Publication details
Inkviziční záznamy jako pramen historického bádání: Možnosti, omezení, strategie čtení
| Title in English | Inquisitional records as a historical source: Their potential, limitations, and strategies of reading |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2012 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Dějiny - teorie - kritika |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Field | History |
| Keywords | inquisitional registers; inquisitional records; inquisition; source criticism; reliability; cultural translation |
| Description | In this article, I focus on the state of research in inquisitional records and evaluate the biases and limits of this type of sources, including not only those generally mentioned (the inquisitor's questionnaire, his power over the written record, his terminology and learned background, etc.), but also various deponent's strategies of self-presentation and identity construction. I plead for detailed individual study of different inquisitional registers, indeed even of different depositions, instead of inferring of their reliability from any general ideas about the inquisitional procedure. I identify three main "strategies of reading" (J. H. Arnold) which might help us to use data from inquisitional records: 1) mapping of the space of agency that the individual deponent has, 2) mapping of different "surpluses" (C. Bruschi) or "excesses of speech" (J. H. Arnold) in the inquisitional records, and 3) narrative analysis of the depositions, inspired by the theoretical frameworks of narratology and narrative psychology. I also stress that the question of reliability of inquisitional records exceeds the field of source criticism, indeed it has complex relations to some central discussions in epistemology of historical and social sciences, mainly the discussions about the relationship between reality and representation connected with the "linguistic turn". Here, I argue that in the system of relations between the historian, the inquisitor, and the deponent, none of the parties involved does automatically hold the right to authenticity. Narrative psychologists have shown that there is nothing like "authentic" or "real" identity. Instead, any identity is created in a particular discursive situation. Therefore, seeking for the "authentic voice" leads us nowhere. Another consequence of this is that there is no automatic or necessary difference of reliability between trial records and literary texts. Any source is biased by a certain policy of identity construction. |
| Related projects: |