Gentilidade作为一种宗教罪行:葡萄牙宗教裁判所在亚洲的特殊性?

M. R. Lourenço
{"title":"Gentilidade作为一种宗教罪行:葡萄牙宗教裁判所在亚洲的特殊性?","authors":"M. R. Lourenço","doi":"10.1163/9789004472839_008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The transfer of the Iberian Inquisitions to the overseas territories of Portugal and Spain in 1560 and 1569–71 impacted the functioning of these tribunals in ways that were by no means superficial—to the extent that this institution was challenged by problems that it had not anticipated and for which it was only minimally prepared. Despite being an institution that was intended to be uniform in its organization and procedures, in African, American, and Asian contexts, the Inquisition was forced to adjust its models of surveillance as they were practiced in the Iberian Peninsula. The territories where the Crown—and by extension, the Holy Office— claimed jurisdiction encompassed large geographies that contrasted with the Iberian/European background that provided the social and religious matrix on which the jurisprudence practiced by the inquisitorial courts was based. Modern Inquisitions were heirs to a centuries-old process of adapting, employing, and defining the vocabulary relating to transgression and orthodoxy. Drawing from different social settings of Greek-Roman society, early Christian authors employed terms such as “sect”, “heresy”, or “superstition” to structure the basic discourse on faith and religion.1 The theological sophistication that ensued from the need to differentiate Christian orthodoxy from other groups claiming doctrinal authority also fostered a heresiological discourse that named, classified, and defined religious dissention to the point that it resulted in the production of handbooks on heresies, while Roman courts were making use of their own terminology to address charges of religious dissention.2 Thus, the","PeriodicalId":102272,"journal":{"name":"Norms beyond Empire","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Gentilidade as a Religious Offence: A Specificity of the Portuguese Inquisition in Asia?\",\"authors\":\"M. R. Lourenço\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/9789004472839_008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The transfer of the Iberian Inquisitions to the overseas territories of Portugal and Spain in 1560 and 1569–71 impacted the functioning of these tribunals in ways that were by no means superficial—to the extent that this institution was challenged by problems that it had not anticipated and for which it was only minimally prepared. Despite being an institution that was intended to be uniform in its organization and procedures, in African, American, and Asian contexts, the Inquisition was forced to adjust its models of surveillance as they were practiced in the Iberian Peninsula. The territories where the Crown—and by extension, the Holy Office— claimed jurisdiction encompassed large geographies that contrasted with the Iberian/European background that provided the social and religious matrix on which the jurisprudence practiced by the inquisitorial courts was based. Modern Inquisitions were heirs to a centuries-old process of adapting, employing, and defining the vocabulary relating to transgression and orthodoxy. Drawing from different social settings of Greek-Roman society, early Christian authors employed terms such as “sect”, “heresy”, or “superstition” to structure the basic discourse on faith and religion.1 The theological sophistication that ensued from the need to differentiate Christian orthodoxy from other groups claiming doctrinal authority also fostered a heresiological discourse that named, classified, and defined religious dissention to the point that it resulted in the production of handbooks on heresies, while Roman courts were making use of their own terminology to address charges of religious dissention.2 Thus, the\",\"PeriodicalId\":102272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Norms beyond Empire\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Norms beyond Empire\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004472839_008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Norms beyond Empire","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004472839_008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

1560年和1569年至1571年,伊比利亚宗教裁判所向葡萄牙和西班牙的海外领地的转移,对这些法庭的运作产生了深远的影响——这一机构受到了一些问题的挑战,这些问题是它没有预料到的,而且它只做了最低限度的准备。尽管在非洲、美洲和亚洲的背景下,宗教裁判所的组织和程序是统一的,但它被迫调整其监视模式,就像在伊比利亚半岛一样。王室和教廷宣称管辖的领土包括与伊比利亚/欧洲背景形成鲜明对比的广大地域,而伊比利亚/欧洲背景为宗教法庭实践的法理学提供了社会和宗教基础。现代宗教裁判所继承了几个世纪以来改编、使用和定义与越界和正统有关的词汇的过程。从希腊罗马社会的不同社会背景中,早期的基督教作者使用诸如“教派”、“异端”或“迷信”等术语来构建关于信仰和宗教的基本话语由于需要将基督教正统派与其他声称教义权威的团体区分开来,神学上的复杂性也催生了一种异端论的论述,这种论述对宗教纷争进行了命名、分类和定义,以至于产生了关于异端的手册,而罗马法院则使用自己的术语来处理对宗教纷争的指控因此,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On Gentilidade as a Religious Offence: A Specificity of the Portuguese Inquisition in Asia?
The transfer of the Iberian Inquisitions to the overseas territories of Portugal and Spain in 1560 and 1569–71 impacted the functioning of these tribunals in ways that were by no means superficial—to the extent that this institution was challenged by problems that it had not anticipated and for which it was only minimally prepared. Despite being an institution that was intended to be uniform in its organization and procedures, in African, American, and Asian contexts, the Inquisition was forced to adjust its models of surveillance as they were practiced in the Iberian Peninsula. The territories where the Crown—and by extension, the Holy Office— claimed jurisdiction encompassed large geographies that contrasted with the Iberian/European background that provided the social and religious matrix on which the jurisprudence practiced by the inquisitorial courts was based. Modern Inquisitions were heirs to a centuries-old process of adapting, employing, and defining the vocabulary relating to transgression and orthodoxy. Drawing from different social settings of Greek-Roman society, early Christian authors employed terms such as “sect”, “heresy”, or “superstition” to structure the basic discourse on faith and religion.1 The theological sophistication that ensued from the need to differentiate Christian orthodoxy from other groups claiming doctrinal authority also fostered a heresiological discourse that named, classified, and defined religious dissention to the point that it resulted in the production of handbooks on heresies, while Roman courts were making use of their own terminology to address charges of religious dissention.2 Thus, the
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Catholics and Non-Christians in the Archbishopric of Goa Village Normativities and the Portuguese Imperial Order: The Case of Early Modern Goa Time as Norm: The Ritual Dimension of the Calendar Book and the Translation of Multi-Temporality in Late Imperial China The Principales of Philip II: Vassalage, Justice, and the Making of Indigenous Jurisdiction in the Early Colonial Philippines The Janus Face of Normativities in a Global Mirror: Viewing 16th-Century Marriage Practices in Japan from Christian and Japanese Traditions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1