The Ambiguities of Censorship in Post–Tridentine Italy: The Case of Physiognomy

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
N. Tarrant
{"title":"The Ambiguities of Censorship in Post–Tridentine Italy: The Case of Physiognomy","authors":"N. Tarrant","doi":"10.5325/preternature.8.2.0171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract:In this article I discuss the ecclesiastical censorship of physiognomy in post–Tridentine Italy. Existing studies of the criteria used by the Roman Inquisition to examine operative arts have rightly emphasized continuities with the opinions of earlier authorities, and especially those of Thomas Aquinas. Historians have, nevertheless, tended to suggest that Aquinas's ideas were transmitted to the Inquisition and Congregation of the Index virtually unchanged by texts such as Nicholas Eymerich's Directorium inquisitorum. In this paper I highlight divergences in the opinions of authorities such as Augustine, Aquinas, Eymerich, and Nicholas Peña, a sixteenth-century consultor to the Congregation of the Index and editor of Eymerich's text. I suggest that during the sixteenth century the Church's centralized organs of censorship drew on each of these approaches, but failed satisfactorily to resolve the precise status of physiognomy. In turn this created considerable ambiguities in the practice of censorship at a local level.","PeriodicalId":41216,"journal":{"name":"Preternature-Critical and Historical Studies on the Preternatural","volume":"42 1","pages":"171 - 201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Preternature-Critical and Historical Studies on the Preternatural","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/preternature.8.2.0171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

abstract:In this article I discuss the ecclesiastical censorship of physiognomy in post–Tridentine Italy. Existing studies of the criteria used by the Roman Inquisition to examine operative arts have rightly emphasized continuities with the opinions of earlier authorities, and especially those of Thomas Aquinas. Historians have, nevertheless, tended to suggest that Aquinas's ideas were transmitted to the Inquisition and Congregation of the Index virtually unchanged by texts such as Nicholas Eymerich's Directorium inquisitorum. In this paper I highlight divergences in the opinions of authorities such as Augustine, Aquinas, Eymerich, and Nicholas Peña, a sixteenth-century consultor to the Congregation of the Index and editor of Eymerich's text. I suggest that during the sixteenth century the Church's centralized organs of censorship drew on each of these approaches, but failed satisfactorily to resolve the precise status of physiognomy. In turn this created considerable ambiguities in the practice of censorship at a local level.
后三叉戟意大利审查制度的模糊性:以面相学为例
在这篇文章中,我讨论了后特伦丁时期意大利教会对面相学的审查。对罗马宗教裁判所用来检验手术艺术的标准的现有研究正确地强调了与早期权威观点的连续性,尤其是托马斯·阿奎那的观点。然而,历史学家倾向于认为,阿奎那的思想被传递给了宗教裁判所和教规会,几乎没有被尼古拉斯·艾默里奇的《宗教裁判所指南》等文本改变。在本文中,我强调了奥古斯丁、阿奎那、艾默里奇和尼古拉斯Peña等权威人士的意见分歧,尼古拉斯是16世纪《索引汇编》的顾问,也是艾默里奇文本的编辑。我认为,在16世纪,教会的中央审查机构利用了这些方法,但未能令人满意地解决面相学的确切地位。这又在地方一级的审查实践中造成了相当大的模糊性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Preternature provides an interdisciplinary, inclusive forum for the study of topics that stand in the liminal space between the known world and the inexplicable. The journal embraces a broad and dynamic definition of the preternatural that encompasses the weird and uncanny—magic, witchcraft, spiritualism, occultism, esotericism, demonology, monstrophy, and more, recognizing that the areas of magic, religion, and science are fluid and that their intersections should continue to be explored, contextualized, and challenged.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信