The Myth of the Torture Instruments Attributed to the Inquisition (Rafael Rodrigues)

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:01:47 +0000

https://apologistascatolicos.c....om.br/o-mito-dos-ins

The Myth of the Torture Instruments Attributed to the Inquisition

INTRODUCTION

The lies and hatred that certain people harbor toward the Catholic Church reach the borders of irrationality—hatred filled with foolish, idiotic, absurd, childish, and irrational accusations, along with unjustified outbursts of fury, reinforced by false propaganda aimed at defaming the Church. One example of this is the so-called “torture instruments used in the Inquisition,” present on numerous websites and videos across the Internet. Without any historical references, the propagators of this myth use illustrations and explanations of how these instruments were allegedly used, attributing them to the “evil and terrifying Inquisition.”
Most of the alleged instruments did not even exist at the time the Inquisition was operating, such as the “Iron Maiden,” which appeared at the end of the 18th century—long after the Inquisition was ending—created by an artist and never actually used to torture anyone at any time, yet it is claimed to have been used in the Inquisition.
In this text, we aim to demonstrate to the reader the falsehood of the main instruments attributed to torture in the Inquisition, as well as to demystify the black legend of deliberate torture in the courts of this institution.

THE USE OF TORTURE IN THE INQUISITION

Although inquisitorial courts did resort to torture, it was rarely applied. Several studies conducted by recent scholars have argued that torture was practically unknown in the medieval inquisitorial process. The records of Bernard Gui, inquisitor of Toulouse for six years, who examined more than 600 heretics, show only one case in which torture was used. Furthermore, among the 930 sentences recorded between 1307 and 1323 (and it is worth noting that meticulous records were kept by notaries chosen from civil courts), most of the accused were sentenced to imprisonment, the use of crosses, or penances, without any torture.
That the Inquisition rarely used torture in its proceedings, contrary to the claims of its defamers, is affirmed by nearly all of the leading modern authorities on the Inquisition. Professor Henry Kamen (the world’s leading living authority on the Spanish Inquisition), in his book Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, states:
“Torture was used normally as a last resort and applied in only a minority of cases. Often, the accused was merely placed in conspectu tormentorum, where the sight of the instruments of torture alone would provoke a confession. Confessions obtained under torture were not accepted as valid because they had obviously been obtained under duress. It was therefore essential for the accused to ratify his confession the day after the ordeal.” (Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, p. 188)
In the BBC documentary on The Legend of the Spanish Inquisition, he provides more precise numbers:
“In fact, the Inquisition used torture very rarely. In Valencia, I discovered that of 7,000 cases, only two percent suffered any form of torture at all, and generally for no more than fifteen minutes… I did not find anyone tortured more than twice.” (The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition, BBC Documentary, Nov. 1994)
Professor Jaime Contreras agreed:
“When we compared the Spanish Inquisition with other courts, we found that the Spanish Inquisition used torture far less. And if we compare the Spanish Inquisition with courts of other countries, we see that the Spanish Inquisition has an almost clean record regarding torture.” (The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition, BBC Documentary, Nov. 1994)
Historian Rino Camilleri, in his La Vera Storia dell’Inquisizione, explains:

“The [historical] sources demonstrate very clearly that the Inquisition resorted to torture very rarely. The specialist Bartolomé Benassa, who studied the harshest Inquisition, the Spanish one, speaks of a use of torture that was ‘relatively infrequent and generally moderate; recourse to the death penalty was exceptional after the year 1500.’ The fact is that inquisitors did not believe in the efficacy of torture. Manuals for inquisitors advised skepticism because the weak would confess anything under torture, and the ‘strong’ would easily resist it. Moreover, because those who resisted torture without confessing were automatically released, it follows that as a means of proof, torture was of little use. Furthermore, confessions obtained under torture had to be later confirmed in writing by the accused, without torture (only in this way could any admissions of guilt be taken to court).” (Rino Camilleri, La Vera Storia dell’Inquisizione, pp. 46–47)

Historian Jean Dumont states:

“And the same inquisitors—who used torture very little—as we will see in chapters dedicated to the Inquisition, explicitly rejected it in their great Directorium, that of Eimerico, who writes: ‘Torture is deceptive and ineffective.’ And they rejected it so thoroughly that, as we will see, the actual decline of Roman torture historically begins with the canonical courts of the Inquisition.” (Jean Dumont, La Iglesia Ante El Reto de la Historia, p. 58)

The Medieval history professor Marian Horvat agrees:

“Torture was first authorized by Innocent IV in the bull Ad Extirpanda of May 15, 1252, with limits that could not cause the loss of a limb or endanger life; it could only be applied once, and only if the accused already appeared practically convicted of heresy by multiple and conclusive evidence. Certain objective studies conducted by recent scholars have argued that torture was practically unknown in the medieval inquisitorial process. The records of Bernard Gui, inquisitor of Toulouse for six years, who examined more than 600 heretics, show only one instance in which torture was used. Furthermore, among the 930 sentences recorded between 1307 and 1323 (and it is worth noting that meticulous records were kept by paid notaries chosen from civil courts), most of the accused were sentenced to imprisonment, the use of crosses, and penances. Only 42 were handed over to the secular arm and burned.” (Marian Horvat – Inquisition: Myth and Reality)
Nicholas Eymerich (whom we will address specifically in another text), in his Directorium, as mentioned by Jean Dumont, despite accepting torture, states that it is ineffective and deceptive, and exclaims: “Let this be done without cruelty; we are not executioners.” He explains that torture should only be applied when all other means to discover the truth have been exhausted:

“Torment should not be used until all other means of discovering the truth have been employed, because often gentle methods are sufficient to make the defendant confess—the manner, his own reflections, the exhortations of well-intentioned individuals, and the discomforts of the prison. Torture is not an infallible means of ascertaining the truth. Weak men confess crimes they have not committed at the first pain; other brave and robust men endure the cruelest torments.” (Adnotat. Lib III)

When torture was used, the methods employed by the inquisitorial courts were the strappado, the toca, and the rack. The application of the strappado, also known as the garrucha, consisted of suspending the criminal from the ceiling by a pulley with weights tied to the ankles, with a series of lifts and drops, during which the arms and legs suffered violent pulls and were sometimes dislocated. The toca, also called water torture, involved inserting a cloth into the victim’s mouth and forcing them to ingest water poured from a vessel, giving the impression of drowning, which according to Henry Kamen “was the most common procedure until the 16th century.” (The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, p. 186)

The rack, or potro, was the torture instrument most frequently used after the 16th century. It consisted of a board on which the accused was placed, with limbs tied by ropes; as the torture continued, the ropes were tightened, causing pain to the accused. In some cases, these boards had nails that injured the victim.

Henry Kamen defines it as follows:

“The basic rule in torture was that the accused should not suffer any risk to life or severe injury. By Church law, ecclesiastical courts could neither kill nor shed blood. No distinct tortures were used by the Inquisition. The most frequently employed methods were commonly used in other secular and ecclesiastical courts, and any complaints about new tortures certainly refer to rare exceptions. The three main methods were the strappado, the toca, and the rack. The strappado or pulley consisted of suspending the accused by the wrists from a ceiling pulley, with heavy weights attached to the feet. The accused was slowly raised and suddenly dropped with a jerk. The effect was to stretch and perhaps dislocate arms and legs. The toca or water torture was more complicated. The accused was secured on a board, their mouth forcibly held open, and a cloth or linen (toca) was placed in the mouth to channel water poured slowly from a vessel. The severity of the torture varied with the number of vessels of water used. The rack, which became most common after the 16th century, consisted of tying the accused to a board with ropes passed around the body and limbs, controlled by the executioner, who tightened the ropes by knots at the ends. With each tightening, the ropes cut into the body and compressed the flesh.” (Henry Kamen – The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, p. 190)

THE LEGEND OF THE INSTRUMENTS

To refute the use of all these instruments, it would suffice to deny their use, since all the websites and propagators of these instruments provide no reference or document proving their use by the Inquisition. Therefore, what is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. However, for the scholar of the Inquisition, this method is unsatisfactory; it is necessary, therefore, to analyze the history of these instruments. Beyond the instruments, it is also necessary to remember the various engravings that are circulated about torture sessions, which are the work of artists who never witnessed any session. The historian Jean Dumont, currently the foremost defender of the Inquisition, emphasizes that 16th-century engravings depicting Autos de Fe (public announcements of sentences of those investigated by the Inquisition) displayed buildings with triangular roofs. This type of architecture was common in the Netherlands and the Rhine Valley, regions that are Protestant, not in Spain. This detail reveals the Protestant origins of the engravings.

THE IRON MAIDEN

The Iron Maiden is probably the most famous torture instrument in history. The Iron Maiden is neither medieval nor from the Inquisition, nor is it a torture device. There is no historical record of an “Iron Maiden” before 1793. In the 19th century, the Iron Maiden was cataloged as a medieval instrument and was exhibited in several museums around the world. The San Diego Museum of Man and the Meiji University Museum also displayed it, but contradictorily, a columnist from the San Diego Museum of Man’s own website published, on July 25, 2012, an article called “Medieval Imposter: The Iron Maiden.” In this text, the columnist refutes the supposed use of such an instrument in an execution carried out on August 14, 1515; the story was a tale, a fable, with little or no historical value. Dr. Vortrag Klaus Graf states: “The execution device, ‘Iron Maiden,’ is a 19th-century fiction, since only from the 19th century onwards were the so-called ‘rishard cloaks,’ also called ‘maidens,’ equipped with iron spikes; in this way, the objects were adapted for terrifying fantasies in literature and legends.” (Mordgeschichten und Hexenerinnerungen – das boshafte Gedächtnis auf dem Dorf, June 21, 2001)

THE GUILLOTINE

The guillotine is another case of an instrument that appeared after the Inquisition but is falsely attributed to it. There is no report of this instrument being used by the Inquisition, especially because one of the rules of the Inquisition was not to shed blood. There is also no historical evidence that the guillotine was used before the French Revolution. However, the history of the guillotine began much earlier, though when and where exactly, no one knows. After 1577, some stories claim that machines similar to the guillotine were used in Germany, Great Britain, and Italy in the 1300s by some secular courts, but there is no clear evidence to prove this. Only in 1789 did the French parliament, following the advice of Dr. Guillotine (hence the name guillotine), recommend that the axe and sword be replaced by this instrument, to avoid the suffering of the defendant, who often endured multiple blows of axe and sword until fully decapitated.

THE PEAR

The “Pear” or “Pear of Anguish” is another instrument falsely attributed to the Inquisition. Besides there being no historical record of it ever being used by the Inquisition, there is no reference to it before the 17th century, and there is no record of it being used by anyone, except for some Dutch thieves who supposedly used this instrument to torture their enemies. Another myth is that this instrument would be used to “tear” the anus or genitals of people; there is no basis for this, as even the Dutch thieves only used it to open people’s mouths.

THE SPANISH CHAIR

Another myth is the “Spanish Chair” or “Witches’ Chair.” It resembled an armchair studded with nails. Supposedly, a person was tied to this metal monster, the nails pressed against their body, and then their bare feet were set on fire until they spoke. Sounds gruesome, doesn’t it? Fortunately, the Spanish never hired any furniture makers to construct this “resting” device. There is absolutely no record of it before it appeared in a museum to frighten visitors in 1800. It is a hoax. No one was depraved enough to actually use this on a living person, much less the Spanish Inquisition.

JUDAS’ CRADLE

The Judas’ Cradle, also known as culla di Giuda, was invented in the 17th century, and there is no record of its use by the Inquisition, except in engravings falsely attributed to it. In this method, the condemned was hoisted atop the pyramid and repeatedly and violently lowered, injuring the anus or vagina. The invention of this instrument is attributed to Ippolito Marsili, a professor of canon and penal law who lived between the 15th and 16th centuries. It is falsely attributed to Marsili simply because he opposed corporal torture by secular courts, where the defendant was at the mercy of the judges. He invented the “torment of sleep,” which consisted of placing the accused in a chair and not allowing them to sleep until they confessed. For him, sleep deprivation was a more “humane” form of torture, since it did not inflict any physical harm. It was an advancement toward abolishing cruel tortures. After the creation of the “Judas’ Cradle,” which also employed sleep deprivation as part of the procedure, the association arose between Marsili’s sleep deprivation method and the 17th-century Judas’ Cradle.

THE SAW

This “technique” consisted of suspending the accused by the legs and sawing them vertically. It is a very ancient practice dating back to the Persian kingdom, yet there is no record of it occurring during the Inquisition. Inquisitorial courts did not use anything that caused bleeding; therefore, those condemned to death for heresy were sent to the stake. The only recorded case of this instrument being used in Catholic Europe occurred in Spain during the Morisco revolt, where a Morisco was reportedly sawed in 1568.

CONCLUSION

Here we have addressed only the most famous instruments; there are others, such as the head crusher, knee crusher, breast crusher, “heretic’s fork,” breaking wheel, and other devices that have no record of ever being used in Inquisition courts. Hatred of the Church and the laziness to study history as it truly happened lead people to act irrationally, shouting accusations against the Church without realizing the falsehood and the lamentable role they play.

NOTES
[1] Credits to the page Repensando a Idade Média
[2] History of the Guillotine: http://www.guillotine.dk/pages/history.html
[3] Francis Grose (1811). Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Gr....ose-VulgarTongue/c/c
[4] Biography of Ippolito: http://www.treccani.it/enciclo....pedia/ippolito-marsi
[5] https://books.google.no/books?....id=CCRDAAAAcAAJ&

RODRIGUES, Rafael. Instruments of Torture Attributed to the Inquisition. Available at: http://apologistascatolicos.co....m/index.php/idade-me