CHAPTER VI.

CONFESSION.

The heretic was not only a criminal but a sinner. This imposed on the

Inquisition a two-fold function--to discover and punish crime and to

save the soul of the sinner. Its position was anomalous. It could scarce

be called a spiritual tribunal, for inquisitors and members of the

Suprema, as we have seen, might be laymen. The jurisdiction over heresy

was a special delegation from the Holy See but, although the inquisitor

might excommunicate, when the censure was to be removed he did not do it

himself but empowered any priest to perform the ceremony.[1716] He never

received sacramental confessions or administered the sacrament of

penitence; even when a Protestant applied to him to be admitted to the

bosom of the Church, a priest was called in to hear the confession and

grant absolution.

Thus, while exercising spiritual jurisdiction, the inquisitor, even if

in holy orders, abstained from exercising spiritual functions. Yet, as a

judge, his duties were not purely secular. In theory the object of the

Inquisition was the saving of souls; the detection and punishment of

heresy were merely a necessary means to that end. The burning of the

obstinate impenitent, besides avenging the offence to God, was the

removal of a gangrened member to preserve the body from infection. The

penalties inflicted on the repentant were not punishment but penance and

he was not a convict but a penitent; whatever statement he made during

his trial, even in obstinately denying the charges, was a confession,

and the penal prison to which he was consigned was a _casa de

penitencia_ or _de misericordia_. Even denunciations and the evidence of

witnesses for the defence were sometimes called confessions.

While the distinction was fully recognized between judicial and

sacramental confession, and the inquisitor was in no sense a confessor,

there was a curious assumption that in the tribunal confession was of a

mixed character, partaking of both classes.[1717] The whole procedure

was directed to induce the accused to confess his errors, to profess

repentance and to beg for mercy. He was adjured by the love of God and

his Blessed Mother to discharge his conscience and save his soul by a

full confession, as to himself and others, without uttering false

testimony as to himself or to them. The so-called advocate who was

furnished to defend him was instructed to urge him to this, and to

explain that the Holy Office was not like the other tribunals whose

business it was to punish the body, for here the only object was to cure

the soul and to reunite to the Church those who, by their sins, had left

the holy congregation of Christians, in violation of their baptismal

promises; he should therefore cast aside all thought of that which

concerns the body and think only of his soul, confessing his crimes so

that the Holy Office could cure his infirmity, which was beyond the

power of any other judge or confessor.[1718]

No doubt there were many inquisitors who conscientiously believed that

this was the lofty duty to which they were devoted. There was another

motive, however, which was not without weight in prompting the earnest

and sometimes cruel means resorted to, for it was held that confession,

however it might be obtained, cured all defects and irregularities in

the trial.[1719] An inquisitor conscious of having overstepped the

limits was therefore doubly anxious to extort from the accused

admissions which should exonerate him.

Thus, from the first audience to the final reading of the sentence at

the auto de fe, the effort of the tribunal was to bring the sinner to

repentance, or at least to confession, by adjurations, by misleading

promises of mercy, by threats and, if necessary, by torture. On his way

to the stake, the man who had persistently denied his guilt was

accompanied by confessors urging him to admit it and to repent. Similar

advantage was taken of the death-bed fears of those who died in prison,

when, as we have seen, confessors sent to them were instructed to listen

to them only in case they confessed sufficiently to "satisfy" the

adverse testimony.

[Sidenote: _SPONTANEOUS CONFESSION_]

This urgency to induce confession produced the natural result that the

unfortunates subjected to it were led, not infrequently, to gratify

their judges by admitting whatever they thought necessary to win the

favor of the tribunal. This was recognized in a warning issued by the

Suprema, in 1541, that much caution was required in weighing the truth

of confessions, because the accused, through malice, were wont to

confess against themselves and others in order to obscure the

truth.[1720] This warning was doubtless needed, but there is little

evidence that it was heeded. As a rule, the confession was accepted,

provided it was sufficiently criminatory and, as far as regarded its

implication of accomplices, it was used for their conviction.

* * * * *

An unexpected feature of the inquisitorial records is the number of

_espontaneados_--of those who from various motives voluntarily accused

themselves. In 1172 cases occurring in Toledo between 1575 and 1610

there are 170 of these or about one in seven. This of course is

attributable to the assumption that self-denunciation was an evidence of

contrition which merited benignity. It is true that, in the earlier

period, when Edicts of Grace were published, those who came forward

within the term were subjected to reconciliation and heavy mulcts; their

confessions were taken down by notaries to be used against the friends

whom they incriminated and against themselves in case of relapse. It is

further true that, after the expiration of the term, spontaneous

confession did not avert confiscation and such other penance as the

inquisitor might impose--in fact it was virtually no better than if

rendered under prosecution. But, after the first fury of persecution,

when spontaneous self-denunciation might be considered as arising from

conviction and not from fear of accusation by others, it was regarded

more mercifully. In 1568 we find the Suprema sharply rebuking the

tribunal of Barcelona for having condemned to reconciliation and

confiscation a French girl of eighteen and Antoine Codrie, a Frenchman,

who had spontaneously confessed to Protestantism and against whom there

was no other evidence; the confiscated property was to be returned to

them within nine days, whether or not it was still in the hands of the

receiver. The tribunal was also told that it had erred deplorably in the

case of Alonso de Montoya, who had spontaneously confessed to having

been a renegade when captive in the hands of the Moors, and whom it had

thrown into the secret prison and condemned to confiscation,

reconciliation and appearance in an auto de fe with a mitre.[1721]

[Sidenote: _SPONTANEOUS CONFESSION_]

Not long after this the reports of the tribunal of Toledo present

numerous cases of spontaneous self-denunciation which show that its

influence on the sentence varied with the character of the confession

and the motives to which the inquisitors attributed it. There was a

curious case of twelve Judaizers of Alcazar de Consuegra who came

forward to accuse themselves and implicate twelve others; all

twenty-four figured in the great auto de fe of 1591 and all had the full

penalty of reconciliation, confiscation and perpetual prison with the

sanbenito. On the other hand, Andrés de Palacios, in 1586, presented

himself and confessed that, when sailing in the galleys, he had made the

acquaintance of an English captain who converted him to all the Lutheran

heresies; for six years, and until within a few weeks, he had believed

them, but now with tears he begged for mercy and for readmission to the

Church. He was duly put on trial and was privately reconciled with only

some spiritual penances. In the same year occurred the more complicated

case of Ursule de la Croix, a French nun in the convent of Santa

Margarita at Alcalá de Henares. She confessed to a commissioner there

that she had imbibed some of the errors current in her native land; she

had deliberately struck a crucifix and had eaten meat on Fridays. The

Suprema examined the confession and ordered the commissioner to absolve

her. Subsequently she returned to confess that she still held the errors

which she had abjured. The Suprema ordered her to be confined in the

secret prison and her trial to proceed, during which she repeated her

confession, begged for mercy and professed her desire to live and die in

the Catholic faith. The consulta de fe was puzzled and, on reference to

the Suprema, it ordered her to be secretly reconciled, the sanbenito to

be at once removed, and her reclusion for a year in a convent cell. As

she was a relapsed and as Lutheranism was the object of special

severity, this mercy shows ample consideration for spontaneous

confession, but the event proved that the patience of the Inquisition

might be tried too far. The unstable mind of the poor creature continued

to torment itself and, in 1594, she again accused herself of the same

errors. The tribunal reported this to the Suprema, with the statement

that she had already been thrice reconciled, and the order came to

relax her to the secular arm, when she was duly burnt.[1722]

Thus far there appears to have been no formal modification of the

Instructions of 1484 which made no concessions to _espontaneados_,

except during a Term of Grace, but evidently each case was treated on

its merits. It was not until 1605 that the Suprema decreed that

foreigners confessing their errors voluntarily were to be reconciled

without confiscation. This did not apply to natives, especially

Judaizers and Moriscos, in whose cases the Suprema was consulted which

usually remitted the confiscation. The matter remained in this uncertain

condition, with an increasing tendency towards leniency in practice. In

trivial cases, such as heretical blasphemy or thoughtless propositions,

the offender was reprimanded, warned and told to confess sacramentally,

even though there might have been previous denunciation insufficient to

justify arrest. In more serious matters we are told that the

espontaneado was treated with great benignity, even when it appeared

that he had come forward through fear of denunciation by accomplices who

had been arrested. He was given his house or the city for a prison,

unless it was necessary to seclude him from those who would pervert him.

If he confessed to formal heresy, with belief and intention, it was

customary to vote secret reconciliation with the immediate removal of

the sanbenito and with confiscation, but the Suprema usually remitted

the latter or agreed to a composition. In some cases at Santiago, in the

seventeenth century, the parties offered a payment nearly equivalent to

the value of their property, but the Suprema told them that they could

retain it on paying what the tribunal thought proper.[1723]

[Sidenote: _IMPERFECT CONFESSION_]

Confession, whether spontaneous or after arrest, to be valid in the

Inquisition, implied repentance, renunciation of error and prayer for

readmission to Catholic unity. Although judicial, it had this in common

with sacramental confession that it must be full and complete; every

separate heretical act was a sin and, like sins in a confessional, it

had to be enumerated. There must be no omission, else the confession was

nugatory, _ficta_ and _diminuta_, and an aggravated guilt, for the truly

penitent sinner was held to be eager to expose all his sins, in order

to gain absolution for them, and to betray all his accomplices in order

to satisfy his new-born hatred of heresy. Thus the _diminuto_ was as bad

as the _negative_, for he was still a heretic at heart. The Instructions

of 1484 treat _diminutos_ as impenitents, to be prosecuted if subsequent

testimony shows that they have concealed anything as to themselves or to

others.[1724] Tried by this standard the confessions in the early Terms

of Grace were apt to be imperfect and, in the endeavor to avert the

awful consequences of this, it became customary to add to them a protest

that, if through lapse of memory facts had been forgotten, the penitent

on remembering them would come and confess them or, if testimony was

received of matters omitted, he now accepted it as true and asked

penance for them. These protests availed little. In the case of Mencia,

wife of Diego González, before the tribunal of Guadalupe in 1485, she

added this to her confession, but additional incriminating evidence was

given by other penitents; she was duly prosecuted and the tribunal

apologized for not sending her to the stake, in view of her youth, her

tearful contrition and her heartfelt desire to return to the bosom of

the Church, wherefore she escaped with perpetual prison.[1725] Beatriz

Núñez was less fortunate. She was reconciled, January 13, 1485, in the

Time of Grace, after presenting a long confession including all the

recognized Jewish practices. July 1st she was arrested on the strength

of evidence relating to acts running back for twenty years, embracing

details that happened not to be contained in her confession, although it

had included a protest admitting all that she did not remember. The

tribunal held that her confession had been _diminuta_, that consequently

it was feigned and she was an impenitent heretic, so she was burnt

alive, July 31st.[1726] Similar was the fate of Andrés González, parish

priest of San Martin de Talavera, who was reconciled in the Time of

Grace but, when imprisoned November 12, 1485, made a fuller confession,

imploring mercy in terms betraying the utmost despair. There were but

two adverse witnesses--evidently prisoners on trial--whose evidence was

simply confirmatory of the confessions, but it sufficed. There seems to

have been some delay in getting a bishop and an abbot to degrade him,

for he was not burnt until August 17, 1486.[1727] Now in all these cases

the confessions had amply admitted Judaism and the subsequent testimony

was but surplusage in detail. This cruel practice goes far to explain

the great number of burnings, in the early period, and it long continued

to furnish victims. In 1531 the tribunal of Toledo condemned to

reconciliation, confiscation and prison an old woman named Teresa de

Lucena; for nearly fifty years she had been living a Catholic life, but

in 1484 she had been reconciled on a confession which subsequent

testimony showed had omitted some Jewish observances and had not named

every one whom she had seen practice them.[1728]

This demand for an absolutely perfect confession exceeded that of the

confessional, where forgotten sins are charitably held to be included.

It explains why inquisitors labored so strenuously and often so cruelly

to make the penitent remember and declare everything testified against

him--what they termed satisfying the evidence. It is true that Simancas

argues that defective memory may render confession imperfect, that he

who admits himself to have been a heretic includes all heretical

customs, and that the rigor of the law should not be visited on those

who return to the Catholic faith, while Rojas condemns the severity of

those who hold that a penitent not stating the full term of his heresy

should be burnt.[1729] Yet the old sternness was held to be in vigor

throughout the eighteenth century, and the only concession of the

authorities seems to be that, if the penitent omits in his confession

anything worthy of relaxation or any accomplices, when these have been

proved by witnesses, he may have the chance of purging himself by

torture.[1730]

Yet this ferocity had become rather academic than practical. As early as

1570 the Suprema ordered that, in all cases of _diminucion_, the matters

suppressed or omitted were to be recorded in the process, submitted to

the consulta de fe, and then, without taking action, to be sent to it

for its decision.[1731] This can only have been for the purpose of

mitigating the execution of the law without modifying it in principle.

It remained nominally in force but I have met, in the later periods,

with no case in which its extreme rigor was enforced. It was not an

infrequent occurrence that reconciled penitents were found, by testimony

in later trials, to have made imperfect confessions. Apparently a

careful watch for this was maintained and, when it was discovered, they

were tried again, but in the second half of the seventeenth century the

sentences were remarkably mild--a few years of prison and sanbenito and

exile or possibly a parading in _vergüenza_.[1732] With the

recrudescence of persecution in the first half of the eighteenth

century, there was greater severity--irremissible prison and sanbenito

for life and, in a Barcelona case of 1723, a woman had two hundred

lashes in addition.[1733]

* * * * *

[Sidenote: _INTENTION_]

Closely connected with _diminucio_ was the confession of acts

accompanied by a denial of intention. As we have seen, the Inquisition

relied for proof on acts or words from which heretical belief was

inferred, it being assumed that, after baptism, any one practising

Judaic or Moslem rites or customs was an apostate. Many of these were

wholly indifferent in themselves and their significance depended on the

intention with which they were performed, so that it was not unusual for

the accused to admit the acts while disclaiming knowledge of their

religious character. He might confess avoidance of pork but allege that

it disagreed with him; he might acknowledge to washing hands or changing

linen but assert that it was for the sake of cleanliness; he might not

deny uttering an heretical proposition but say that it was thoughtless

or jocular. As human intentions are inscrutable, in such cases resort

was inevitable to the universal solvent of judicial doubt--torture--at

least in the later period. In the earlier time it was more in consonance

with the swift justice then habitual to condemn him; such acts, it was

argued, did not admit of doubt, they were in themselves sufficient

proof and the accused was not to be allowed the privilege of

torture.[1734] In the later period the authorities are not wholly

unanimous, for the shades of guilt and the collateral circumstances

varied so infinitely that a definite rule was difficult to frame. In

general it may be summed up as admitted that for heretical acts, under

the law, no plea of non-intention could be entertained, and that the

offender must be relaxed, but in practice he had the benefit of torture;

if he succumbed in it he was reconciled with confiscation, the galleys

and perpetual prison; if he endured it without confession, according to

the judicial logic of the age, he was not acquitted but was punished,

less severely, for the suspicion. For words and opinions and heretical

propositions, if serious, he was to be tortured on intention, but not

for lesser offences, in which the appropriate penalty would be less

grievous than the infliction of torture--yet one writer admits the use

of torture when intention is denied in the widely current proposition

that simple fornication is no sin. When, in these minor cases, torture

was used, if, according to the legal phrase, it was endured sufficiently

to purge the testimony, it became customary to suspend the case or to

acquit the accused.[1735]

In the previous chapter (pp. 566, 567) there are one or two instructive

cases as to the danger of construing Judaic observances as implying

heretical intention. In the wider sphere of propositions, an

illustrative instance is that of the Augustinian Pedro Retorni, tried in

1601, at Toledo, for denying the papal power to release souls from

purgatory. He admitted it, but denied intention, asserting that he had

only used the phrase in the course of an argument. The consulta de fe

voted for abjuration _de levi_ and a sharp reprimand, but the Suprema

ordered that he should be threatened with torture up to the point of

stripping him in the torture-chamber. He endured this without

confessing, and the sentence of the consulta de fe was executed.[1736]

* * * * *

One of the most essential requisites to completeness of confession was

the denunciation of all accomplices--that is, of all whom the penitent

knew to be heretics or addicted to heretical practices. This, as we

have seen, was required of all who came in under Edicts of Grace, and,

in the Instructions of 1500, the inquisitor was ordered, when any one

confessed, to examine him exhaustively as to what he knew of his

parents, brothers, kindred and all other persons, and this evidence to

be used against them was to be entered in registers apart from the

personal confession.[1737] There was usually little hesitation on the

part of the penitent to incriminate his family and friends, for they

might, for all he knew, be themselves under trial and informing on him,

so that any reticence on his part would convict him of being a

_diminuto_ with all its fateful consequences. The information thus

obtained was registered with alphabetical indexes, so that the tribunals

obtained a mass of evidence, against those who were Jews or Moors at

heart, which largely explains the rapid extension of its activity. The

value attached by the Inquisition to this source of information is

expressed by the Suprema in its remonstrance, February 23, 1595, to

Clement VIII against a jubilee indulgence. One of its chief arguments

was that, as heretics were all allied and known to each other, the

principal means of detecting them was through the confessions of those

who were converted, while the absolution obtainable through the

indulgence would release them from pressure and this mode of extirpating

heresy would be lost.[1738]

In the formulas compiled for interrogating the accused, we find special

stress laid on making those who confess enumerate all who had joined

with them in belief and worship, or whom they knew to be heretics. These

were recorded, one by one, the penitent being required to state all

details concerning them, including personal descriptions, so that they

could be tracked or, if there were several individuals of the same name,

error could be avoided in identifying them.[1739] Any omissions in this

exposed the penitent to severe punishment. In the Seville auto de fe of

July 5, 1722, there appeared Melchor de Molina, who had been reconciled

for Judaism in 1720. From evidence gathered in subsequent trials it

appeared that he had not denounced all whom he knew; he was prosecuted

anew and for this, as a fautor and protector of accomplices, his

temporary prison was now made perpetual and irremissible.[1740]

[Sidenote: _DENUNCIATIONS OF ACCOMPLICES_]

Perhaps the most striking illustration of the effectiveness of the rule

requiring denunciation of others is furnished by a Morisco of Valencia

named Francisco Zafar y Ribera. He had been a Christian only in outward

show, when a miraculous change of heart sent him on a pilgrimage to

Monserrat, where he confessed his heresy to a priest. The good padre,

unable to absolve him, referred him to the Barcelona tribunal, where, as

a condition precedent, he was required to denounce all whom he knew to

be Moors. The inquisitors, finding these to be Valencians, despatched

him to Valencia, where he gave the names of no less than four thousand.

He had been a wandering tailor and his acquaintance was extensive.[1741]

Few of those who fell into the hands of the Inquisition had the heroic

courage of Manuel Díaz, a victim in the great Mexican auto de fe of

December 8, 1596. Although ten of his fellow-sufferers had testified

against him, he steadily denied his guilt and was proof against both the

threats and the blandishments of the inquisitors. There was nothing to

do but to burn him as a _negativo impenitente_, except that he might be

used to inculpate others, and for this he was sentenced to torture _in

caput alienum_. When this sentence was read to him he simply said that

he was ready for them to do with him as they pleased. He was in his

thirty-eighth year and a vigorous man, for he endured torture of unusual

severity and, although he shrieked and begged to be put to death and

called upon his tormentors to have mercy on his five children, he denied

all knowledge of the Law of Moses and went to the stake without bearing

witness against his fellows. This was held to aggravate his guilt and,

in his sentence, he was stigmatized as a fautor and protector of

Judaizing heretics.[1742]

If the inquisitorial records occasionally ennoble human nature with such

examples of self-sacrifice, they more frequently exhibit it in its most

despicable aspect, through the eagerness with which unfortunates,

enfeebled and despairing in their protracted incarceration, seek to gain

the favor of pitiless judges, or to render their confessions complete,

by hastening to betray the confidences of their cell-companions, who

incautiously relieve their hearts in careless talk with comrades in

misery. The instances are innumerable in which the recipient of such

avowals at once asks an audience and proves the sincerity of his own

conversion by detailing what he had heard. There is a certain grim

satisfaction, however, in noting that these revelations, however

damaging to the victim, seem never to benefit the informer, for I have

nowhere observed that they are accepted as attenuating circumstances to

diminish his own punishment.

* * * * *

The time at which a confession was made was an important factor in

determining the grade of punishment. At first these distinctions were

crudely drawn, and there was hesitation in accepting confession as an

infallible sign of repentance and conversion. The Instructions of 1484

merely say that, if it is made early and before publication of evidence,

the regular penalty can be commuted to those who manifest contrition; if

after publication and before definite sentence, the culprit is entitled

to reconciliation with perpetual prison, but the inquisitors must

determine whether he is sincerely converted, for if they have no hope of

this they should relax him as an impenitent heretic. It seems to have

been thought that, under these rules, too many fictitious converts

escaped for, in 1498, the tribunals were warned to be cautious about

admitting to reconciliation those who confessed after arrest, in view of

the length of time since the establishment of the Inquisition.[1743]

Thus, after arrest, confession and profession of conversion by no means

saved the victim from the stake, but it depended upon the inquisitor's

belief in his sincerity.

[Sidenote: _TIME OF CONFESSION_]

This excessive severity was moderated in time and there came to be

established a kind of sliding scale which gauged sincerity by the period

in the trial at which confession was made. An elementary form of this is

displayed in a report of an auto de fe at Saragossa, June 5, 1585, where

many Moriscos suffered. There is a group of ten of whom it is said that,

as they confessed at the beginning of their trials, they were imprisoned

for two, three or four years according to the gravity of their offences.

Then there are others sent to the galleys for terms of from three to

eight years, because their confessions were tardy or delayed to the end

of their trials. As women were exempt from galley-service, this

classification was impossible for them, but their terms of prison were

regulated in the same way, and two of them had their sanbenitos removed

at the close of the proceedings, because they had come forward and

confessed before arrest, though after they had been testified

against.[1744] This system was gradually perfected and, as presented by

a writer of the middle of the seventeenth century, it appears that, if

confession was made before the fiscal presented his formal accusation,

the prison and sanbenito were inflicted for a very short time; if after

accusation, they were for one or two years; if not till after

publication of evidence, for the three years styled perpetual; if after

torture, irremissible prison and, if able-bodied, the first three or

five years to be spent in the galleys. This might be modified according

to the manifestation of repentance and whether the culprit was a good

confessor, both as to himself and others and, in the case of slaves, to

avoid wronging the owner, scourging was substituted for prison and

galleys.[1745] Subsequently this resource of scourging was freely

employed for those who were not slaves, and, in the frequent autos of

1721 and the following years, the cases are numerous in which men and

women are sentenced to two hundred lashes and irremissible prison and

sanbenito as a special punishment for tardy confession.[1746]

Confession under torture was originally not regarded as voluntary and

did not relieve from relaxation, showing that its use on a culprit who

denied was either merely to gratify curiosity or to obtain information

as to accomplices.[1747] Subsequent casuists, however, argued that the

ratification of the confession, which was necessary after twenty-four

hours, rendered it voluntary, and the more usual practice was to admit

such cases to reconciliation. The Instructions of 1561 accept this, but

warn inquisitors that they must observe much caution as to such cases

and consider the quality of the heresies and whether the offender had

simply been taught or had taught others.[1748] Still, this distinction

was disregarded and Simancas tells us that the universal practice was to

receive to reconciliation those who confessed under torture.[1749]

It can readily be conceived that those who confessed under the

awe-inspiring formalities of the trial, with the pressure of prolonged

imprisonment, the threat of torture and the fear of the stake, and whose

admissions came gradually with greater or less fullness, as they

vacillated between opposing influences, were not infrequently

inconsistent and variable in their utterances. This was naturally

provoking to the inquisitor and the _vario_ who thus wavered cast doubt

upon the sincerity of his repentance. He was admitted to reconciliation,

indeed, but he paid the penalty of his vacillation in extra punishment.

Thus, in the Murcia auto de fe of October 18, 1722, Francisco Henríquez

de Medina y Melo, besides the regular penance, was sentenced to a

hundred lashes "por vario en sus confesiones."[1750]

Even more provoking was the _revocante_, who withdrew or revoked a

confession--an occurrence by no means rare, as might be expected from

the methods employed to obtain it. The writers all treat this as

impenitence, requiring relaxation in cases of formal heresy.[1751] In

practice it was so regarded, as a general rule, but we find occasional

exceptional cases, in which, however, care was usually taken to inflict

heavier punishment than if the confession had been adhered to. In a

Toledo auto of 1603, a Morisco, Andrés Muñoz, who had revoked his

confession and consequently had been sentenced to relaxation, was saved

by the Suprema, which ordered torture and, on his overcoming it, gave

him five years of galleys and a heavy fine. Another case occurred in

Granada, in 1593, where Jusuarte López, a Portuguese, confessed to

Judaism and then, on finding that there was little evidence against him,

revoked his confession and was condemned to five years of galleys,

followed by irremissible prison and sanbenito.[1752]

[Sidenote: _REVOCATION_]

This apparent inconsistency arose from the infinite perplexities caused

to the conscientious inquisitor by the arbitrary methods employed to

induce or to extort confession. We obtain a glimpse into this from the

remarks of an old inquisitor, about 1640, who, after laying down the

rule of relaxation, proceeds to warn the judge that he should proceed

with caution and consider the circumstances under which the confession

had been made. I have known, he adds, the mere fear excited by the

fiscal's formal demand for torture at the end of the accusation, bring a

confession which necessitated torture to ascertain its truth. In 1628, I

had a case in Saragossa, where a Frenchman voluntarily confessed that he

had been a Lutheran and that, as such, he had been reconciled in Toledo.

On being arrested he stated that his father had taught him Lutheranism

and that he was reconciled in Toledo. After several audiences, he

revoked this, and asserted that what he had confessed in Toledo was

false; that there were no heretics where he came from and that his

father had not taught him, and then in his defence he proved this and

that both he and his father were Catholics. I voted for relaxation but

the Suprema ordered torture; he overcame the torture and was finally

sentenced to abjure _de vehementi_, to undergo public _vergüenza_ and to

perpetual banishment from Spain. If the revocation, the writer

concludes, is of things of which there is _semiplena_ proof [as of one

witness] and it appears that it is made to protect accomplices and

friends, then in rigor he is to be relaxed, but in these times

relaxation is rare if he confesses enough to justify

reconciliation.[1753]

That the terrors of the situation frequently reduced the prisoner to a

mental condition that was practically irresponsible is illustrated in a

trivial case concerning the popular assertion that simple fornication

was no sin. In 1579 at Toledo, Diego Redondo of Prado, on trial for

this, denied at first; then, when the accusation was read, with its

customary demand for torture, he confessed; then, when the testimony of

five witnesses was read in the publication, he revoked his confession,

saying that it was made through fear; he did not know whether he had

made it or not, but if he did so he was out of his senses; he remembered

that he had said he knew not what, and had retracted it, and he did not

remember, and this was what he said. This crazed incoherence puzzled the

tribunal; it referred the case to the Suprema which charitably sentenced

him to hear high mass at Prado, while his sentence was publicly read,

and then to spend two years in exile.[1754]

There was another form of revocation which greatly scandalized the

Inquisition in consequence of the reflection cast upon its methods.

This was the assertion by penitents, subsequent to trial, that they were

innocent and had only confessed through fear of the consequences of

denial. It was sufficiently frequent to be included, in the Edicts of

Faith, among the offences to be denounced by all cognizant of it. In the

earliest Instructions of 1484 it is ordered that such offenders are to

be held as impenitent and as fictitious converts and are to be

prosecuted as such--which of course meant relaxation.[1755] This

severity was moderated in time, but the offence was still punished in a

manner to discourage it. In 1578, Niccolò Salari, who had been

reconciled by the tribunal of Sardinia, had the imprudence to present to

the Suprema a petition revoking his confession; he was tried for this in

Toledo and escaped with two years' exile from Sardinia and the royal

court.[1756]

[Sidenote: _DENIAL OF GUILT_]

A wholesale case of this kind, in Valencia, in 1540, aroused much

excitement. A large number of prominent Conversos had been

punished--some with relaxation--on the charge of holding conventicles in

which Jewish fasts were observed and a crucifix was scourged.

Subsequently they asserted that their confessions had been extorted by

fear; popular feeling was excited and there was danger that the

Inquisition would be seriously discredited, for ecclesiastics of high

repute had recommended them to revoke their confessions and had joined

in a letter on the subject to Inquisitor-general Tavera. The honor of

the Inquisition was to be preserved at all hazards. Doctor Azeve was

sent as a special commissioner to investigate, and his report increased

the disquietude. To reinforce the Valencia tribunal, in May, 1541,

Tavera urged Loazes of Barcelona to hasten thither and take charge of

the matter, promising him support for his advancement. Then, in October,

two members of the Suprema were sent there to assist and two additional

inquisitors were put to work. The crisis was evidently alarming and

there was ample for them all to do. Prosecutions were instituted against

all who had revoked their confessions. They were kept segregated to

prevent collusion and, as the secret prison of the tribunal was

inadequate, the inquisitors and officials were turned out of their

quarters and seven adjoining houses were hired and converted into gaols.

What was the number involved does not appear, but a letter of November

26, 1543, mentions that twenty-two cases had been voted on, twenty more

were in progress, on which they were working night and day and on feast

days, and the remainder it was hoped to conclude so that all might be

included in a single auto. The prisoners had no chance. A letter of the

Suprema suggests that publication of evidence be omitted, because many

of the witnesses had retracted their evidence and a knowledge of this

would encourage the accused in their defence; the consultas de fe were

to be packed, taking care to admit none who were favorable to them, and,

under such conditions, the result was inevitable. Full details are

lacking; we only know that autos de fe were held in which the culprits

appeared for the second time, the sentences appear not to have been

severe, but the honor of the Inquisition was vindicated.[1757]

* * * * *

The _negativo_, who persistently denied his guilt, in the face of

competent testimony, was universally held to be a pertinacious

impenitent heretic, for whom there was no alternative save burning

alive, although, as Simancas says, he might protest a thousand times

that he was a Catholic and wished to live and die in the faith.[1758]

This was the inevitable logic of the situation, for otherwise the guilty

could escape, at the mere cost of asserting innocence, and the effort to

purify the land might as well be abandoned. There were, indeed,

comparatively few who did not at first assert their orthodoxy, nor many

who did not ultimately yield to the effective methods to obtain

confession. Those who resisted to the end and went to the stake,

asserting their Catholicism, were unquestionably good Christians who

preferred the most frightful of deaths rather than admit that they had

been heretics and confess and abjure heresies that they had never

entertained, for if they were really guilty there was nothing more to be

gained by denial than by the defiant avowal of their beliefs. Cases of

this kind were by no means rare. There were five in Toledo between 1575

and 1606; there were three in a single auto in Granada in 1593; there

was one in the great Madrid auto of 1680, and two in those of Majorca

in 1691.[1759] The inquisitors themselves admitted the danger of burning

the good Catholic, whose conscience would not permit him of accusing

himself of heresy, and Peña considers at some length the question

whether, under the pressure of approaching death by fire, it is licit to

make a false confession. He concludes that this is in no sense

permissible and he comforts the victim by assuring him that his

constancy will win him the palm of martyrdom.[1760] The Church will

never know how many martyrs of this kind the Inquisition furnished to

its roll of uncanonized saints.

It required indeed persistent constancy for the true believer to

persevere to the end in denial, for the Inquisition held open the door

to repentance to the latest moment possible. If, at the auto de fe, a

_negativo_ asked for an audience, it was at once granted. He was removed

from the staging, he had an opportunity to confess and profess

conversion, his case was gone over, and such penance was imposed as was

demanded by the gravity of the charges and the delay in the

confession.[1761] Such cases were by no means rare and bear witness to

the awful strain on the weakness of average human nature.

* * * * *

When all other means failed to obtain a satisfactory confession,

including the denunciation of accomplices, there was always in reserve

the potent persuasive of torture.

APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS.

I.

EDICT OF FAITH.

As Published in Mexico, November 3, 1571.

(MS. _penes me_, from General Vicente Riva Palacio).

(See p. 92).

[Sidenote: _APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS_]

Nos, el Doctor Don Pedro Moya de Contreras, Inquisidor Apostolico etc. A

todos los vecinos y moradores estantes y residentes en toda las

ciudades, villas y lugares de los dichos arzobispados, obispados y

distrito de cualquier estado, condicion, preeminencia ó dignidad que

sean, exentos y non exentos, y á cada uno y cualesquier de vos á cuya

noticia viniere lo contenido en esta nuestra carta en cualquier manera,

Salud en Jesu Cristo que es verdadera salud y á los nuestros

mandamientos que mas verdaderamente son dichos Apostolicos, firmamente

obedecer, guardar y cumplir. Sabed que ... por parte del promotor fiscal

de este Santo Oficio nos ha sido hecha relacion diciendo que por no se

haber publicado carta de Edicto ni hecho visita general por el Santo

Oficio de la Inquisicion en esta ciudad y arzobispado y distrito no

habria venido á nuestra noticia muchos delitos que se habran cometido y

perpetrado contra nuestra Santa Fé catolica y ley evangelica y estaban

por punir y castigar y que de ello se seguia deservicio á nuestro Señor

y gran daño y perjuicio á la religion cristiana. Por ende que nos pedia

mandasemos hacer y hiciesemos la dicha Inquisicion y visita general

leyendo para ello edictos publicos y castigando á los que se hallaren

culpados, de manera que nuestra Santa Fé catolica siempre fuese

ensalzada y aumentada, y por nos visto ser justo su pedimento y

quisiendo proveer y remediar acerca de ello lo que conviene al servicio

de nuestro Señor mandamos dar y dimos la presente para vos en la dicha

razon. Por lo qual vos exortamos y requirimos que si alguno de vos

supieredes ó hubieredes visto ú oido decir que alguna ó algunas

personas, vivas, presentes ó ausentes ó difuntas ayan hecho ó dicho

alguna cosa contra nuestra Santa Fé catolica y contra lo que está

ordenado y establecido por la sagrada escritura y ley evangelica y por

los sacros concilios y doctrina comun de los Santos y contra lo que

tiene y enseña la Santa Iglesia catolica Romana, usos y ceremonias de

ella, especialmente los que hubieren hecho ó dicho alguna cosa que sea

contra los articulos de la fé, mandamientos de la ley y de la Iglesia, y

de los santos sacramentos, ó si alguno hubiere hecho ó dicho alguna cosa

en favor de la ley muerta de Moisen de los Judios ó hecho ceremonias de

ella ó de la malvada secta de Mahoma ó de la secta de Martin Lutero y

sus secuaces y de los otros hereges condenados por la Iglesia, y si

saben que alguna ó algunas personas hayan tenido y tengan libros de la

secta y opiniones del dicho Martin Lutero y sus secuaces, ó el Alcoran y

otros libros de la secta de Mahoma, ó biblias en romance ó otros

cualesquier libros de los reprobados por las censuras y catalogos dados

y publicados por el santo oficio de la Inquisicion. Los cuales mandamos

se traigan ante nos dentro del termino que de juso ira declarado. Y si

saben que algunas personas no cumpliendo lo que son obligadas han dejado

de decir y manifestar lo que saben, ó que hayan dicho y persuadido á

otras personas que no vinieren á decir y manifestar lo que sabian

tocante al Santo Oficio, ó que hayan subornado testigos para tachar

falsamente lo que han depuesto en el Santo Oficio, ó si algunas personas

hubiesen depuesto falsamente contra otras por hacerles mal y daño y

macular su honra, ó que hayan encubierto, receptado ó favorecido algunos

hereges dandoles favor y ayuda ú ocultando ó encubriendo sus personas ó

sus bienes, ó que hayan impedido ó puesto impidimento por si ó por otros

á la libre administracion del Santo Oficio de la Inquisicion para efecto

que los tales hereges no pudiesen ser acusados ni castigados, ó hayan

dicho palabras en desacato del Santo Oficio, oficiales y ministros, ó de

lo que hayan quitado ó hecho quitar algunos Sambenitos de donde estaban

puestos por el Santo Oficio, ó los que han sido reconciliados ó

penitenciados por el Santo Oficio no han guardado ni cumplido las

carcelerias y penitencias que les fueron impuestas, ó si han dejado de

traer publicamente el habito de reconciliacion sobre sus vestiduras, ó

si saben que alguno de los reconciliados ó penitenciados haya dicho

publica ó secretamente que lo que confesó en el Santo Oficio ansi de si

como de otras personas no fuere verdad, ni lo habia hecho ni cometido y

que lo dijo por temor ó por otros respetos, ó que hayan descubierto el

secreto que les fué encomendado, ó si saben que alguno haya dicho que

los relajados por el Santo Oficio fueron condenados sin culpa y que

murieron martires, ó si saben que algunos que hayan sido reconciliados ó

hijos ó nietos de condenados por el crimen de la heregia hayan usado de

las cosas que les son prohibidas por derecho comun, leyes y pregmaticas

de los Reinos é instrucciones del Santo Oficio, asi como si han sido

corregidores, alcaldes, jueces, notarios, regidores, jurados,

mayordomos, alcaides, maestre salas, fieles publicos, mercaderes,

escribanos, abogados, procuradores, secretarios, contadores,

concilleres, tesoreros, medicos, cirujanos, sangradores, boticarios,

corredores, cambiadores, cogedores, arrendadores de rentas, alguaciles,

ó hayan usado de otros oficios publicos ó de honra por si ó por

interpositas personas, ó que se hayan hecho clerigos ó que tengan algun

dignidad eclesiastica ó seglar ó insignias de ella, ó hayan traido

armas, seda, oro, plata, corales, perlas, chamelotes, paño fino ó

cabalgado á caballo, ó si alguno tubiere habilitacion para poder usar de

los dichos oficios ó de las cosas prohividas, lo traiga y presente ante

nos en el termino aqui contenido. Ansi mismo mandamos á cualesquier

escribanos ó notarios ante quien hayan pasado ó esten cualesquier

provanzas, dichos de testigos, autos y procesos de algunos de los dichos

crimenes y delitos en esta nuestra carta referidos ó de otro alguno

tocante á heregia, lo traigan exhiben y presenten ante nos

originalmente, y á las personas que supieren ó hubieren oido decir en

cuyo poder estan los tales procesos y denunciaciones lo vengan á decir y

manifestar ante nos, y por la presente prohibimos y mandamos á todos los

confesores y clerigos, presbiteros y religiosos y seglares no absuelvan

á las personas que algunas cosas de lo en esta carte contenido supieren

sino antes los remitan ante nos por cuanto la absolucion de los que ansi

hubieren incurrido nos es reservada, y ansi la reservamos. Lo cual los

unos y los otros ansi hagan y cumplan so pena de excomunion, y mandamos

que para que mejor se sepa la verdad y se guarde el secreto, los que

alguna cosa supieredes y entendieredes ó hayais visto ó entendido ú oido

en cualquiera manera sabido de lo que en esta carta contenido, no lo

comuniqueis con persona alguna eclesiastica ni seglar, sino solamente lo

vengais diciendo y manifestando ante nos con todo el secreto que ser

pueda, y por el mejor modo que os pareciere por que quando lo dijeredes

y manifestaredes se vera y acordara si es caso que el Santo Oficio deba

conocer. Por ende, por el tenor de la presente vos mandamos en virtud de

Santa obediencia y so pena de excomunion mayor, trina canonica monitione

premissa, que dentro de seis dias primeros siguientes despues que esta

nuestra carta fuere leida y publicada y de ella supieredes en cualquier

manera, los quales os damos y asignamos por tres plazos y termino, cada

dos dias por un termino y todos seis dias por tres terminos y el ultimo

perentorio, vengais y parezcais ante nos personalmente en la sala de

nuestra audiencia á decir y manifestar lo que supieredes, hubieredes

hecho, visto hacer ó decir cerca de las cosas arriba dichas y declaradas

ó otras cualesquier cosas de cualquier calidad que sean tocantes á

nuestra Santa Fé catolica y al Santo Oficio, ansi de vivos, presentes,

ausentes como de difuntos, por manera que la verdad se sepa y los malos

sean castigados y los buenos y fieles cristianos conocidos y honrados y

nuestra Santa Fé catolica aumentada y ensalzada. Y por que lo susodicho

venga á noticia de todos y ninguno de ello pueda pretender ignorancia

se manda publicar. Dado en Mexico, tres dias del mes de Noviembre de

1571 años. El Doctor Moya de Contreras. Por mandado del S. Inquisidor,

Pedro de los Rios.

II.

CONFESSIONAL LETTER OF ABSOLUTION ISSUED BY THE PAPAL PENITENTIARY,

DECEMBER 4, 1481. (see P. 105).

(Archivo General de Simancas, Patronato Real; Inquisicion, Legajo unico,

fol. 19).

[Sidenote: _APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS_]

Julianus miseratione divina Episcopus Sabinensis dilectis in Christo

Francisco Ferdinandi de Sevilla et Blancæ Ferdinandi ejus uxori ac Floræ

Martin ejusdem Francisci matri, civibus Ispalensibus, Salutem in Domino.

Sedes Apostolica pia mater de vestro et aliorum Christifidelium salute

sollicita, libenter vobis illa concedit per quæ conscientiæ pacem et

animæ salutem Deo propitio consequi valeatis. Nos igitur auctoritate

domini Papæ cujus poenitentiariæ curam gerimus, et de ejus speciali

mandato super hoc vivæ vocis oraculo nobis facto, devotioni vestræ

concedimus quatenus liceat vobis ydoneum et discretum presbyterum

sæcularem vel cujusvis ordinis regularem in confessorem eligere qui vos

et quemlibet vestrum, detestatis prius in ejus manibus secrete apostasiæ

secta, superstitionibus et hæresis reatibus ac omnibus hæreticis

reatibus, etiam si de præmissis diffamati, suspecti, convicti,

probationibus superati, aut per hæreticæ pravitatis inquisitores seu

loci ordinarium vocati et apprehensi ac post eorum monitiones

deliqueritis, aut etiam quod alios hujusmodi criminum complices non

manifestaveritis censuris ecclesiasticis illaqueati et ut tales

publicati, ac in eisdem censuris per annum et ultra permanseritis, vel

ut hæretici diffamati perseveraveritis, aut alias contra vos,

præmissorum occasione, quomodolibet sit processum, a dictis sectæ

superstitionibus reatibus et censuris ac excessibus hujusmodi, etiam si

ritus et ceremonias judaicas observando et illos vel illas alios

docendo, et ab orthodoxæ fidei credulitate recadendo alterius hæresis et

apostasiæ notam incurreritis etiam a suis errorum [_sic_]

anathematizationis et maledictionis æternæ censuris et poenis in tales

tam per processus apostolicos quam alias a jure etiam per inquisitores

prædictos et suos assessores et ordinarios vel alias quomodolibet latis

et promulgatis præter præmissa incursis, absolvat in forma ecclesiæ

consueta et injungat vobis pro modo culpæ poenam salutarem et

secretam, ac a vobis omnem infamiæ maculam omnesque alias juris poenas

etiam corporis afflictivas absolvat et totaliter remittat, et vos ad

coetum christifidelium et sanctæ matris ecclesiæ necnon unitatem

catholicæ ecclesiæ, ac in pristinum et purum statum in quo eratis

antequam in prædictos excessus prolapsi fuissetis auctoritate et mandato

prædictis reponat, reintegrat, restituat et reducat, contradictores per

censuras ecclesiasticas auctoritate et mandato prædictis compescat, et

omnibus juris remediis opportunis vobis assistat. Datum Romæ apud

Sanctum Petrum sub sigillo officii poenitentiariæ, II. Non. Decembris,

Pontificatus domini Sixti papa IIII. Anno duodecimo.

III.

REVOCATION OF LETTERS OF ABSOLUTION AND OF EXEMPTIONS, MAY 17, 1488.

(Archivio Vaticano, Reg. 686 (Innoc. VIII) fol. 103.--Bulario de la

Orden de Santiago, Tom. I. fol. 94). (See pp. 31, 112).

Innocentius Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei dilectis filiis universis et

singulis locorum ordinariis et inquisitoribus hæreticæ pravitatis in

regnis et dominiis charissimi in Christo filii Ferdinandi Regis et

charissimæ in Christo filiæ Helisabeth Reginæ Castiliæ et Legionis

illustrium salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. Quia secut accepimus

quamplurimi hæresis et fidei apostasiæ crimine polluti infra limites

vestræ jurisdictionis degentes ut criminum hujusmodi publicam juxta

sanctorum patrum decreta abjurationem vestramque jurisdictionem evitent,

tam a fel. record. Sixto Papa iiii. quam a nobis super eorum exemptione

a potestate et jurisdictione vestra necnon abjurationibus errorum suorum

aliter quam in forma juris faciendis, ac alias diversimode literas

obtinuerunt, quibus obstantibus quæ vestro incumbunt officio quo ad eos

exequi hactenus non potuistis nec potestis non sine animarum eorundem

periculo, orthodoxæ fidei detrimento, mali exempli pernicie et scandalo

plurimorum. Ne igitur hac via tantæ pietatis officio tam grande

impedimentum præstetur et ut commissi vobis officii debitum liberius et

plenius exercere possitis felicis recordationis Clementis Papæ iiii. et

aliorum prædecessorum nostrorum vestigiis inhærentes, motu proprio et ex

certa scientia et mera deliberatione vobis committimus et mandamus ut

quoscunque de hæresis et apostasiæ criminibus hujusmodi culpabiles

suspectos vel diffamatos ac fautores receptatores et defensores eorum in

Regnis et dominiis prædictis qui hactenus hujusmodi exemptionis

privilegia et inquisitionis de eorum excessibus commissionem et super

admittendis eorum abjurationibus aliter quam in forma juris literas

hujusmodi a nobis seu Sixto prædecessore præfato obtinuerunt ad

abjurandos errores eorum publice servata forma juris etiam si

quovismodo relapsi dici possent infra mensem postquam presentes literæ

fuerint in cathedrali et parrochiali ecclesia eorum publicatæ ita ut de

illis nequeant ignorantiam allegare, recipiatis et admittatis perinde

acsi relapsi non forent. Mense vero prædicto elapso, Deum præ oculis

habentes contra eos et quoscunque alios ejusdem criminis reos, juxta

sacrorum canonum instituta procedatis, commissionibus hujusmodi ac

literis ad alios judices directis et quas dirigi contingat, necnon

privilegiis quibuscunque personis cujusvis dignitatis, gradus, ordinis

vel conditionis existant, etiam si Cistercientium Prædicatorum et

Minorum aut alterius cujusvis ordinis et religionis fuerint, sub

quacunque verborum expressione et cum quibusvis etiam motus proprii et

certæ scientiæ ac plenitudinis potestatis aliisve fortioribus et

efficacioribus clausulis etiam derogatoriorum derogatoriis concessis et

concedendis, que omnia cum inde secutis pro infectis haberi volumus,

necnon constitutionibus et ordinationibus apostolicis cæterisque

contrariis nonobstantibus quibuscunque. Datum Romæ apud Sanctum Petrum,

anno incarnationis Dominicæ millesimo quadringentesimo octuagesimo

octavo, sexto decimo Kalendis Junii, pontificatus nostri anno quarto.

Gratis de mandato S. D. n. papæ. F. de VALENTIA.

IV.

PETITION OF GERONIMO ZURITA.

(Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Sala 40, Libro 4, fol. 239).

(See p. 194).

Ill^{mo} y Rr^{mo} Señor:

[Sidenote: _APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS_]

El contador Geronimo Zurita dice que va en veinte y quatro años que

serbe en el sancto officio de la Inquisicion: los doce serbio en Consejo

de la general Inquisicion de secretario y va en doce que tiene a su

cargo la contaduria general de los Inquisiciones de la corona de Aragon

y en este tiempo a rrecibido las quentas de la Inquisicion de Sicilia

que avia veinte años que no se rrecibian y se fenecieron, harto

beneficio de aquella Inquisicion por estar las quentas de los receptores

passados muy ofuscados y en muy mala orden, como es notorio en aquella

Inquisicion, y assimismo ha recibido y fenecido las otras quentas

questan a su cargo con toda la justicia y cuidado posible y con menos

salario que se dio al contador mosen Granada que no entendio en las

quentas de la Inquisicion de Cecilia, y en todo esto se a ocupado con

grande trabajo y fatiga de su persona y con gastar su patrimonio sin

rrecibir merced ni remuneracion ninguna de sus servicios. Suplico a

vuestra señoria Ill^{ma} que considerando que a enbejecido en este

oficio y no espera por ello otras mercedes y que a dejado otros caminos

adonde se le ofrecian mayores esperanças y mas ciertos de poder medrar y

todo lo pospuesto por acabar en servicio del sancto oficio se le haga

merced de dalle por aljunto en el dicho oficio de contador á miguel

çurita su hijo al qual aunques mozo de diez y ocho años es bien abil y

muy bien dotrinado y inclinado con admitirle en el con mayor aficion se

dispondra a exercitarse e yndustrarse en todo lo que concierne al dicho

oficio y el dicho contador empleara lo que le queda de la vida en su

cargo.

* * * * *

En la ciudad de toledo a dos de mayo de quinientos y sesenta años vista

esta piticion presentado por geronimo çorita contador general por el

rr^{mo} señor don fernando de baldes arçobispo de sebilla enquisidor

general y por los señores don diego de los cobos obispo de avila y

licenciado valtodano y doctores andres peres y simancas y hernan peres

del consejo de la santa general Inquisicion dixeron que teniendo el

dicho miguel çurita su hijo hedad y la abilidad que se rrequiere para

serbir el dicho oficio de contador se terna consideracion a lo mucho y

con el cuidado y fidelidad quel dicho geronimo çurita y juan garcia su

suegro an serbido en el sancto oficio para le hazer la merced que

suplica. Lo que paso ante mi pedro de tapia secretario del dicho

consejo.--Pedro de Tapia.

V.

DETAILS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INQUISITION OF MURCIA, AS REPORTED TO

THE SUPREMA IN 1746.

(Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion de Corte, Legajo 359, vol. 3). (See

pp. 216, 248, 268).

[Sidenote: _APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS_]

| (In reales

| vellon).

| --

| Salary. Ayuda

| de

| costa.

|

Phelipe Muñoz,Inquisitor | 7352.34 | 1470.20

Also, Juez de Bienes | 1176.15 | --

Antonio Silvestre Espinosa, Inquisitor | 7352.34 | 1470.20

| |

Andrés de Priego y Cabrejas, Fiscal [Salary not stated,| |

but doubtless the same as that of the Inquisitor] | |

Joseph de Buendia, Alguazil Mayor (Replaced the Conde | |

del Valle de S. Juan in 1717) | 2352.30 | 588.8

Salvador Hermosa y Espejo, Secretary (Commenced as | |

receiver in 1713; secretaryship added in 1715, | |

jubilated as receiver in 1723, with salary of 250 | |

ducats in addition to salary as secretary) | 2352.30 | 588.8

Pedro de Parraga y Bozaia, Secretary | 2352.30 | 588.8

Antonio González Campurano, Secretary (Serves without | |

salary in place of his father; will succeed at his | |

death) | -- | --

Fernando Ayllon, Secretary (Was a commissioner; in 1738| Salary. | Ayuda

made Depositario de Pretendientes; in 1741 | |de Costa.

made secretary without salary) | -- | --

Andrés García y Benito, Secretary (In 1739 made | |

honorary secretary without salary; in 1745 made full | |

secretary without salary, but with fees and | |

emoluments) | -- | --

Joseph González Campurano (Appointed secretary in 1692;| |

jubilated in 1736 with full salary) | 2352.30 | 588.8

Antonio de Elgueta Vigil (Appointed secretary in 1717; | |

in 1732 made receiver with salary of--. Is also | |

jubilated secretary without salary) | 5955.30 | 588.8

Francisco de Guzman (Appointed secretary in 1699, | |

jubilated in 1716 with salary of) | 2944 |

Antonio Villafranca, Secretary (Appointed in 1744) | 2352.30 | 588.8

Joseph Fernández de Lima, Abogado del Fisco | 294.4 |

Diego Fernández de Zengano, Secretary (Serving in | |

Logroño by order of Suprema) | 2352.30 | 588.8

Antonio de Arnuero, Secretary (Serving in Corte by | |

order of Suprema) | 2352.30 | 588.8

Mathias Rosique, Abogado del Fisco (In the absence and | |

sickness of Fernández de Lima and draws his salary) | -- | --

Miguel Morote, Advocate of prisoners (absent and sick) | 294.4 | --

Juan Ignacio Navarro, Advocate of prisoners (without | |

salary) | -- | --

Alejo Manrresa, Notary of sequestrations (Office sold | |

by Sotomayor (1632-43) for four lives of which | |

Manrresa is the last) | 2205.29 | --

Joseph de Egea Carreño, Notary of Juzgado (Appointed | |

in 1733 with dispensation of making proofs of | |

limpieza; serves without title, but has the salary. | |

This office was sold by Sotomayor for four lives of | |

which this is the third) | 294.4 | --

Balthasar Espin y Bienbengut, Auditor (Appointed by | |

the king in 1745. Office served by his deputy, Pedro| |

Carmeno with the salary. This office was sold by | |

Sotomayor for four lives of which this is the third) | 729.14 | --

Antonio de Palazio, Alcaide of the secret prison (Since| |

1736. Since 1741, he serves as Depositario de | |

Pretendientes, without salary, but with a fee of two |

per cent, on the deposits. This office of Depositario| |

was sold by Sotomayor for three lives of which two | |

have elapsed; the third belongs to Sebastian de | |

Pineda, who is not qualified and has not the title, | |

so the office is served as above) | 2352.32 | --

Alfonso Manrresa (Jubilado in 1720 as Alcaide of the | |

secret prison) | 330.-- |

Joseph García Bentura, Notario de açotaziones | 2491.5 |

Juan Ximenes, Physician (Not having furnished proofs | |

of limpieza he has not a title) | 235.10 |

Pedro Carmona y Vejar, Nuncio (Also serves as deputy | |

auditor to Balthasar Espin above. Also as alcaide of | |

the prison of Familiars, without salary, except the | |

house) | 1470.20 |

Phelipe García Conde, Portero de camara | 1470.20 |

Joseph de Elizondo, Alcaide of the penitential prison | 235.10 |

Alexandro Rosique, Procurator of the fisc | 235.10 |

Antonio Roche, surgeon | 235.10 |

Antonio Fernando Alonso, Deputy of the portero.

Antonio Irles. Deputy of the notary of sequestrations

(With salary of 550 reales, paid him by the

proprietor, Manrresa.)

Calificadores

In Murcia Fray Pedro Pablo

Fray Salvador Seron

Fray Antonio Capestrano Rizo

Fray Joseph Blanco

Dr. Francisco López Oliver

Fray Isidro de Murcia

Fray Joachim Petrel

Fray Francisco Pérez

Fray Antonio Thomás

In Cartagena Fray Balthasar de la Fuente

In Albacete Fray Joseph Pedreno

In Villena Dr. Juan Alfonso Mellinaz

In Monforte Dr. Francisco Cremadez

In Cuenca Alonso Camacho

Fray Joseph Fernández Quevedo

Fray Juan Calatrava

Fray Nicolas Clarer.

Commissioners at the ports

In Alicante Luis Canizia y Juan

Juan Canizia Doria

with Canon Carlos Campos as notary

In Cartagena Salvador García Siles

with Pedro de Tapia as notary

In Orihuela Dr. Juan Timer, jubilado

Francisco Roz de la Vallesta

with Pedro Quiles as notary.

Familiars. In Murcia and other parts of the district, there are not

only no supernumeraries, but there are many vacancies, so that in

many places we have to avail ourselves of clerics and other

competent persons to perform necessary duties.

Commissioners. It is the same with commissioners and notaries. In

many places where there were formerly commissioners, there are no

applicants. In other places there are many applicants and it has

been found necessary to appoint from these to places where there

are none. The tribunal finds itself without ministers to execute

its commands in many places.

VI.

COMMISSION OF AN INQUISITOR.

(Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 8, fol. 108). (See p. 236).

Nos, Don Juan Tabera, por la miseracion divina Cardenal en la Sancta

Iglesia de Roma, titulo de Sant Juan ante Portam Latinam, Arzobispo de

Toledo, primado de las Españas, Chanceller mayor de Castilla, gobernador

de estos Reinos e inquisidor apostolico general contra la heretica

pravedad y apostasia en todos los Reinos y señorios de sus magestades

etcetera.

Confiando de las letras y recta consciencia de vos el Doctor Blas Ortiz,

canonigo de la sancta Iglesia de Toledo, y que sois tal persona que bien

y fielmente y diligentemente hareis lo que por nos vos fuere cometido y

encomendado, por el tenor de la presente, por la auctoridad apostolica á

nos concedida de que en esta presente usamos, vos facemos, constituimos,

creamos e deputamos inquisidor apostolico contra la dicha heretica

pravedad y apostasia en el Reino de Valencia y su distrito y

jurisdiccion y os damos poder y facultad simul et in solidum con el

venerable Doctor Juan Gonzalez, inquisidor del dicho partido para que

podades inquirir e inquirades contra todas y qualesquiera personas ansi

hombres como mugeres, vivos y defunctos, absentes e presentes de

qualquier estado, condicion, prerrogativa, preeminencia y dignidad que

sean, exentos y no sean exentos, vecinos y moradores que son ó han sido

en las ciudades, villas y lugares del dicho Reino de Valencia y su

distrito que se hallaren culpantes sospechosos e infamados en el dicho

delito y crimen de heregia y apostasia y contra todos los fautores,

defensores y receptatores de ellos y para que podais facer y fagais

contra ellos y contra cada uno de ellos vuestros procesos en forma

debida de derecho segun los sacros canones lo disponen y para que podais

tomar y rescibir qualesquiera procesos y causas pendientes sobre los

dichos crimenes ó qualquiera de ellos ante qualquiera inquisidor que

haya sido en el dicho partido en el punto e estado en que estan y

continuarlos y facer y determinar en ellos lo que fuere justicia y para

que podades á los dichos culpantes encarcelar, penitenciar, punir y

castigar y si de justicia fuere relaxarlos al brazo seglar y facer todos

los otros casos al dicho oficio de inquisidor tocantes y pertenecientes,

para lo qual todo lo que dicho es y cada una cosa y parte della con

todas sus incidencias y dependencias, anexidades y conexidades vos damos

poder cumplido y cometemos nuestras veces fasta que nos especial y

expresamente las revoquemos. En testimonio de lo qual mandamos dar y

dimos la presente firmada de nuestro nombre y refrendada del secretario

infrascripto.

Dada en la villa de Madrid á cinco dias del mes de Abril de mil

quinientos quarenta años.

J. CARDINALIS.

Por mandado de su ilustrisima y reverendisima señoria.

JERONIMO ZURITA, secretario.

Con señales de loe señores Licenciado Aguirre y Obispo de Badajoz y

Prior de Roncesvalles.

[Sidenote: _APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS_]

VII.

PERSONNEL OF THE INQUISITION IN 1746.

(Condensed from Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion de Corte, Legajo 359,

fol. 1). (See p. 248).

-------------------------+--+-----------------+--+-------------------------

Column Headings Keys: |Md| Madrid |Lg| Logroño

|Sv| Seville |Br| Barcelona

|Cr| Cordova |Sn| Santiago

|Ga| Granada |Va| Valencia

|Vl| Valladolid |Sr| Saragossa

|Mr| Murcia |Mj| Majorca

|Le| Llerena |Tl| Toledo

|Ce| Cuenca |Cn| Canaries

| | | |

-------------------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+--+--+--

|Md|Sv|Cr|Ga|Vl|Mr|Le|Ce|Lg|Br|Sn| Va| Sr|Mj|Tl|Cn

-------------------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+--+--+--

Inquisitors and Fiscals | 2| 2| 4| 3| 5| 3| 3| 4| 3| 3| 3| 3| 5| 2| 4| 3

Secretaries |11|13| 9| 7| 4|10| 8| 5| 9| 2| 5| 6| 6| 4| 9| 3

Auditors | 2| 2| 1| 1| 1| 2| 1| 1| 2|} | 1| 2| 2| 1| 1| 1

| | | | | | | | | |}1| | | | | |

Alcaides of Secret Prison| 1| 2| 1| 1| 2| 2| 3| 1| 1|} | 1| 3| 1| 1| 4| 1

Porteros | 1| -| 1| 2| 1| 2| 1| 2| 1| -| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1

Nuncios | 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| -| 1

Advocates of Prisoners | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

and of the Fisc | 3| -| 3| 1| 1| 4| 1| 3| 1| -| 1| -| 2| 5| 1| 2

Physicians | 2| 2| 2| 1| 1| 1| -| 1| 1| -| 1| -| 3| -| -| -

Surgeons | 2| 1| 2| 1| 1| 1| -| 1| 1| -| 1| -| -| -| -| -

Alguaciles mayores | -| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| -| 2| 1| 1| 1| 1| -| -| 1

Receivers | -| 2| 1| 1| -| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 2| 1| 2

Advocates of the Fisc | -| 1| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -

Depositaries | -| 1| 1| -| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| -| -| -| 1| -

Procurators of the Fisc | -| 1| 1| -| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| -| -| -| 1| 1| -| 1

Chaplains | -| 2| -| -| -| -| 2| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| 2

Commissioners | -| 6| 4| 6| 6| 7| 6| 2| 5|28| 6| 7| 38| -| -|23

With Notaries | -| -| -| 3| -| -| -| -| -| 4| -| 50| 7| -| -|22

Calificadores | -|16|19|14|12|17| -| 5| 2|26| 3| 40| 29|24| 8| 4

Notaries of | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Sequestrations | -| -| 1| 1| 1|} | -| | | | | | -| 1| -| -

| | | | | |}4| | 2| 3| 1| 1| 3| | | |

Notaries of the Juzgado | -| -| 1| -| 1|} | 1| | | | | | 1| 1| 1| -

Alcaides of Penitential | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Prison | -| -| 2| 1| -| 1| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -

Assistants of Do. | -| -| 1| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -

Barbers | -| -| 1| -| 1| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| 1

Proveedores | -| -| 1| -| 1| -| 1| -| 1| 1| 1| -| -| 1| -| -

Consultors | -| -| 3| 4| 1| -| -| 1| -| -| 1| -| -| 8| -| -

Familiars | -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| 36| -| -| 4

Juez de Bienes | -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| 1| -| -

Alguaciles | -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -| -|11

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Totals |25|53|61|49|43|59|32|32|36|70|30|118|135|54|31|83

VIII.

CERTIFICATE OF LIMPIEZA.

(Archivo de Simancas, Regístro de Genealogias, No. 916, fol. 12). (See

p. 312).

D. Cristóval de Cos y Vivero, Secretario etc. Certifico: Que por el

Ex^{mo} Señor Obispo Inquisidor General se hizo gracia de pruebas para

Ministro Oficial del Santo Oficio al Ex^{mo} Señor Don Carlos Miguel

Fizt James Stuart, Silva, Stolberg y Palafox, Duque de Vervich y Alba, y

la de que se le reciviesen en esta Corte por Patria comun con dispensa

de la extrangería de su Padre y Abuela Paterna y teniendose por

bastantes las partidas que acompaña legalizadas, en su consecuencia por

mandado de los señores del expresado consejo se recivieron dichas

ynformaciones al tenor de las Memorias de sus Padres y Abuelos que

presentó y es del modo siguiente.--Arbol genealogico del Ex^{mo} Señor

Duque de Vervich y Alba D. Carlos Miguel. El Ex^{mo} Senor Don Carlos

Miguel Fizt James Stuart, Silva, Stolberg, Palafox, Duque de Vervich y

Alba, Marques del Carpio, Alguacil mayor de la Santa Inquisicion de

Córdova, nació en Madrid el año de 1794.--PADRES. El Ex^{mo} Señor Don

Jacobo Felipe Carlos María Fizt James Stuart y Stolberg, Duque de

Vervich y Liria, Grande de España de primera clase, nació en Paris el

año de 1773, Difunto. La Ex^{ma} Señora Doña María Teresa de Silva y

Palafox nació en Madrid, año de 1772.--ABUELOS PATERNOS. El Ex^{mo}

Señor Don Carlos Fernández Fizt James Stuart, Duque de Vervich y Liria,

Grande de España de primera clase, nació en Liria año de 1752, Difunto.

La Ex^{ma} Señora Doña Carolina Augusta de Stolberg, Princesa de

Stolberg nació en la Aldea de Geudem de Alemania año de 1755.--ABUELOS

MATERNOS. El Ex^{mo} Señor Don Pedro de Alcántara Fadrique Fernández de

Hijar, Silva, Duque de Hijar, Grande de España de primera clase,

Presidente del Real Consejo de las Ordenes, Difunto, nació en Villaruvia

de los Ojos de Guadiana año de 1741. La Ex^{ma} Señora Doña Rafaela de

Palafox Croy de Habre nació en Ariza año de 1744, Difunta.--Como agente

de la casa de su Ex^{mo} presento testimoniadas las partidas de bautismo

de los Señores comprehendidos en el arbol genealogico que antecede, cuya

procedencia de Cristianos viejos, limpios de toda mala raza por

notoriedad certifico y juro en Madrid á 26 de Junio de 1815.--Miguel

Antonio Forrent.

[Sidenote:_APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS_]

Y executadas las referidas ynformaciones en esta Corte por patria comun

con arreglo á las referidas gracias y segun practica del Santo Oficio;

vistas por los Señores del mencionado Consejo, por su auto que

proveyeron con fecha de este dia los aprovaron y dieron por bastantes

para que el nominado Ex^{mo} Señor Don Carlos Miguel Fizt James Stuart

puede ser y sea Ministro oficial del Santo Oficio segun mas por menor

resulta de dichas ynformaciones que por ahora quedan originales en la

Secretaria de mi cargo á que me remito. Y para que conste donde

convenga, en virtud de orden del propio consejo doy la presente al

susodicho Ex^{mo} Señor Don Carlos Miguel Fizt James Stuart, sellada con

el sello de la General Inquisicion en Madrid á veinte y quatro dias del

mes de Mayo de mil ochocientos diez y seis.--D. Cristóval de Cos y

Vivero.[1762]

IX.

RECEIPT, MARCH 30, 1524, BY THE WIFE OF A RECONCILED HERETIC FOR HER

DOWER, FROM THE CONFISCATED ESTATE.

(Archivo Histórico Nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 371.) (See

p. 333).

Sea a todos manifiesto que yo Dona Beatrix Despuch y de Sant Boy, muger

que soy de Pere Alcañiz y presente aquel y de voluntad de aquel de grado

y de mi cierta ciencia otorgo haber habido y en poder mio recevido en la

forma infrascrita de vos el magnifico Cristoval de Medina receptor de

los bienes confiscados por el crimen de la heregia y apostasia en el

Sancto Oficio de la Inq^{n} de Valencia que soys presente, es a saber

treynta y dos libras siete sueldos moneda reales de Valencia, los quales

me aveys dado y pagado á toda mi voluntad en paga rata de las cantidades

que yo tengo de haber y cobrar por razon de mi dote in virtud de una

sentencia dada por el muy R^{do} Doctor Micer Melchior Esteve teniente

de Inquisidor y Juez subdelegado de bienes confiscados en dicho Sancto

Oficio, que dada fue en veynte y dos dias del mes de Decembre proximo

pasado de mil quinientos veinte y tres que pasó ante el discreto

Francisco Mudarra Notario Escribano de la Audiencia y Judicatura de

dichos bienes confiscados y por las causas y razones en la dicha

Sentencia contenidas.

El modo de la paga de las dichas treinta y dos libras siete sueldos de

la dicha moneda es este, que de mi voluntad os las reteneys por

consemblante cantidad que yo os debia de los precios y bienes muebles

por mi comprados del inventario y secresto de dicho Pero Alcañiz mi

marido como parece por acto recebido por el Notario infrascrito á

treinta dias del mes de Junio del presente año (_sic_) la cual confesion

y apoca otorgo y hago sin su perjuicio de mis derechos por quanto yo

pretendo que los dichos bienes o parte de ellos que yo compré son mios

propios y de los contenidos en el pagamiento que el dicho Pere Alcañiz

mi marido me fizo, e porque es verdad por tanto renunciando toda

excepcion de frao ó de engaño otorgo y fago vos la presente apoca en

poder del Notario infrascrito que fecha fué en la Ciudad de Valencia á

treinta dias del mes de Marzo del año del nacimiento de nuestro Salvador

Jesu Cristo de mil quinientos veinte y quatro. + (se) ñal de mi la dicha

Doña Beatriz Despuch y de Sant Boy que las dichas cosas otorgo y firmo.

Testimonio que fueron presentes á las dichas cosas los honrados

Fran^{co} Mudarra Not^{o}, y Martin de Durango Scribiente y Visitadores

de Valencia.

X.

ABSTRACT OF PARTIAL STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS CHARGED AGAINST THE CANON JOAN

DE ASTORGA, RECEIVER OF CONFISCATIONS IN VALENCIA FOR THE YEAR

1493.[1763]

(Archivo Historico Nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 383). (See

p. 367)

February 6. From Violant Domenega, for a loan made by her

stepmother Violant Domenega, relaxed, to--Jordi

on a pair of gold bracelets, in which loan she had

an interest of 3 ducats 200s.

[Sidenote: _APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS_]

From the Mallorquin sempstress due to the said

Domenega 8.8d.

February 6. From Violant Domenega twenty gold coins hidden

by her stepmother in a saddle, amounting in all to 319.--

April 19. Confiscation of Isabel Amorosa, relaxed.

Sale by auction of her effects, as per inventory 2.10

May 2. Confiscation of Master Anthony Tristan.

Sale by auction of his effects as per inventory 137.--

Confiscation of Master Johan Aragones and his wife.

Sale by auction of his effects as per inventory.

(Sum not stated.)

Sept. 10. Sale by auction to Gaspar Ferroll of a house of

said Juan Aragones 1100.--

Sale by auction to Simon Sanchez of

adjoining house 1200.--

Valuation under commands of the king of three

fields and two vineyards of Juan Aragones, after

deducting incumbrances, the fields at 37 libras and

the vineyards at 53, in all equivalent to 1800.--

July 23 Confiscation of Luis Sarinyana.

A house valued by experts at 45 libras. As the

king had made a grant to Joanot and Francisco

Sarinyana of 50l. out of the estate, the house was

made over to them.

Confiscation of Galceran Nadal, of Xativa.

Sale to Luis Costa of a house in Xativa, subject to

a censo of 100 sueldos per annum 3.--

Confiscation of Francisca Costa, of Xativa.

Sale to Guillen Murta of a mulberry plantation,

Subject to a censo of 32 sueldos 10.--

Aug. 9. Confiscation of Daniel Zapata.

In virtue of a royal provision, composition made

with his wife, Leonor Zapata of his whole property

for the sum of 5000 sueldos, of which 1500 are paid

down, 1500 to be paid in six months, and 2000 in one

year, the said Leonor having brought suit for her

dower and other large sums, all of which she

renounced 1500.--

Confiscation of Manuel Zapata.

Received from the heirs of Blay de Comes and

Maria Vizcaina a balance due to said Manuel 80.--

February 13. Confiscation of Bernat Mancip relaxed.

Sold by auction to Juan Guillen Catalan a censal on

the corporation of Valencia of 6000s. principal and

400 interest, payable Sept. 14 in each year. With

accrued interest for 5 months and one day 6205.7--

Sold to the heirs of Mosen Juan de Peñarosa a

censal on the towns of Xerica, las Barraguas and

Pina, of 15000 sueldos principal and 1000 interest,

payable May 27. With accrued interest 15211.1

Sold by auction to Violant Catalá, a censal on

the corporation of Valencia, of 7500 sueldos

principal and 500 interest, payable Oct. 2. With

accrued interest for 4 months and 12 days 7733.4

February 18. Sold to Cristobal de Basurto two censales on the

town of Xativa, one of 6000 s. principal and 375

interest, payable October 29, the other of 5000s.

principal and 312s. 6d. interest payable Nov. 8.

with accrued interest 11251.10

February 23. Sold by auction to the Caballero Johan Luis de

Vilarasa three censales of the said Bernat Mancip,

one on the city of Valencia, of 13,000 s. principal

and 1056 s. 8d. interest, payable July 14. One on

the kingdom of Valencia of 13,200 s. principal and

880 interest, payable March 30. Another on the same

of 11,250 s.

principal and 650 interest, payable Sept. 7.

Proceeds of all three, with accrued

interest. 700 libras, 5s.[1764]

February 21. Confiscation of Brigida, wife of Bernat

Cortelles. Received of said Bernat on account

of the 1200 sueldos which he has to pay for the

dower of said Brigida 400s.

February 8. Confiscation of Miguel de Prochita.

Rented to Franchet Quach a house of said Miguel

de Prochita for twelve years at 12 libras per

annum and received 6 libras 120s.

February 11. Confiscation of Miguel Andreu Rosell relaxed.

Received of Francisco Berdum a debt due to Rosell 32.--

September 5. House sold to Gabriel Andreu Rosell, subject to

a censal of 7000 sueldos, also to 500 and 400s.

chargeable on it and to all other charges 10.--

XI.

KING FERDINAND TO TORQUEMADA, MARCH 30, 1498.

(Archivo General de Simancas, Consejo de la Inquisicion, Libro I). (See

p. 374).

[Sidenote: _APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS_]

Venerable y devoto padre Prior. A causa de mi yda que en breves dias ha

de ser para Zaragoza, Dios mediante, embie á mandar á mi Receptor Royz

que diesse mucha priessa en acabar una escalera e las cavallerizas e

otras cosas muy necesarias para mi aposentamiento en el palacio Real de

la Aljaferia, y andando ya la obra quasi en acabamiento á causa de las

excomunicaciones que le haveys embiado me escrive que ha parado la obra.

E tambien diz que no pagare á los prior e frayles de Santa Engracia

aquellos quatro mil sueldos que en cada un año les he yo mandado pagar

en aquella receptoria fasta que yo les haya provehido en otra parte, lo

qual fize por no les traspasar luego los censales de la Inquisicion,

porque despues de remediado de otra parte los censales quedassen al

Oficio. Cierto tengo desto algun enojo. E fuera razon que se mirara

mejor en poner mas limitadas las excomunicaciones para que se salvara á

lo menos lo que sea á mi servicio, ha respeto specialmente que en

aquella receptoria, á Dios gracias, todos los oficiales stan bien

pagados e á nadie se deve salario ni otra cosa alguna, y desto es razon

que vos y estos perlados que con vos residen vos contenteys. E que no se

ponga excomunicacion pues no hay necesidad para las poner porque seria

forzado de otra manera proverlo. E aunque sobre ello he aquí fablado

con el Obispo de Lugo[1765] para que lo remediase no lo ha querido

fazer. Por ende he acordado de vos escrevir la presente por la qual vos

ruego y encargo que sin dilacion alguna alceys y fagays alçar qualquiera

excomunicacion con que se haya puesto a aquel receptor, pues todos los

oficiales como dicho es, stan bien pagados en aquella Inquisicion, á

Dios gracias, no deve nada á nadie. Y en esto no se ponga dilacion o

dificultad alguna, porque havria enojo della, allende que no lo

permitiera. Luego me respondet con este mensajero que por sola esta

causa vos le embio. Dada en Alcalá de Henares á xxx dias de Marzo de

xcviii.--Yo el Rey.

XII.

CEDULA OF KING FERDINAND, FEBRUARY 23, 1510, ON THE DIMINISHED RECEIPTS

FROM CONFISCATIONS.

(Archivo General de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro III, fol. 61).

(See p. 376).

EL REY.

A todos los receptores que soys o fueredes de los bienes confiscados e

aplicados a la camara e fisco por el delito de la heregia en todas las

ynquisiciones destos reynos e señorios e a cada uno de vos a quien esta

mi cedula fuese mostrada o su traslado señado de escrivano publico, por

quanto yo soy informado que en las dichas inquisiciones tiene alguna

necesidad a causa de los pocos bienes que se confiscan e si se

cumpliesen primero las mercedes que yo he hecho e fago en los dichos

bienes los oficiales e menistros de las dichas ynquisiciones no serian

pagados de sus salarios e ahuiran dexar el oficio de lo qual seria dios

muy deservido, por ende yo vos mando que agora ni de aqui adelante no

cumplays ningunas mercedes que yo aya echo e hago de los dichos bienes

confiscados hasta que primeramente sean pagados los ynquisidores e

oficiales e menistros de las dichas ynquisiciones de sus salarios e

ayudas de costa que yo les mandare dar, no embargante qualesquier cartas

o mandamientos que yo o les ynquisidores generales ayamos hecho e

hicieremos en contrario e sy algunas cedulas o provisiones de merced se

vos presentasen las obedeced e quanto al cumplimiento consultareys

conmigo e con los dichos generales ynquisidores que asi cumple al

servicio de dios e mio e los unos ni los otros non fagades ende al por

alguna manera so pena de la mi merced. Fecha en la villa de Madrid a 23

dias del mes de hebrero de quinientos e diez años. Y esto se entiende

con tanto que primeramente se paguen las deudas que deva el oficio antes

que salarios ni otra cosa alguna. Yo el Rey. Por mandado de su alteza

Juan Roiz de Calcena. Ya señalada por los del consejo de la ynquisicion.

XIII.

RECITAL OF EDICT OF GRACE IN CIUDAD REAL, 1483.

(Archivo histórico nacional, Inquisicion de Toledo, Legajo 139, n. 145).

(See p. 459).

Como sobre la fama publica e notoria que en este Ciudad Real avia que

muchos de los que estavan con nombre de Cristianos e en posesion de

tales hereticavan e guardavan la ley de Moyses, ovimos nuestra

informacion de algunas personas, por do nos constó la dicha fama ser

verdad y que muchos de los vezinos e moradores de la dicha ciudad

seguian y solemnizaban e guardavan en quanto en ellos era e pudia la ley

de Moyses, haciendo sus ceremonias, siguiendo sus antiquos ritos

Judaycos, e queriendo usar con ellos e cada uno dellos de clemencia e

piedad dimos e descernimos nuestra carta de cita e hedicto para que

todas las personas desta dicha Ciudad e su tierra que en la dicha eregia

de seguir la ley de Moyses ubiesen caido e incurrido, que dentro de,

treynta dias primeras siguientes veniesen ante nos confesando sus

herrores e abjurando e renunciando e partiendo de si la dicha eregia e

abrasandose con nuestra santa madre la Iglesia e ayuntamiento de los

fieles Cristianos, e que los recibiriamos usando con ellos de toda

piedad e misericordia que pudieremos, e non solamente en el dicho

termino de los treynte dias mas por otros treynta despues los esperamos

e rescibimos todos los que quisieran venir a confesar y dezir sus

pecados cerca de la dicha heregia, e pasado el dicho termino de los

dichos sesenta dias e mas tiempo, contra los que non venieran ni

parescieran, en especial contra los que huyeron por themor de la dicha

nuestra Inquisicion, de los quales teniamos informacion e eran

testiguados cerca de nos, e siendo requeridos por nuestro promotor

fiscal, avida nuestra informacion sumaria de la fuga e ausentamiento

dellos e de la dicha heregia que avian cometido, mandamos dar nuestra

carta de llamamiento e hedicto contra las personas sospechosas e

infamadas e que si se ausentaron. E porque entre ellas nos consta ser

muy publico e notorio Sancho de Ciudad e Mari Dias su muger etc.

[Sidenote: _APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS_]

XIV.

CONFESSION UNDER EDICT OF GRACE, OCTOBER 9, 1483, OF MARIA GONSALES,

SUBSEQUENTLY BURNT IN AUTO DE FE OF FEBRUARY 23, 1484.

(Archivo histórico nacional, Inquisicion de Toledo, Legajo 154, n. 375).

(See p. 460).

Maria Gonsales, muger de Juan Panpano, vecino de la collacion de

Santiago, con mi omill reverencia, paresco ante vos e mi encomiendo a

vuestra merced, ante lo qual paresco con gran arrepentimiento e

contricion de mis pecados, e digo que puede aver vjx o cinco (_sic_)

años que yo case con el e al tiempo que con el case era buen xpristiano,

e en este tiempo puede aver dies e seys años, poco mas o menos, quel

tomo otra opinion de se mudar de bevir en la santa fe catolica e faser

cerimonias judaicas, e de esta cabsa porque yo non queria seguir su

ayuno malo quel levava me dio muchas feridas e muchas contra mi voluntad

que non filase el sabado e guysase de comer el viernes para el sabado e

algunas veces comia dello e otras non queria comerlo, porque mi padre

syempre vivio e murio conmo buen xpristiano, loqual me duro faser seis o

syete años, e porque yo sabia que non traya carne de la carniceria non

la queria comer, e de esta cabsa por muchas feridas que me dio algunas

ves me la fasia comer e yo ha dies años que bivo syn el porquel se fue

desta cibdad e yo nunca quise yr con el, teniendo que me faria bevir en

el error quel tenia, y vino aqui una noche, puede aver seys años, a me

rogar que fuese con el e non le quise acoger en mi casa e se fue luego,

e puede aver dos años, poco mas o menos, quel me fizo coser pan cenceno

dos o tres veses e contra mi voltad me lo fiso comer, por non pasar mala

vida que continuamente me dava, e despues quel se fue yo non filava

algunos sabados e confeselo con el cura de Santiago e me mando que

filase e yo despues aca syempre he filado e fago mis faciendas conmo

buena xpristiana, e despues quel se fue la segunda ves me ha embiado a

rogar que me fuese con el e vendiese esta facienda que aqui tenia, lo

qual nunca quise faser ni fise por non bevir con el de cabsa de su mal

bevir, el qual me vendio dos pares de casas que me dio mi padre e una

posada de colmenas, e quisiera vender estas casas en que yo moro e una

viña por me dexar pobre e yo nunca lo consenti. Desto mi arepiento de

buen coraçon e de buena voluntad e pido a Dios misericordia e a vosotros

señores me deys penetencia lo qual yo con buen coraçon esto para la

recebir, e dixo que su marido se degollava los abes quel avia de comer.

XV.

REFUSAL OF A REQUEST FOR A COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS.

(Ms. of Royal Library of Copenhagen, 214 fol. Cédulas en favor).[1766]

(See p. 475).

Muy Ill^{res} R^{mos} Señores:

El Licen^{do} Alonso de la Peña, promotor y abogado fiscal del S^{to}

Off^{io} como de derecho mejor puedo, con protestacion que antes todas

cosas hago de no consentir en contestacion de causa por este acto ó por

otros que por escripto ó por palabra hago á la respuesta de cierta nulla

peticion por parte del Doctor Blasco de Alagona ante VV. SS. presentada,

cuyo thenor havido aqui por repetido, so la misma protestacion la digo

nulla, de ningun valor y effecto, y como tal debe no ser por VV. SS.

decretada ó justamente no admittida. Por lo siguiente. Lo uno por las

razones generales. Lo otro por no ser presentada por parte ni contra

parte, ni en tiempo ni forma. Lo otro por tratarse de dar copia de los

statutes y instruciones y nuevas refformas deste S^{to} Off^{io} y su

archivo secreto de donde xamas se acostumbra ni es cosa conveniente

darse por los daños que se siguirian. Y, caso negado, que lo fuera de

derecho esta cada uno obligado, para fundar la yntencion de su demanda,

buscar cerca de si las cosas que le son nezesarias. Lo otro por no ser

las dhas ynstruciones, statutos y nuevas refformas hechas ni dadas en

juycio contencioso, ni en contradicion de partes, ni daño de ellas, sino

solo para ynstrucion, orden y buen gobierno tanto de la una audiencia

como de la otra. Lo otro porque si los dhos officiales y ministros de

este S^{to} Off^{io} ubiessen de dar sus deposiciones sobre este

particular como el dho Blasco de Alagona pretende se sigueria el mismo y

mayor ynconveniente de que los estatutos ynstruciones y nuevas refformas

dadas al S^{to} Off^{io}, las quales solo se han de conocer y saver por

los effectos de la Justicia que en el se administra, se supiessen

patentamente por todos y alguno de mala yntencion quisiesse de redarguir

de bueno ó malo stilo el que en el S^{to} Off^{io} ay.

[Sidenote: _APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS_]

_Otrosi._ Respondiendo á los méritos de su injusta demanda y peticion

nulla, digo que quando en este S^{to} Tribunal no ubiera la obligacion

que ay de tener en buena custodia y secreto sus ordenaciones, statutos y

refformas, no se le debia dar tal copia por la yncertitud, confusion y

daño que se seguiría a las demas personas cuyas causas en el mismo

tiempo fueron por los dhos jueces ordinarios determinadas. Las quales

todas fueron juridicas y dadas por personas que tenian entera

juriadiction para ello, que quando no la tubieran, la buena fe y comun

opinion en que estaban de derecho se la daba. Lo otro y mas principal

que ciera la puerta á que no se le ay de dar á lo dho Blasco de Alagona

las dhas copias que pretende es que caso que la dha refforma fuesse como

el dize que quitase los jueces ordinarios, aquella se debe y ha de

intender seria quanto al conocimiento y difinicion de las causas que

despues de ella se comenzasen y no de aquellas que ya estaban comenzadas

y su jurisdiction perpetuada y las dhas causas quasi conclusas para

diffinitiva.

Por las quales razones y otras muchas y mas eficaces que al savio

parecer de VV. SS. reservo, cuyo auxilio para este efecto ynvoco, parece

claro no debe se le dar al dho Blasco de Alagona las dhas copias de las

ynstruciones de los officiales y ministros del S^{to} Off^{io}, antes

ponerlos de nuevo perpetuo silencio para que cumplan y guarden el

secreto de las cosas que en este S^{to} Off^{io} tienen jurado y

prometido. Sobre que demando justicia y el officio de VV. SS. imploro.

XVI.

CARTA ACORDADA OF FEBRUARY 26, 1607, ENFORCING SECRECY.

(Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 942, fol. 62).

(See p. 477).

Como en el secreto del Sancto Oficio consista todo su poder y autoridad

y la rreputacion de las personas que en el sirven, assi la falta que de

el ha havido y hay generalmente en todas las Inquisiciones y su

publicidad nos ha causado grandisimo sentimiento y obligado a proveer

del remedio necesario para que cesen los grandes daños y quiebras que se

han seguido del rompimiento que ha habido en cossas tan importantes á la

estimacion y respeto que siempre se ha tenido á las cosas de la Sancta

Inquisicion y á sus ministros, pues quanto mas secretas son las materias

que se tratan tanto mas son tenidas por sagradas y estimadas de los que

no tienen noticia de ellas, y habiendo platicado sobre el remedio de

este abuso introducido en estos tiempos en los tribunales, y

considerando con el Ilustri^{mo} Señor Patriarca Inquisidor general, ha

parecido estender y aumentar por via de declaracion el juramento que

todos hacen antes de ser admitidos á sus oficios con todas las fuerzas,

vinculos y estrechezas que el derecho requiere y dispone para que sea

avido y caiga en pena de perjuro y de infidelidad quien fuere contra el

tal juramento, y siendo convencido por indicios ó testigos aunque sean

singulares por la primera bez sea suspendido de su officio por un año

yrremisiblemente y pague cincuenta ducados de pena, y por la segunda

privado perpetuamente y que lo contrario haciendo aunque no sea deducido

en juicio el exceso no pueda en el fuero de la conciencia hacer suyo ni

recibir los salarios de su plaza, declarando que la observancia del

dicho secreto, demas de las cosas de la fee ó en qualquiera manera

dependientes de ella sea y se entienda asi mismo de los votos, ordenes,

determinaciones, cartas del Consejo en todas partes y materias sin dar

noticia de ellas á las partes ni á personas fuera del secreto como se ha

entendido que algunos indebidamente lo han hecho, y de las informaciones

de la limpieza que se hubieren hecho ó hicieren para Inquisidores,

Oficiales, Comisarios, Notarios y familiares, y de todas las cosas

tocantes á ellas y de todos los votos y determinaciones de los

Inquisidores de qualesquiera cosas y causas aunque sean publicas, pues

en todas hay precisa obligacion de guardar el secreto de lo que cada uno

vota. Y assimismo mandamos so pena de excomunion mayor y de la dicha

pena de suspension y privacion de su officio á todos los que supieren ó

entendieren que qualquiera persona que sirve en el Sancto Officio de la

Inquisicion quebrantare en qualquiera manera el dicho secreto directa ó

indirectamente lo manifieste secretamente al Ilustrisimo Señor

Inquisidor General ó al Consejo por que asi conviene para que no quede

sin castigo tan grande delito. Y para que en todo tiempo todos tengan

noticia de esto y nadie se excuse con su ignorancia, queremos que esta

nuestra carta acordada y provision se ponga con las instruciones y

cartas acordadas que se acostumbran á leer en el principio de cada año

en la sala del secreto á todos los Ministros del Sancto Officio de la

Inquisicion quando se presentaren ó se les de su titulo en el ingreso de

sus Officios, y en recibiendo esta mandareis juntar á todos los

Officiales en la sala del secreto donde se les leera.--En Madrid, 26 de

hebrero de 1607 años.

* * * * *

El ylustrisimo Señor Patriarca Inquisidor General estando en el Consejo

de su Magestad en la Sancta General Inquisicion, haviendose leido en

presencia de su Señoria Ilustrisima y de los Señores de el la carta

acordada de arriva tocante al secreto del Sancto Officio de la

Inquisicion, dixo que su intencion y voluntad y de los dichos Señores

era que obligue y se entendienda desde la persona de su Ilustrisima y

señores del dicho Consejo hasta los officiales de el, y mando que asi se

pusiese por auto y que se notificase á todos y a los dichos Officiales

de los dichos secretos y al nuncio y porteros, lo qual yo el presente

secretario cumpli, de que doy fee.--Hernando de Villegas, Secretario del

Consejo.

XVII.

FINANCES OF THE INQUISITION IN 1731.

(From Archivo de Alcalá de Henares, Hacienda, Legajo 544^{2} (Libro 8).)

(See p. 440).

ESTADO DE LAS RENTAS, SALARIOS Y GASTOS DE EL CONSEXO Y TRIBUNALES DE

INQUISICION DE ESTOS REYNOS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

RENTAS CORRIENTES.

----------+------------+----------+------------+------------+-------------

| Rentas de | Consign- | Rente de | Censos y | Total en

Inquis- | canongias | aciones | Juros | Haciendas | Reales

iciones | y dos | para el | corrientes | confis- | Vellon.

| Pensiones | Consejo. | | cadas. |

----------+------------+----------+------------+------------+-------------

Consejo y | | | | |

Tribunal | -- | 213,000. | 95,695.9 | 92,396. | 401,291.29

de Corte | | | | |

| | | | |

La de: | | | | |

Toledo | 42,348.7 | -- | 1,719.18 | 4,506. | 48,573.25

Logroño | 41,646.3 | -- | -- | 8,619.15 | 50,265.18

Cuenca | 32,700. | -- | 174. | 22,373.9 | 55,247.9

Canarias | 12,750. | -- | 1,879. | 22,531.23 | 37,160.26

Zaragoza | 41,613.22 | -- | 4,259.26 | 30,969.14 | 79,842.28

Barcelona | 29,403. | -- | -- | 18,952.8 | 48,355.8

Santiago | 87,861.18 | -- | -- | 5,236.8 | 93,097.26

Llerena | 30,283.26 | -- | 266.2 | 30,600. | 61,149.28

Valladolid| 48,724.5 | -- | 6,000. | 16,839. | 71,573.5

Granada | 15,530.18 | -- | -- | 77,879. | 93,409.18

Córdova | 35,167.27 | -- | 1,035.30 | 50,997. | 87,200.23

Sevilla | 43,976.23 | -- | 5,846. | 68,000. | 117,822.23

Murcia. | 42,783.9 | -- | -- | 90,580. | 133,363.9

Mallorca | 25,449.24 | -- | -- | 96,829.14 | 122,279.4

Valencia | 46,974.4 | -- | -- | 56,185.20 | 103,159.24

----------+------------+----------+------------+------------+-------------

| 580,212.16 | 213,000. | 116,876.3 | 693,694.12 | 1,603,782.31

----------+------------+----------+------------+------------+-------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

SALARIOS Y GASTOS.

----------+------------+----------+--------+------------+----------+----------

| | Gastos y |Consign-| | Lo que | Lo que se

Inquis- | Salarios. | Alimentos| aziones| Total de |falta á | esta

iciones | | de Reos.| que | Cargas. | cada | deviendo

| | |pagen al| |Tribunal. | á sus

| | |Consejo | | | Ministros.

----------+------------+----------+--------+------------+----------+----------

Consejo y | | | | | |

Tribunal | 678,816.4 |107,500. | -- | 786,316.4 |385,024.9 | 546,437.5

de Corte | | | | | |

| | | | | |

La de: | | | | | |

Toledo | 66,351.2 | 9,330. | -- | 75,681.2 | 27,107.11| 255,108.23

Logroño | 51,224.14| 9,000. | -- | 60,224.14| 9,958.30| 122,930.

Cuenca | 50,587. | 8,500. | -- | 59,087, | 3,839.25| 55,057.

Canarias | 52,512. | 7,500. | -- | 60,012. | 22,851.8 | 45,625.

Zaragoza | 92,782.17| 25,454.4 | -- | 118,236.21| 38,393.27| 165,554.6

Barcelona | 50,430. | 8,699. | -- | 39,129. | 10,773.26| 45,636.

Santiago | 57,709.3 | 13,687. | 18,000.| 89,396.3 | -- | --

Llerena | 55,158. | 9,900. | -- | 65,058. | 3,948.6 | 48,692.

Valladolid| 66,543. | 13,400. | -- | 81,943. | 10,379.29| 37,875.

Granada | 82,184.20| 25,000. | -- | 107,184.20| 13,775.2 | 75,528.

Córdova | 69,485. | 17,500. | 10,000.| 96,985. | 9,784.12| 25,842.

Sevilla | 73,650. | 20,000. | 20,000.| 113,650. | -- | --

Murcia | 74,073.12| 17,980. | 45,000.| 137,053.12| 3,690.3 | --

Mallorca | 104,694.12| 12,163. | 20,000.| 136,857.12| 14,578.8 | 30,336.

Valencia | 85,545 | 17,614.24| -- | 103,159.24| -- | --

----------+------------+----------+--------+------------+----------+----------

|1,711,745.16|325,227.28|113,000.|2,149,973.10|554,064.25|1,454,621.

----------+------------+----------+--------+------------+----------+----------

Por manera que importan las rentas del Consejo y Tribunales, 1,603,782

rs. y 31 mrs de vellon, y necessitando para los salarios de sus

Ministros y cargas precisas 2,149,973 rs. y 10 mrs. faltan en cada año

546,190 rs. y 13 mrs. segun ba demostrado. Previniendose que aunque el

resumen se allan 554,064 rs. 25 mrs. consiste la diferencia en el corto

sobrante de las Inquisiciones de Santiago y Sevilla, lo que se hace

presente; y tambien que el mas cargo de 100,000 rs. que resulta al

Consexo de consignaciones de los Tribunales es por la que se considera

en el de Mexico. Asimismo se advierte que por haver quedado la de

Zaragoza sin el palacio de la Aljaferia que ocupaba y buscando casa de

alquiler la concedió el Señor Don Phelipe 5, el año de 1708, 5.200

ducados de plata sobre bienes confiscados y habiendo cesado por la paz

de Viena; haviendo sido preciso fabricar casa se ha empeñado en 24,000

libras y necesita para acabarla mas de otras 20,000. Madrid 8 de

Noviembre de 1731.

Felix Garcia del Pulgar.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Hæreticus animal pestilentissimum est: quamobrem punire debet

antequam virus impietatis evomat, forasque projiciat.--Simancæ de

Cathol. Institt., Tit. II, n. 17.

[2] Archivo hist. nacional, Inquisicion de Toledo, Leg. 153, n.

331.--Burriel, Vidas de los Arzobispos de Toledo (Bibl. nacional, MSS.

Ff, 194, fol. 8).

[3] Las Quinquagenas, I, 342 (Madrid, 1880).

[4] Revista crítica de Historia y Literatura, V, 148.

[5] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Leg. 522, fol. 2.

[6] MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Yc, 20, T. VIII.

[7] Instrucciones de 1484, § 12 (Arguello, fol. 4).

[8] Archivo hist. nacional, Inquisicion de Toledo, Leg. 158, n. 431,

435.

[9] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Leg. 552, fol. 44.

[10] Ibidem, fol. 23.

[11] Still, Protestant sailors arriving in Spanish ports, when not

protected by treaty, and even prisoners of war in the American

colonies, as we shall see hereafter, were claimed by the Inquisition.

[12] Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v. _Hæresis_, n. 1-10.--Avila de

Censuris ecclesiasticis, P. I, Dub. 10 (Lugduni, 1609).--Páramo, p. 570.

[13] Cap. 1, § 1, Clement. v, iii.

[14] Bibl. nacional, MSS., X, 157, fol. 244.

[15] Boletin, XV, 579, 594.

[16] Mich. Alberti Repert. Inquisit. s. v. _Episcopus_.--Arn. Albertini

de agnoscendis Assertionibus Catholicis, Q. XI, n. 1 (Valentiæ,

1534).--Simancæ de Cath. Institt. Tit. XXV, n. 2, 3, 4.--Pegnæ Comment.

LIV in Eymerici Direct. P. III.--Páramo, p. 536.

Rojas (De Hæret. P. I, n. 442-3) appears to be the only writer who

assumes that the Clementines render episcopal jurisdiction merely

consultative.

[17] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 1.

[18] Simancæ de Cath. Institt., Tit. XXV, n. 5.

[19] Llorente, Añales, II, 335.

[20] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 926, fol. 139.

[21] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 688, fol. 228, 517; Libro

939, fol. 69.

[22] Concil. Tarraconens. ann. 1591, Lib. v, Tit. vi, Cap. 2 (Aguirre,

VI, 319).

[23] Decreta Sac. Congr. S. Officii, p. 284 (R. Archivio di Stato in

Roma, Fondo camerale, Congr. del S. Offizio, vol. 3).

The policy of the Roman Inquisition was wholly different. It

recognized the traditional jurisdiction of the bishops and invited

their coöperation. The bishop issued edicts at his discretion and

could initiate prosecutions. Concurrence of course was necessary in

sentences of torture and final judgement, but, if the bishop were

the prosecutor, the inquisitor went to the episcopal palace for the

consultations and also in other cases when the bishop acted personally

and not by his Ordinary. It was all in accordance with the Clementines,

except that all definitive sentences required confirmation by the

Congregation.--Ibid. pp. 174-5, 177, 266-8, 272-3.

[24] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 45, fol. 168.

[25] Modo de Proceder, fol. 107 (Bibl. nacional, MSS., D, 122).

[26] Libro XIII de Cartas (MSS. of Am. Philos. Society).

[27] Benedicti PP. XIV de Synodo dioecesana, Lib. IX, cap. iv, n. 3.

[28] Archivo de Simancas, Lib. 78, fol. 80.

[29] Ibidem, Lib. 83, fol. 106.

[30] MSS. of Royal Library of Copenhagen, 218^{b}, p. 232.

[31] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Leg. 562, fol. 28.

[32] Archivo hist. nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 100.

[33] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 435^{2}; Lib. 890.

[34] Páramo, p. 136.--Boletin, XV, 462.

[35] Boletin, XV, 475.

[36] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, I, 37.

[37] Instrucciones de 1484, § 26 (Arguello, fol. 8).

[38] Archivo gen. de la C. de Aragon, Registro 3684, fol. 76, 92, 97.

[39] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I de copias, fol. 3.--No

such clause appears in later commissions.

[40] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 1.

[41] Ibidem, Lib. 3, fol. 27, 28, 62, 63, 72, 73, 186, 204, 242, 336.

[42] Ibidem, Lib. 939, fol. 69.

[43] Archivo de Simancas, Patronato real, Inquisicion, Leg. único, fol.

43.

[44] Pragmáticas y altres Drets de Cathalunya, Lib. I, Tit. viii, cap.

1; Capitols concedits, § 26; Ibidem, cap. 2 (Barcelona, 1569, pp.

16,19).--Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I de copias, fol. 219.

[45] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol. 69, 118.

[46] Bibl. pública de Toledo, Sala 5, Estante II, Tab. 3.

[47] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 76, fol. 360; Lib. 77, fol.

30; Lib. 939, fol. 104.

[48] Bibl. pública de Toledo, _loc. cit._

[49] MSS. _penes me_.

[50] Córtes de Madrid del año de MDLII, Pet. lix (Valladolid, 1558,

fol. xiv).

[51] Archivo de Simancas, Patronato real, Inquisicion, Leg. único, fol.

76.

[52] Ibidem, Visitos de Barcelona, Leg. 15, fol. 2.

[53] MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Yc, 20, Tom. III, XI.--Archivo

de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol. 69.

Yet the Ordinary's signature is appended to the sentence of acquittal

of Fray Joseph de Sigüenza, in 1592.--MSS. of Halle, Yc, 20, Tom. IV.

[54] MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Yc, 20, Tom. VII.

[55] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 82, fol. 93.

[56] Archivo hist. nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 9, n. 1,

fol. 261, 275; Leg. 9, n. 2, fol 342.

[57] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Sala 39, Leg. 52, fol. 2.

[58] Ibidem, Lib. 876, fol. 1, 17, 30, 41, 42, 46.--Archivo de Alcalá,

Estado, Leg. 2843.

[59] Discusion del Proyecto sobre la Inquisicion, p. 449 (Cadiz, 1813).

[60] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libros 559, 890.

[61] Urbani PP. V, Bull. _Apostolatus_ (Bullar. Roman. I, 261).

[62] Cap. 3, 4, Extrav. Commun. Lib. V, Tit. ix.

[63] Concil. Trident. Sess, XXIV, De Reform, cap. 6.--Pegnæ Comment

CXLI n Eymerici Director. P. III.

[64] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I, fol. 92.--Archivo de

Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 926, fol. 260.

[65] Instrucciones de 1484, § 5 (Arguello, fol. 4).

[66] Clement. PP. VII, Bull. _Cum sicut_ (Pegnæ Append, ad Eymerici

Director.).

[67] Eymerici Director. P. III, n. 59 cum Pegnæ Comment, xii.--Locati

Opus Judiciale, s. v. _Absolvere_ n. 7 (Romæ, 1570).

[68] Archivo hist. nacional, Inquisicion de Toledo, Leg. 498.--"Por

la presente damos licencia a qualquiera sacerdote secular ó regular

para que en forma de la santa Madre Iglesia pueda absolver y absuelve

á F. de la excomunion por nos puesta á pedimiento de F., imponiendole

penitencia saludable á su anima y conciencia."

[69] MSS. of Royal Library of Copenhagen, 214 fol.--MSS. of Bodleian

Library, Arch Seld A, Subt. 15.

[70] Simancæ de Cath. Institt., Tit. III, n. 5.

[71] Archivo hist. nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 299, fol. 80.

[72] Simancæ de Cath. Institt., Tit. XIII, n. 22.

[73] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol. 126.

[74] Corella, Praxis confessionale, P. I, Tract, i, Cap. 1, n. 8.

[75] Archivo hist. nacional, Inquisicion de Toledo, Leg. 111, n. 42.

[76] Ibidem, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 15, n. 11, fol. 17.

[77] Discusion del Proyecto sobre la Inquisicion, p. 446 (Cadiz, 1863).

[78] MSS. Bibl. nacional de Lima, Protocolo 223, Expediente 5270.

[79] Simancæ de Cath. Institt., Tit. XLII, n. 14.

[80] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 559.

[81] Archivo de Simancas, Lib. 82, fol. 89; Lib. 939, fol. 126.

[82] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. III, fol. 464.--Archivo de

Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 83, fol. 30; Lib. 939, fol. 126; Lib. 941,

fol. 3.

[83] See the Author's "History of Auricular Confession and

Indulgences," Appendix to Vol. III.

[84] Pegnæ Comment. XXV in Eymerici Director. P. II.

[85] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol. 126.

[86] Hinojosa, Los Despachos de la Diplomacia Pontificia, I,

330.--Danvila y Collado, La Expulsion de los Moriscos, p. 223.--Bibl.

nacional, MSS, D, 118, fol. 243.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion,

Lib. 940, fol. 12.

[87] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 54, fol. 176.--Archivo

hist. nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 10, n. 2, fol. 39, 40,

52, 75, 114, 118.

[88] MSS. of Royal Library of Copenhagen, 218^{b}, pp. 326-7, 337.

[89] Danvila y Collado, La Expulsion de los Moriscos, pp. 126, 129,

181, 183, 194.

[90] Lucii PP. III Epist. 171 (Migne's Patrol., CCI, 1299).

[91] Ripoll, Bullar. Ord. Prædic. I, 252.--Eymerici Director. Inquis.

P. III, Q, xxviii.--Hist. of Inquisition of Middle Ages, III, 71 _sqq._

[92] Raynald. Annal. ann. 1329, n. 70-2.

[93] Pegnæ Comment. LXXVII in Eymerici Director. P. III.--Bullar.

Roman. I, 420.

[94] Ripoll, Bullar., IV, 22.--Wadding, Annal. Minor. ann. 1487, n. 8.

[95] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I, fol. 94.--Archivio

Vaticano, Innocent. VIII, Regist. 686, fol. 103.--Boletin, XV, 582.

[96] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol. 106.

[97] Wadding, _op. cit._ T. VIII, Regest., n. xxi.

I have not met with any special attribution of exemption to Dominicans,

but a brief of Leo X, May 14, 1517, confirming all their privileges

without exception, may have been construed as covering this.--Ripoll,

IV, 343.

[98] Archivo de Simancas, _ubi sup._

[99] Wadding, ann. 1524, n. xxiii.

[100] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I de copias, fol. 115.

[101] Archivo de Simancas, _ubi sup._

[102] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I de copias, fol. 79,

96.--Páramo, p. 607.

This was extended to Italy, by a brief of Jan. 15, 1530.--Clem. PP.

VII, Bull _cum sicut_ (Pegnæ Append, ad Eymerici Director. p. 107).

[103] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 939, fol. 106.

[104] Wadding, _op. cit._, Tom. VIII, Regest. pp. 225-6.

[105] Fontana, Documenti Vaticani contro l'Eresia Luterana, p. 122

(Roma, 1892).

[106] Pauli PP. III Bull. _In Apostolici_, 21 Mart. 1592 (Pegnæ Append.

ad Eymerici Director. p. 109).

[107] Pauli PP. IV Bull. _Cum sicut nuper_, 16 Apl. 1559 (Bullar.

Roman. II, 48).

[108] Bibl. Vaticana, MS. Ottoboniano Lat. 495, p. 7.

[109] Hinojosa, Los Despachos de la Diplomacia Pontificia, I, 326, 332.

[110] Bibl. Vaticana, MS. Ottoboniano Lat. 495, fol. 50.

[111] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisición, Lib. 53, fol. 20; Gracia y

Justicia, Leg. 621, fol. 116.

[112] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. IV, fol. 109, 111.--Páramo,

p. 885.

[113] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. IV, fol. 149; Lib. V, fol.

77.

[114] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Libro V, fol. 73, 77.

[115] Ibidem, Lib. V, fol. 78.

[116] A copy of this edict, printed as a broadside, is in the Bodleian

Library, Arch. S, 130.

[117] Archivo hist. nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Leg. 1, n. 4,

fol. 148.

[118] Cap. 16 in Sexto, V, 3.--Mich. Alberti Repertor. Inquisit. s. v.

_Episcopus_.

[119] See Vol. I, p. 147.

[120] Among the leading bishops of Jewish descent, at the time, Amador

de los Rios enumerates (_op. cit._ III, 241) Alonso of Burgos, Juan

de Malvenda of Coria, Alfonso de Valladolid of Valladolid, Alonso de

Palenzuela of Ciudad-Rodrigo, Pedro de Aranda of Calahorra, Juan Arias

Dávila of Segovia and Hernando de Talavera of Granada.

[121] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I, fol. 36.--Archivo de

Simancas, Inquisicion, Lib. 930, fol. 18.

[122] Páramo, p. 151.

[123] Amador de los Rios, III, 129-30.

[124] Colmenares, Historia de Segovia, cap. xxxiii, § 2; cap. xxxv, §§

7, 13.

[125] Bergenroth, Calendar of Spanish State Papers, I, xlv.

[126] Coleccion de Documentos, XVIII, 290.

[127] Llorente, Añales, I, 212, 242.--Boletin, XV, 578, 590.--Burchardi

Diarium, II, 409, 459, 494-5; III, 13 (Ed. Thuasne).

[128] Archivo de Simancas, Patronato Real, Inquisition, Leg. único,

fol. 22.

[129] There is a somewhat mysterious case of a summons issued, in

1516, to the "Bishop of Daroca," then in Burgos, to present himself

to Ximenes, within fifteen days, under pain of loss of temporalities

and citizenship. It was enclosed to the corregidor of Burgos with

instructions to serve it in presence of a notary and, if the bishop did

not obey, he was to be sent to the court under secure guard. Daroca

is a town near Saragossa, which never was the seat of an episcopate,

but the summons was signed by Cardinal Adrian, then Inquisitor-general

of Aragon, and by Calcena in the name of the governors and was

countersigned by the members of the Suprema.--Archivo de Simancas,

Inquisicion, Lib. III, fol. 448.

[130] Dormer, Añales de Aragon, Lib. I, cap. xxvii; Lib. II, cap.

xx.--Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. III, fol. 521.--Gachard,

Correspondance de Charles-quint et d'Adrian VI, p. 171.--Ferrer del

Rio, Comunidades de Castilla, pp. 300-2, 393, 397, 399.--Constantin v.

Höfler, Don Antonio de Acuña, p. 79.

[131] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I de copias, fol.

98.--Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 930, fol. 98.

[132] The documents of the trial of Carranza, covering some forty

thousand pages, are preserved in twenty-two folio volumes in the

library of the Real Academia de la Historia and even from these

there is a volume missing. The only writers whose accounts are based

on these original sources are Llorente (Hist. crít. cap. xxxii-iv)

and Menéndez Pelayo (Heterodoxos españoles, II, 359-415)--the one a

defender of the accused and the other of the Holy Office. I have not

had the opportunity of consulting these documents, but many of the

more important have been printed and there are sources, aside from

the inquisitorial records, which throw light on the motives which

occasioned and controlled the events. These were not accessible to

Llorente and appear to have escaped the attention of Menéndez Pelayo.

[133] Gachard, Retraite et Mort de Charles-quint, II, 187, 188, 191,

202.

[134] Gachard, _op. cit._, II, 195, 199, 354.

[135] Gachard, _op. cit._, pp. 417, 418.

[136] Menéndez Pelayo, Heterodoxos, II, 395.

[137] In 1608 the see of Cuzco was estimated to be worth 40,000 ducats

per annum.--Cabrera, Relaciones, p. 346.

[138] Salazar de Mendoza, Vida de Fray D. Bartolomé de Carranza y de

Miranda, cap. I-VII.--Salazar was a penitentiary of the cathedral of

Toledo and wrote this work at the request of Carranza's successor, the

Inquisitor-general Quiroga. It was not printed until Valladares issued

an edition in 1788. This I have not seen and my references are to a MS.

copy.

[139] Bzovii Annal. Eccles. ann. 1566, n. 89.--Salazar, _op. cit._,

cap. VIII-X.

[140] Salazar, cap. XI.--Coleccion de Documentos, V, 528.

[141] Salazar, cap. XII.

[142] Controversia de necessaria Residentia personali Episcoporum et

aliorum inferiorum Pastorum. Lugduni, 1550. The first edition was of

Venice, 1547; there was a third, Antwerp, 1554, and a reprint as late

as 1767, in Madrid.

[143] Caballero, Vida de Fray Melchor Cano, p. 624 (Madrid, 1871).

[144] Philip's _consulta_ and Cano's _parecer_ were printed by Usoz y

Rio in his "Reformistas antiguos españoles" (Dos Informaziones, Append.

p. 27, Madrid, 1857) and more recently by Caballero, Vida de Melchor

Cano, p. 512.

[145] Caballero, pp. 502, 507, 508, 527-9, 530-2, 534-5.

[146] Llorente, Hist. crít. cap. XXXII, Art. 1, n. 3.--Salazar, cap.

VIII.--Menéndez Pelayo, II, 378.

[147] Schäfer, Beiträge zur Geschichte des spanischen Protestantismus,

III, 785-88, 791.

The Consideration in question is not, as there stated, No. 65, but No.

54, in both the original Basle edition of "Le cento e dieci divine

Considerazioni" (1550) and in the Spanish version of 1558, printed by

Usoz y Rio. The mistake is probably that of a copyist, confusing LIV

and LXV. The Spanish version seems to have circulated among the little

group of heretics in Valladolid.

[148] Döllinger, Beiträge zur politischen, Kirchlichen u.

Cultur-Geschichte, I, 574.--Pallavicini, Hist. Conc. Trident. Lib. XIV,

cap. lii, n. 4-6.--Bzovii Annal. ann. 1566, n. 90.

[149] Schäfer, Beiträge, III, 792.--See in general pp. 727-812.

[150] Archivo hist. nacional, Inquisicion de Toledo, Leg. 112, n. 64,

fol. 2.

[151] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Sala 40, Libro 4, fol.

228.--Gachard, Retraite et Mort, II, 422.

The personage in question was a certain Juan Sánchez, of no special

importance. He was arrested in Flanders, in May, 1559, and burnt alive

as an impenitent in the auto of October 8, 1559.--Schäfer, _op. cit._,

I, 254, 307, 313-14; III, 796-803.

[152] Comentarios, Prologo, fol. 2^{b}.

[153] The policy of the Spanish Church is forcibly expressed by the

Council of Salamanca, in 1565. "The very name of heretics should be

so hateful to the faithful that it should never pass our lips if it

can possibly be avoided. Preachers should propound the doctrines of

the faith and give the reasons and authorities for them, but should

never allude to the sects of the heretics or to their arguments. In

scholastic disputations no heretical, or dangerous, or erroneous

assertions should be introduced, even for the purpose of exercise,

but only those approved by the customs of each university."--Concil.

Salmanticens. ann. 1655, Decr. xxxii (Aguirre, V, 453).

[154] Comentarios, fol. 219ª, 162ª.

[155] Bzovii Annal. ann. 1566, n. 89.--Coleccion de Documentos, V, 518.

[156] Gachard, _op. cit._, II, 427.