifies you and Wikipedia. That's exactly why Wikipedia is disqualified as a valid reference and source by historians and academics worldwide. --71.191.19.40 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I've read the text in the bold and it does not support the theory that majority of those condemned by the Inquisition to galleys died
          About Llorente's statistics or estimations I've wrote several times above and I'll not repeat it again. No modern historian treat them seriously
          I did not distort any references to Llorente, Dedieu or anyone else
          I do not rely only on "google book search". Of course, I use it also, but my own "home library" includes the copies of the books about the Spanish Inquisition of Monter (Frontiers of heresy), Kamen (The Spanish Inquisition. A Historical Revision, in Polish translation), Del Col (Inquisizione in Italia), Bethencourt (The Inquisition. A Global History), Llorente (History of the Inquisition), Lea (A History of the Inquisition of Spain), Rawlings (The Spanish Inquisition), Roth (Conversos, Inquisition and expulsion of the Jews from Spain), Homza (The Spanish Inquisition. Anthology of Sources), Peters (The Inquisition), Edwards (The Spanish Inquisition, in Polish translation) and Haliczer (Inquisition and Society in the Kingdom of Valencia). The book of Dedieu I've read several years ago in Polish translation. I'm interested with the history of the Inquisition for a long time and I've spent a lot of time on reading about it. For this reason, I'll not answer for your personal attacks on me. Most of the charges you've presented above are precisely those that can be rightly ascribed to you, especially that your approach "is to not see what you do not like". CarlosPn (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Concerning Monter, p. 257 and 262, you have again read not the whole passage or do not understand it. Llorente not only misdated his source (1507 instead of 1527) but also based on the entirely forgered documentation. Besides, even those documents did not attribute the burning of 30 witches to the Inquisition (as states Llorente) but to Royal Council of Navarre. Here is a citation from Monter: the long-lived myth of thirty witches executed in Navarre in 1507 with 150 others penaned by the Inquisition was created by Llorente CarlosPn (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Not only you misinterpreted references, you slipped into lying. Provide the copy of that page (262) and make it visible to the readers here and, after, I'll provide the same copy. Where Monter says anything about Llorente "not only misdated his source (1507 instead of 1527) but also based on the entirely forgered documentation"?. --71.191.19.40 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
              • Your charges are completely unfounded. It's not my fault that you're unable to understand what you read. I'm providing the full citation from Monter, p. 262 note 17:

The fullest discussion of the literary sources of this imaginary 1527 witch-craze is in Caro Baroja, Brujeria Vasca, who devoted his second chapter (pp. 25-47) to it. The "Avellaneda letter," as Caro Baroja notes, exists in three manuscript copies at Madrid's Biblioteca Nacional, but this does not make it an authentic source. Not even Inaki Reguera (whose doctoral thesis [published in 1985] was approved by Caro Baroja), who read carefully through Libros 319 and 320 at Madrid's Archivo Historico Nacional Inquisition section which detail the Suprema's correspondence with Navarre during 1527 and failed to find any mention of this episode, ever seems to have considered that the whole story was fabricated from bits and pieces of the 1525 Balanza witch-hunt. Another Navarrese scholar, Florencio Idoate, who located several key documents about the 1525 witch-hunt in Pamplona's Archivo General de Navarra, found nothing from any 1527 hunt among the massive pile of papers from the Consejo Real; in his Brujeria en Navarra, pp. 38-42 and 51, he offers the best clue about this noteworthy letter, suggesting that it might have been written from licenciado Balanza (abusively styling himself an "Inquisitor") to the Constable of Navarre, Luis de Beaumont (not the Constable of Castile), about the events of 1525 (not 1527). The evidence against the existence of any 1527 witch-hunt in Navarre is considerable. No independent confirmation for the events of the "Avellaneda letter" has been found either among the Suprema's correspondence (which appears to be complete for 1527 and contains a few letters to Navarre on other subjects) or in Pamplona. Moreover, with the detailed instructions from the Suprema arriving in Navarre in January 1527, it would have been a remarkably unpropitious moment to start hunting witches - especially for Inquisitor Avellaneda! But somehow all the greatest scholars who have studied the Inquisition, from Llorente to Lea to Caro Baroja to Kamen, have plodded along repeating the same hair-raising tales out of Sandoval's History without asking themselves if these events really happened. CarlosPn (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• You already disqualified yourself by a bunch of other nonsenses you wrote here. Going further the same way does not help you at all. What Monter claims looks like: 'I do not see the evidence supporting Sandowal's writing about the witch hunt'. Monter's story 'Witches, magicians and inquisitors before 1525' is far from being acceptable more than an opinion, taking into account that the documents of that times were intentionally or accidentally destroyed. Lack of evidence is not a proof that the described event did not happen. Such opinion requires validations of other scholars before accepted as a serious finding. Moreover, the Llorente's event misdate can be seen no more than a typo. Monter only noted that Llorente and others did not investigate (didn't they?) the event described by Sandoval, rather accepted 'as-is'. Wikipedia is a victim of ignorance, distortions, and bad intentions. That way it will not ever come close to Britannica, or any other real encyclopaedia.--71.191.19.40 (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remind all contributors to this page of No personal attacks. Please confine your posts on how you think the article could be improved and confine your comments to the edit not the editor. Thank you, Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

See the details of Data, statistics, and accuracy above. The main problem of this article is incompleteness, undue weight, bias, selective use of references aimed to support the user point of view. --71.191.19.40 (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. That is a very long section and I am unclear as to what you are requesting to be changed. You can of course discuss your concerns with the article here and see if you can get a consensus to make changes, but {{edit semi-protected}} really should be used when you have a change you want to be made, not to raise general concerns. If you come up with something specific let us know. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What of this quote which directly contradicts the low numbers of immolations being cited in this article?

"The horrid conduct of this Holy Office weakened the power and diminished the population of Spain by arresting the progress of arts, sciences, industry, and commerce, and by compelling multitudes of families to abandon the kingdom; by instigating the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors, and by immolating on its flaming shambles more than 300,000 victims."

Jean Antoine Llorentine (secretary to the Spanish Inquisition from 1790-92), History of the Inquistion; as cited in R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power (New York, 1876 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.162.79 (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What of this quote? Nothing. This number of victims is totally unfounded and unanimously rejected by all modern historians of the Spanish Inquisition CarlosPn (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think that you see beyond your priest's robe. "rejected by all modern historians"?? Ha!--71.178.106.120 (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The article downplays the role of the defense attorney. Several sources I have read note that the defendants attorney was charged with finding witnesses and recording their testimonies to predetermined questionnaires, which were then considered by the tribunal. I'll edit this in the article soon unless someone does it. Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I edited out references to being sentenced to the galley. Could someone check the meaning of it in this line? "In the case of men, the penalty was five years in the galley (tantamount to a death sentence)." I doubt people were being sentenced to the ship's kitchen. Umma Kynes 14:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

They were being sentenced to royal vessels called galleys. If you clicked on the like you would see the type of vessel being described. The life for rowers was not much different than the slave galleys of ancient Rome hence the mortality.24.124.115.90 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)