Volume 2 / Book 6 — 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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).

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).

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 pœnitentiariæ 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 pœnis 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 pœnam salutarem et secretam, ac a vobis omnem infamiæ maculam omnesque alias juris pœnas etiam corporis afflictivas absolvat et totaliter remittat, et vos ad cœtum 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 pœnitentiariæ, 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:

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).

APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS

(In reales vellon).

—

Salary.Ayuda de costa.

Phelipe Muñoz,Inquisitor7352.341470.20

Also, Juez de Bienes1176.15—

Antonio Silvestre Espinosa, Inquisitor7352.341470.20

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)2352.30588.8

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)2352.30588.8

Pedro de Parraga y Bozaia, Secretary2352.30588.8

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 made Depositario de Pretendientes; in 1741 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)2352.30588.8

Antonio de Elgueta Vigil (Appointed secretary in 1717; in 1732 made receiver with salary of—. Is also jubilated secretary without salary)5955.30588.8

Francisco de Guzman (Appointed secretary in 1699, jubilated in 1716 with salary of)2944

Antonio Villafranca, Secretary (Appointed in 1744)2352.30588.8

Joseph Fernández de Lima, Abogado del Fisco294.4

Diego Fernández de Zengano, Secretary (Serving in Logroño by order of Suprema)2352.30588.8

Antonio de Arnuero, Secretary (Serving in Corte by order of Suprema)2352.30588.8

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 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 açotaziones2491.5

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 he prison of Familiars, without salary, except the house)1470.20

Phelipe García Conde, Portero de camara1470.20

Joseph de Elizondo, Alcaide of the penitential prison235.10

Alexandro Rosique, Procurator of the fisc235.10

Antonio Roche, surgeon235.10

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 CartagenaFray Balthasar de la Fuente

In AlbaceteFray Joseph Pedreno

In VillenaDr. Juan Alfonso Mellinaz

In MonforteDr. 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.

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).

MadridSevilleCordovaGranadaValladolidMurciaLlerenaCuencaLogroñoBarcelonaSantiago Valencia SaragossaMajorcaToledoCanaries

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

Secretaries1113 9 7 410 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 2 528 6 7 38 - -23

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

Calificadores -1619141217 - 5 226 3 40 2924 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

Totals2553614943593232367030118135543183

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.

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 Inqⁿ 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.

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 ofv 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).

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.

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.

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 544² (Libro 8).) (See p. 440).

Estado de las rentas, salarios y gastos de el consexo y tribunales de inquisicion de estos reynos.

Rentas corrientes.

Inquiciones Rentas de canongias y dos Pensiones Consignaciones para el Consejo. Rente de Juros corrientes Censos y Haciendas confiscadas. Total en Reales Vellon.

Consejo y Tribunal de Corte — 213,000. 95,695.9 92,396. 401,291.29

La de Toledo 42,348.7 — 1,719.18 4,506. 48,573.25

La de Logroño 41,646.3 — — 8,619.15 50,265.18

La de Cuenca 32,700. — 174. 22,373.9 55,247.9

La de Canarias 12,750. — 1,879. 22,531.23 37,160.26

La de Zaragoza 41,613.22 — 4,259.26 30,969.14 79,842.28

La de Barcelona 29,403. — — 18,952.8 48,355.8

La de Santiago 87,861.18 — — 5,236.8 93,097.26

La de Llerena 30,283.26 — 266.2 30,600. 61,149.28

La de Valladolid 48,724.5 — 6,000. 16,839. 71,573.5

La de Granada 15,530.18 — — 77,879. 93,409.18

La de Córdova 35,167.27 — 1,035.30 50,997. 87,200.23

La de Sevilla 43,976.23 — 5,846. 68,000. 117,822.23

La de Murcia. 42,783.9 — — 90,580. 133,363.9

La de Mallorca 25,449.24 — — 96,829.14 122,279.4

La de 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.

Inquisiciones Salarios. Gastos y Alimentos de Reos. Consignaziones que pagen al Consejo. Total de Cargas. Lo que falta á cada Tribunal. Lo que se esta deviendo á sus Ministros.

Consejo y Tribunal de Corte 678,816.4107,500. — 786,316.4385,024.9 546,437.5

La de Toledo 66,351.2 9,330. — 75,681.2 27,107.11 255,108.23

La de Logroño 51,224.14 9,000. — 60,224.14 9,958.30 122,930.

La de Cuenca 50,587. 8,500. — 59,087, 3,839.25 55,057.

La de Canarias 52,512. 7,500. — 60,012. 22,851.8 45,625.

La de Zaragoza 92,782.17 25,454.4 — 118,236.21 38,393.27 165,554.6

La de Barcelona 50,430. 8,699. — 39,129. 10,773.26 45,636.

La de Santiago 57,709.3 13,687. 18,000. 89,396.3 — —

La de Llerena 55,158. 9,900. — 65,058. 3,948.6 48,692.

La de Valladolid 66,543. 13,400. — 81,943. 10,379.29 37,875.

La de Granada 82,184.20 25,000. — 107,184.20 13,775.2 75,528.

La de Córdova 69,485. 17,500. 10,000. 96,985. 9,784.12 25,842.

La de Sevilla 73,650. 20,000. 20,000. 113,650. — —