Thus far, although dilatory in action, the proceedings of the tribunal

had been unexceptionable. Molinism was an aberration that had excited

too much abhorrence for any substantial accusation of it to be

neglected. All reasonable effort had been made to obtain and to verify

evidence; there seems to have been no desire to persecute the bulk of

the disciples of Ulloa and attention was concentrated on three who were

regarded as leaders and dogmatizers. After this, however, there is much

to criticize in the prosecutions. Ubau, who was perfectly sane when

incarcerated, began to manifest symptoms of mental alienation which

developed into complete insanity. In February, 1733, he was transferred

to the convent of the Recollects and finally to the insane department of

the hospital of San Andrés. Velazco pleaded that he had been insane for

nine years, with lucid intervals; his health speedily broke down,

consumption set in and he was transferred, March 15, 1719, to the

hospital of San Andrés where he died on the 19th and his body was

returned to the tribunal to be thrust into the ground. Proceedings were

continued against his memory and fame, the advocate of prisoners arguing

that irresponsibility precluded his condemnation for formal heresy. As

for Solis, the accusation against him consisted of eighty articles and

assumed that he was wholly an apostate from the faith. He protested that

he had persuaded himself that God had revealed to him the spiritual way;

this had been his fault, for which he begged mercy and was ready to

accept any penance that might be imposed. His advocate defended him by

pointing out the deceitful way in which Ovalle had beguiled him into

error, by submitting to him propositions of Molinos which he had

admitted under examination that he did not understand. He had never even

heard the name of Miguel de Molinos, so he could not be termed his

disciple and, if he had erred, it had been in following his confessor

Ulloa. As for Ulloa, the prosecution of his memory and fame was carried

through its regular course. The accusation represented him as a

dogmatizer of the heresies of Luther, Calvin, Molinos and Ubicler

(Wickliffe). There were a hundred and sixty articles and twenty

witnesses to prove them. When a defender was called for, by command of

the Jesuit Provincial the procurador-general of the province of Chile

presented himself and the most strenuous efforts were made to protect

the honor of the Society. Padre Firmin de Irisarri, who conducted the

defence, says that there was no proof that Ulloa had ever taught the

worst of the propositions ascribed to him, and he throws the whole blame

on the artifice of Ovalle betraying three unlettered laymen into

accepting doctrines which they were led to believe were entertained by

him to whom the dying Ulloa had entrusted them.

As far as the living were concerned, the cases were concluded and ready

for sentence in 1725. Then ensued an inexplicable delay until 1736, when

Calderon and Unda were in control of the tribunal. The last _auto

general_ celebrated in Peru was announced for December 23d and was

solemnized in the public plaza, with exceptionally imposing ceremonies,

in the presence of the viceroy, the Marquis of Villagarcía, and of all

the magnates. The effigies of Ulloa and Velazco were brought forward,

condemned and burnt; that of Solis was reconciled in view of his

submission. The unfortunate Ubau, in spite of his insanity, had been

condemned, December 1st, to be relaxed as an impenitent heretic who

denied his guilt, and, as his mental condition would have precluded

repentance, he would have been burnt alive, but for some reason he was

not brought forward and was allowed to linger in the hospital until he

died in 1747. The sentence, however, confiscated his property which, as

we have seen (p. 353) amounted to more than sixty thousand pesos and

disappeared without leaving a trace. It would scarce be doing injustice

to Calderon and Unda to suggest that the taking up of these cases, after

ten years’ interval, may have been to conceal the abstraction of the

sequestration.[696]

When the Visitador Arenaza and the Inquisitor Amusquíbar, in 1746,

arraigned their predecessors they laid special stress on the

irregularities and excesses which characterized the conduct of these

cases. In that of Ulloa, the consulta de fe voted _in discordia_;

another consulta was called, from which the two consultors who had voted

in favor of the accused were excluded; another Ordinary, who had as

consultor condemned Ulloa’s papers, was substituted for the previous

one, and two new consultors were summoned, who were only allowed a

morning in which to examine the voluminous documents, and the consulta

was held on a feast-day when Ibañez refused to act.

Even before this, however, the Suprema had commenced action. The Jesuits

had been profoundly stirred by the condemnation of Ulloa and the

suspension in the churches of the sanbenito of a member of their Order.

It was doubtless owing to their influence that the Suprema, March 10,

1738, ordered all the papers in the case of the Molinists to be sent to

Spain and the sanbenitos of Ulloa to be removed from the churches of

Lima and Santiago. This last command was unwillingly obeyed and, in

reporting its execution, January 10, 1739, the tribunal remonstrated

bitterly as to the disastrous results to the authority of the

Inquisition and to the faith. The papers were duly forwarded, but were

detained in Panamá until 1746, when they were despatched by way of

Brazil. It was not, however, until 1762 that the Suprema delivered its

judgement. It called attention to the many irregularities and

inexcusable delays in the case of Solis, but did not modify the

judgement. In that of Velazco, it revoked the sentence as unjust,

absolved his memory and fame, ordered his property to be restored to his

heirs, less the expenses of maintenance, and that a certificate

rehabilitating them be given and the sanbenitos be removed from the

churches. The review of the trial of Ulloa was long and minute, pointing

out its innumerable irregularities and denials of justice; there was no

proof that he ever held the doctrines imputed to him and no effort to

ascertain the truth; a false and imperfect report of the case, moreover,

had been made to the Suprema.[697]

There were six other disciples of Ulloa who were treated in the same

inexcusable fashion. Two or three of them had appeared before the

Santiago commissioner, in 1710 and 1718. Nothing more was done with them

until the affair was revived for the auto of 1736, when they were

arrested and brought to Lima and tried. It is scarce worth while to

detail the cases. It suffices to say that two of them died in

consequence, and that in at least two of the cases the Suprema, in 1762,

set aside the sentences as unjustifiable. The auto of 1736 had not

escaped severe criticism in Lima, which the tribunal repressed by trying

two of the critics and fining them in five hundred pesos each. A third

was a Jesuit, Padre Gabriel de Orduña, whom Calderon and Unda apparently

were afraid to handle. The evidence was sent to the Suprema, which

replied that Ibañez should summon him and warn him to treat the Holy

Office with due respect. This became known in Lima to the mortification

of the inquisitors who suspended the case.[698]

* * * * *

In the chief matter for which the tribunal was founded--the protection

of the colony from the presumable missionary efforts of the

Protestants--it found little to do. No case of proselytism has been

found among the records thus far and those of voluntary Protestant

residents are few and far between. The archbishop, as we have seen, had

disposed of Jan Miller in 1548, and in the first auto de fe, in 1573,

there appeared Joan Bautista and Mateo Salado. In 1581 there was a

courageous martyr in the person of Jan Bernal, a Flemish tailor who had

been arrested and forwarded by the Commissioner of Panamá. At first he

professed conversion and begged mercy, but he regained his fortitude and

declared that it was better to burn in this world than the next. To this

he adhered in spite of strenuous efforts to convert him. He was tortured

_in caput alienum_ without success and was sentenced to relaxation. He

was pertinacious to the last and must therefore undoubtedly have been

burnt alive. In the auto of November 30, 1587, there appeared Miguel

del Pilar, a Fleming, whose constancy was punished by relaxation and

burning.[699] Then a long interval occurs until 1625, when a man called

Adrian Rodríguez of Leyden was induced to profess conversion and was

reconciled with eight years of galleys and a sanbenito for life. A

century elapses when, in 1730, there was an _autillo_ for Robert Shaw, a

Nova Scotian, who deserted from Clipperton’s expedition and penetrated

to Cuzco, where he was arrested as a heretic and sent to Lima. He

professed readiness for conversion and was confided for instruction to

Dr. Thomas Correy but soon ran away, carrying with him 160 pesos and

some jewels. He took service with a butcher in Puno, was discovered and

taken back to Lima, where he escaped with some spiritual penances. About

ten years later, James Haden of Boston was prosecuted as a heretic and

was converted.[700] The extreme sensitiveness which would not permit

Spanish soil to be polluted by a Protestant foot is seen in the case of

Pierre Fos, a French Protestant of Protestant descent, who was cook to

Viceroy Superunda. He attended mass and passed for a Catholic, but

betrayed himself and was arrested in 1758. He confessed at once and said

he would become a Catholic if he could obtain his parents’ consent;

then, after three days of prison, he announced his conversion to save

his soul. Instructors were given to him and his trial dragged on through

all its cumbrous forms until his sentence was read in an auto of May 18,

1763. It condemned him to abjure _de vehementi_, to be paraded in

_virgüenza_ through the streets, to confiscation of half his property,

reclusion for instruction during two years, after which he was to be

shipped to Spain, consigned to the commissioner at Cádiz. The last

papers in the case are the receipt for his person by the captain of the

good ship los Placeres, Callao, April 2, 1765, and the receipt from the

receiver, April 22d, for the documents concerning his property. It was

doubtless his pretended Catholicism that justified this severity.[701]

It is a curious illustration of the Spanish theories concerning heresy

and its cognizance by the Inquisition that even heretics, whose presence

was involuntary as prisoners of war, were held to come within its

jurisdiction, and the Lima tribunal had much more to do with such

subjects than with those who ventured intentionally within its grasp. In

1578 it wrote to Juan Constantino, its commissioner at Panamá, that it

understood that the English corsairs who appeared there were heretics

and that it would proceed as such against any who were captured. They

robbed the commissioner and left him in his shirt, they broke the

chalice and patena and cast into the sea the altar and missal. The

commissioner on his part denounced the General of the armada del Mar de

Norte for keeping in his service two or three Englishmen as trumpeters

and an artilleryman, whom he ought to have delivered to the Inquisition

of Seville.[702] Sometimes the secular authorities maintained a

cumulative jurisdiction with a result grotesquely horrible. Thus, in

1581 there were four English prisoners surrendered to the tribunal which

tortured them severely for intention and sentenced John Oxenham,

“captain of the robbers at Ballano,” to reconciliation, confiscation and

the galleys for life; Thomas Xervel (Harvey?), master of the ship, to

reconciliation, ten years of galleys and subsequent perpetual prison;

John Butler, pilot of the ship, to abjure _de vehementi_ and six years

of galleys; the fourth, Henry Butler, a young brother of the last, was

not tried. It sounds like a ghastly jest to learn that the alcaldes had

already sentenced the first three to be hanged and the last one to

perpetual galleys; they were all returned to the secular court and the

sentences were duly executed. As they had evidently all been converted,

the tribunal at least had the pious satisfaction of saving their

souls.[703] About 1585 there is a brief entry of a dozen or so of

Englishmen captured at Guayaquil and taken to Lima. The Viceroy Count

del Villar asked them whether they were baptized and on learning that

they were thus answerable to the Inquisition, he handed them over to the

tribunal. What were their sentences and whether the secular court

reclaimed them does not appear.[704]

The next adventurers who suffered appeared in the auto of November 30,

1587. John Drake, a cousin of Sir Francis, passed the Straits of

Magellan and was lost on the Pacific coast. Thirteen of the crew saved

themselves and fell among cannibal Indians with whom they lived for

about a year. Drake and two others fled in a canoe down the River Plate

to Buenos Ayres, one of them being lost in the Paraguay. Drake and his

comrade Richard Ferrel were seized, sent across the continent to Arica

and thence to Lima, where they were tried by the tribunal. They

professed conversion; Drake was sentenced to reconciliation and

seclusion for three years in a monastery with prohibition to leave the

country. Ferrel must have been somewhat more stubborn, for he was

tortured and condemned to reconciliation, four years of galleys and

perpetual prison.[705]

The auto of April 5, 1592, was graced with two groups of English

prisoners. Four of these had been captured on the island of Puná and had

lain in prison for five years. The secular authorities seem to have

abandoned jurisdiction by this time and left them wholly to the

Inquisition. Walter and Edward Tillert, brothers, were relaxed as

persistent heretics, but weakened at the last moment and were strangled

before burning. Henry Axli (Oxley?) was pertinacious to the end and was

burnt alive. The fourth, Andrew Marle (Morley?), a youth of eighteen,

professed conversion and was reconciled, with two years reclusion among

the Jesuits for instruction.[706]

The other group consisted of three “pirates,” from the expedition of

Thomas Cavendish, who sailed from Plymouth July 21, 1586. He reached the

Straits of Magellan January 3, 1587, emerged March 15th and on April 9th

anchored in the roadstead of Quintero, a little north of Valparaiso. At

Santiago a force had been raised in anticipation of their coming, and

when the English, in need of wood and water, had landed a party, they

surrounded twelve men, who had straggled to a ravine, and carried them

to Santiago. There nine of them were summarily hanged, to the great

benefit of their souls, for they professed conversion. The other three

were shipped to Lima, and delivered to the Inquisition where their

trials lasted for three years. Of these William Stephens said his

parents were both Catholics, and his mother had died in gaol for

possessing beads and images; he had observed the religion of his country

but was in heart a Catholic; he was reconciled with four years prison

and sanbenito. Thomas Lucas had a Protestant father and Catholic mother;

he had always been a Protestant but was now a Catholic; he was

reconciled, with four years of galleys, six years of prison and

sanbenito, and was never to leave Lima. William Hilles was but 17 years

old; he had been a Protestant but was now a Catholic; he was reconciled,

with six years of galleys and perpetual prison and sanbenito.[707]

Cavendish, it may be added, captured a treasure-ship, imitated Drake in

circumnavigating the globe and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth.

More disastrous was the expedition under Richard Hawkins, which sailed

from Plymouth in July, 1593, with three vessels, of which one was

wrecked and one returned. Hawkins cast anchor at Valparaiso, April 24,

1594, where he captured four little vessels and ransomed a larger one.

When he sailed, the corregidor manned one of the abandoned barks and

despatched it to Callao with news of the corsairs. It made the voyage in

fifteen days, enabling the Viceroy, Hurtado de Mendoza, to fit out a

squadron under his nephew Beltran de Castro, who encountered Hawkins,

July 2, in the Bay of Atacames, near Quito. After a desperate fight,

Hawkins surrendered under promise of treatment as prisoners of war, and

the extraordinary rejoicings with which the news of the victory were

received in Lima are a measure of the terror excited by these dauntless

sea-rovers. The terms of capitulation were scandalously violated; of the

seventy-five prisoners taken, sixty-two were sent to the galleys at

Cartagena, and thirteen were brought to Lima, where the Inquisition

claimed them, on information that they were heretics, and they entered

the secret prison, December 4, 1594. Possibly it may have been the

irregularity attaching to the infraction of the terms of surrender that

hastened the trials, for eight of the prisoners appeared in the auto of

December 17, 1595, together with seven other Englishmen, captured at la

Yaguana and forwarded from Santo Domingo. There were no martyrs among

them. All professed conversion and were reconciled with various terms of

reclusion except one, William Leigh, who was sentenced to six years of

galleys and perpetual irremissible prison.[708]

Richard Hawkins, whose trial ended July 17, 1595, was too sick to appear

in the auto and was transferred to the Jesuit college. His chivalrous

bearing won for him general good will, and on his recovery he was placed

at the disposition of the viceroy who was earnestly desirous that the

terms of surrender should be observed. There was correspondence on the

subject. The Suprema wrote, October 5, 1595, to suspend the

sequestrations of the Englishmen, and in future not to sequestrate in

such cases, for soldiers ought not to be deprived of the spoils won from

their enemies. The tribunal, it said, was not to interfere in the cases

of those sent to the galleys at Cartagena, but, as to Hawkins and his

comrades, they were to be delivered to the viceroy, without proceeding

further in their cases and, when they were fully instructed in the

faith, it was to do justice, proceeding in their cases with much care

and consideration. These instructions were of course too late, and in

reply the tribunal asked whether their sanbenitos should be removed from

the churches and whether, in case they relapsed, they should be subject

to relaxation. The conclusion reached was that the sanbenitos were to be

removed, the reclusion revoked, the sequestrations restored and that

they were not subject to the penalties of relapse for reincidence. The

succeeding viceroy, Velasco, desired to send them all to Spain, but this

was opposed by the tribunal because their penances had not been

completed; Hawkins ought also to be kept on account of his knowledge of

the navigation of those seas. The last information concerning them

occurs in a letter of the Royal Audiencia, May 21, 1607, showing that

they had passed out of the hands of the tribunal. It says that the

Viceroys Cañete and Velasco had sent to Spain all those captured in 1594

except Richard Hawkins, Captain John Ellis, Hugh Carnix (Charnock?) and

Richard Davis, who were kept because they were experienced seamen and

Davis was useful in the position assigned to him. Now permission has

been given to them to sail in the outgoing fleet, consigned to the

Contratacion of Seville.[709] We know that Hawkins eventually reached

England and was knighted.

In time there came a recognition of the rights of prisoners of war, even

though they were heretics and were claimed by the Inquisition. In the

auto of December 21, 1625, there appeared Pieter Jan of Delft, who had

been captured and condemned to death as a pirate, though the sentence

was not executed. He refused to be converted and was sent to the

galleys, but was subsequently liberated under a royal cédula as a

prisoner of war. Fanaticism, however, was difficult to extinguish. When,

about 1650, the Dutch endeavored to establish themselves at Valdivia,

Viceroy Mancera sent a well-equipped fleet and army to drive them out.

The captain of the first vessel that reached there, on learning that the

Dutch commander had died and been buried, caused the corpse to be dug up

and burnt. From the absence in the subsequent records of cases of

prisoners of war, however, it is safe to assume that by this time the

barbarity of giving them the alternative of conversion or the stake had

been abandoned. There was, it is true, an intervention of the tribunal

in the case of the Dutch ship St. Louis, captured at Coquimbo in 1725,

but it was not unreasonable. The fiscal Calderon, learning that among

the prisoners there were French Huguenots and Dutch heretics and Jews,

and that the Viceroy Castelfuerte thought of utilizing the sailors on

his own ships, represented to the tribunal the grave dangers of such a

course, when the Inquisitor Gutiérrez de Cevallos, induced the viceroy

to abandon the plan and to bring to Lima about a hundred who had been

left sick at Coquimbo.[710] As none of them appeared in the succeeding

auto it is inferable that they were not subjected to prosecution for

heresy.

* * * * *

The most serious business of the tribunal, in the line of its proper

functions, was with the apostasy of the Jewish New Christians. From the

very foundation of the colonies, as we have seen in the preceding

chapter, restrictions were laid on the emigration of Conversos and a law

of 1543, preserved in the Recopilacion, orders that search be made for

all descendants of Jews who were to be rigorously expelled.[711] In

spite, however, of the jealous care observed to preserve the colonies

from all danger of Jewish infection, the commercial attractions were so

powerful that the New Christians eluded all precautions. At first,

however, they occupied but a small portion of the energies of the

tribunal. It is true that among the earliest denunciations received, in

1570, were those of the Licenciate Juan Alvarez, a physician, and of his

brother-in-law Alonso Alvarez with his wife, children and servants, for

Judaism, but as their names are absent from the subsequent auto it is

presumable that they were found innocent.[712] The first appearance of

Jews is in the auto of October 29, 1581, when Manuel López, a

Portuguese, was reconciled with confiscation and perpetual prison, and

Diego de la Rosa, described as a native of Quito, was required to abjure

_de levi_ and was exiled--showing that the evidence against him was very

dubious.[713] After this there are none until the great auto of April 5,

1592, in which there were two, Nicholas Morin, a Frenchman, and

Francisco Díaz, a Portuguese, the former required to abjure _de levi_

and the latter reconciled.[714]

The conquest of Portugal, in 1580, had led to a large emigration to

Castile, where Portuguese soon became synonymous with Judaizer, and this

was beginning to make itself manifest in the colonies. The auto of

December 17, 1595, gave impressive evidence of this. Five

Portuguese--Juan Méndez, Antonio Núñez, Juan López, Francisco Báez and

Manuel Rodríguez--were reconciled. Another, Herman Jorje, had died

during trial and his memory was not prosecuted. There were also four

martyrs. Jorje Núñez denied until he was tied upon the rack; he then

confessed and refused to be converted, but after his sentence of

relaxation was read he weakened and was strangled before burning.

Francisco Rodríguez endured torture without confessing; when threatened

with repetition he endeavored unsuccessfully to commit suicide; he was

voted to relaxation with torture _in caput alienum_, and under it he

accused several persons but revoked at ratification. He was pertinacious

to the last and was burnt alive. Juan Fernández was relaxed, although

insane; the Suprema expressed doubts whether he had intelligence enough

to render him responsible. Pedro de Contreras had been tortured for

confession and again _in caput alienum_; he denied Judaism throughout

and was relaxed as a _negativo_; at the auto he manifested great

devotion to a crucifix and presumably was strangled; in all probability

he was really a Christian.[715]

This bloody work affords a foretaste of what was to come. At the auto of

December 10, 1600, there were fourteen Portuguese Judaizers. Twelve of

them had professed conversion and were reconciled; with two, convictions

were too strong and they were burnt alive--Duarte Núñez de Cea and

Baltasar Lucena, whose last words were that he denied Christ.[716] The

auto of March 13, 1605, exhibited sixteen Judaizers reconciled in person

and one in effigy. Six who had fled were burnt in effigy and three less

fortunate were burnt in person. Besides these was Antonio Corrca who,

during his trial, was converted by the inspiration of God; he was

reconciled with three years in prison, which he served in the convent of

la Merced and then was sent to Spain, dying, in 1622, as a fraile in

Ossuna, in the odor of sanctity, which has rendered him the subject of

several biographies.[717]

The auto of June 1, 1608, afforded but one case, and that an unusual

one--Domingo López, tried for Judaism and acquitted. This may be

explained by the fact that the Portuguese New Christians had purchased,

in 1604, a general pardon in Spain, which reached Peru in 1605 and for a

time repressed inquisitorial activity in this direction. In 1610 there

was a noteworthy case of Manuel Ramos, one of the fugitives who had been

burnt in effigy in 1605. He had been captured and on being tried was now

acquitted.[718] In an auto of June 17, 1612, there were five

reconciliations for Judaism.[719] From this time for some years there

were only scattering cases. Possibly the terrible energy manifested by

the tribunal had served as a deterrent and checked the Portuguese

influx, but if so the impression was but temporary. We have seen (p.

337) the complaints that arose about this time concerning the Portuguese

immigration by way of Brazil and Buenos Ayres. This increased greatly

when, in 1618, a Portuguese inquisitor came to Rio de Janeiro, published

an Edict of Faith and then in a few days made many arrests and

sequestrated property to the amount of more than 200,000 pesos. The

frightened Judaizers sought refuge in Spanish territory and kept the

commissioner at Buenos Ayres, Francisco de Trejo, in a state of

continual anxiety. He reported, January 15, 1619, that since the new

governor, Diego Martin, had come the _visitas de navíos_ had been

interrupted and he asked for such positive instructions that the

authorities should understand that no foreigners could land until he had

inspected the ship. His protests were unavailing. By the middle of April

there had arrived eight ships bringing Portuguese passengers, who had

paid Castilians to take them as servants so that they might enter.

Governor Martin was alert and threw them in prison, in order to send

them back, but many managed to get through. Some of them were married in

prison to Buenos Ayres women, so as to give them a standing in the

community; others broke gaol and took refuge in convents, when the

frailes refused to surrender them, giving security to the governor that

they would prove themselves to be not of the prohibited class, whereupon

they scattered to the interior and the man who had furnished the

security calmly paid the forfeit. It is true that forty of them were

sent back, but it was evidently impossible to exclude these proscribed

and hunted beings who were so persistent and resourceful. The tribunal,

in fact, was apparently not averse to obtaining fresh material for

condemnation and confiscation, for it did not authorize the commissioner

to arrest suspects and send them back, but only to compile information

about them and forward it to Lima, keeping advised as to their

destinations so that they could be seized when wanted.[720] The

immigration continued and, in 1623, the tribunal called the attention of

the Suprema to the increasing numbers of Portuguese, who were spreading

throughout the interior provinces. This continued and, in 1635, the

fiscal of the Audiencia of Charcas represented forcibly to the king the

evil of the innumerable Jews who had entered and were constantly

coming.[721]

The tribunal resumed its labors and, by December 21, 1625, it was ready

with an auto in which ten Judaizers were reconciled. Two had committed

suicide in prison and were burnt with their bones. Two more were

relaxed--Juan Acuña de Noroña, who was described as impenitent and must

have been burnt alive, and Diego de Andrada who gave signs of repentance

at the last and was probably strangled before burning.[722]

In 1626 there commenced a trial which illustrates forcibly the

inexorable discipline of the Church, rendering it the supreme duty of

the Christian to persecute and destroy all heresy. Francisco Maldonado

de Silva was a surgeon of high repute in Concepcion de Chile. He was of

Portuguese descent. His father had suffered in the Inquisition, had been

reconciled and brought up his children, two girls and a boy, as

Christians. Francisco was a good Catholic until, at the age of 18, he

chanced to read the _Scrutinium Scripturarum_ of Pablo de Santa María,

Bishop of Búrgos--a controversial work written for the conversion of

Jews.[723] So far from confirming him in the faith it raised doubts

leading him to consult his father, who told him to study the Bible and

instructed him in the Law of Moses. He became an ardent convert to

Judaism, but kept his secret from his mother and two sisters and from

his wife, for he was married and had a child, and his wife was pregnant

when he was arrested. During her absence, a year or two before, he had

circumcised himself. At the age of 35, considering that his sister

Isabel who was about 33, was mature enough for religious independence,

he revealed his secret to her and endeavored to convert her, but in

vain, and he was impervious to her entreaties to abandon his faith. They

seem to have been tenderly attached to each other; he was her sole

support as well as that of her mother and sister, but she could not

escape the necessity of communicating the facts in confession to her

confessor. The prescriptions of the Church were absolute; no family ties

relieved one from the obligation of denouncing heresy, and she could not

hope for sacramental absolution without discharging the duty. We can

picture to ourselves the torment of that agonized soul as she nerved

herself to the awful duty which would cost her a lifetime of remorse and

misery when she obeyed her confessor’s commands and denounced her

brother to the Inquisition.

The warrant for his arrest was issued December 12, 1626, and executed at

Concepcion April 29, 1627. His friend, the Dominican Fray Diego de

Ureña, visited him in his place of confinement, May 2, and sought to

convert him, but he was resolved to die in the faith in which his father

had died. So when transferred to Santiago, the Augustinian Fray Alonso

de Almeida made similar efforts with like ill-success; he knew that he

should die for the faith, he had never spoken to any one but his sister

and she had betrayed him. He was received in Lima July 23d and was

admitted to an audience the same day. When required to swear on the

cross he refused, saying that he was a Jew and would live and die as

such; if he had to swear it would be by the living God, the God of

Israel. His trial went on through all the customary formalities,

protracted by the repeated conferences held with theologians who

endeavored to convince him of his errors. Eleven of these were held

without weakening his pertinacity until, on January 26, 1633, the

consulta de fe unanimously condemned him to relaxation.

A long sickness followed, caused by a fast of eighty days which had

reduced him almost to a skeleton covered with sores. On convalescing, he

asked for another conference, to solve the doubts which he had drawn up

in writing. It was held June 26, 1634, and left him as pertinacious as

ever. Meanwhile the prison was filling with Judaizers, of whom a number

had been discovered in Lima. He asked for maize husks in place of his

ration of bread, and with them made a rope by which he escaped through a

window and visited two neighboring cells, urging the prisoners to be

steadfast in their law; they denounced him and he made no secret of it,

confessing freely what he had done. It was a mercy of God, we are told,

that his prolonged fast had rendered him deaf, or he would have learned

much from them of what had been going on.

The tribunal was so preoccupied, with the numerous trials on foot at

the time, that Maldonado was left undisturbed, awaiting the general auto

that was to follow. We hear nothing more until, after an interval of

four years, a thirteenth conference was held at his request, November

12, 1638. It was as fruitless as its predecessors and, at its

conclusion, he produced two books (each of them of more than a hundred

leaves), made with marvellous ingenuity out of scraps of paper and

written with ink made of charcoal and pens cut out of egg-shells with a

knife fashioned from a nail, which he said he delivered up for the

discharge of his conscience. Then on December 9th and 10th were held two

more conferences in which his pertinacity remained unshaken. The long

tragedy was now drawing to an end after an imprisonment which had lasted

for nearly thirteen years. He was brought out in the great auto of

January 23, 1639, where, when the sentences of relaxation were read, a

sudden whirlwind tore away the awning and, looking up, he exclaimed “The

God of Israel does this to look upon me face to face!” He was

unshrinking to the last and was burnt alive a true martyr to his faith.

His two paper books were hung around his neck to burn with him and

assist in burning him.[724]

This auto of 1639, the greatest that had as yet been held in the New

World, was the culmination of the “complicidad grande”--the name given

by the inquisitors to a number of Judaizers whom they had discovered. As

they described the situation, in a report of 1636, large numbers of

Portuguese had entered the kingdom by way of Buenos Ayres, Brazil,

Mexico, Granada and Puerto Bello, thus increasing the already numerous

bands of their compatriots. They became masters of the commerce of the

kingdom; from brocade to sack-cloth, from diamonds to cumin-seed,

everything passed through their hands; the Castilian who had not a

Portuguese partner could look for no success in trade. They would buy

the cargoes of whole fleets with the fictitious credits which they

exchanged, thus rendering capital unnecessary, and would distribute the

merchandise throughout the land by their agents, who were likewise

Portuguese, and their capacity developed until, in 1634, they negotiated

for the farming of the royal customs.

In August, 1634, Joan de Salazar, a merchant, denounced to the

Inquisition Antonio Cordero, clerk of a trader from Seville, because he

refused to make a sale on a Saturday. On another occasion, going to his

store on a Friday morning, he found Cordero breakfasting on a piece of

bread and an apple and, on asking him whether he had not better take a

rasher of bacon, Cordero replied “Must I eat what my father and

grandfather never ate?” The evidence was weak and no immediate action

was taken, but, in October, the commissioners were instructed secretly

to ascertain and report the number of Portuguese in their several

districts. The matter rested and, as nothing new was developed, in

March, 1635, the evidence against Cordero was laid before a consulta de

fe and it was resolved to arrest him secretly, without sequestration, so

that the hand of the Inquisition might not be apparent. Bartolomé de

Larrea, a familiar, called on him, April 2d, under pretence of settling

an account, and locked him in a room; a sedan-chair was brought, and he

was conveyed to the secret prison. His disappearance excited much talk

and he was supposed to have fled, for the supposition of arrest by the

Inquisition was scouted, seeing that there had not been sequestration.

Cordero confessed at once that he was a Jew and, under torture,

implicated his employer and two others. These were arrested on May 11th

and the free employment of torture obtained the names of numerous

accomplices. The prisons were full and to empty them an auto in the

chapel was hurriedly arranged and preparations were made for the hasty

construction of additional cells. On August 11th, between 12.30 and 2

o’clock, seventeen arrests were made, so quietly and simultaneously that

it was all effected before the people were conscious of it. These were

among the most prominent citizens and greatest merchants of Lima, and

we are told that the impression produced on the community was like the

Day of Judgement. Torture and inquisitorial methods elicited further

information resulting in additional arrests; the affrighted Portuguese

began to scatter and, at the request of the tribunal, the Viceroy

Chinchon prohibited for a year any one to leave Peru without its

licence.

Up to May 16, 1636, the date of a report made to the Suprema, there had

been eighty-one arrests; there was evidence against eighty more but, for

lack of prison accommodation, their seizure was postponed. The old

prison had sixteen cells, nineteen new ones had been constructed, then

an adjoining house was bought and seventeen more were fitted up in it.

This influx of wealthy prisoners put the fidelity of the gaolers to a

strain which it could not stand. The old alcaide, Bartolomé de Pradeda,

excited suspicion by buying property beyond his legitimate means; he was

investigated and found to be selling favors to those under his charge,

revealing secrets, permitting communications and the like. He deserved

severe punishment but, in view of his twenty years of service, his seven

children and his infirm health, he was allowed to ask permission to

retire to his country place. He was replaced by Diego de Vargas, who

soon had to be dismissed for the same reasons. Joseph Freile was

appointed assistant, but was soon found guilty of similar offences and

was sent to the galleys. His successor was Benito Rodríguez, who

likewise succumbed to temptation, but he was a familiar and was only

dropped. Another was Francisco Hurtado de Valcázar, who subsequently

appeared in an auto for the same reasons.

One matter which vexed the souls of the inquisitors was the effort made

by the threatened Portuguese to hide their property from sequestration.

A proclamation was issued, ordering all who knew of such matters to

reveal them within nine days under pain of excommunication and other

penalties. This was successful to some extent, but the difficulties in

the way were illustrated in the case of Enrique de Paz, for whom Melchor

de los Reies secreted much silver, jewels and merchandise. Among other

things he deposited with his friend Don Dionisio Manrique, Knight of

Santiago, senior alcalde de corte and a consultor of the tribunal, a

quantity of silver and some fifty or sixty pieces of rich silks.

Manrique did not deny receiving them, but said that the same night

Melchor ordered them taken away by a young man who was a stranger to

him. The inquisitors evidently disbelieved the story; they reported that

they had unsuccessfully tried friendly methods with Manrique and asked

the Suprema for instructions.

The sequestration of so much property brought all trade to a stand-still

and produced indescribable confusion, aggravated, in 1635, by the

consequent failure of the bank. The men arrested had nearly all the

trade of the colony in their hands; they were involved in an infinity of

complicated transactions and suits sprang up on all sides. Creditors and

suitors pressed their claims desperately, fearing that with delay

witnesses might disappear, in the widening circle of arrests. There were

many suits pending already in the Audiencia which were claimed by the

tribunal and surrendered to it. It was puzzled by the new business thus

thrown upon it; to a suit there had to be two parties, but the prisoners

could not plead, so it appointed Manuel de Monte Alegre as their

“defensor” to appear for them, and it went on hearing and deciding

complicated civil suits while conducting the prosecutions for heresy.

Mondays and Thursdays were assigned for civil business, and every

afternoon, from 3 P.M. until dark, was devoted to examination of

documents. The inquisitors claimed that they pushed forward strenuously

in settling accounts and paying debts, for otherwise all commerce would

be destroyed to the irreparable damage of the Republic, which was

already exhausted in so many ways. This did not suit the Suprema, which,

by letters of October 22d and November 9, 1635, forbade the surrender of

any sequestrated or confiscated property, no matter what evidence was

produced of ownership or claims, without first consulting it. This

exacting payment of all debts and postponing payment of claims

threatened general bankruptcy when the rich merchants were arrested, for

their aggregate liabilities amounted to eight hundred thousand pesos,

which was estimated as equal to the whole capital of Lima. To avert

this, some payments were made, but only on the strength of competent

security being furnished.

In the excitement of the hour and the mad rush for arresting everybody

who might be an apostate, much injustice was committed which aggravated

the confusion. Thus on May 8, 1636, Santiago del Castillo, was arrested,

a merchant whose licence to sail for Spain was to be signed that

afternoon. With him were seized fifty-five bars of silver and ten

thousand pesos in coin; he was administrator of customs and it was

reckoned fortunate that over thirty thousand pesos belonging to the king

had been handed over so that it could be sent by the fleet. He was

receiver in the bankruptcy of Joan de la Queba, and as such held about

seven thousand pesos which were given to Judge Martin de Arriola to be

apportioned among eight hundred creditors. Castillo’s estate was large

but he was involved in suits, besides holding considerable property

belonging to others, and claims began at once to be presented. All this

was wholly superfluous, for on October 23, 1637, he was discharged as

innocent and the sequestration was lifted. Alonso Sánchez Chaparro was

liberated, February 9, 1637, and more than sixty thousand pesos were

returned to him. There were several other acquittals, and a number of

cases were suspended involving the release of large sums which ought

never to have been tied up.

Meanwhile the trials of the accused were pushed forward as rapidly as

the perplexities of the situation admitted. Torture was not spared.

Murcia de Luna, a woman of 27, died under it. Antonio de Acuña was

subjected to it for three hours and, when he was carried out, Alcaide

Pradeda described his arms as being torn to pieces. Progress was

impeded, however, by the devices of the prisoners, who were in hopes

that influences at work in Spain would secure a general pardon like that

of 1604. With this object they revoked their confessions and their

accusations of each other, giving rise to endless complications. Some of

the latter revocations, however, were genuine and were adhered to, even

through the torture which was freely used in these cases. Besides this,

to cast doubt on the whole affair, they accused the innocent and even

Old Christians, which accounts for the acquittals mentioned above. The

inquisitors add that they abstained in many cases from making arrests,

when the testimony was insufficient and the parties were not Portuguese.

The tribunal was manned with four inquisitors, who struggled resolutely

through this complicated mass of business, and at length were ready to

make public the results of their labors in the auto of January 23, 1639.

This was celebrated with unexampled pomp and ostentation, for now money

was abundant and the opportunity of making an impression on the popular

mind was not to be lost. During the previous night, when their sentences

were made known to those who were to be relaxed, two of them, Enrique de

Paz and Manuel de Espinosa, professed conversion; the inquisitors came

and examined them, a consulta was assembled and they were admitted to

reconciliation. There was great rivalry among men of position for the

honor of accompanying the penitents and Don Salvadoro Velázquez, one of

the principal Indians, _sargento mayor_ of the Indian militia, begged to

be allowed to carry one of the effigies, which he did in resplendent

uniform. Conspicuous in a place of honor in the procession were the

seven who had been acquitted, richly dressed, mounted on white horses

and carrying palms of victory.

Besides the Judaizers there were a bigamist and five women penanced for

sorcery. There was also the alcaide’s assistant Valcázar, who was

deprived of his familiarship and was exiled for four years. Juan de

Canelas Albarran, the occupant of a house adjoining the prison, who had

permitted an opening through the walls for communications, received a

hundred lashes and five years of exile, and Ana María González, who was

concerned in the matter, had also a hundred lashes and four years of

exile.

Of the Judaizers there were seven who escaped with abjuration _de

vehementi_, various penalties and fines aggregating eight hundred pesos.

There were forty-four reconciled with punishments varied according to

their deserts. Those who had confessed readily as to themselves and

others were let off with confiscation and deportation to Spain. Those

who prevaricated or gave trouble had, in addition, lashes or galleys or

both. Of these there were twenty-one, the aggregate lashes amounting to

four thousand and the years of galleys to a hundred and six, besides two

condemnations for life. In addition to these were the mother of the

Murcia de Luna who died under torture, Doña Mayor de Luna, a woman of

high social position, and her daughter Doña Isabel de Luna, a girl of

18, who, for endeavoring to communicate with each other in prison, were

sentenced to a hundred lashes through the streets, naked from the waist

up. There was also one reconciliation in effigy of a culprit who had

died in prison.

There were eleven relaxations in person and the effigy of one who had

committed suicide during trial. Of the eleven, seven are said to have

died pertinacious and impenitent and therefore presumably were burnt

alive, true martyrs to their belief. Of these there were two especially

notable--Maldonado whose case has been mentioned above, and Manuel

Bautista Pérez. The latter was the leader and chief among the

Portuguese, who styled him the _capitan grande_. He was the greatest

merchant in Lima and his fortune was popularly estimated at half a

million pesos. It was in his house that were held the secret meetings in

which he joined in the learned theological discussions, but outwardly he

was a zealous Christian and had priests to educate his children; he was

greatly esteemed by the clergy who dedicated to him their literary

effusions in terms of the warmest adulation. He owned rich silver mines

in Huarochiri and two extensive plantations; his confiscated house has

since been known as the _casa de Pilatos_, and his ostentatious mode of

life may be judged by the fact that when his carriage was sold by the

tribunal it fetched thirty-four hundred pesos. He had endeavored to

commit suicide by stabbing himself, but he never faltered at the end.

He listened proudly to his sentence and died impenitent, telling the

executioner to do his duty. There was one other prisoner who did not

appear. Enrique Jorje Tavares, a youth of 18, was among those arrested

in August, 1635. He denied under torture and after various alternations

became permanently insane, for which reason his case was suspended in

1639.

The next day the mob of Lima enjoyed the further sensation of the

scourging through the streets. These exhibitions always attracted a

large crowd, in which there were many horsemen who thus had a better

view, while boys commonly pelted the bigamists and sorceresses who were

the usual patients. On this occasion the tribunal issued a proclamation

forbidding horses or carriages in the streets through which the

procession passed, and any pelting of the penitents under pain, for

Spaniards, of banishment to Chile, and for Indians and negroes, of a

hundred lashes. There were twenty-nine sufferers in all; they were

marched in squads of ten, guarded by soldiers and familiars, while the

executioners plied the scourges, and the brutalizing spectacle passed

off without disturbance, and with the pious wish of the tribunal that it

would please God to make it serve as a warning.[725]

The holocaust had been duly offered to a Savior of love and mercy; the

martyrs had sealed in flame and torment their adherence to the Ancient

Faith, and the mob had had its spectacle. Satisfied with the results of

their pious labors for the greater glory of God, the inquisitors calmly

went forward to gather in the gleanings from the ruined commerce and

industry of the kingdom, to retain what they could for themselves and to

account for as little as they might to their superiors. The process was

long and complex and it was years before all the tangled skeins were

ravelled out, and the clamorous creditors of the victims had their

claims satisfied or rejected.

There were still some remnants of the hated Portuguese to be dealt with.

After the auto, seven cases, which had been pending for three years or

more, were suspended, followed, in 1639 and 1640, by others of

reconciliation or suspension. In 1641 there was an auto, November 17th,

in which three Judaizers were reconciled and seven others sentenced to

confiscation and a hundred lashes apiece. There still remained of the

“complicidad grande” Manuel Henríquez, who had been arrested in

December, 1635, and had confessed under torture, after which he revoked,

and several extravagances led to his being thought crazy, but in 1647 he

was condemned to the stake. The tribunal however waited for other

victims to justify the expense of an auto and, in 1656, he was still

lingering in prison; he was not burnt until 1664 in company with the

effigy of Murcia de Luna, the victim of torture. The Inquisition, in

fact, had passed its apogee and had become inert as its wealth

increased. In 1648 it reported that its only prisoner was Manuel

Henríquez, who was awaiting the execution of his sentence.[726]

This was not because the Portuguese had been exterminated. They were

still numerous, although the revolt of Portugal, in 1640, had rendered

them, if not as yet foreigners, at least citizens whose loyalty might

well be suspect. Political as well as religious motives may therefore be

ascribed to the action of the Viceroy Pedro de Toledo, Marquis of

Mancera, at the instance of the Audiencia, under impulsion of the

tribunal, when, in 1646, he issued an edict that all Portuguese should

present themselves with their arms and should leave the country. More

than six thousand are said to have come forward and by payment of a

large sum to have obtained a revocation of the measure--a venal

transaction which formed the basis of one of the accusations brought

against Mancera in the _residencia_ or customary investigation at the

close of his term of office.[727]

Either the tribunal had become too indolent for active work, or the

Portuguese population had been cowed into sincere acceptance of

Catholicism, for we hear little subsequently of Judaism. It was not that

sensitiveness to Jewish observances had decreased, for in 1666 Juan Leon

Cisneros was accused of buying scaleless fish on Fridays and of not

sending his children to school on the Sabbath, for which suspicious

actions he was sentenced to abjuration.[728] From that time there is a

long interval and even the ferocious recrudescence of persecution in

Spain, during the first third of the eighteenth century, awoke but a

feeble echo in Peru.

The next two cases that present themselves are highly significant of

inquisitorial methods. About 1720 Alvaro Rodríguez was prosecuted for

Judaism but died in prison and his case was never concluded. Still his

sequestrated property, amounting to fourteen thousand pesos, was

remitted to the Suprema, although the Inquisition had no claim on it,

for he had left no relatives in Peru and Philip V had ordered the

seizure of all Portuguese property as a measure of retaliation in the

relations between the two countries. The other case was that of Don

Teodoro Candioti, a Levantine Christian, who had married in Lima. He was

arrested, probably somewhat before 1722, on suspicion of Judaism arising

from his keeping the day before Christmas as a fast, according to the

custom of his country. He had also said that St. Moses was a great saint

and as such was venerated in his land. There was some talk of his being

circumcised, but this was unfounded. He died in prison, May 19, 1726,

making a most Christian end and saying that salvation was to be had by

keeping the law of God, through the grace of Jesus Christ. His body was

thrust into one of the graves of the tribunal but the Suprema ordered,

November 24, 1728, that his bones should be secretly transferred and

buried with Christian rites in the parish church and that an entry be

made in the parish register of his burial as of the day of his death,

without stating that he had died in prison, and further that a

certificate of no disability be given to his widow and children,

including capacity to hold offices in the Inquisition. Evidently the

falsification of church records was a matter of course when the

injustice of the Inquisition was to be concealed. The tribunal itself

had still less scruple. It replied, August 26, 1729, that it had

already, on December 23, 1727, reported the translation of the remains

to the church of the Dominican college of St. Thomas; another exhumation

seemed unnecessary, but it had had the required entry made in the parish

register. The widow had presented the genealogies of her two sons, Don

Antonio and Don Juan Candioti, asking that they be made familiars and,

as the viceroy was much interested in the family, the request had been

granted.[729] This case brings before us one of the deplorable results

of the system of secrecy; a husband and father disappears into the

prison; he dies, and his family only learn his fate after seven years of

suspense.

A more flagrant case was that of Doña Ana de Castro, a married woman of

good social position but of dubious character, as she was reported to

have sold her favors to one of the viceroys and to many of the rich

colonial nobles. Accused of Judaism, she persistently denied; when, in

1731, her case was reported to the Suprema, she had been voted to

relaxation with preliminary torture, to which the Suprema replied,

February 4, 1732, that if the torture and efforts of the theologians did

not bring repentance, the sentence was to be executed, but, if she

confessed and gave signs of repentance, she was to be reconciled. She

was held until the solemn public auto of December 23, 1736, when she was

relaxed to the secular arm as a Judaizing Jew, convicted, negative and

pertinacious. On her way to the brasero she is said to have shed tears,

but the alguazil mayor paid no attention to them and she was duly

burnt--probably without preliminary strangulation. All, apparently, was

in accordance with routine procedure but, when the records came to be

investigated in the visitation of Arenaza, Amusquíbar reported that the

day before the auto she sought two audiences; no record was made of

what occurred, but there could be no doubt that she confessed more than

enough to entitle her to reconciliation; even if she did not entirely

satisfy the evidence, what more could be expected of a poor woman in

such agitation of mind and ignorant of the trap laid for her by

Calderon, who acted as fiscal? The printed official account of the auto

rather superfluously recites how she was notified of her sentence at ten

o’clock of December 21st, after which two theologians, relieved every

hour until 6 A.M. of December 23d, labored vainly to induce her to

confess and to return to the faith. Amusquíbar, on the contrary, states

that there was no record that she was notified of the sentence; that the

book of votes did not contain such a sentence and that, even if there

was one, it was invalid in consequence of the absence of the Ordinary;

moreover that, in spite of her confessions, no new consulta de fe was

summoned to consider them. Altogether, if Amusquíbar is to be believed,

it was a cold-blooded judicial murder contrived, like the burning of

Ulloa in effigy, for the purpose of rendering more impressive the

spectacle of the auto de fe. In the same auto there was a reconciliation

in effigy of Pedro Núñez de la Haba, a Judaizer of Valdivia, who had

escaped from prison after his case was finished. If recaptured he was to

be confined in the castle of Chagre, until he could be sent to the

penitential prison of Seville, and was to have two hundred lashes for

his flight. A small _auto particular_ followed, November 11, 1737, in

which Juan Antonio Pereyra, a Portuguese, was sentenced to abjure _de

vehementi_, two hundred lashes, ten years of presidio at Valdivia and

half confiscation.[730]

These are the only cases of Judaism recorded at this period and if the

number is so scanty this must be attributed to the lack of Judaizers and

not to indifference of the tribunal. How ready it was to prosecute is

exhibited in the next case, that of Don Juan de Loyola y Haro, a scion

of the family of St. Ignatius and an elderly gentleman of high

consideration. He was arrested, July 9, 1743, on a charge of Judaism

based on the flimsiest testimony of a negro slave. Other evidence was

gathered, but with it the commissioner of Ica wrote that the current

belief regarded it as a conspiracy on the part of his slaves, and that

this had been confessed by one of the witnesses when dying. In spite of

this his trial continued, nor was he released when, in February, 1745,

the four false witnesses were arrested. He fell sick; in July he was

transferred to a convent, where he died, December 27th of the same year,

and was secretly buried in the chapel of S. María Magdalena. Evidently

his family were kept in ignorance until an auto was held October 19,

1749, when the witnesses were punished and a great parade was made of

the equity of the tribunal. His effigy was carried in procession,

bearing in one hand a palm-branch and in the other a gold baton

symbolical of his military rank as maestre de campo. His acquittal was

read, empowering his brothers to carry the effigy around the town on a

white horse, to exhume the remains and bury them where he had indicated

on his death-bed, and certificates were granted to them that his

imprisonment inflicted no disabilities on his kindred. On the next day

the procession of the white horse took place with much pomp and

circumstance. The Suprema, on reviewing the report, pronounced the whole

proceedings to be vicious from the start and destitute of all the

safeguards provided against injustice.[731] It is perhaps worth noting

that most of it occurred after Calderon and Unda had been superseded by

Arenaza and Amusquíbar. With this the formal persecution of Judaism in

Peru comes to an end, except that, in 1774, the tribunal wrote to the

Suprema that the only cases then pending were thirteen for Judaizing,

but that they had no basis.[732]

* * * * *

With regard to the general character of the punishments inflicted it may

be remarked that they vary capriciously, in accordance doubtless with

the temper of the inquisitors, whose discretion had few limits. In the

earlier days there would seem to be a tendency to greater rigor than

that customary in Spain. In the auto of 1578 the sentences, as a rule,

are exceedingly severe.[733] When Judaism came to be conspicuous, the

penalties which we have seen inflicted were very similar to those

imposed for the same offence by the home tribunals. As the galleys went

out of fashion and were replaced by forced labor in the presidios, the

principal destination to which culprits were sent was Valdivia, though

occasionally they were assigned to Callao, Chagre or other ports where

fortifications were under construction. Scourging, as in Spain, was a

favorite resort, without distinction of sex. We have seen how ruthlessly

it was employed in the great auto of 1639 and this continued as long as

the tribunal was active. In the auto of 1736 there were sixteen

sentences of two hundred lashes, half of them on women, for bigamy,

sorcery and other similar offences. In that of 1737 there were only nine

penitents, five of them being women; all of them were sentenced to two

hundred lashes apiece, but this was remitted in the case of one of the

men.[734] In addition to the suffering, there was the severest of

humiliations for those sensitive to shame. The so-called penitents were

marched in procession through the streets, naked from the waist up, with

insignia or inscriptions denoting their offences, while the executioner

plied the lash. The assembled mob was in the habit of manifesting its

piety by stoning the poor wretches, to repress which the tribunal

occasionally issued a proclamation, such as we have seen in 1639.

Similarly, before the auto of October 19, 1749, it forbade the throwing

of stones, apples, oranges or other missiles at the penitents, under

pain of a hundred pesos for Spaniards and ten pesos with four days of

prison for others.[735] Although there are frequent sentences to

imprisonment for longer or shorter terms, there is no allusion anywhere

to a _casa de la misericordia_ or _de la penitencia_, as it was called

in Spain, in which the penitents could perform their penance.

Occasional instances in which they are ordered to be shipped to the home

country renders it probable that this was the usual recourse in such

cases. Exile was a frequent penalty, sometimes to a designated place,

but more frequently from certain cities or districts, where the culprit

had committed offences; when this happened to be his native home, where

his trade or profession was established, it might be a most severe

infliction, depriving him of his means of livelihood; when the culprit

was a vagrant or an old sorceress it mattered little.

The inexplicable inconsistency in the adjudgement of penalties, when

gauged by any rational standard, can best be understood by the contrast

in a few cases. The tenderness displayed towards the abuse of the

confessional has already been alluded to. The same is seen in some of

the sentences for crimes of a still more serious character. Thus in the

auto of July 12, 1733, Sebastiana de Figueroa, a mestiza aged 60, for

sorceries including adoration of the demon and causing sickness and

deaths, offences for which in a secular tribunal she would have been

executed without mercy, yet escaped with abjuration _de vehementi_, half

confiscation, two hundred lashes (which were remitted) and four years of

exile to a designated place.[736] In the auto of 1736, María Josepha

Canga, a free negress, who had made her husband insane with sorceries

and herbs, so as to have freedom for adultery, merely abjured _de levi_,

with four years’ service in the hospital of San Bartolomé. In the same

auto, Juan González de Ribera, a mestizo, had gone to the Indians,

adopted their ways, professed their religion and, worst of all, had

induced several Spaniards to do the same, in addition to which he had

taken three wives. He was thus a dogmatizer and was condemned as a

bigamist, idolater, sorcerer and diviner, and yet he merely abjured _de

vehementi_ and had three years hard labor on an island off Callao.[737]

With this ill-judged mercy may be contrasted the case of François Moyen,

a Frenchman of varied talents and wide culture, skilled as an artist

and musician, whose evil fortune threw him upon the tender mercies of

Amusquíbar. Born in 1720, he led a somewhat adventurous life; that he

was a believing Catholic is seen in a vow of pilgrimage to Compostela,

made during danger in a voyage--a vow which he duly performed in 1739,

during a residence in Lisbon. In 1746 he sailed from there to Rio de

Janeiro, with the Count de las Torres, who had important business in

Chile. At Buenos Ayres they parted, the count hastening across the

Pampas, while Moyen tarried there for awhile, his vivacity and his

accomplishments rendering him a general favorite. During his stay he

again manifested his devoutness by performing the spiritual exercises of

St. Ignatius. About the middle of 1748, at the request of the count, who

had gone to Lima, he started to rejoin him by way of Potosí, in company

of a band of traders. With light-hearted carelessness, he talked freely,

in the confidence of the road and the bivouac; as a Frenchman of the

Gallican school and accustomed to the freedom of speech in Paris, he

said much that he had better have left unsaid, with a singular

imprudence in view of his acquaintance with the methods of the

Portuguese Inquisition, his criticism of which formed one of the counts

in his indictment.

He became an object of suspicion to his companions, especially to a

Gallego named José Antonio Soto. Potosí was reached March 27, 1749,

where a considerable stay was made, during which Moyen expended four

pesos in masses. Two days after arrival, Soto denounced him to the

commissioner José de Ligaraza Beaumont y Navarra, who secretly summoned

the other travellers and muleteers, and gathered testimony swelling the

_sumaria_ to some two hundred pages. It was loose and thoughtless talk

capable in the hands of the inquisitorial theologians of deductions most

damaging--predestination in its most absolute form, polygamy

justifiable, marriage not a sacrament; masses, prayers and indulgences

were useless to souls in purgatory; limbo and purgatory were doubtful;

the pope was not the head of the Church and had no power to bind or to

loose; councils were superior to popes; it was wrong to condemn people

for lack of knowledge of the son of a carpenter, and much more of the

same kind. The ingenuity of the calificadores, in fact, injected heresy

into the simplest remarks. When he reproved a muleteer for abusing a

mule and said that it was a creature of God, this was held to prove that

he was a Manichean. One brilliant night, looking at the stars, he

observed that their multitude was superfluous, thus assuming that God

had erred in creation, which was heretical blasphemy, constituting him

an heretical blasphemer. A criticism of the luxury of the clergy, with a

reference to the poverty of the Apostles, showed him to be a

Wickliffite.

Commissioner Ligaraza assembled a consulta, which voted for the arrest

of so dangerous a heretic. It was executed May 14th and he was

imprisoned in chains. At first he was kept _incomunicado_, but

subsequently visitors were admitted who provoked him to risky

discussions and then gave evidence against him, in which, among other

matters, a debate on the Eucharist told heavily against him. He became

an epileptic and suffered frightfully from his chains and the cold

climate. The commissioner had no funds for his maintenance; he

endeavored to support himself by painting, but this was insufficient and

his only solace, his violin, was taken and sold, reducing him to such

despair that he attempted suicide. The commissioner was in no haste and

did not report the arrest until June 9th nor transmit the evidence until

December. On May 9, 11 and 12, 1750, the tribunal extracted from it

forty-four heretical propositions and ordered Moyen’s transfer to Lima.

This journey, which commenced July 12th, consumed two years. Moyen’s

health had been wrecked in his confinement and his epileptic fits

recurred almost daily. Several times he nearly died; at Chuquito he

received the viaticum. It was not until April, 1751, that Cuzco was

reached, when he chanced to interest a lawyer named Tomas de Lecaros,

who entered security for him and carried him to Arequipa, in vain search

for improvement. There he met an English hatter named William--a good

Catholic who attended mass daily--who counselled hypocrisy and silence

about religious matters in a land where there was an Inquisition. Moyen

chanced to mention this in his examinations; the Englishman was arrested

and ruined.

On the return to Cuzco; a halt was made at Urcos, eight leagues distant.

Amusquíbar, on September 14, 1751, called for his appearance within two

months; the commissioner of Cuzco sent his notary, when Moyen drew a

dagger and attempted resistance but was overpowered. Some three months

later Fray Juan de San Miguel wrote to the tribunal that Moyen was

hardened in his heresies and scattered them freely around Cuzco. That

place was left, January 29, 1752, fortunately prior to the reception of

an order from Amusquíbar to forward him in chains. March 26th he was

delivered to the tribunal, broken and prematurely old with the

sufferings of these three preliminary years of his trial.

Proceedings dragged on with the customary delays. The accusation,

presented October 13th, represented him as a formal and pertinacious

heretic and a follower of the sects of Luther, Calvin, Jansen, Quesnel,

Manichee and Mahomet, besides being strongly suspect of Judaism.

Discussion over these articles lasted until May 18, 1753, when he

professed profound repentance for having discussed religious matters and

begged for mercy. During the prolonged delays which ensued his

sufferings in the prison were severe--in themselves an excessive

punishment for reckless speech. Besides his continual epileptic fits,

his feet were eaten up by chigoes; his chains chafed his ankles into

sores, which threatened gangrene of one leg, and when, to avert this, on

November 13th, the alcaide was directed to remove one of the shackles,

the other was left on. In spite of this he made several attempts to

escape--once by endeavoring to set fire to the door of his cell with the

candle allowed to him at night, whereupon he was deprived of it. Again

he succeeded in reaching the house of the Count of las Torres, only to

be remanded, and on a third effort his plans were betrayed by a prisoner

in an adjoining cell.

Two years were consumed in sending the evidence to Potosí for

ratification and awaiting its return, although at first it had been

ratified _ad perpetuam_. It was not received until April, 1755, and then

its publication was delayed until September 3d. After this followed the

customary examinations on the evidence, which were prolonged until March

14, 1758--a delay largely caused by Moyen’s constant epileptic attacks.

His counsel did not present the defence until November 8, 1759, and then

the consulta de fe was not assembled until January 15, 1761. It

considered the case until February 14th, when the definitive vote was

taken, under a protest that torture was not ordered in view of the

weakened condition of the accused. The sentence finally was published in

the auto of the following April 5th. It condemned him to abjure _de

vehementi_, to ten years’ forced labor in an African presidio (Oran,

Ceuta or Melilla), or in the penitential prison of Seville, as the

inquisitor-general might prefer, and to two hundred lashes, which were

commuted to vergüenza in consideration of his infirmities. The

humiliating parade of the vergüenza through the streets of Lima was duly

performed the next day; on the 11th he was shipped in irons by the

galleon San Juan Bautista, reaching Cádiz in November; in December he

was sent to Seville to which the African presidio was commuted. No

consideration seems to have been given to the sufferings of the thirteen

years of imprisonment since his arrest, nor to the wreck of a joyous and

promising life for a few inconsiderate utterances.

Amusquíbar sought to justify the excessive delays of the trial by the

quarrels in which he was involved, by his own sickness and that of the

accused, but the Suprema did not accept these excuses and replied that

the ten years intervening between the receipt of the prisoner and the

sentence was an excessive delay and grave omission of the tribunal.[738]

There was in all this no special malignity; it was simply the habitual

application of the system with callous indifference as to the results to

the accused.

Not the least important function of the Inquisition was the censorship

of the press. Although in Spain this was reserved to the Suprema, and

the tribunals could only refer to it books which they regarded as

suspect, distance rendered independent action necessary in the colonies.

From an early period the Lima tribunal examined books and prohibited

such as it saw fit. The importation of printed matter was also, as in

Spain, subject to its supervision. The original instructions, borne by

Cerezuela, enjoined special watchfulness by the commissioners at the

seaports, to prevent the introduction of all works that were on the

Index. To insure this, at first no books were admitted except through

Callao, and the commissioner at Panamá was required to keep a close

watch on everything destined for that point. Nothing could be shipped

from there without his licence, nor could any package be opened except

in his presence. The same vigilance was exercised at Callao, and all

books were sent to Fray Juan de Almaraz, Prior of San Agustin, for

examination. As the settlement and commerce of Buenos Ayres developed,

similar precautions were observed there. There was always a haunting

dread of the efforts attributed to the Protestants to smuggle heretic

books into the land. In 1605 there was a scare of this kind, based on

rumors that ships from Lisbon manned by Flemings were bringing such

works in casks purporting to contain wine or salt, and special orders

were issued to the commissioner to be doubly watchful.[739] As in Spain,

this system was a serious impediment to trade, and led not infrequently

to collisions with the secular authorities. It required that all ships

on arrival should be visited by the commissioner before any passenger or

merchandise was landed, and that the latter, when brought on shore,

should be opened in his presence and be minutely inspected.

Even so high an ecclesiastical dignitary as the Archbishop of Lima was

not exempt from the censorship of the tribunal. We have seen how

Amusquíbar used this power for the humiliation of Archbishop Barroeta,

nor was this the only instance. Juan de Almoguera, who was archbishop

from 1674 to 1676, while yet Bishop of Arequipa, had been strongly

impressed with the dissolute lives of the priests among the Indians and,

in 1671, he published in Madrid a series of Instructions, which the

inquisitors held to be not only defamatory to the priests, but to

contain propositions adverse to the Holy See. The archbishop defended

himself by asserting that his doctrines were approved by the most

learned men of Peru, and that the facts which he cited were perfectly

true, for which he appealed to the testimony of the inquisitors

themselves. They admitted this, but nevertheless they caused the edict

of prohibition to be published everywhere.[740]

The reformatory legislation of Carlos III, from 1762 to 1768, limiting

the unrestricted control of the Inquisition over the prohibition of

books, was long in reaching Peru. In 1773 Viceroy Amat y Yunient says

that although he had not yet received the cédula of 1768 officially

through the Council of Indies, yet he defines its provisions as a guide.

It put in force the Constitution _Sollicita ac provida_ of Benedict XIV,

entitling authors to be heard in defence of their books; it prevented

the prohibition of books _ad interim_ until a final decision was

reached; where expurgations were ordered they were to be made known so

that owners could delete the objectionable passages, and all edicts were

to be submitted to the viceroy before publication.[741] The demand for

literature must have been greater than would be anticipated, for, in

1772, there was a discussion between the viceroy and the tribunal over

the proceedings in opening and examining 165 cases of books.[742]

At this period the censorship was exercised largely through the civil

authorities. February 28, 1787, the Viceroy Count de Croix reported to

the king the execution of his orders of 1785 in the suppression and

burning of certain books, the seizure of all copies that could be traced

to the possession of booksellers or of individuals, and the issue of an

edict prohibiting the printing of anything without a licence, even the

University not being permitted to publish the eulogies and addresses

customary on the arrival of a viceroy, or the Latin orations with which

the studies were annually opened. The Inquisition is only alluded to in

connection with the examination of importations, none being delivered

from the custom-house without preliminary inspection by the commissioner

of the tribunal, in connection with an appointee of the government.[743]

As in Spain, this censorship extended over morals as well as over

religion and politics. In 1796, Antonio Ortiz, the commissioner at

Buenos Ayres, was much exercised over certain wall-papers received from

Barcelona. Some of them had mythological figures, such as Hercules,

Venus and the like, which he considered intolerable. There was another

one representing the globe adorned with flowers and presided over by

Cupid with a lighted torch, as though to burn it with his impure fires,

all of which he was impelled to cut up into small pieces.[744] As we

have seen in Mexico, even ill-advised symbols of devotion were

prohibited. When, at the suppression in 1813, the building of the

Inquisition was entered, Stevenson describes seeing there among the mass

of prohibited books, a quantity of cotton handkerchiefs on which was

printed a figure of Religion with a chalice in one hand and a cross in

the other--a device which the manufacturer had fondly believed would

render them popular, without reflecting upon the desecration inseparable

from their use.[745]

From this time the principal work of the tribunal was in the enforcement

of the prohibition of literature regarded as dangerous to State or

Church. Camilo Henríquez, priest of the Padres Crucíferos de la Buena

Muerte, was a prominent object of persecution. In 1809 he was denounced

for reading prohibited books; his cell was searched without success, but

the accuser insisted and on a more minute investigation his mattress was

found to be stuffed with the dangerous material. He was arrested and, in

1810, was banished to Quito, but instead of obeying he joined the

insurgents of Chile and distinguished himself by supporting the

revolution in _La Aurora_, the periodical which he founded. Under the

Restoration, the tribunal had little real work to do except to issue

edicts prohibiting European periodicals, political pamphlets and other

productions in which it could discover opinions inimical to the

established order in politics and religion.[746]

* * * * *

In the turbulent atmosphere of the early nineteenth century, the

authority of the Inquisition naturally declined, especially as the

character of the inquisitors was so unfitted to inspire respect. Its

suppression by the decree of the Córtes of Cádiz, February 22, 1813, was

evidently seen in advance to be inevitable and was fatal to its

influence. Shortly before that decree was received Stevenson relates

that he was summoned before the tribunal, in consequence of a discussion

in a coffee-house with a Fray Bustamante, respecting the image of the

Madonna of the Rosary. If we may believe his story of the audience, he

treated the inquisitors with slender reverence and escaped with an

admonition to avoid religious disputes, and to bear in mind that in the

dominions of his Catholic Majesty all men were subject to the

Inquisition.[747] When the decree of suppression was published, he had

an opportunity of accompanying the first party that entered the

building, so long an object of universal dread. The prison cells were

all open and empty; he describes them as small but not uncomfortable. In

the audience-chamber, back of the judges’ dais, there hung on high a

life-sized image of Christ; its head was so arranged as to be movable by

a person secreted behind, on a signal from the inquisitor, producing a

profound impression on the awestruck culprit, who was denying his guilt.

From his description of the torture-room it would seem that the tortures

employed, though cruel enough, were less severe than those formerly in

use--the _cordeles_ and _jarras de agua_, the _mancuerda_, the

_trampazo_ and the _garrucha_. There was a rack on which the arms and

legs could be stretched; a kind of pillory for scourging with scourges,

some of which were of wire chains with sharp points; “tormentors” of

netted wire with points, arranged to fit the wrists or waists, the legs

or arms, and thumb-screws--a grisly collection, but less likely to

endanger life and limb than the older atrocities. The crowd which found

admittance carried off some of these as mementos and also some of the

records, but the archbishop the next day published an excommunication

against all who should not return what they had taken, and most of the

documents were restored.[748]

We have seen that the money found in the chest was taken by the

authorities and this of course was retained, but the salaries of the

officials were continued. The suspension was short-lived, ending with

the decree of July 21, 1814, re-establishing the Inquisition, when the

three inquisitors, Abarca, Zalduegui and Sobrino, resumed their places,

but the old awful authority could not be revived. They complained

bitterly of the viceroy, who showed himself, they said, hostile to the

re-establishment. He delayed issuing the decree, treated them with

discourtesy and refused to refund the money. They depicted the

deplorable condition of the tribunal, destitute of means to pay salaries

in arrears, or even to make arrests that had been resolved upon prior to

the suppression, while the buildings were dirty and out of repair.[749]

We can readily imagine that the progress of the War of Independence left

little leisure or disposition on the part of the authorities to listen

to their complaints. How completely decadent was their authority, is

seen in a letter from the Suprema ordering them to summon an Englishman

named John Robinson and point out to him that he had been admitted to

residence on condition of not talking about religion, or dogmatizing

against Catholicism, and they were moreover to seek an interview with

the viceroy, to ask his aid in restraining the man and to report the

result.[750] Times had changed since François Moyen was so inhumanly

persecuted for his loquacity.

Still, they were not without some remnants of authority. The University

of Lima had sent an address to the Córtes of Cádiz, congratulating it on

the decree of suppression. This was an offence not to be overlooked and,

April 7, 1815, the Suprema sent an order to dismiss all the signers of

the paper who held office under the tribunal. Accordingly, on October

29th, Fray Josef Recalde was summoned to surrender his vestment and

badge as a calificador. To this he replied, November 3d, with a

supplication not to expose him to such a dishonor; the paper had been

presented to him for signature by the beadle of the University, saying

that it was an act of obedience to the Córtes and he, being busy, had

signed it without reading it, as he was accustomed to do with the

numerous papers requiring his signature. On this Inquisitor-fiscal

Sobrino reported that Recalde only intensified his offence, and he

proceeded to accuse the University of misleading youth and allowing them

to read prohibited books, while Recalde’s statement only showed how

recklessly its members joined in anything resolved upon by the leaders.

Both papers were forwarded, December 13th, to the Suprema for its

judgement, but whether Recalde was reinstated does not appear from the

documents at hand.[751]

The officials continued to draw their salaries, but there is little

trace of their activity. The latest indication I have met of their

performance of duty is a letter from the Suprema, July 11, 1817, to the

tribunal of Logroño, asking for information to guide the tribunal of

Lima in a case of alleged bigamy on the part of Don Fernando Díaz, then

a resident of Cuzco.[752] In that same year a “voluntary” subscription

in aid of the government was organized, to which the contribution of

Inquisitor-fiscal Sobrino was niggardly, leading to his being

reprimanded from Madrid.[753] In 1819 the tribunal was reorganized. The

senior inquisitor Abarca was dead and Zalduegui was dean; he and Sobrino

were jubilated on one-quarter of their salaries and the tribunal

consisted of Cristóval de Ortegon as senior, Anselmo Pérez de la Canal

as junior and José Mariano de Larrea as fiscal.

Their term of office was short. The final decree of suppression, March

9, 1820, was long in reaching Peru, where it was not promulgated until

September 9th, with orders to communicate it to all the archbishops of

the district and to take the necessary steps for assuming possession of

the property. This was done decently and in order. On September 18th

Viceroy Pezuela ordered the intendant of the province, in concert with

the two regidores of Lima, to proceed in accordance with the decree of

February 22, 1813, to occupy the property, including its patronage and

pious foundations, and to make an exact inventory. This was followed,

September 20th, with instructions that at 8.30 A.M. of Friday, September

22d, possession should be taken, and the ex-dean was notified to be

ready in order that it should be executed with promptitude. At nine

o’clock on Saturday the intendant and the regidores met in the

Inquisition and made an inventory of all property found there. In

pursuance of Article 10 of the decree of 1813, the commission of three,

on September 28th, issued an order calling on the ex-receiver-general,

Carlos Lizon, for an authentic list of all the officials with their

salaries, so that the latter might be paid. This was superfluous; from

time immemorial the custom had been to pay all salaries in advance, in

instalments of four months. The inquisitors had providently taken care

of themselves and their subordinates and, on August 29th and September

1st, had issued orders on Receiver Lizon for the _tercio adelantado_,

commencing September 1st, so that he was able to exhibit the

corresponding receipts, amounting to 9472 pesos and a fraction,

indicating on annual pay-roll of 28,417 pesos.

That the inventory only showed a few items of volumes of records is

testimony of the completeness with which everything had been

appropriated. Although the work of the tribunal had shrunk almost to

nothingness, all the offices had been kept filled and the roster was as

complete as it had been in the period of the greatest activity.[754] It

is presumable that, as in Mexico, they went to Spain and were provided

for there.

* * * * *

The total amount of work accomplished is estimated by Medina as three

thousand cases tried, but this is probably too liberal an allowance. His

exhaustive researches have resulted only in an enumeration of 1474

cases.

These consist of--

Laymen 1126

Women 180

Secular clergy 101

Franciscans 49

Dominicans 34

Mercenarians 36

Augustinians 26

Jesuits 12

The offences prosecuted were

Propositions 140

Judaism 243

Moors 5

Protestants 65

Solicitation 109

Blasphemy 97

Sexual errors 40

Bigamy 297

Sorcery 172

Miscellaneous and not specified 306

For the 250 years of existence, the estimate of a total of 3000 cases

would make 12 per annum, or 1 per month, but in the first 20 years of

the tribunal the cases amounted to 1265, which would reduce the average

of the other 230 years to about 7-1/2, and it would be safe to assume

for the last century an average of not more than 3 or 4 a year.[755]

For this slender result, to say nothing of the large expenditure, the

colony was kept in a constant state of disquiet, the orderly course of

government was well-nigh impossible, intellectual, commercial and

industrial development were impeded, universal distrust of one’s

neighbor was commanded by ordinary prudence, and the population lived

with the sense of evil ever impending over the head of every one. That

there was any real danger to the faith in Peru is absurd. Possibly the

tribunal may have been of some service in repressing the prevalence of

bigamy among laymen and of solicitation among the clergy, but the fact

that these two offences remained to the last so prominent in its

calendar would show that it accomplished little. As regards sorcery and

superstitions, which pervaded all classes, in the mixed population of

Europeans, Indians, negroes and half-breeds, with an accumulation of

superstitious beliefs drawn from so many sources, the number of cases is

surprisingly small, especially as the exemption of Indians from

inquisitorial jurisdiction seems to have been disregarded in this

offence. In the repression of the practices which were regarded as

implying pact with the demon the Inquisition may be said to have

virtually accomplished nothing. It would be difficult to find, in the

annals of human misgovernment, a parallel case in which so little was

accomplished at so great a cost as by the Inquisition under Spanish

institutions.