BLASPHEMY.
Blasphemy is a somewhat elastic term but, for our purpose, it may, in a
general way, be defined as imprecation derogatory or insulting to the
Divinity. Punished with lapidation under the Levitical law, it was,
during the Middle Ages, the subject of infinite legislation, both on the
part of secular and ecclesiastical lawgivers, and savage punishments,
such as boring the tongue with a hot wire, were frequently imposed.
Enrique IV, in 1462, prescribed cutting out the tongue, together with
scourging or banishment and, in 1476, Ferdinand and Isabella confirmed
this.[686] Jurisdiction over blasphemy was cumulative, belonging both to
the secular and spiritual courts, and was also within the cognizance of
the Old Inquisition, provided it was heretical, but the distinction
between non-heretical and heretical was not easy. Eymerich tells us that
imprecations reviling God or the Virgin, or expressing ingratitude to
him, are simple blasphemy with which the Inquisition has no concern; to
give it cognizance there must be a denial of some article of faith, and
the repetition of this definition by the Repertorium in 1494 shows that
this continued to be accepted as the rule in practice.[687]
[Sidenote: _MUST BE HERETICAL_]
The Spanish Inquisition, at its inception, thus found itself possessed
of jurisdiction and, in Aragon at least, where the institution had the
tradition of centuries, there was no hesitation in exercising it,
immediately after the reorganization. In the Saragossa auto of December
17, 1486, there appeared a Christian punished for blasphemy, his tongue
being pierced with a stick, and a Jew with a bridle in his mouth, a
mitre and a straw _espuerta_. In this field, as in so many others,
inquisitorial zeal outran discretion; there was little attention paid to
the distinction between heretical and non-heretical and, in the
Instructions of 1500, inquisitors were told that they made arrests for
trifling matters, not directly heretical, as for words uttered in anger
that were blasphemy and not heresy; in future, no one was to be arrested
for such things and, if there was doubt, the inquisitor-general was to
be consulted.[688] This warning was all the more needed, as the secular
courts were not ready to abandon their jurisdiction, for a pragmática of
Ferdinand and Isabella, in 1502, provides lashes, prison and other
penalties for blasphemies so evidently heretical as _descreo de Dios_ (I
disbelieve in God).[689] The bishops likewise continued to assert
control, for the Council of Seville, in 1512, under ex-Inquisitor-general
Deza, imposed a fine of three gold florins and imprisonment at
discretion on clerics, while for laymen, in addition to the legal
penalties, the ecclesiastical judge was directed to prosecute for
swearing, blasphemy, or insults to God, the Virgin and the saints.[690]
The caution enjoined in the Instructions of 1500 was lost on the
inquisitors and their abuse of power, in this respect, suggested one of
the complaints of the Córtes of Monzon, in 1510. In the Concordia of
1512 it was provided that they should not have cognizance of blasphemy,
unless it manifestly savored of heresy, such as denying the existence of
God or his omnipotence. Inquisitor-general Mercader embodied this in his
Instructions of 1514, and Leo X confirmed it, in 1516, in his bull
_Pastoralis officii_.[691] The Aragonese Suprema accepted this and, in
the Edict of Faith of 1515, it was specially stated that denunciation of
blasphemy was not required, except when it was contrary to articles of
faith.[692] As we have seen in bigamy, however, no attention was paid to
this and, among the grievances of the Córtes about 1530, there is
complaint that the Inquisition threw into prison orthodox persons for
blasphemy and for words merely uttered in the heat of passion, to which
the imperturbable inquisitor-general replied that the inquisitors acted
only in accordance with the law and, if parties had been aggrieved, let
their names be given, when due provision would be made.[693]
These troubles were by no means confined to Aragon. In Castile a royal
pragmática of 1515 recites a supplication to the king asking that
inquisitors should not have cognizance of blasphemy, wherefore it was
ordered that they should only hear cases which they could and ought to
hear, and a special charge was given to the inquisitor-general not to
permit them to do otherwise, and to provide that abuses, if such there
were, should cease.[694] This ambiguous utterance naturally produced no
effect and, in 1534, the Córtes of Madrid represented forcibly the
hardship that a blasphemy, uttered in the excitement of gambling or in
the passion of a quarrel, should expose a man, noble and of pure blood,
to arrest by the Inquisition, when, as the cause was not known, the
whole lineage suffered infamy. They asked, therefore, that the offence
should be remanded exclusively to the secular courts, which should
punish it rigorously. To this Charles evasively replied that the judges
would execute the laws and the inquisitors would not exceed their
powers, and he contented himself with reissuing the pragmática of
1515.[695]
It is easy to appreciate the feelings underlying these remonstrances,
for there was no function of the Inquisition which brought it more fully
in contact with the mass of the Old Christian population, thoroughly
orthodox at heart, strict in observance, proud of purity of blood, and
dreading nothing so much as the nota incurred by the slightest suspicion
of heresy. The Spaniard was choleric, and not especially nice in his
choice of words when moved by wrath; gambling was an almost universal
passion and, in all lands and ages, nothing has been more provocative of
ejaculations and expletives than the vicissitudes of cards and dice.
What, to women in the humbler walks of life, were the prosecutions for
sorcery, those for blasphemy were to men of all ranks. Trivial as this
portion of inquisitorial activity may seem to us, we may feel sure that
in no other way was the influence of the Holy Office more keenly felt or
more dreaded by that great body of the nation which zealously welcomed
its persecution of the Jewish and Moorish New Christians.
[Sidenote: _DEFINITION DIFFICULT_]
It is true that, in theory, the jurisdiction of the Inquisition was
confined to heretical blasphemy and, if the older definitions were
observed, only a moderate self-restraint was required for the most
inveterate gambler or hot-headed ruffler to keep on the safe side, but
definitions were malleable and could be moulded to suit the temper or
the aggressiveness of a tribunal anxious for business and for fines. The
doctors found it no easier to agree upon the delimitation of heretical
blasphemy than upon the thousand other questions suggested by Moral
Theology. It was easy to say in general terms that heretical blasphemy
consisted in affirming or denying of God that which the faith requires
to be denied or affirmed, or in attributing to the creature that which
pertains solely to the Creator, but when it came to applying these
abstract principles in the concrete, there was apt to be discordance,
and it is easy to imagine how ample a field for casuistry was afforded
by the variety, vigor and picturesqueness of the blasphemy of the
southern races.
As a rule, the Suprema was inclined to check the readiness of the
tribunals to discover heresy in expletives which were, it is true,
blasphemous, irreverent and indecent, but not indicative of lack of
faith. There was a class of these, which seem to have been in the mouth
of every one, ineradicable by the most severe legislation, such as "Mal
grado aya Dios" (May it spite God), "Pese á Dios" (May God regret)
"Reniego á Dios" (I renounce God), "Descreo de Dios" (I disbelieve in
God) etc., for which Ferdinand and Isabella, in their laws of 1492 and
1502, provided penalties ranging from a month's imprisonment for a first
offence, to piercing the tongue for a third and, in 1525, Charles V
added "Por vida de Dios" (By God's life) to the list. In 1566, Philip II
in his desire for naval recruits, added ten years of galleys to the
penalties for blasphemy and six years of galleys to the tongue-piercing
for the third offence, as provided by his predecessors.[696] When these
offences were so fully covered by secular law, the Suprema deemed it
unnecessary that the tribunals should be diverted from their legitimate
functions to take cognizance of them. In 1537, Dr. Giron de Loaysa, in
his visitation of Toledo, writes for instructions concerning these
expletives. He regards them as heretical, but he understands that the
Suprema does not wish the tribunals to take action on them, as they are
so common and there are already judges enough for them.[697] It was
probably in response to this that, in the same year 1537, the Suprema
decided that utterances such as these were not within its jurisdiction,
because they were conditional, being merely explosions of wrath or
disappointment, a decision which it repeated in 1547; it had already, in
1535, construed the Instructions of 1500 as implying that sudden
ejaculations of anger were to be handed over to the episcopal courts
and, in 1560, it included "por vida de Dios" among non-heretical
blasphemies. In 1567, however, among the charges against Estevan Pueyo,
in Valencia, is included his exclaiming "pese á Dios" and the tendency
of inquisitors to widen the definition is seen in the rebuke by the
Suprema of Inquisitor Moral because, in San Sebastian, he had punished
for sayings such as "God cannot do me more harm" and "in this world you
will not see me suffer," unless, indeed, it sagely observes, the last
expression is used with disbelief in the final Judgement.[698]
This latter remark illustrates the ingenious casuistry with which heresy
could be discovered whenever desirable, of which we have already seen an
example in the case of Antonio Pérez, for one of the charges against him
was his swearing that, if God the Father interfered with his defence, he
would cut off his nose, in which Fray Diego de Chaves found savor of the
heresy of the Vaudois who attributed human members to God. It is
possible that the successful employment against Pérez of the
jurisdiction over blasphemy may have led to a more liberal definition of
heresy for, in the seventeenth century, we find a consensus of opinion
that such expletives as "reniego de Dios" or "de la fee" or "de la
crisma" or "de Nuestra Señora" or "descreo de Dios" were heretical.
Whether this applied to renouncing St. Peter, St. Paul and other saints
was a more doubtful question on which the doctors differed. There were
even strict constructionists who held that to call God all-wise or
all-beautiful, as a lover might address his mistress, was blasphemy. In
Sicily, the exclamation "Sanctus Diabolus" was usually admitted to be
heretical, but it was not prosecuted because it was so universally used
that it was more convenient to class it as simple blasphemy.[699] It
will readily be seen how elusive were the questions arising from the
variegated ingenuity of blasphemers, and what scope there was for the
indulgence of temperamental idiosyncracies among inquisitors.
[Sidenote: CUMULATIVE JURISDICTION]
In the region so full of doubt, where there were three claimants of
jurisdiction--the secular, the spiritual and the inquisitorial--much
clashing might naturally be expected, but I have not met with any
competencias with the royal courts arising from this source.[700] In his
anxiety to suppress blasphemy, Philip IV in 1639 assembled a junta to
consider whether the jurisdiction of the Inquisition could not be
enlarged, so that it could punish the utterance of a single "por vida,"
when the outcome of its deliberations was a comprehensive decree
punishing all swearing, save in judicial procedures, with a graduated
scale of penalties, and those addicted to the habit were incapacitated
for holding office under the State. Of course this was ineffective and,
in 1655 and 1656 he ordered the rigid infliction of the punishment in
order to disarm the divine indignation manifested in the public
misfortunes.[701]
Neither did the episcopal courts surrender their jurisdiction, and it
proves the ineradicable character of the offence that it continued to
flourish in spite of persecution by all three. A case illustrative of
their cumulative action, and of the susceptibility of Spanish piety, was
that of Diego Cabeza, of Manzanal de la Puente who, about 1620, in
quarrelling with a man, said that he did not know what God was about
when he made him. The local magistrate, Francisco Prieto, exacted of him
a fine of forty ducats, by threatening to denounce him to the
Inquisition, but the episcopal court heard of the matter, arrested,
tried and punished him. Then, some ten years later, in 1630, he was
denounced to the Valladolid tribunal; the calificadores duly pondered
over his utterance and pronounced it to be an heretical blasphemy, but,
when the inquisitors learned that it was ten years old, and that he had
already been punished by the episcopal Ordinary, they wisely suspended
the case.[702]
Presumably it was the worst cases of blasphemy that came before the
Inquisition and, as a rule, its moderation offers a favorable contrast
to the savage ferocity of secular legislation. It is true that, as
suspicion of heresy was inferred, the accused was thrown in the secret
prison which, in itself, was a severe infliction, but torture was not
employed. The penalties prescribed were abjuration de levi, appearance
in an auto, gagging, scourging and galleys, according to the gravity of
the offence, while frailes were recluded in convents of their own
Orders.[703] These, however, were reserved for aggravated cases of
habitual blasphemy by offenders of low degree; nobles and gentlemen had
their sentences read in the audience-chamber, were excused from
abjuration, and were recluded in a monastery for some months. Outbreaks
of passion, in quarrels or gambling and even drunkenness, were held to
entitle the accused to acquittal, or to merely nominal penalties. A
writer of about 1640, indeed, assumes as a rule that the culprit was
only reprimanded in the audience-chamber, without abjuration, except in
very scandalous cases, deserving of scourging and the galleys, but even
in these such punishments were no longer inflicted. There was no
sequestration of property, and repetition of the offence was not
regarded as relapse.[704] A later writer, however, holds that such
heretical blasphemies as "reniego de Dios," "descreo de Dios" and the
like are punishable with vergüenza or a hundred lashes.[705]
[Sidenote: NUMBER OF CASES]
It may be assumed, in fact, that there was a wide discretion in these
matters. We have seen the severity with which the wild outbursts of rage
of Antonio Pérez were treated, yet, in 1624, a young soldier who, when
put in the stocks, exclaimed "I renounce God and the saints; devils why
don't you come and carry me off?" when duly tried with all formality by
the Valladolid tribunal, was discharged with a reprimand and without a
sentence. So, in 1630, two girls in the Dominican convent of Valladolid,
on being confined in a room by the prioress, in a burst of rage
repeatedly renounced God and the saints. Naturally on trial they
expressed extreme repentance and were discharged with a reprimand.[706]
This wise moderation did not exclude severity, when the case seemed to
demand it. In 1669, Antonio del Hero, for heretical blasphemy "en grado
superlativo" was sentenced in Toledo to appear in the auto of April 7th,
to abjure de levi, to hear mass as a penitent, to receive a hundred
lashes and to serve three years in the galleys.[707]
* * * * *
Considering the prevalence of the vice and the energetic efforts for its
suppression, the number of cases in the Inquisition is less than might
be expected. In the Toledo record, from 1575 to 1610, there are only
forty-six. In that of the same tribunal from 1648 to 1794, the number is
but thirty-seven. In all the tribunals, from 1780 to 1820 the total is
one hundred and forty-seven. It is evident that, in this matter, the
activity of the Inquisition diminished greatly as time wore on, whether
from an increase in popular reverence or from a growing disinclination
to denounce the offence.