Premium
Thomas F. Mayer (1951–2014) and the Roman Inquisition: A Review Essay
Author(s) -
Pattenden Miles
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
reviews in religion and theology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1467-9418
pISSN - 1350-7303
DOI - 10.1111/rirt.12605
Subject(s) - trilogy , galileo (satellite navigation) , context (archaeology) , theme (computing) , classics , bureaucracy , history , heresy , sociology , law , theology , philosophy , art history , political science , politics , archaeology , geography , geodesy , computer science , operating system
The Roman Inquisition: A Papal Bureaucracy and its Laws in the Age of Galileo , Thomas F. Mayer, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013 (ISBN 978‐0‐8122‐4473‐1), 385 pp., hb £52The Roman Inquisition on the Stage of Italy, c. 1590‐1640 , Thomas F. Mayer, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014 (ISBN 978‐0‐8122‐4573‐8), 361 pp., hb £52The Roman Inquisition: Trying Galileo , Thomas F. Mayer, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015 (ISBN: 978‐0‐8122‐4655‐1), 368 pp., hb £58.50 Abstract This review article appraises the recent trilogy of books on the Roman Inquisition written by the late Thomas F. Mayer. It explains the context in which Mayer came to write these works, the research questions which guided him and the nature of the outputs he delivered before his untimely death. Mayer's principal theme of the importance of process in guiding inquisitors' actions and activities, is traced through his three volumes: the first a general reconstruction of how the Holy Office operated, the second an application of his insights to specific cases of importance throughout late sixteenth‐ and early seventeenth‐century Italy, the third on the Galileo trial itself. Other scholars have received Mayer's work in a number of different ways, some favorable, others less so. Here, this essay summarizes parameters of the debate which Mayer catalyzed, in particular between scholars of Galileo and of the Inquisition; it also explains the further questions that has risen. Finally, it assesses how, as colleagues, we might extend Mayer's inquires and evaluates the wider impact his work deserves to have in historical studies and, indeed, in contemporary academic discourse. Mayer's insistance on the need to understand the methods and processes of censorship seems especially timely given the general assault on free speech which we currently face on many university campuses. On that basis, his scholarship should continue to resonate with all of us, perhaps in some uncomfortable ways.