Produced by Josep Cols Canals, Wayne Hammond and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)







[Transcriber's Note:

This project uses utf-8 encoded characters. If some characters are
not readable, check your settings of your browser to ensure you have a
default font installed that can display utf-8 characters.

Characters preceded by a caret {^} are superscript. If more than one
character is superscript, characters will be enclosed in  curly braces.

Italics delimited by underscores.]




TORQUEMADA




_UNIFORM CHEAPER EDITIONS OF_

RAFAEL SABATINI’S

_WONDERFUL ROMANCES_

_In Crown 8vo, Cloth, Coloured Wrappers, 3s. 6d. net each._


THE STROLLING SAINT

“No man writes historical romances so well as Mr. Sabatini.”--_Pall
Mall Gazelle._


THE LION’S SKIN

“A brilliantly clever story.”--_Evening Standard._


THE JUSTICE OF THE DUKE

“Wonderfully effective.”--_Westminster Gazette._


BARDELYS THE MAGNIFICENT

“Mr. Sabatini has no equal.”--_Newcastle Daily Chronicle._


THE GATES OF DOOM

“A clever story, well and amusingly told.”--_The Times._


_HISTORIES_


TORQUEMADA AND THE SPANISH INQUISITION

_Demy 8vo, 12s. 6d. net._

“Not only an extremely graphic and fascinating account of the
Inquisition, but also a serious contribution to the literature of the
subject. Holds us until the last page is turned of a book full of
enthralling interest.”--_Pall Mall Gazette._


THE LIFE OF CESARE BORGIA

_Demy 8vo, 12s. 6d. net._

“Mr. Sabatini has a lively and vigorous style.... As entertaining as it
is informing.”--_Daily Telegraph._


LONDON: STANLEY PAUL & CO

[Illustration:

  _Photo by Lacoste._

FREY TOMÁS DE TORQUEMADA.

From a Painting attributed to Miguel Zittoz.

  [_Frontispiece._]




  TORQUEMADA

  AND

  THE SPANISH INQUISITION

  A HISTORY

  BY RAFAEL SABATINI

  _Author of “The Life of Cesare Borgia,” “The Strolling
  Saint,” etc._


  ‘El fuego está encendido; quemará fasta que falle cabo al seco
      de la leña’

  ANDRÉS BERNALDEZ, _Historia de los Reyes Católicos, cap._ XIV.

  _With Sixteen Illustrations in Half-tone, including a Map_


  LONDON
  STANLEY PAUL & CO
  8 ENDSLEIGH GARDENS
  UPPER WOBURN PLACE, W.C.1




  _Printed in Great Britain by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld.,
  London and Aylesbury._




PREFACE


The history of Frey Tómas de Torquemada is the history of the
establishment of the Modern Inquisition. It is not so much the history
of a man as of an abstract genius presiding over a gigantic and cruel
engine of its own perfecting. Of this engine we may examine for
ourselves to-day the details of the complex machinery. Through the
records that survive we may observe its cold, smooth action, and trace
in this the awful intelligence of its architect. But of that architect
himself we are permitted to catch no more than an occasional and
fleeting glimpse. It is only in the rarest and briefest moments that he
stands clearly before us, revealed as a man of flesh and blood.

We see him, now fervidly urging a reluctant queen to do her duty by her
God and unsheathe the sword of persecution, now harshly threatening
his sovereigns with the wrath of Heaven when they are in danger of
relenting in the wielding of that same sword. But in the main he must
be studied, not in his actions, but in his enactments--the emanations
of his relentless spirit. In these he is to be seen devoutly compassing
evil in the perfervid quest of good.

Untouched by worldly ambitions, he seems at once superhuman and less
than human. Dauntless amid execrations, unmoved by plaudits, sublimely
disdainful of temporal weal, in nothing is he so admirable as in
the unfaltering self-abnegation with which he devotes himself to the
service of his God, in nothing so terrible and tragically deplorable as
in the actual service which he renders.

“His history,” says Prescott, “may be thought to prove that of all
human infirmities there is none productive of more extensive mischief
to society than fanaticism.”

To this day--four centuries after his passing--Spain still bears the
imprint of his pitiless work, and none may deny the truth of Rosseuw
St. Hilaire’s indictment that, after Philip II, Torquemada was the man
who did most harm to the land that gave him birth.

       *       *       *       *       *

The materials for this history have been gathered from the sources
cited in the appended bibliography, to all of which the author
acknowledges his profound indebtedness. In particular, however, are his
thanks due--as must be the thanks of all men who engage in studies of
the Spanish Inquisition--to the voluminous, succinct, and enormously
comprehensive works of Juan Antonio Llorente, a historian of unimpugned
honesty and authority, who wrote under circumstances peculiarly
advantageous and with qualifications peculiarly full.

       *       *       *       *       *

Juan Antonio Llorente was born at Logroño in 1756, and he was ordained
priest in 1779, after a university course of Roman and Canon law which
enabled him to obtain a place among the lawyers of the Supreme Council
of Castile--_i.e._ the Council of the Inquisition. Having graduated
as a Doctor of Canon Law, he discharged the duties of Vicar-General
to the Bishop of Calahorra, and later on became the Commissary of the
Holy Office in Logroño--for which it was necessary that he should prove
that he was of “clean blood,” undefiled by the taint of Jew or Moor or
heretic.

In 1789 he was appointed Secretary-General to the Holy Office, an
appointment which took him to Madrid, where he was well received by the
King, who gave him a canonry of Calahorra.

A profound student of sociological questions, with leanings towards
rationalism, he provoked a certain degree of mistrust, and when the
Liberal party fell from power and dragged with it many of those who had
held offices of consequence, the young priest found himself not only
deposed, but forced to meet certain minor charges, which resulted in
his being sent into retreat in a convent for a month as a penance.

Thereafter he concerned himself with educational matters until the
coming of Bonaparte’s eagles into Spain. When that invasion took
place, he hailed the French as the saviours of his country, and as a
consequence found himself a member of the Assembly of Notables convoked
by Murat to reform the Spanish Government. But most important of all,
from our point of view, is the fact that when the Inquisition was
abolished, in 1809, he accepted the charge of going through its vast
archives, and he spent two years and employed a number of amanuenses in
copying or making extracts of all that he considered of account.

He held various offices of importance under the French Government, so
that when this was finally expelled from Spain, he, too, was forced to
go. He sought refuge in Paris, and there he wrote his famous “Historia
Critica de la Inquisicion de España,” the crystallization of his vast
researches.

It was a very daring thing to have done, and, thanks to the royalist
and clerical Government, he was not suffered to remain long
unpunished. He was inhibited from hearing confession or celebrating
Mass--practically unfrocked--and forbidden to teach the Castilian
language in private schools. He hit back by publishing “The Political
Portrait of the Popes,” which earned him orders to leave France
immediately. He set out in December of 1822 to return to Spain, and
died a few days after reaching Madrid, killed by the rigours of the
journey at his advanced age.

Although his “Critical History” displays at times a certain vehemence,
in the main it is concerned with the sober transcription of the musty
records he was privileged to explore.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Spanish Inquisition has been the subject of much unrestrained and
exaggerated writing, expressing points of view that are diametrically
opposed. From such authors as Garcia Rodrigo, who laud its work of
purification, misrepresent its scope, and deplore (in our own times)
the extinction of that terrible tribunal, it is a far cry indeed
to such writers as Dr. Rule, who dip their pens in the gall of an
intolerance as virulent as that which they attack.

The author has sought here to hold a course that is unencumbered by
religious partisanship, treating purely as a phase of history the
institution for which Torquemada was so largely responsible. He has not
written in the Catholic interest, or the Protestant interest, or the
Jewish interest. He holds the view that on the score of intolerance it
is not for Christians to cast a stone at Jews, nor Jews at Christians,
nor yet Christians of one sect at Christians of another. Each will
find in his own history more than enough to answer for at the bar of
Humanity. And when achievement is measured by opportunity, each will
discover that he is entitled to fling at the others no reproaches which
the others are not entitled to fling at him.

If the Spanish Inquisition is here shown as a ruthless engine of
destruction whose wheels drip the blood of mangled generations, yet it
is very far from being implied that religious persecution is an offence
peculiar to the Church of Rome.

“She persecuted to the full extent of the power of her clergy, and that
power was very great. The persecution of which every Protestant church
was guilty was measured by the same rule, but clerical influence in
Protestant countries was comparatively weak.”

Thus Lecky, whom we quote lest any should be tempted to use anything
in these pages as a weapon of unchristian Christian partisanship.
Let any such remember that against Torquemada, who was unfortunately
well served by opportunity, may be set the bloody-minded John Knox,
who, fortunately for humanity, was not; let him ponder the slaughter
of Presbyterians, Puritans, and Roman Catholics under Elizabeth; let
him call to mind the persecutions of the Anabaptists under Edward VI,
and the Anabaptists’ own clamour for the blood of all who were not
re-baptized.




CONTENTS


  CHAPTER      PAGE

  I. EARLY PERSECUTIONS                                               17

  II. THE INQUISITION CANONICALLY ESTABLISHED                         29

  III. THE ORDER OF ST. DOMINIC                                       37

  IV. ISABELLA THE CATHOLIC                                           51

  V. THE JEWS IN SPAIN                                                71

  VI. THE NEW-CHRISTIANS                                              89

  VII. THE PRIOR OF HOLY CROSS                                       104

  VIII. THE HOLY OFFICE IN SEVILLE                                   114

  IX. THE SUPREME COUNCIL                                            130

  X. THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HOLY OFFICE--THE FIRST “INSTRUCTIONS”
      OF TORQUEMADA                                                  139

  XI. THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HOLY OFFICE--THE MODE OF PROCEDURE    168

  XII. THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HOLY OFFICE--THE AUDIENCE OF TORMENT 184

  XIII. THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HOLY OFFICE--THE SECULAR ARM        194

  XIV. PEDRO ARBUÉS DE EPILA                                         213

  XV. TORQUEMADA’S FURTHER “INSTRUCTIONS”                            231

  XVI. THE INQUISITION IN TOLEDO                                     239

  XVII. AUTOS DE FÉ                                                  247

  XVIII. TORQUEMADA AND THE JEWS                                     256

  XIX. THE LEGEND OF THE SANTO NIÑO                                  271

  XX. THE ARREST OF YUCÉ FRANCO                                      282

  XXI. THE TRIAL OF YUCÉ FRANCO                                      294

  XXII. THE TRIAL OF YUCÉ FRANCO (_continued_)                       317

  XXIII. THE TRIAL OF YUCÉ FRANCO (_concluded_)                      331

  XXIV. EPILOGUE TO THE AFFAIR OF THE SANTO NIÑO                     346

  XXV. THE EDICT OF BANISHMENT                                       356

  XXVI. THE EXODUS FROM SPAIN                                        367

  XXVII. THE LAST “INSTRUCTIONS” OF TORQUEMADA                       377

  BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                       395

  INDEX                                                              397




LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS


  FREY TOMÁS DE TORQUEMADA      _Frontispiece_
  From a Painting attributed to Miguel Zittoz.

        FACING PAGE

  ST. PETER THE MARTYR PREACHING                                      32
  From the Painting by Berruguete.

  ST. DOMINIC                                                         48
  From the Painting in the Prado Gallery, attributed to Miguel Zittoz.

  POPE INNOCENT III. AND ST. DOMINIC                                  64
  From a Fresco in the Church of the Sacro Speco, Subiaco.

  ISABELLA THE CATHOLIC                                               80
  From a Painting in the Prado Gallery, attributed to Miguel Zittoz.

  SEVILLE                                                             96
  From Colmenar’s “Délices d’Espagne.”

  FERDINAND OF ARAGON AND THE INFANTE DON JUAN                       128
  From the Painting in the Prado Gallery attributed to Miguel Zittoz.

  TITLE-PAGE OF THE FIRST PRINTED EDITION OF THE “INSTRUCTIONS”
  OF TORQUEMADA                                                      144

  TOLEDO                                                             176
  From Colmenar’s “Délices d’Espagne.”

  PROCESSION TO AUTO DE FÉ                                           208
  From Limborch’s “Historia Inquisitionis.”

  THE AUTO DE FÉ                                                     240
  From Limborch’s “Historia Inquisitionis.”

  BANNER OF THE INQUISITION                                          272
  From Limborch’s “Historia Inquisitionis.”

  SANBENITO OF PENITENT ADMITTED TO RECONCILIATION                   304
  From Limborch’s “Historia Inquisitionis.”

  SANBENITO OF PENITENT RELAPSED                                     336
  From Limborch’s “Historia Inquisitionis.”

  SANBENITO OF IMPENITENT                                            368
  From Limborch’s “Historia Inquisitionis.”

  SPAIN AND PORTUGAL                                                 384
  From Colmenar’s “Délices d’Espagne.”




TORQUEMADA




CHAPTER I

EARLY PERSECUTIONS


In an endeavour to trace the Inquisition to its source it is not
necessary to go as far back into antiquity as went Paramo; nor yet
is it possible to agree with him that God Himself was the first
inquisitor, that the first “Act of Faith” was executed upon Adam and
Eve, and that their expulsion from Eden is a proper precedent for the
confiscation of the property of heretics.[1]

Nevertheless, it is necessary to go very far back indeed; for it is in
the very dawn of Christianity that the beginnings of this organization
are to be discovered.

There is no more lamentable lesson to be culled from history than that
contained in her inability to furnish a single instance of a religion
accepted with unquestioning sincerity and fervour which did not, out of
those very qualities, beget intolerance. It would seem that only when a
faith has been diluted by certain general elements of doubt, that only
when a certain degree of indifference has crept into the observance
of a prevailing cult, does it become possible for the members of that
cult to bear themselves complacently towards the members of another.
Until this comes to pass, intolerance is the very breath of religion,
and--when the power is present--this intolerance never fails to express
itself in persecution.

Deplorable as this is in all religions, in none is it so utterly
anomalous as in Christianity, which is established upon tenets of
charity, patience, and forbearance, and which has for cardinal guidance
its Founder’s sublime admonition--“Love one another!”

From the earliest days of its history, persecution has unfailingly
signalized the spread of Christianity, until to the thoughtful observer
Christianity must afford the grimmest, the saddest--indeed, the
most tragic--of all the paradoxes that go to make up the history of
civilized man.

Its benign gospel of love has been thundered forth in malign hatred;
its divine lesson of patience and forbearance has been taught in
murderous impatience and bloodthirsty intolerance; its mild tenets of
mercy and compassion have been ferociously expounded with fire and
sword and rack; its precepts of humility have been inculcated with a
pride and arrogance as harsh as any that the world has known.

It is impossible to deny that at almost any time in the history of
Christianity the enlightened pagan of the second century would have
been justified of his stinging gibe--“Behold how these Christians love
one another!”

It may even be said of the earliest Christians that it was largely
through their own intolerance of the opinions and beliefs of others
that they brought upon themselves the persecutions to which through
three centuries they were intermittently subjected. Certain it is that
they were the first to disturb the toleration which in polytheistic
Rome was accorded to all religions. They might have pursued their cult
unmolested so long as they accorded the same liberty to others. But by
the vehemence with which they denounced false all creeds but their own,
they offended the zealous worshippers of other gods, and so disturbed
the peace of the community; by denying obedience to the state in
which they dwelt, by refusing to bear arms for the Empire on the plea
of “Nolo militare; militia mea est ad Dominum!” they provoked the
resentment of the law. When driven, by the beginnings of persecution,
to assemble and celebrate their rites in secret, this very secrecy
became the cause of further and sharper proceedings against them. Their
mysteriousness evoked suspicion, and surmise sprang up to explain it.
Very soon there was levelled against them the charge from which hardly
any cult that celebrates in secret has been exempt. It was put abroad
that they practised abominations, and that they engaged in the ritual
murder of infants. Public opinion, ever credulous where evil is the
subject, was still further inflamed against them, and fresh and greater
disorders were the result. Thus they came to be denounced for atheism,
insubordination, and subversion of public order.

The severity dealt out to them by a state hitherto indifferent--through
the agnosticism prevalent in the ruling classes--to the religious
opinions of its citizens, was dictated by the desire to suppress an
element that had become socially perturbative, rather than by any
vindictiveness or intolerance towards this new cult out of Syria.

Under Claudius we see the Nazarenes expelled from Rome as disturbers
of the public peace; under Nero and Domitian we see them, denounced as
_hostes publici_, suffering their first great persecution. But that
persecution on purely religious grounds was repugnant to the Roman is
shown by the conduct of Nerva, who forbade delations and oppressions on
the score of belief, and recalled the Christians who had been banished.
His successor, the just and wise Trajan, provoked perhaps by the fierce
insurrection of the Jews which occurred in his reign, moved against the
Nazarenes at first, but later on afforded them complete toleration.
Similarly were they unmolested by the accomplished Adrian, who, indeed,
so far approved of their creed as to have notions of including Christ
in the Roman Pantheon; and they were left in peace by his successor
Antoninus, notwithstanding that the last was so attached to the faith
of his country and to the service of the gods as to have earned for
himself the surname of Pius.

With the accession of the philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius, who
was rendered hostile to the new doctrine not only by his own stoical
convictions, but also because politically he viewed the Christians with
disfavour, came the next great persecution; and persecution was their
portion thereafter for some sixty years, under four reigns, until the
accession of Alexander Severus in the third decade of the third century
of the Christian era.

Alexander’s mother, Julia Mannea, is believed to have been instructed
in the new doctrine by Origen, the Alexandrian, although her conversion
to Christianity and her ideas upon it do not appear to be greatly
in advance of those of Adrian, for she is said to have included an
image of Christ in the group of beneficent deities set up in her
_lararium_.[2]

For twenty years the Christians now knew peace and enjoyed the fullest
liberty. Upon that followed a period of severe oppression, initiated
by Decius, continued by Valerian and Aurelian, and reaching something
of a climax under Diocletian, in the dawn of the fourth century, when
the Christians endured the cruellest and most ferocious of all these
persecutions. But the end of their sufferings was at hand, and with
the accession of Constantine in 312 a new era began for Christianity.
Constantine, upheld by the Christians as their saviour, in admitting
the inevitable predominance which the new religion had obtained in
rather less than three hundred years, was compelled to recognize the
rights of its votaries not only to existence but to authority.

Legends surround the history of this emperor. The most popular relates
how, when he was marching against Maxentius, his rival for the throne,
desponding in the consciousness of his own inferior force, there
appeared at sunset a fiery cross in the heavens with the inscription
ΕΝ ΤΟΓΤΩ ΝΙΚΑ--IN THIS SIGN YOU CONQUER. And it is claimed that as a
consequence of this portent, whose injunction he obeyed, he sought
instruction in Christianity, was baptized and made public avowal of
that faith. Others maintain that he was reared in Christianity by
his mother, St. Helena--she who made an expedition to the Holy Land
to recover the true cross, and who is said to have built the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem; whilst others still assert that
Constantine did not receive baptism until at the point of death, and
that throughout his life, whilst undoubtedly favouring Christians, he
continued in the pagan religion in which he had been educated by his
father.

The truth probably lies midway. During the early years of his reign
Constantine not only pursued a middle course, according religious
liberty to all sects, but, himself, whilst leaning strongly towards
Christianity, retained his imperial dignity of High-priest of the
polytheistic Roman cult, and the title “Pontifex Maximus,” which
later--together with so much else of pagan origin--was appropriated
by the Christians and bestowed upon their chief bishop. But in 313-14
he refused to celebrate the _ludi seculares_, and in 330 he issued an
edict forbidding temple-worship, whilst the Christian Council of Nicæa,
in 325, was held undoubtedly under his auspices.

From the very moment that the new religion found itself recognized
and invested not only with civil rights but actually with power, from
the very moment that the Christian could rear his head and go openly
and unafraid abroad, from that very moment do we find him engaging in
persecutions against the votaries of other cults--against pagan, Jew,
and heretic. For although Christianity was but in the beginning of the
fourth century of its existence, not only had it spread irresistibly
and mightily in spite of the repressive measures against it, but it was
already beginning to know dismemberment and divisions in its own body.
Indeed, it has been computed that the number of schisms in the fourth
century amounted to no less than ninety.

Of these the most famous is that of Arius, a priest of Alexandria,
who denied that Christ was God Incarnate, accounting Him no more than
divinely inspired, the first and the highest of the sons of men.
Although already denounced by the Synod that met at Alexandria in 321,
so great had been the spread of this doctrine that the Œcumenical
Council of Nicæa was convoked especially to deal with it. It was then
condemned as heretical, and the Articles of Faith were defined and set
down in the Nicene Creed, which is recited to this day.

Other famous heresies were the Manichæan, the Gnostic, the Adamite,
the Severist, and the Donatist; and to these were soon to be added,
amongst others, the Pelagian and the Priscilliantist.

Perhaps the Manichæans’ chief claim to celebrity lies in the fact that
the great St. Augustine of Tagaste, when he abandoned the disorders of
his youth, entered Christianity through this sect, which professed a
form of it vitiated by Sun-worship and Buddhism.

The other heresies--with the exception of the Pelagian--were, in
the main, equally fantastic. The Gnostic heresy, with its many
subdivisions, was made up of mysticism and magic, and founded upon
Zoroastrian notions of dualism, of the two powers of good and evil,
light and darkness. To the power of evil it attributed all creation
save man, whose soul was accounted of divine substance. The Adamites
claimed to be in the state of original innocency of Adam before the
fall; they demanded purity in their followers, rejected marriage, which
they urged could never have come into existence but for sin, and they
expelled from their Church all sinners against their tenets, even as
Adam and Eve had been expelled from Eden. The Severists denied the
resurrection of the flesh, would not accept the acts of the apostles,
and carried purity to fantastic lengths. The Soldiers of Florinus
denied the Last Judgment, and held it as an undeniable truth that the
resurrection of the flesh lay entirely in reproduction.

The Pelagians were the followers of Pelagius, a British monk who
settled in Rome towards the year 400, and his heresy at least was
founded upon rational grounds. He denied the doctrine of original sin,
maintained that every human being was born in a state of innocency,
and that his perseverance in virtue depended upon himself. He found
numerous followers, and for twenty years the conflict raged between
Pelagians and the Church, until Pope Zosimus declared against them and
banished Pelagius from Rome.

From Constantine onwards Christianity steadily maintains her
ascendancy, and her earliest assertion of her power is to bare the
sword of persecution, oblivious of the lofty protests against it which
she, herself, had uttered, the broad and noble advocacy of tolerance
which she had urged in the days of her own affliction. We find Optatus
urging the massacre of the Donatists--who claimed that theirs was the
true Church--and Constantine threatening with the stake any Jew who
should affront a Christian and any Christian who should become a Jew.
We find him demolishing the churches of the Arians and Donatists,
banishing their priests and forbidding under pain of death the
propagation of their doctrines.

The power of Christianity suffered one slight check thereafter, under
the tolerant rule of Julian the Apostate, who reopened the pagan
temples and restored the cult of the old gods; but it rose again to be
finally and firmly established under Theodosius in 380.

Now we see the pagan temples not only closed, but razed to the ground,
the images broken and swept away, their worship, and even private
sacrifice, forbidden under pain of death. From Libanius we may
gather something of the desolation which this spread among the pagan
peasant-folk. Residing at a distance from the great centres where
doctrines were being expounded, they found themselves bereft of the
old gods and without knowledge of the new. Their plight is a far more
pathetic one than that of the Arians, Manichæans, Donatists, and all
other heretics against whom there was a similar enactment.

It is now, at this early date, that for the first time we come across
the title “Inquisitor of the Faith,” in the first law[3] promulgated to
render death the penalty of heresy. It is now that we find the great
Augustine of Tagaste--the mightiest genius that the Church has brought
forth--denouncing religious liberty with the question, “Quid est enim
pejor, mors animæ quam libertas erroris?”[4] and strenuously urging
the death of heretics on the ground that it is a merciful measure,
since it must result in the saving of others from the damnation
consequent upon their being led into error. Similarly he applauded
those decrees of death against any one pursuing the polytheism that but
a few generations earlier had been the official religion of the Roman
Empire.

It was Augustine--of whom it has been truly said that “no man since
the days of the Apostles has infused into the Church a larger measure
of his spirit”--in his enormous fervour, and with the overwhelming
arguments inspired by his stupendous intellect, who laid down the
principles that governed persecution, and were cited in justification
of it for nearly 1,500 years after his day. “He was,” says Lecky, “the
most staunch and enthusiastic defender of all those doctrines that grow
out of the habits of mind that lead to persecution.”[5]

So far, however much persecution may have been inspired by the Church,
its actual execution had rested entirely and solely with the civil
authorities; and this aloofness, indeed, is urged upon the clergy by
St. Augustine. But already before the close of the fourth century we
find ecclesiastics themselves directly engaged in causing the death of
heretics.

Priscillian, a Spanish theologian, was led by St. Paul’s “Know ye
not that ye are the temple of God?” to seek to render himself by
purity a worthy dwelling. He preached from that text a doctrine of
stern asceticism, and forbade the marriage of the clergy. This at the
time was optional,[6] and by proclaiming it to be Christ’s law he
laid himself open to a charge of heresy. He was accused of magic and
licentiousness, excommunicated in 380 and burnt alive, together with
several of his companions, by order of two Christian bishops. He has
been described as the first martyr burnt by a Spanish Inquisition.[7]

It must be added that the deed excited the profoundest indignation on
the part of the clergy against those bishops who had been responsible
for it, and St. Martin of Tours hotly denounced the act. But this
indignation was not provoked by the fact that men had suffered
death for heresy, but by the circumstance that ecclesiastics had
procured the execution. For it was part of the pure teaching of the
early Church that under no circumstances--not as judge, soldier, or
executioner--should a Christian render himself the instrument of the
death of a fellow-creature; and it was partly through their rigid
obedience to this precept that the Christians had first drawn attention
to themselves and aroused the resentment of the Roman government, as
we have seen. Now, whilst at no time after the Church’s accession to
power was this teaching observed with any degree of strictness, yet
there were limits to the extent to which it might be neglected, and
that limit, it was considered, had been exceeded by those prelates
responsible for the death of the Priscilliantists.

The point, apparently trivial at present, has been insisted upon here,
in view of the important and curious part which it was destined to play
in the procedure of the Inquisition.

The Church had now come to identify herself with the State. She had
strengthened her organizations; she had permeated the State with her
influences, until it may almost be said that the State had lost its
capacity for independent existence, and had become her instrument.
The civil laws were based upon her spiritual laws; the standard of
morality was founded upon her doctrines; the development of the
arts--of painting, sculpture, literature, and music--became such as was
best adapted for her service, and, cramped thereby into confines far
too narrow, was partly arrested for a time; sciences and crafts were
stimulated only by her needs and curbed by her principles; the very
recreation of the people was governed by her spirit.

And yet, whilst influencing the State in its every ramification so
profoundly that State and Church appeared welded into one disintegrable
whole, she kept herself independent, unfettered, and autonomous. So
that when that great Empire of the West upon which she had seemed
to lean was laid in ruins by the invading barbarians, she continued
upright, unshaken by that tremendous cataclysm. She remained to conquer
the barbarian far more subtly and completely than he had conquered. Her
conquest lay in bringing him to look upon her as the natural inheritor
of fallen Rome. Soon she entered upon that splendid heritage, claiming
for her own the world-supremacy that Rome had boasted, and assuming
dominion over the new nations that were building upon the ruins of the
shattered empire.




CHAPTER II

THE INQUISITION CANONICALLY ESTABLISHED


For some seven centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire
persecutions for heresy were very rare and very slight. This, however,
cannot be attributed to mercy. Although some of the old heresies
survived, yet they were so sapped of their vitality that they were
no longer openly flaunted in defiance of the mother-Church, but were
practised in such obscurity as, in the main, to escape observation.

Fresh schisms, on the other hand, do not appear to have sprung up
during that spell. Largely this would be due to the clear formulation
of the Catholic theology by the various œcumenical councils held in
the years that followed upon the Christian emancipation, and by the
intellectual breadth of these doctrines, which were entirely adequate
and all-sufficient to the intellectual capacity of the time. But this
state of things could only have endured at the cost of arresting
man’s intellectual progress. A certain restraint and curb undoubtedly
was exerted, but definitely to check the imaginative and reasoning
faculties of man has never been within the power of any creed, and
never can be. It was in vain that the Church sought to coerce thought
and to stifle the learning that struck at her very foundations and
discovered the error of the cosmic and historical conceptions upon
which her theology was based; in vain that she entrenched herself
within her doctrines, and adhered rigidly to the form she had adopted.

Upon this uncompromising rigidity of the Catholic Church much censure
has been poured. The present aim is a cold survey of certain features
of history, and in such a task all polemical matters should be avoided.
Yet it may be permissible to say a word here to elucidate rather than
to defend an attitude that has been unduly abused.

It is admitted that the unyielding policy of the Church was one that
militated seriously against intellectual evolution, and on that
account it is to be deplored. But let the unbiassed mind consider for
a moment the alternative. The admission of error is the commencement
of disruption. Where one error is admitted, a thread is drawn from a
weft whose threads are interdependent for the stability of the whole.
Who has yielded once has set up a precedent that will be urged against
him to make him yield again, and yet again, until he shall have yielded
all, and, having nothing left, must suffer an imperceptible effacement.

When all is considered, there is an indisputable dignity in the
attitude of a Church which, claiming that what she teaches rests not
upon human knowledge but upon divine inspiration, refuses to cede one
jot of her doctrines to man’s discoveries; holding--and incontestably,
so long as the premise is admitted--that however certain may appear the
truths which human subtlety has disclosed, however false may appear
the doctrines to which she owes her being, it still remains that the
former are human and the latter divine of origin. Between the two she
proudly holds that there is no disputing; that error possible to man is
impossible to divinity; that man’s perception of error in the divine
tenets of the Church is no more than the manifestation of his own
liability to err.

The Church of Rome realized that either she must be entirely, or
entirely cease to be. And it is matter for unprejudiced consideration
whether the spectacle of her immobility is not more dignified than
would have been that of her yielding up her divinities one by one to
the expanding humanities, and thus gradually undergoing a course of
dismemberment which must in the end remove her last claim to existence.
In the attitude she assumed she remained the absolute mistress of her
votaries; had she departed from it she must have become their abject
servant.

Dr. Rule invites his readers to notice attentively that “no Church but
that of Rome ever had an Inquisition.”[8] But he neglects to carry
the consideration to its logical conclusion, and to add that in no
Christian Church but that of Rome could an Inquisition be possible.
For it would be impossible to offend heretically against any Church
that accommodates itself to new habits of thought in a measure as these
occur, and gives way step by step before the onslaught of learning.[9]

The Church of Rome presented her immutable formularies, her
unchangeable doctrines to the world. “This,” she announced, “is my
teaching. By this I hold. This you must accept without reservations, in
its entirety, or you are no child of mine.”

With that there could be no cavil. Had she but added the admission of
man’s liberty to accept or reject her teaching, had she but left man
free to confess or not her doctrines as his conscience and intelligence
directed, all would have been well. Unfortunately she accounted it her
duty to go further; she used coercion and compulsion to such an extent
that she imbued her children with the spirit of the eighteenth-century
Jacobin, exclaiming, “Be my brother, or I kill you!”

Unable by intellectual means to stem the intellectual secession from
her ranks, she had recourse to physical measures, and revived the
fiercely coercive methods of the first centuries.

A serious heretical outbreak had been occurring in Southern France.
There, it would seem, all the schisms that had disturbed the Church
since her foundation were gathered together--Arians, Manichæans, and
Gnostics--to which were added certain more recent sects, such as the
Cathars, the Waldenses, and the Boni Homines, or Good People.

These new-comers deserve a word of explanation.

The Cathars, like the Gnostics, were dualists; indeed, their creed was
little more than a development of Gnosticism. They believed that the
earth was the only hell or purgatory, that it was given over to the
power of the devil, and that human bodies were no more than the prisons
of the angel spirits that fell with Lucifer. In heaven their celestial
bodies still awaited them, but they could not resume these until they
had worked out their expiation. To accomplish this a man must die
reconciled with God; failing that, another earthly existence awaited
him in the body of man or beast, according to his deserts. It will be
seen that, saving for abundant Christian elements introduced into this
faith, it was little more than a revival of metempsychosis, the oldest
and most fascinating of intelligent beliefs.

The Waldenses, or Vaudois, with whom were allied the Good People, were
the earliest Protestants, as we understand the term. They claimed
for every man the right to interpret the Bible and to celebrate the
sacraments of the Church without the need of being in holy orders.
Further, they denied that the Roman Church was the Church of Christ.

These sects were known collectively as the Albigenses, so called
because the Council of Lombers, convoked to pronounce their
condemnation, had been held in the Diocese of Albi in 1165.

[Illustration:

  _Photo by Anderson._

ST. PETER THE MARTYR PREACHING.

From the Painting by Berruguete.]

Pope Innocent III made an attempt to convert them; with this aim in
view he sent two monks, Peter de Castelnau and one Rodolfe, to
restore order amongst them and induce them to return to submission.
But when they murdered one of his legates the Holy Father had recourse
to those other less legitimate measures of combating liberty of
conscience. He ordered the King of France, the nobles and clergy of
the kingdom, to assume the crusader’s cross, and to proceed to the
extirpation of the Albigensian heretics, whom he described as a worse
danger to Christendom than the Saracens; and he armed them for the fray
with the same spiritual weapons that John VIII had bestowed upon those
who went to war in Palestine in the ninth century. Upon all who might
die in the service of the Church he pronounced a plenary indulgence.

It is not the present aim to follow the history of the horrible strife
that ensued--the massacres, pillages, burnings that took place in the
course of the war between the Albigenses under Raymond of Toulouse
and the Crusaders under Simon de Montfort. For over twenty years did
that war drag on, and in the course of it the original grounds of the
quarrel were forgotten; it passed into a struggle for supremacy between
North and South, and thus, properly speaking, out of the history of the
Inquisition.[10]

Now, for all that the title “Inquisitor of the Faith” was first
bestowed by the Theodosian Code, and for all that persecutions against
heretics and others had been afoot since an even earlier date than
that of Theodosius, Innocent III is to be considered the founder of
the Holy Inquisition as an integral part of the Church. For it is
under his jurisdiction that the faculty of persecuting heretics, which
hitherto had belonged entirely to the secular arm, is now conferred
upon the clergy. He dispatched two Cistercian monks as inquisitors into
France and Spain, to engage in the work of extirpating heretics; and
he strictly enjoined all princes, nobles and prelates to afford every
assistance to these emissaries, and to further them in every way in the
work they were sent to do.[11]

Himself, personally, Pope Innocent directed his attention to the
Paterini--a sect which rebelled against the celibacy imposed upon the
clergy--who were gaining ground in Italy. He invoked the secular arm
to assist him in their apprehension, imprisonment, and banishment, in
seizing their possessions, which were confiscated, and in razing their
houses to the ground.

In 1209 he assembled a council at Avignon, under the presidency of his
legates, wherein by his directions it was ordained that every bishop
should select such of his subjects, counts, castellans, and knights as
might seem to him proper, and swear them to undertake the extermination
of all excommunicated heretics.

       *       *       *       *       *

“And to the end that the bishop may be the better enabled to purge his
diocese of heretical pravity, let him swear one priest and two, three
or more laymen of good repute in every parish to report to the bishop
himself, and to the governors of cities or to the lords and bailiffs of
places, the existence of any heretics or abettors of heresy wherever
found, to the end that these may be punished according to the canonical
and legal dispensations, in all cases suffering forfeiture of property.
And should the said governors and others be negligent or reluctant in
the execution of this divine service, let their persons be severally
excommunicated, and their territories placed under the interdict of the
Church.”[12]

       *       *       *       *       *

In the year 1215 Pope Innocent held a further council at the Lateran in
which he extended the field of ecclesiastical activity in persecution.
He issued an injunction to all rulers, “as they desired to be esteemed
faithful, to swear a public oath that they would labour zealously
to exterminate from their dominions all those who were denounced as
heretics by the Church.”[13]

This injunction was backed by a bull which menaced with excommunication
and forfeiture of jurisdiction any prince who should fail to extirpate
heretics from his dominions--so that at one stroke the Pope asserted
his power to an extent that denied liberty of conscience to people and
independence to princes.

And meanwhile every heretic against the Holy Catholic and Orthodox
Faith, as accepted by the fathers assembled in the Church of St. John,
was excommunicated, and there followed these provisions:

“When condemned, the secular powers, or their representatives, being
present, they shall be delivered to these for punishment, the clerics
being previously degraded from their orders. The property of laymen
shall be confiscated; that of clerics bestowed upon their churches.
Persons marked with suspicion only shall, unless they can clear
themselves, be smitten with the sword of anathema, and shunned by all.
If they persist for a year in excommunication, they shall be condemned
as heretics.

“Secular powers must be moved or led, or at need compelled by
ecclesiastical censure, to make public oath for the defence of the
faith, as they themselves desire to be esteemed faithful, undertaking
to labour with all their power to extirpate from their dominions those
whom the Church shall denounce as heretics.”[14]

       *       *       *       *       *

The excommunication that was to wait upon disobedience was no empty
threat, nor yet was it concerned alone with the spiritual part of man.
The Pope’s anathema imposed the same penalties upon those against whom
it was launched as the Druid’s curse had imposed of old.[15]

Persons under the ban of the Church might hold no office, nor claim
any of the ordinary rights of citizenship, or, indeed, of existence.
In sickness or distress none might show them charity under pain of
incurring the same curse, nor after death should their bodies be given
Christian burial.

By these provisions and injunctions the Inquisition may be said to have
entered upon the second stage of its evolution, and to have assumed
a strictly ecclesiastical character--in short, to be canonically
established.

It was Pope Innocent III who placed in the hands of the Church this
terrible weapon of persecution, and who, by the awful severity of
his own attitude towards liberty of conscience, of thought, and of
expression, afforded to fanaticism and religious intolerance an example
that was to be their merciless guide through centuries to come.




CHAPTER III

THE ORDER OF ST. DOMINIC


_“If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow Me!”_

The contrast between the condition thus enjoined by the Founder of
Christianity and the worldly position occupied by His Vicar on earth
was now fast approaching the climax which was to become absolute with
the era of the Renaissance.

From the simple folk foregathering in Rome in the middle of the first
century to discuss and to guide one another in the practice of the
new doctrine of love and humility, conveyed by word of mouth from the
East, in all its pristine simplicity, unburdened as yet by theological
complexities, unfettered by formularies, it is a far cry indeed to the
proud curial Christians of the Rome of Pope Innocent III.

The successor of Peter, the poor fisherman of Galilee, was enthroned
with a splendour outrivalling that of any other earthly potentate.
Temporally he was lord of considerable dominions; spiritually he
claimed empire over the entire Christian world, and maintained his
supremacy with the thunderbolts of anathema which he had forged
himself. His glittering court was thronged with rustling, scarlet
prelates, with patricians in cloth of gold and silver, captains in
steel, mincing fops and stately senators. He was arrayed in garments
woven of the very finest fleece, crowned with the triple diadem of
white peacock feathers within three flaming circlets of precious
stones. On his coronation kings served him upon the knee at table;
throughout his reign princes and patricians were his lackeys.

From the steps of the Lateran on the day of his accession he would
fling a handful of money to the Roman crowd, exclaiming: “Gold and
silver are not for me. What I have I give to thee.”

Yet his riches were vast, their sources almost inexhaustible. The
luxury in which he lived and moved was the most sumptuous that wealth
could command and art and artifice produce.

Nor was this ecclesiastical magnificence confined to Rome and the Papal
Court. Gradually it had come to permeate the entire body clerical until
it had affected even the monastic orders. From the simplicity of their
beginnings these orders had developed into baronial institutions.
The fathers presided in noble abbeys over wide tracts of arable and
vineyard which they owned and cultivated, and over rural districts and
parishes, which they governed and taxed as feudal lords rather than
served as priests.

So arrogant and aristocratic was become the spirit of a clergy whose
mission was to preach the sublimest and most ideal of democratic
doctrines, that the Church seemed no longer within the reach of
plebeian and peasant-folk. It was fast becoming an institution of
patricians for patricians.

How long this state of things might have endured, what results might
have attended its endurance, it were perhaps idle to speculate. That a
change was wrought, that provision was made for the lowly and the poor,
is due to the advent of two men as similar in much as in much else they
were dissimilar. They met in Rome at the foot of the pontifical throne.

Either might have been the founder of a religion had he not found
already in the world an ideal religion which he could serve. Both were
men born into easy circumstances of life; one, Francesco Bernardone,
was the son of a wealthy merchant of Assisi; the other, Domingo de
Guzman, of Calahorra, was a nobleman of Spain.

To-day the Church includes them in her Calendar as St. Francis of
Assisi and St. Dominic. They are the resplendent twain whom Dante
beheld together in his “Paradise”:

    “L’un fu tutto serafico in ardore,
     L’altro per sapienza in terra fue
     Di cherubica luce un splendore.”[16]

St. Francis--through the sweetness and tenderness that emanated from
his poetic, mystic nature, the most lovable of all the saints--came
from his native Assisi to implore the Father of Fathers to permit him
to band together into an order the barefoot companions he had already
gained, to the end that they should practise Christ’s injunction of
poverty and self-abnegation, and minister to the afflicted.

St. Dominic--and our concern is more with him--had been chosen for
his eloquence and learning to accompany the Bishop of Osma upon an
inquisitorial journey into Southern France. There he had witnessed
the fierce carnage that was toward. He had preached to the heretics
at Toulouse, and the burning, passionate eloquence of his oratory had
made converts of many of those who were prepared to resist the cruel
arguments of fire and steel.

In the ardour of his zeal he had flung aside his rank and the ease and
dignity it afforded him. Like St. Francis he went barefoot, embracing
poverty and self-denial; yet, less mystical, less tender, entirely
practical where the propagation of the Faith was concerned, he had
exulted in the bloody victories that Simon de Montfort had won over the
heretical Albigenses.

Yet, if he gloried in the end achieved--conceiving it the supremest of
all human ends--he must have been touched with regret for the means
employed.

He has been termed a fierce and cruel zealot. But ferocity and cruelty
do not go hand in hand with such lowly humility as undoubtedly was
his. And the very object of his mission to Rome permits, if it does
not point to, a very different conclusion. He went deploring the
bloodshed he had witnessed, however greatly he may have prized the
fruits of it. Inspired by the success that had attended his oratory,
he aimed at providing other and gentler means by which in the first
instance to seek the attainment of the same ends. He went to implore
Pope Innocent’s leave to found an order of preachers who in poverty and
lowliness should go abroad to win back to the Roman fold the sheep that
had strayed into heretical pastures.

       *       *       *       *       *

Pope Innocent considered the simultaneous requests of both these
men--requests which, springing from the same passionate fervour in
both, yet came by different, if similar, channels to a sort of unity in
the end.

He perceived the services which such men as these might render to
the Church, endowed as they were with the magnetic power of creating
followings, of inflaming hearts, and replenishing the flickering lamp
of public zeal.

He detected no heresy, no irony, in the cult of pauperdom which
they would go forth to preach under the sanction and charter of the
luxurious, aristocratic, curial court.

But there existed another obstacle to his granting them their prayers.
So numerous already were the monastic orders that a Council of the
Lateran had decreed that no more should be created. Favouring these
petitioners, however, he was applying himself to the surmounting of the
difficulty when death took him.

Thus the burden of solving this problem was thrust upon his successor,
Honorius III. And it is said that the new pope was spurred to discover
a solution by a dream--which has been made the subject of a fresco by
Bennozzo Gozzoli--in which he beheld this saintly pair supporting with
their hands the tottering Lateran.

Since he could not establish them and their followers as monastic
fathers, he had recourse to creating brotherhoods for them. These
brotherhoods, he affiliated to the order of St. Augustine, the
Dominicans as friars-preachers (_fratres predicatores_) and the
Franciscans as friars-minors (_fratres minores_).

Thus were launched these two mendicant orders, which by the enormous
following they were so soon to win, were destined to become one of the
greatest means of power of the Roman Church.

In the lifetime of their founders the fundamental laws of poverty were
observed in all their intended purity. But soon thereafter, being
men under their rough habits, and susceptible to the ambition that
is man’s, upon the acquisition of power followed the acquisition of
wealth. Their founders had accomplished a renascence of the original
spirit of Christianity. But soon this began to undergo modification,
and to respond to worldly influences, until the history of the
friars-mendicant repeats and mirrors the history of Christianity
itself. In a measure as they spread through Christendom, so they
acquired convents, lands, and property as they went. The personal
poverty of each brother remained, it is true; they still went abroad
barefoot and coarsely garbed, “without staff, or bag, or bread, or
money,” as their rule decreed. Individually they kept the vow of
privation; but considered collectively their poverty “remained outside
the convent gate,” as Gregorovius says, echoing what Dante had said
before him.[17]

For the service of the Church the friars-mendicant became a splendid
army, and an army, moreover, whose maintenance made no draught upon the
pontifical treasury, since, by virtue of their mendicancy, the orders
were entirely self-supporting. And whilst both orders, magnificently
organized, grew extremely powerful, the Dominicans became formidable
through their control of that Inquisition whose early stirrings had
inspired St. Dominic to his task.

His aim had been to found a preaching order whose special mission
should be the overthrow of heresy wherever found. The brethren were
to combat it, employing their eloquence on the one hand to induce the
heretic to abjure his error, on the other to inflame the faithful
against him, so that terror should accomplish what might not be
possible to persuasion.

It may be that this mission which they had made specially their own, as
their founder ordained, peculiarly fitted the Dominicans to assume the
government of an ecclesiastical establishment whose aim was identical.
It was this order of St. Dominic that was to erect the grim edifice
of the Holy Office, and to develop and assume entire control of the
terrible machinery of the Inquisition. Their persuasion was to be the
ghastly persuasion of the rack; their eloquence was to be the burning
eloquence of the tongues of material flame that should lick their
agonizing victims out of existence. And all for the love of Christ!

       *       *       *       *       *

Although it might be difficult to show--as has been attempted--that
Domingo de Guzman himself was actually the first ordained Inquisitor,
nevertheless as early as 1224, within three years of his death, the
Inquisition in Italy and elsewhere was already entirely in the hands of
the Dominicans. This is shown by a constitution promulgated at Padua
in February of that year by the Emperor Frederic II. It contains the
following announcement:

“Be it known to all that we have received under our special protection
the preaching friars of the order of preachers, sent into our Empire on
business of the Faith against heretics, and likewise all who may lend
them assistance--as much in going as in abiding and returning--save
such as are already prescribed; and it is our wish that all should give
them favour and assistance; wherefore we order our subjects to receive
benignly any of the said friars whenever and wherever they may arrive,
keeping them secure from the enmity of heretics, assisting them in
every way to accomplish their ministry regarding the business of the
Faith.... And we do not doubt that you will render homage to God and
our Empire by collaborating with the said friars to deliver our Empire
from the new and unusual infamy of heretical pravity.”[18]

       *       *       *       *       *

The constitution decreed that heretics when so condemned by the Church
and delivered over to the secular arm should be condignly punished;
that if any, through the fear of death, should desire to return to the
faith, he should receive the penance that might be imposed canonically
and be imprisoned for life; that if in any part of the Empire heretics
should be discovered by the inquisitors or by other zealous Catholics,
the civil powers should be under the obligation of effecting their
arrest at the request of the said inquisitors or other Catholics, and
of holding them in safe custody until excommunicated by the Church,
when they should be burnt; that the same punishment should be suffered
by _fautores_--_i.e._ those guilty of concealing or defending heretics;
that fugitives be sought for, and that converts from the same heresy be
employed to discover them.

Odious as was this last enactment, there was yet worse contained in the
Emperor’s constitution. It was decreed that “the sin of _lèse-Majesté
divine_ being, as it is, greater than that of _lèse-Majesté humaine_,
and God being the avenger of the sins of the fathers on the
children, to the end that these may not imitate the sins of those,
the descendants of heretics to the second generation shall be deemed
incapable of honours or of holding any public office--_excepting
the innocent children who shall denounce the iniquity of their
fathers_.”[19]

The barbarous provision here given in italics calls for no comment.

Within four years of issuing that harsh proclamation against all rebels
from the sway of Rome, Frederic himself, in rebellion against the
pontiff’s temporal sway, was to feel the lash of excommunication. But
with that we have no concern. After his reconciliation with the Pope
he renewed the constitution of 1224, adding a provision concerning
blasphemers, who, in common with heretics of whatever sect, should
suffer death by fire; yet if the bishops should desire to save any
such, this could only be done subject to the offender’s being deprived
of his tongue, so that never again should he blaspheme God.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the year 1227 Ugolino Conti, who had been a friend of Dominic and of
Francis, ascended the papal throne under the style of Gregory IX.

It was this pontiff who, carrying forward the work that had been
undertaken in that direction by Innocent III, gave the Inquisition a
stable form. He definitely placed the control of it in the hands of the
Dominican friars, giving them, where necessary, the assistance of the
Franciscans. But the participation of the latter in the business of
that terrible tribunal is so slight as to be insignificant.

Gregory’s bull, given in “Raynaldus,”[20] is one of excommunication
against all heretics.

Further, it ordains that all condemned by the Church shall be
delivered to the secular arm for punishment, all clerics so delivered
being first degraded from their orders; that should any wish to abjure
his heresy and return to the Church, penance shall be imposed upon
him, and he shall suffer perpetual imprisonment. Abettors, concealers,
and defenders of heretics are similarly excommunicated; and if any
such shall neglect to procure absolution within one year, he shall be
accounted _infamous_, and shall be neither eligible for any public
office nor the elector of any other, nor act as witness, testator,
inheritor, nor have power to seek justice when wronged. If a judge, no
proceedings shall be laid before him, and his sentences, where passed,
shall be null and void; if an advocate, he shall not have faculty to
plead; if a notary, his deeds shall be void; if a cleric, he shall be
deposed from his office and benefices.

Similarly, the ban of excommunication shall fall upon those who hold
traffic with any who are excommunicated, and they shall further be
punished with other penalties.

Those who are under suspicion of heresy, unless they see to it
that they overcome the suspicion either by canonical purgation or
otherwise according to the quality of the person and the motives
for the suspicion, shall be excommunicated, and if they do not give
condign satisfaction within one year, they shall be deemed heretics.
Their claims or appeals shall not then be admitted, nor shall judges,
advocates, or notaries exercise their functions in favour of them;
priests shall refuse to administer the sacraments to them and to admit
their alms or oblations, and so shall the Templars and Hospitallers and
other regular orders, under pain of loss of office, from which naught
can save them but a mandate from the Holy See.

Should any give Christian burial to one who has died under
excommunication, he shall himself incur excommunication, from which he
shall not be delivered until with his own hands he shall have exhumed
the corpse, and so disposed that the place may never again be used for
sepulture.

Should any know of the existence of heretics or of any who practise
secret conventicles or whose ways of living are uncommon, they are
bound under pain of excommunication to divulge the same to their
confessor or other by whom they believe it will come to the knowledge
of their prelate.

Children of heretics and of the abettors or concealers of heretics
shall be deprived until the second generation of holding any public
office or benefice.

To the provisions of this bull, additions were made by the civil
governor of Rome, as representing the secular arm whose concern
it would be to inflict the punishments regarding which the Church
refrained from being explicit--confining herself to the promise that
they should be “condign.”

He provided that: those arrested should be detained in prison until
condemned by the Church, when, after eight days, they should be
punished.

Their property should be confiscated, one-third going to the delator,
one-third to the judge who should pronounce sentence, and one-third to
repair the walls of Rome, or otherwise as might be considered.

The dwellings of heretics or of any who should consciously have
entertained heretics should be razed to the ground.

If any man should have knowledge of the existence of heretics and fail
to denounce them he should be fined the sum of 20 livres. Should he
lack the means to pay, he was to be banished until he could find them.

Abettors and concealers of heretics should for the first offence suffer
confiscation of one-third of their property, to be applied to keeping
the walls of Rome in repair. If the offence were repeated, then they
should be banished for ever.

All who were elected senators must swear before taking office that
they would observe all laws against heretics; and were any to refuse
this oath his acts as senator would be null and void and none should
be obliged to follow or obey him, whilst those who might have sworn
obedience to him were absolved of their oath. Should a senator accept
this oath but afterwards refuse or neglect to respect its terms, he
must incur the penalties of perjury, suffer a fine of 200 silver marks,
to be applied to the repairing of the walls, and become ineligible for
any public office.

Two years later--in 1233--at a Council held at Béziers, the papal
legate, Gaultier of Tournai, elaborated these canons by the following
provisions:

“All magistrates, nobles, vassals, and others shall diligently seek to
discover, apprehend, and punish heretics wherever found. Every parish
in which a heretic is discovered shall pay as a penalty for having
harboured him one silver mark to the person who shall have discovered
him. All houses in which heretics may have preached shall be demolished
and the property confiscated, and fire shall be set to all caves and
other hiding-places where heretics are alleged to be concealed. All the
property of heretics shall be confiscated, and their children shall
inherit nothing. Their abettors, concealers, or defenders shall be
dealt with in the same manner. Any persons suspected of heresy must
make public profession of faith upon oath, under pain of suffering as
heretics; they shall be compelled to attend divine service on every
feast-day, and all who are _reconciled_ to the Church shall wear as
a distinguishing badge two crosses externally on their garments--one
on the breast, the other on the back--both of yellow cloth, three
fingers in width, the vertical limb measuring 2½ hands, the horizontal
one 2 hands.[21] If a hood is worn, this must bear a third cross--all
under pain of being deemed heretics and suffering confiscation of
property.”[22]

       *       *       *       *       *

These enactments by their uncompromising harshness abundantly reveal
the extent to which heretics were execrated by the Church in her
intolerance and her firm determination to extirpate them. They also
reveal something of the far-reaching, pitiless, priestly subtlety and
craft which were to render so terrible this tribunal.

The provisions for the punishment of those who should be moved by
Christian charity to succour any of the persecuted were devised to the
end that terror should stifle all such compassion; whilst the decree
that the children of convicted heretics should suffer disinheritance
and become ineligible for any honourable appointment was calculatedly
introduced to forge a further weapon out of parental love. Where a man
might readily, himself, have endured martyrdom for his convictions,
he would be made to pause before including his children in the same
sacrifice, before suffering them to go destitute and branded.

In the eyes of the Church the end in view could not fail to justify
any means that might be employed. The extirpation of heresy was a
consummation so very fervently to be desired that any steps--almost any
sin--would be condonable if conducive to that end.

It has been argued that this crusade against heresy was political, a
campaign waged by the Church to protect herself from the onslaught of
liberty of thought, which was threatening her overthrow. Such no doubt
had been the case in earlier centuries; but it was so no longer. Roman
Catholicism had grown and spread like a mighty tree, until her shadow
lay across the face of Europe and her roots were thrust far and wide
into the soil. These had taken too firm a hold, they were too full of
vigour, to permit that the withering of an occasional branch should
give her concern for the vitality of the growth itself. She had no such
concern. However abominable, however feral, however unchristian even,
may have been the institution of the Holy Office, it is difficult to
think that the spirit in which it was founded was other than pure and
disinterested.

[Illustration:

  _Photo by Lacoste._

ST. DOMINIC.

From the Painting in the Prado Gallery, attributed to Miguel Zittoz.]

It may seem bitterly ironical that men should have been found who in
the name of the meek and compassionate Christ relentlessly racked and
burnt their fellow-creatures. It was--bitterly, deplorably, tragically
ironical. But they were not conscious of the irony. In what they did
they were sincere--as sincere as St. Augustine when he urged the
extermination of heretics; and none can call in question his sincerity
or the purity of his motives.

To understand their attitude it is but necessary to consider the
absolute belief that was the Catholics’ in what Lecky calls “the
doctrine of exclusive salvation.” Starting from the premise that the
Church of Rome is the true and only Church of Christ, they held that
no salvation was possible for any man who was not a member of it. Nor
could ignorance--however absolute--of the true faith be urged as an
excuse for error, any more than may ignorance of the law be pleaded in
the worldly courts to-day. Thus, not only did they account irrevocably
damned those who schismatically deserted from the Church, and those
who like Jew and Moslem remained deliberately outside its walls, but
similarly--such was man’s indifferently flattering conception of divine
justice and divine intelligence--the savages who had never so much
as heard the name of Christ, and the very babe who died before his
heritage of Original Sin could be washed away by the baptismal waters.
Indeed, fathers of the Church had waged heated wars of controversy
concerning the precise moment at which pre-natal life sets in, and,
consequently, damnation is incurred by the soul of the fœtus should it
perish in the womb.

When it is considered that such doctrines were held dogmatically,
it will be realized that in the sight of the Church--whose business
was the salvation of souls--there could be no sin so intolerable, so
execrable, as heresy. It will be realized how it happened that the
Church could consider those of her children who were guilty of such
crimes as murder, rape, adultery, and the sin of the Cities of the
Plain, with the tolerance of an indulgent parent, whilst rising up in
intolerant wrath to smite the heretic whose life might be a model of
pure conduct. The former were guilty of only the sins of weak humanity;
and sinners who have the faith may seek forgiveness, and find it in
contrition. But heresy was not merely the worst of sins, as some have
held. In the eyes of the Church it transcended the realm of sin--it
was infinitely worse than sin, because it represented a state that was
entirely hopeless, a state not to be redeemed or mitigated by good
actions or purity of life.

Taking this view of heresy, the Church accounted it her duty to stamp
out this awful soul-pestilence so as to prevent its spreading; and she
had St. Augustine’s word for it that it was merciful to be merciless in
the attainment of that object. When viewed, as it were, from within,
there is nothing illogical in the attitude of the Church towards
heresy. What is illogical is the conception of God that is involved in
the doctrine of exclusive salvation.

Even if we survey the case of Galileo--one of the most illustrious
prisoners ever arraigned before the tribunal of the Holy Office--we
have no just cause to suppose that, in demanding his retraction of
the theory of the earth’s movement round the sun, the inquisitors
were inspired by any motives beyond the fear lest the spread of a
notion--honestly deemed by them to be an illusion--should disturb man’s
faith in the Biblical teaching with which it was in conflict.




CHAPTER IV

ISABELLA THE CATHOLIC


Llorente agrees with the earlier writers on the subject in considering
the Spanish Inquisition as an institution distinct from that which
had been established to deal with the Albigenses and their coevals in
heresy. It is distinct only in that it represents a further development
of the organization launched by Innocent III and perfected by Gregory
IX.

Before entering upon the consideration of this Modern Inquisition--as
it is called--it will perhaps be well to take a survey of the Spain of
the Catholic Sovereigns--Ferdinand and Isabella--in whose reign that
tribunal was set up in Castile.

       *       *       *       *       *

For seven hundred years, with varying fortune and in varying degree,
the Saracen had lorded it in the Peninsula.

First had come Berber Tarik, in 711, to overthrow the Visigothic
Kingdom of Roderic, to spread the Moslem dominion as far as the
mountains in the north and east and west from sea to sea. When the
Berber tribe, the Syrians, and the Arabs had fallen to wrangling among
themselves, Abdurrahman the Omayyad crossed from Africa to found the
independent amirate, which in the tenth century became the Caliphate of
Cordova.

Meanwhile the Christians had been consolidating their forces in the
mountain fastnesses of the north to which they had been driven, and
under Alfonso I they founded the Kingdom of Galicia. Thence, gradually
but irresistibly, presenting a bold front to the Moorish conqueror,
they forced their way down into the plains of Leon and Castile, so
that by the following century they had driven the Saracens south of
the Tagus. Following up their advantage, they continued to press them,
intent upon driving them into the sea, and they might have succeeded
but for the coming of Yusuf ben Techufin, who checked the Christian
conquest, hurled them back across the Tagus, and, master of the country
to the south of it, founded there the Empire of the Almoravides.

After these came the Almohades--the followers of the Mahdi--and the
land rang for half a century with the clash of battle between Cross and
Crescent, Castile, Leon, Aragon, and the new-born Kingdom of Portugal
striving side by side to crush the common foe at Navas de Tolosa.

In 1236 Leon and Castile--now united into one kingdom--in alliance with
Aragon, wrested Cordova from the Moors; in 1248 Seville was conquered,
and in 1265 Diego of Aragon drove the Saracen from Murcia, and thereby
reduced the Moslem occupation to Granada and a line of Mediterranean
seaboard about Cadiz, in which they remained until Ferdinand of Aragon
and Isabella of Castile, by virtue of their marriage, had united the
two crowns on the death (in 1474) of Henry IV, Isabella’s brother.

       *       *       *       *       *

Ferdinand brought, with Aragon, Sicily, Sardinia, and Naples; Isabella
brought, with Castile, Leon and the rest of the Spanish territory,
saving Granada and that portion of the coast still in Moorish hands.
And thus was founded, by the welding of these several principalities
into one single state, that mighty Kingdom of Spain which Columbus was
so soon to enrich by a new world.

But though founded by this marriage, this kingdom still required
consolidating and subjecting. Generations of misrule in Castile,
culminating in the lax reigns of John II and Henry IV, had permitted
the spread of a lawlessness so utter that its like was not to be found
in any other state at that time. Anarchy was paramount mistress of
the land, and Pulgar has left us a striking picture of the impossible
conditions that prevailed.

“In those days,” he writes, “justice suffered, and was not to be done
upon the malefactors who plundered and tyrannized in townships and
on the highways. None paid debts who did not want to do so; none was
restrained from committing any crime, and none dreamed of obedience or
subjection to a superior. What with present and past wars, people were
so accustomed to turbulence that he who did not do violence to others
was held to be a man of no account.

Citizens, peasants, and men of peace were not masters of their own
property, nor could they have recourse to any for redress of the
wrongs they suffered at the hands of governors of fortresses and other
thieves and robbers. Every man would gladly have engaged to give the
half of his property if at that price he might have purchased security
and peace for himself and his family. Often there was talk in towns
and villages of forming brotherhoods to remedy all these evils.
But a leader was wanting who should have at heart the justice and
tranquillity of the Kingdom.”[23]

The nobility, as may be conceived--and, indeed, as Pulgar clearly
indicates--were not only tainted with the general lawlessness, but
were themselves the chief offenders, each man a law unto himself, a
tyrannical, extortionate ruler of his vassals, lord of life and death,
unscrupulously abusing his power, little better than a highway robber,
caring nothing for the monarchy so long as the monarchy left him
undisturbed, ready to rebel against it should it attempt to curtail his
brigandage.

To crush these and other unruly elements in the state, to resolve into
order the chaos that had invaded every quarter of the kingdom, was the
task which at the outset the young Queen perceived awaiting her--a task
that must have daunted any mind less virile, any spirit less vigorous.

And there were other and more pressing matters demanding her instant
attention if she were to retain her seat upon this almost bankrupt
throne of Castile which she had inherited from her brother.

Alfonso V of Portugal was in arms, invading her frontiers to dispute,
on his niece Juana’s behalf, Isabella’s right.

Henry IV had left no legitimate issue, but his wife Juana of Portugal
had brought forth in wedlock a daughter of whom she pretended that he
was the father, whilst the King of Portugal, to serve interests of
his own, recognized the girl as his legitimate niece. Public opinion,
however, hesitated so little to proclaim her bastardy that it had named
her La Beltraneja, after Beltran de la Cueva who notoriously had been
her mother’s lover. And what Beltran de la Cueva, himself, thought
about it, may be inferred from the circumstance that in the ensuing
struggle he was found fighting for the honour of Castile under the
banner of Queen Isabella.

The war demanded all the attention and resources of the Catholic
Monarchs, and Isabella’s own share in these labours was conspicuous.
They resulted in the rout of the Portuguese supporters of the pretender
at Toro in 1476. By that victory Isabella was securely seated upon her
throne and became joint ruler with Ferdinand of Castile and Aragon.

She was twenty-five years of age at the time, a fair, shapely woman
of middle height, with a clear complexion, eyes between green and
blue, and a gracious, winsome countenance remarkable for its habitual
serenity. Such, indeed, was her self-control, Pulgar tells us, that not
only did she carefully conceal her anger when it was aroused, but even
in childbirth she could “dissemble her feelings, betraying no sign or
expression of the pain to which all women are subject.” He adds that
she was very ceremonious in dress and equipage, that she was deliberate
of gesture, quick-witted, and ready of tongue, and that in the midst
of the labour of government--and very arduous labour, as shall be
seen--she found time to learn Latin, so that she could understand all
that was said in that tongue.

“She was a zealous Catholic and very charitable, yet in her judgments
she inclined rather to rigour than to mercy. She listened to counsel,
but acted chiefly upon her own opinions. Of a rare fidelity to her
word, she never failed to fulfil that to which she had pledged herself,
save where compelled by stress of circumstance. She was reproached,
together with her husband, of being wanting in generosity, because,
seeing the royal patrimony diminished by the alienation of fiefs and
castles, she was always very careful of such concessions.

“‘Kings,’ she was wont to say, ‘should preserve with care their
dominions, because in alienating them they lose at once the money
necessary to make themselves beloved and the power to make themselves
feared.’”[24]

Such is the portrait that Pulgar has left us, and considering that
he is writing of a sovereign, it would be no more than reasonable to
suspect flattery and that curious, undiscriminating enthusiasm which
never fails to create panegyrists when it is a question of depicting
a prince, however inept, to his contemporaries. But if Pulgar has
erred in this instance, it has been on the side of moderation in his
portrayal of this gifted, high-spirited woman.

Her actions speak more eloquently of her character than can the pen of
any chronicler, and it is in the deeds of princes that we must seek
their true natures, not in what may have been written of them in their
own day. The deeds of Isabella’s life--with one dark exception that is
the subject of this history--more than bear out all that Pulgar and
others have set down in praise of her.

No sooner had she overthrown those who came from abroad to dispute her
right to the crown than she turned her attention to the subjugation of
those who disputed her authority at home. In this herculean labour she
had the assistance of Alonzo de Quintanilla, her chancellor, and Juan
Ortega, the King’s sacristan. These men proposed to organize at their
own risk one of those brotherhoods which Pulgar mentions as having been
so ardently desired by the country for its protection from those who
preyed upon it. This _hermandad_ was to act under royal sanction and
guidance, with the object of procuring peace and protection of property
in the kingdom. Isabella readily approved the proposal, and the
brotherhood was immediately founded, a tax to support it being levied
upon those in whose interest it was established, and very willingly
paid by them.

Splendidly organized, this association, half military, half civil, so
effectively discharged the functions for which it was created, that
twenty years later--in 1498--it was possible to abolish it, and to
replace it by a much simpler and less costly system of police which
then sufficed to preserve the order that had been restored.

Further to subject the turbulent and insubordinate nobility, Isabella
employed methods similar to those adopted in like case by her
neighbour, Louis XI of France. She bestowed the offices of state upon
men of merit without regard to birth, which hitherto had been accounted
the only qualification. The career of the law was thrown open to the
burgher classes, and every office under the crown was made accessible
to lawyers, who thus became the staunch friends of the sovereign.

If the nobles did not dare to revolt, at least they protested in the
strongest terms against these two innovations that so materially
affected and weakened their prestige. They represented in particular
that the institution of the _hermandad_ was the manifestation of a want
of confidence in the “faithful nobility,” and they implored that four
members of their order should be appointed by the Catholic Sovereigns
to form a council of supreme direction of the affairs of State, as
under the late King Henry IV.

To this the Catholic Sovereigns replied that the _hermandad_ was a
tutelary institution which was very welcome to the country, and which
it was their pleasure to maintain. As for the offices of State, it
was for the sovereigns to appoint such men as they considered best
qualified to hold them. The nobles, they added, were free to remain at
Court or to withdraw to their own domains, as they might see fit; but
as for the sovereigns, themselves, as long as it should please God to
preserve them in the high position in which He had deigned to place
them, it should be their care not to imitate the monarch who was cited
to them as an example, and not to become puppets in the hands of their
“faithful nobility.”

That answer gave the nobles pause. It led them to perceive that a
change had taken place, and that the lawless days of Henry IV were at
an end. To have made them realize this was something. But there was
more to be done before they would understand that they must submit to
the altered conditions, and Isabella pursued the policy she had adopted
with an unswerving directness, as the following story from Pulgar’s
Chronicle bears witness:

A quarrel had broken out in the Queen’s palace at Valladolid between
Don Fadrique Enriquez (son of the Admiral of Castile) and Don Ramiro
de Guzman. Knowledge of it reached the Queen, and she ordered both
disputants to hold themselves under arrest in their own quarters until
she should provide that judgment be given between them by the Courts.
Fadrique, however, signified his contempt of the royal mandate by
disobeying it and continuing at large. Learning this, Isabella gave the
more obedient Guzman his liberty, and the assurance of her word that he
should suffer no harm.

A few days later he was riding peacefully through the street, secure
in the Queen’s safe-conduct, when he was set upon by three masked
horsemen of the household of Fadrique and severely beaten. No sooner
did the Queen hear of this further affront to her authority than she
got to horse, and rode through torrential rain from Valladolid to the
Admiral’s castle at Simancas. In fact, in such haste did she set out
that she rode alone, without waiting for an escort. This, however,
followed presently, but did not come up with her save under the very
walls of the Admiral’s fortress.

She summoned the Admiral, and commanded him to deliver up his
rebellious son to her justice, and when Don Alonso Enriquez protested
that his son was not there, she bade her followers search the castle
from battlements to dungeons. The search, however, proved fruitless,
and Isabella returned empty-handed and indignant to Valladolid. Arrived
there, she took to her bed, and to those who came to seek news of her
health, she replied: “My body aches with the blows delivered yesterday
against my safe-conduct by Don Fadrique.”

The Admiral, trembling before the royal wrath, resolved to deliver up
his son and cast him upon the mercy of the Queen. So the Constable of
Castile--Fadrique’s uncle--undertook the office of intercessor. He went
with Don Fadrique to Valladolid, and imploring Isabella to consider
that the young man was but in his twentieth year and that he had sinned
through the rashness of youth, begged her to do upon him the justice
she might wish or the mercy that was due.

The Queen, however, was not to be moved to mercy for offences that set
her royal authority in contempt. She was inexorable. She refused to
see the offender, and submitted him to the indignity of being taken to
prison through the streets of the city by an alcalde. After a spell of
confinement there she banished him to Sicily, prohibiting his return to
Spain under pain of severest punishment.

It happened, however, that Don Ramiro de Guzman did not consider his
honour sufficiently avenged by his enemy’s exile. One night, when the
Court was at Medina del Campo, he ambushed himself in his turn with
some followers of his own, and attacked the Admiral, to return him
the blows received from his son. From this indignity the Admiral was
saved by his escort. But when Isabella heard of the affair, she treated
Guzman as a rebel, seized his castles in Leon and Castile, as she
would have seized his person, but that to escape her anger he fled to
Portugal for shelter.[25]

       *       *       *       *       *

No less determined was her conduct in the matter of the
Grand-Mastership of Santiago.

There were in Spain three religio-military orders: the Knights of
Alcantara, the celibate Knights of Calatrava--who were the successors
of the Knights Templars--and the Knights of Santiago. This last order
had been founded for the purpose of affording protection to the
pilgrims who came into Spain to visit the shrine at Compostella of
St. James the Apostle, who is alleged to have been the first to bear
the message of Christianity into the Iberian Peninsula.[26] These
pilgrimages, chiefly from France, were a great source of revenue to
the country, and it became of importance to ensure their immunity from
the predatory hordes that infested the highways. Further, the Knights
of Santiago had found employment for their arms in the crusade waged
on Spanish soil against the Moors, in token whereof they wore the
Crusader’s cross in red upon their white cloaks. They acquired great
power and wealth, possessing castles and convents in every part of
Spain, so that the office of Grand Master of the Order was one of great
weight and importance--too great, in the opinion of Isabella, to be in
the hands of a subject.

This opinion she boldly manifested in 1476, when the death of Don
Rodrigo Manrique left the office vacant. She took horse, as was her
custom, and rode to Huete, where the Chapter of the Order was assembled
upon the business of the necessary election, and she frankly urged that
to an office so exalted it was not fitting that any but the King should
be elected.

The proposal was not received with satisfaction. Ferdinand was an
Aragonese, and despite the union of the two kingdoms which must be
completed when he should succeed to the throne of Aragon, he was
still looked upon as a foreigner by the Castilians. Under Isabella’s
insistence, however, a compromise was effected. The Chapter consented
to elect Ferdinand to the office of Grand-Master on condition that he
should nominate a gentleman of Castile to act as his deputy for the
discharge of the duties of the position. This was done, and Alonso
de Cardenas--a loyal servant of the Sovereigns--was chosen as the
royal deputy. Thus Isabella established it that the appointment of
Grand-Master of the Order of Santiago should be a royal prerogative.

       *       *       *       *       *

Even more strikingly than in either of the instances cited does the
Queen’s resolute, spirited nature manifest itself in her manner of
dealing with a revolt that took place in Segovia at the commencement of
her reign.

During the war with Portugal the Catholic Sovereigns had entrusted
their eldest daughter, the Princess Isabella, to the care of Andrés de
Cabrera, the Seneschal of the Castle of Segovia, and his wife, Beatriz
de Bobadilla.

Cabrera, a man of stern and rigid equity, had occasion to depose his
lieutenant, Alonso Maldonado, from his office, conferring this upon his
own brother-in-law, Pedro de Bobadilla. Maldonado conspired to avenge
himself. He begged Bobadilla’s permission to remove some stones that
were in the castle, upon the pretext that he required them for his
own house, and he sent some men of his own to fetch them. These men,
who were secretly armed, having gained admission, stabbed the sentry
and seized the person of Bobadilla, whilst Maldonado, with other of
his people, took possession of the castle itself. The inmates of the
Alcazar, hearing the uproar, fled to the Homenaje Tower, taking with
them the Infanta, who was five years of age at the time. Fortified
in this, they defied Maldonado when he attacked it. Finding it
impregnable, the rebel ordered Bobadilla to be brought forward, and
threatened the besieged that unless they admitted him he would put the
prisoner to death.

To this threat Cabrera’s dignified reply was that Maldonado must do as
he pleased, but the gates would not be opened to him.

By this time a multitude of the townspeople had gathered there, alarmed
by the disturbance and armed for any emergency. To these Maldonado
cunningly represented that what he was about was being done in their
interests against the overbearing tyranny of the Governor, and he
invited them to join hands with him in the cause of liberty to complete
the work he had so excellently begun. The populace largely took sides
with him, so that Segovia was flung into a state of war. There was
constant fighting in the streets, and the gates were in the hands of
the rebels, with the exception of that of St. John, which was held for
Cabrera.

It is believed that it was Maria de Bobadilla herself who, stealing
undetected from the Alcazar, escaped from Segovia and bore to the
Queen the news of what was taking place, and the consequent peril of
the royal child.

Upon learning this, Isabella instantly repaired to Segovia. The leaders
of the rebellion had news of her approach, but dared not carry their
insubordination to the length of closing the gates against her. They
went so far, however, as to ride out to meet her and to attempt to deny
admittance to her followers; and her counsellors, seeing the humour of
the populace, urged her to be prudent and to accede to their wishes.
But her proud spirit flared up under that cautious advice.

“Learn,” she cried, “that I am Queen of Castile, that this city is
mine, and that no conditions are to be imposed upon me before I enter
it. I shall enter, then, and with me all those whom I may judge
necessary for my service.”

With that she ordered her escort forward, and entered the city by a
gate that was held by her partisans, and so won through to the Alcazar.

Thither flocked the infuriated mob, and thundered at the gates,
demanding admission.

The Queen, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the Cardinal of Spain
and the Count of Benavente, who were with her, ordered the gates to be
thrown open and as many admitted as the place would hold. The populace
surged into the courtyard, clamouring for the Seneschal. To meet them
came the slight, fair young queen, alone and fearless, and when in
their astonishment they had fallen silent--

“People of Segovia,” she calmly addressed them, “what do you seek?”

Dominated by her serenity, awed by her majesty, their fury fell from
them. Humbly now they urged their grievance against Cabrera, accusing
him of oppression, and imploring of the Queen’s grace his demission.

Instantly she promised them that their request should be granted;
whereupon the revulsion was complete, and the mob that but a few
moments earlier had been yelling threats and execrations now raised
their voices loyally to acclaim her.

She commanded them to return to their homes and their labours, and to
leave the administration of justice in her hands, sending her their
ambassadors to prefer their complaint against Cabrera, which she would
investigate.

As she commanded so it was done, and when she had examined the
accusations against the Seneschal and satisfied herself that they were
groundless, she announced him free from guilt and reinstated him in his
office, the conquered people bowing submissively to her ruling.[27]

In 1477 Isabella moved into Andalusia, in which province, as elsewhere,
law and order had ceased to exist. She entered Seville with the
proclaimed intention of demanding an account of the guilty. But at the
very rumour of her approach and the business upon which she came, some
thousands of the inhabitants whose consciences were uneasy made haste
to depart the city.

Alarmed by this depopulation, the Sevillans implored the Queen to
sheathe the sword of justice, representing that after the bloody
affrays that for years had been afflicting the district there was
scarcely a family in which some member was not answerable to the law.

Isabella, gentle and merciful by nature--which renders her association
with the Inquisition the more deplorable--lent an ear to these
representations, and granted an amnesty for all crimes committed
since the death of Henry IV. But she was not so lenient with those
who had prostituted the justice which they administered in her name.
Informed of the judges who were making a trade and extortion of their
judgments, she punished them by deposition, and herself fixed the
scale of legal costs to be observed in future.

Finding a mass of impending law-suits which the misrule of the past
years had put upon the province, she directed her attention to clearing
up this Augean stable. Every Friday, attended by her Council, she sat
in the great hall of the Alcazar of Seville to hear the plaints of the
most humble of her subjects; and so earnestly and vigorously did she go
to work that in two months she had disposed of litigations that might
have dragged on for years.

       *       *       *       *       *

Upon her accession she had found the royal treasury exhausted by the
inept administration of the last two reigns and the prodigal, reckless
grants that Henry IV and Juan II had made to the nobles. This condition
of things had seriously embarrassed the Catholic Sovereigns, and they
had been driven to various expedients to raise the requisite funds
for the war with Portugal. Now that the war was at an end, they found
themselves without the means necessary to maintain the royal state.

Isabella made a close investigation of the grants that had been made by
her brother and father, and she cancelled all those that were the fruit
of caprice and wantonness, restoring to the Crown the revenues that had
been recklessly alienated and the taxes that the country had hitherto
paid to none but the bandits who oppressed it.

Similarly she found the public credit entirely ruined. Under the late
king such had been the laxity, that in three years no less than 150
public mints had been authorized, and this permitted such abuses that
a point had been reached where it almost seemed that every Spaniard
minted his own money, or that, as Rosseeuw St. Hilaire puts it,
“coining was the country’s chief industry.”

[Illustration:

  _Photo by Alinari._

POPE INNOCENT III. AND ST. DOMINIC.

From a Fresco in the Church of the Sacro Speco, Subiaco.]

She reduced the number of mints to five, and exercised the severest
control over their output, thereby liberating trade from the fear of
fraud that had been stifling it. An increased and steadily increasing
prosperity was the almost immediate result of this wise measure.

       *       *       *       *       *

Having restored order in the country, she turned her attention to the
Court, applied herself to the purification of its morals, and set about
converting it from the disgusting licence that had prevailed in her
brother’s time.

Herself of a rigid chastity, she exacted the same purity of conduct in
all the women who approached her, and she submitted the noble damsels
brought up at her Court to the very strictest surveillance. Loving the
King very sincerely, she was notoriously inclined to jealousy: let
him but look too assiduously upon any lady of her train, and Isabella
found a way to remove her from the Court. She saw to it that the pages
who were in waiting upon her should be given a good education, that
thus they might avoid the idleness which unfailingly leads to waste
of character and to immorality. Finally, according to Bernaldez,[28]
she extended her moral reforms to the convents, which were no less in
need of them than the Court, and she corrected and punished the great
depravity that was permeating all conventual orders.[29]

There is no chronicler of her reign who does not dilate upon her great
piety. Bernaldez compares her to St. Helena, the mother of the Emperor
Constantine,[30] and describes her as very devoted to the Holy Faith
and very obedient to Holy Church. Bernaldez, of course, was writing
after the establishment of the Inquisition, of which he, in common with
other contemporary and subsequent chroniclers, very warmly approved;
and he may have been very largely influenced by consideration of the
support which she had unfortunately lent to its introduction into
Castile. But that her piety was extreme and sincere we infer from the
moment that we see her, after the battle of Toro, which definitely gave
her the crown, going barefoot to church to a service of thanksgiving.

Yet, however ardent her piety, it would not carry her the length of
recognizing in the Pope the temporal over-lord of Castile.

From the thirteenth century the power of the Church had been increasing
in Spain under the dogma of the spiritual sovereignty of Rome over all
the Catholic churches of the world. The clergy had amassed enormous
wealth with that facility so peculiarly their own when the occasion is
afforded them, and to this end they had abused the reckless, foolish
liberality of Isabella’s predecessors.

Lucius Marinæus informs us that the incomes of the four
archbishoprics--Toledo, Santiago, Seville, and Granada--amounted to
134,000 ducats,[31] whilst those of the twenty bishoprics came to some
250,000 ducats.

Surrounded as she was by priestly counsellors whom she respected,
she nevertheless manifested plainly her impatience of the clerical
usurpation of the rights of the Crown. The chief of these abuses
was no doubt that practised by the Pontiff himself, in conferring
upon foreigners the highest and richest benefices of the Church of
Spain, ignoring that it was the prerogative of the Crown to name the
bishops--always subject to papal confirmation. That Isabella, devout
and priest-surrounded as she was, should have dared to oppose the Holy
See and the terrible Pope Sixtus IV, as fearlessly as she had opposed
her predatory nobles, is perhaps the highest proof that history can
yield of her strength of character.

Her smouldering indignation flared out when the Pope, ignoring her
nomination of her chaplain, Alonzo de Burgos, to the vacant bishopric
of Cuenca, appointed his own nephew, Raffaele Riario, Cardinal of San
Sisto, to that vacant see.

Twice already had she sought the pontiff’s confirmation of nominees
of her own for other benefices--the Archbishopric of Saragoza and
the Bishopric of Tarragona--and on each occasion her nominee had
been set aside in favour of a creature of the Pope’s. But this third
contemptuous disregard of her prerogative was more than her patience
could endure. The Catholic Sovereigns refused to ratify the appointment
of Riario, and begged the Pope--submissively at first--to cancel it.

But the harsh, overbearing Sixtus returned an answer characteristic
of his arrogant nature. It was his, he announced, to distribute at
his pleasure all the benefices of Christendom; and he condescended to
explain that the power which it had pleased God to confer upon him on
earth could not be limited by any will but his own, and that it was
governed only by the interests of the Catholic Faith, of which he was
the sole arbiter.

But his stubbornness met a stubbornness as great. The Catholic
Sovereigns replied by withdrawing their ambassador from the Papal
Court, and issuing an injunction to all Spanish subjects to leave Rome.

Matters were becoming strained; an open rupture impended between Spain
and the Vatican. But the Sovereigns had notified the Pope that it was
their intention to summon a general council of the Church to settle
the matter in dispute, and no Pope of those days could contemplate with
equanimity a general council assembled for the purpose of sitting in
judgment upon his decrees. Whatever the result, since at these councils
the papal authority was questioned, it must follow that thereafter
that authority would be impaired. Therefore this was the stock threat
employed to bring a recalcitrant pontiff to a reasonable frame of mind.

It made Sixtus realize the strength of purpose that was opposed to him;
and, knowing as he did that this resoluteness backed an undeniable
right which he had violated, he perceived that he dared carry
insistence no further. So, despite his earlier assertion that the power
which he held from God could be limited by no will but his own and
governed by no consideration but that of the interests of the Faith, he
gave way completely.

The three royal nominees were duly confirmed in the vacant sees, and
Sixtus gave an undertaking that in future he would make no appointments
to the benefices of Spain save of such ecclesiastics as the Catholic
Sovereigns should nominate.[32]

It is to be added that in acting upon this signal victory which she
had won, Isabella used the faculty it gave her with such pious wisdom,
sincerity, and discretion that had the Pope but followed her example
in the appointment of dignitaries, it would have contributed to the
greater honour and glory of the Church. For she sternly opposed the
granting of benefices upon any grounds but those of absolute merit.

Having won her way in this, she was the better able to curb the
predatory habits of her clergy by edicts that limited their power to
proper clerical confines.

       *       *       *       *       *

“It is amazing,” comments Pulgar, “that a woman should have been able,
single-handed and in so little time, by her judgment and perseverance
to accomplish what many men and great kings had been unable to do in
many years.”

“Properly to judge the notable improvements,” says Rosseeuw St.
Hilaire,[33] “which this reign effected in industry and agriculture,
it would be necessary to follow year by year the table of ordinances
issued by the Catholic Sovereigns. It would be seen that in many things
the genius of the founders of the Castilian Monarchy forestalled
the work of centuries. The happy results of these reforms were soon
experienced everywhere: the highways were purged of malefactors, new
roads of communication were opened up, rivers were bridged, consular
tribunals established in commercial centres, consulates created in
Flanders, England, France, and Italy; with maritime commerce expanding
daily and in a measure with the progress of industry, new buildings
sprang up in every city, and the population rapidly increased. All
announced a new era of regeneration in Castile. Contemporary writers,
struck by these prodigies, exalt with one voice this glorious reign
which opens new destinies to Spain.”

       *       *       *       *       *

It is certain that in no other country in Europe at this date were
the laws so well maintained and the rights of the individual so well
protected. Justice was rigorously done, there were no longer arbitrary
imprisonments and sequestrations, whilst the unequal and capricious
taxation of the past was abolished for all time.

“Such,” says Marinæus, “was the strict justice meted out to each
in this happy reign that all men, nobles and knights, traders and
husbandmen, rich and poor, masters and servants, were treated alike and
received equally their share of it.”

       *       *       *       *       *

Where so much was good, where so much stout service was done to the
cause of progress and civilization, it is the more deplorable to find
in this reign the one evil thing that is now to be considered--so evil
that it must be held to counterbalance and stultify all the excellences
of Isabella’s sway.

The particular praise which so far we have heard their contemporaries
bestowing upon the Catholic Sovereigns, is a praise which every man in
every age must echo.

But there was praise as loud upon another score, as universally uttered
by every contemporary and many subsequent historians, some no doubt
because they were sincere in the deadly bigotry that inspired it,
others because they did not dare to express themselves in different
terms.

“By her,” cries Bernaldez, as a climax to his summing-up of her many
virtues and wise provisions, “was burnt and destroyed the most evil and
abominable Mosaic, Talmudic, Jewish heresy.”

And Mariana, the historian, accounts the introduction of the
Inquisition into Spain the most glorious feature of the reign of
Ferdinand and Isabella. He is setting it above all the moral splendours
of that day when he exclaims:

“Still better and happier fortune for Spain was the establishment in
Castile at about this time of a new and holy tribunal of severe and
grave judges for the purpose of inquiring into and punishing heretical
pravity and apostasy....”[34]

It would be unjust to suppose that there is a man to be found to-day in
the Church of Rome, of which the Spanish Inquisition was a deplorable
and integral part, who can turn with us in other than regret to
consider this black shadow that lies across one of the brightest pages
of history.




CHAPTER V

THE JEWS IN SPAIN


You have seen the Catholic Sovereigns instilling order into that
distracted land of Spain, enforcing submissiveness to the law,
instituting a system of police for the repression of brigandage,
curtailing the depredations of the nobles, checking the abuses and
usurpations of the clergy, restoring public credit, and generally
quelling all the elements of unrest that had afflicted the State.

But one gravely disturbing element still remained in the bitter rancour
prevailing between Christian and Jew.

“Some clerics and many laymen,” says Pulgar,[35] “informed the
Sovereigns that there were in the Kingdom many Christians of Jewish
extraction who were Judaizing[36] again and holding Jewish rites in
their houses, and who neither believed the Catholic Faith nor performed
the Catholic duties. They implored the Sovereigns, as they were
Christian princes, to punish that detestable error, because if left
unpunished it might so spread that our Holy Catholic Faith must receive
great harm.”

       *       *       *       *       *

Exactly to realize the position at the time, and the force behind the
arguments employed to induce the Catholic Sovereigns to complete
the ordering of the kingdom by the repression of the re-Judaizing,
or apostasy, of the New-Christians--as the baptized Jews and their
descendants were termed--it is necessary to take at least a brief
retrospective survey of the history of the Israelites in Spain.

       *       *       *       *       *

At what period the Jews first appeared in the peninsula it is not easy
to determine with accuracy.

Salazar de Mendoza and other ancient historians, who base their
writings upon the work of Tomás Tamayo de Vargas, put forward views
upon this subject that are curious rather than important.

They assert that the Kingdom of Spain was founded by Tubal, the son of
Japhet, who had Europe for his portion when the division was made among
the sons of Noah. Hence it was called Tubalia, and later on Sepharad by
the Jews, and Hesperida by the Greeks. They hold that the first Jews in
the Iberian Peninsula were probably those who came with Nebuchadnezzar
II, King of Chaldea, and that he brought with him, in addition to
Chaldeans and Persians, ten tribes of Israel, who peopled Toledo,[37]
and built there the most beautiful synagogue that had been theirs since
the temple of Solomon. This synagogue, Mendoza states, afterwards
became the Convent of Santa Maria la Blanca (a statement which the
architecture of Santa Maria la Blanca very flatly contradicts). He
further informs us that they built another synagogue at Zamora, and
that those who worshipped there always prided themselves--his point of
view, of course, is narrowly Christian--that to them had been addressed
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews.

They founded a university at Lucena (near Cordova), and schools where
the law was taught, so that the holy Jewish religion spread rapidly,
and was observed throughout Spain until the coming of Our Lord into
the world. Then, in 37 A.D., the Apostle St. James came to preach the
new gospel in Iberia, “so that Spain was the first land after Judea to
receive the holy law of grace.” Following the writings of Vargas, he
goes so far as to say: “and although to many it has seemed apocryphal
that the Toledo Jews wrote to denounce the Passion of Our Lord, the
assertion is not without good foundation.”[38]

Amador de los Rios is probably correct in his opinion that the Jews
made their first appearance in Spain during the Visigothic dominion,
after the fall of Jerusalem; and scarcely had they settled in the
peninsula when they began to experience the bitterness of persecution.
But after they had been delivered from this by the Saracen invaders,
to whom by race and creed they were fairly sympathetic, they
enjoyed--alike under Moslem and Christian rule--a season of prosperity
in Spain, which endured until the close of the thirteenth century. And
this notwithstanding the undercurrent of mutual contempt and hatred, of
Christian for Jew and Jew for Christian, that was invincible in an age
of strong religious feeling.

To the Christian every Jew he encountered was his natural and
hereditary enemy, a descendant of those who had crucified the Saviour;
therefore he was an object of execration, a man upon whom it must
be meritorious to avenge the world’s greatest crime which had been
perpetrated by his forbears.

The Jew, on the other hand, held the Christian in a contempt as
thorough. From the standpoint of his own pure and unadulterated
monotheism, he looked scornfully upon a religion that must appear to
him no better than an adaptation of polytheism, developed upon the
doctrines of one whom the Jews had rejected as an impostor who had
attempted to usurp the place of the promised Messiah. To the truly
devout Jew of those days the Christian religion can have been little
better than a blasphemy. Nor was that the only source of his contempt.
Looking back upon his own splendid ancestry, upon the antiquity of
his race and the high order of its culture--the fruit of centuries of
intellectual evolution--what but scorn could he entertain for these
Spaniards of yesterday’s hatching, who were just emerging from the
slough of barbarism?

It is clear that mutual esteem between the races was out of all
question in an age of strong religious prejudices. Toleration, however,
was possible, and the Jew applied himself to win it. To this end he
employed at once the vices and the virtues of the unfortunate, which
centuries of tribulation had rendered inherent in him.

Armed with a stoicism that was almost pitiful, he donned a mask of
indifference to confront expressed hatred and contempt; to violence he
opposed cunning and the long-suffering patience that is so peculiarly
his own--the patience that is allied with a high order of intelligence;
the patience which, interpreted into “an infinite capacity for taking
pains,” has been urged as the definition of genius, and is the secret
of the Jew’s success wherever he is established.

In the cohesion in a foreign land of this people that cannot keep
together as a nation, and in their extraordinary commercial acuteness,
lies the strength of the Jews. They grew wealthy by their industry
and thrift, until they were in a position to purchase those privileges
which in Christendom are the birth-right of every Christian. Their
numbers, too, made it difficult in Spain to treat them with contumely;
for upon the reasoned estimate of Amador de los Rios[39] there were
close upon a million Jews in Castile at the end of the thirteenth
century.

They formed by their solidarity--as they always do--an _imperium in
imperio_, a state of their own within the state; they had their own
language and customs; they were governed by their own laws, which
were enforced by their Rabbis and chiefs, and they pursued their own
religion unmolested, for even the observation of the Sabbath was
respected by the Castilians. Thus they came to create for themselves in
a foreign country a simulacrum of their own native land.

It is true that they were afflicted from time to time by sporadic,
local persecutions; but in the main they enjoyed a tolerance and
religious liberty which the poor harried Albigenses beyond the Pyrenees
might well have envied. For the Church, which had already established
the Inquisition, was very far--for reasons that shall be considered
in the next chapter--from instigating any persecution of the Children
of Israel. Thus, Honorius III, whilst carrying forward the policy of
Innocent III, and enjoining the extirpation of heretics in Southern
France and elsewhere, confirmed (November 7, 1217) the privileges
accorded to the Jews by his predecessors upon the throne of St. Peter.
These were that no Jew should be constrained to receive baptism; that
should he incline to embrace the Christian Faith he must be received in
it with love and benevolence; that his feasts and religious ceremonies
must be respected by Christians; that the whipping or stoning of Jews
be forbidden and punished; that their burial-places be held sacred.

And when King Ferdinand III--afterwards canonized--wrested Seville from
the Moors (1224), he made over one of the best districts of the city
to the Jews, and gave them the four mosques contained in it that they
might convert them into synagogues.

The only restraint placed upon them by the law was that they must
refrain, under pain of death, from attempting to proselytize among
Christians, and that they must show respect for the Christian religion.

These were the halcyon days of Hebrew prosperity in Spain. Their
distinguished abilities were recognized, and they won to many positions
of importance in the government. The finances of the kingdom were in
their control, and Castile prospered under their able administration of
its commerce. Alfonso VIII, in whose reign it is estimated there were
12,000 Jews in Toledo alone, employed a Jew as his treasurer, and did
not disdain to take a Jewess for his mistress--an interesting little
fact in view of the law that was so soon to be promulgated on that
subject.

Hardly less than their value to the nation’s commerce were their
services to science, art, and literature. They excelled particularly in
medicine and chemistry, and the most skilful doctors and surgeons of
the Middle Ages were men of their race.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the middle of the thirteenth century a change unfortunately set in,
and this external harmony so laboriously established was disturbed by
an excrescence of the real feelings that had never ceased to underlie
it. Largely the Jews were themselves to blame. Deluded by the religious
liberty that was conceded them, by the dignities to which men of their
faith had climbed, and by the prosperity which they had attained, they
failed to perceive that their accumulated wealth was in itself a menace
to their safety.

Emboldened by the consideration shown them, they committed the
imprudence of giving a free rein to their Oriental taste for splendour;
they surrounded themselves with luxury, and permitted themselves an
ostentatious magnificence in their raiment and equipages, and thus
proclaimed the wealth they had been amassing through generations of
comparative obscurity.

Had they confined themselves to this strictly personal display all
might yet have been well. But being dressed and housed in princely
fashion, they put on princely ways. They grew haughty and arrogant with
the horrible arrogance of wealth. They allowed their disdain of the
less affluent Christians to transpire in their contemptuous bearing
towards them, and being unchecked in this it was but another step to
abuse the privileges which they enjoyed.

Their parade of wealth had provoked envy--the most dangerous and
maleficent of the passions implanted in the human heart. Their
arrogance and cavalier bearing stirred that envy into activity.

Questions arose touching the sources of their wealth. It was propounded
against them that their usurious practices had ruined many of the
Christians whom they now dared to spurn. And although usury had been
sanctioned and it had been proclaimed lawful for them to charge a
rate of interest as high as 40 per centum, it was suddenly remembered
that usury had in all times been uncompromisingly condemned by the
Church--and by the term usury the Church then understood any interest,
however slight, paid upon borrowed money.

Fanaticism began to stir uneasily in its slumber, and presently, under
the spur of greed, it roused itself and reared its horrid head. Public
feeling against the Israelites was increased by the fact that they had
practically acquired control of the ever-unpopular offices for the
collection of taxes.

The populace grew menacing. Evil tales concerning them were put about,
and they were accused, among other ritual abominations, of practising
human sacrifices.

Whether there was any real ground for the accusation is one of those
historical mysteries that baffle the student. On the one hand it seems
impossible to collect sufficient data to establish any single one
of the many specific accusations made; whilst on the other hand, in
view of the persistence with which the charge crops up in different
countries and at different epochs,[40] it would be presumptuous to
dismiss it as groundless.

The first official recognition of the accusation is to be found in the
code known as the _Partidas_, promulgated by Alfonso XI (1256-1263),
which contains the following clause:

“As we hear that in some places the Jews on Good Friday make a mocking
commemoration of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, stealing boys
and crucifying them, or making waxen images and crucifying these when
boys are not procurable, we order that should it become known that
hereafter, in any part of our realm, such a thing is done, all those
whom it is ascertained are connected with the deed shall be arrested
and brought before the King. And when he shall have satisfied himself
of the truth of the charge he shall have them put to death, as many as
they may be.”[41]

       *       *       *       *       *

Llorente mentions four specific cases of ritual murder, to which he
appears to attach credit:

1250.--A choir-boy of the Metropolitan Church of Zaragoza, named
Domingo de Val, crucified by Jews. He was afterwards canonized and
worshipped at Zaragoza as a martyr.

1452.--A boy crucified by Jews at Valladolid.

1454.--A boy from the lordship of the Marquess of Almarza, near Zamora,
crucified. His heart was afterwards burnt and the ashes were consumed
in wine by the Jews who attended the ceremony. The body was afterwards
discovered by a dog, and this led to the arrest of the culprits and
their conviction.

1468.--At Sepulveda, in the Bishopric of Segovia, a boy was taken on
the Thursday of Holy Week, and on Good Friday he was crowned with
thorns, whipped, and finally crucified. The Bishop, D. Juan Arias,
having received intelligence of this crime, instituted an inquiry which
resulted in the arrest of several men, who, being convicted, were put
to death.

       *       *       *       *       *

Llorente gives as his authority for the third and fourth cases
the “Fortalicium Fidei” of Espina--by no means an authority to be
unquestioningly accepted. For the second he mentions no authority
whatever; whilst for fuller information upon the first he refers his
readers to the “Historia de Santo Domingo de Val,” which is of no more
authority than most works of this class.[42] But the canonization
of this victim gives rise to thought; for it was never the way of
the Church of Rome to proceed recklessly and without due evidence in
such matters. Even if it were, however, it would be necessary in this
case to show a motive for such recklessness. The only motive possible
would be the desire to create justification for a persecution of the
Jews. But, as has been said--and as shall presently be made abundantly
clear--it never was the aim of the Church of Rome to engage in such
persecution or to incite to it.

The famous case of the crucifixion of the “Holy Infant” of La Gardia,
whose trial was directed by Torquemada himself, shall be considered in
its proper place.

As is well known, the practice of human sacrifice is an extremely old
one; and it has been associated in varying forms with many widely
different cults. The earliest absolutely historical instance of Jews
resorting to it is probably that quoted by Dr. J. G. Frazer (in “The
Golden Bough”) from the “Historia Ecclesiastica” of Socrates. The
scholiast relates how in 416, at Imnestar in Syria, a company of Jews
during one of their festivals fell to deriding Christians and their
Christ. At the height of their frenzy they seized a boy, bound him to
a cross, and hung him up. A brawl was the result, and the authorities
intervened to make the Jews pay dearly for their crime.

Amador de los Rios, in dealing with the spread of this charge against
the Spanish Hebrews in the thirteenth century, attributes it to the
subject’s having been made the theme of an exceedingly dramatic
narrative poem in the “Milagros de Nuestra Señora” by Gonzalo de
Berceo. At the same time he does not go so far as to urge that the
story upon which the ballad was founded may not have had its roots in
fact. On the contrary, he suggests that such may have been the case,
and having chronicled the persistence of the accusation, he refrains
from expressing any definite opinion on the subject, hesitating either
to accept, or to dismiss as idle calumnies, these charges of ritual
murder.

From the able arguments that have been put forward on this same
subject by Frazer and Wendland, it is to be concluded that in any
case the Christians were mistaken in assuming that these alleged
crucifixions held at the Feast of Purim--whether of human beings
or of effigies--were intended as a mockery of the Passion of the
Redeemer. Their origin is a far more ancient one, involving a rite of
which the Sacrifice of Golgotha may itself have been an individual
celebration--the commemoration of the hanging of Haman--which, again,
was the continuation of a ritual practised by the Babylonians and
acquired from them by the Jews during their captivity.[43]

[Illustration:

  _Photo by Lacoste._

ISABELLA THE CATHOLIC.

From a Painting in the Prado Gallery, attributed to Miguel Zittoz.]

Whatever may be the truth of this matter of ritual murder, there
is no doubt that these rumours were diligently spread to inflame the
popular mind against the Jews.

Fanatical monks--ignoring the papal injunctions of forbearance and
toleration towards the Children of Israel--went forth through Castile
preaching the iniquity of the Jews and God’s wrath to fall upon the
land that harboured them. Thus incited, and perceiving profit in the
business, the faithful rose to destroy them. Massacres and pillages
were the inevitable result, although as a rule the authorities were
prompt to intervene and repress the populace’s combined fanaticism and
quest for plunder.

But when in 1342 the Black Death spread over Europe, the Dominicans and
others renewed their denunciations, and led men to believe the Jews
responsible for the pestilence that afflicted the land. In Germany
they were ruthlessly given to choose between death and baptism, and
they suffered horribly until Pope Clement VI stepped in to save
them. He besought the Emperor to restrain his murderers; and finding
that his pleadings lacked effect, he launched the thunderbolts of
excommunication against all who should continue to engage in the
persecution of the Jews.

Stricken with terror before that awful menace of the Church, the
faithful paused in the carnage, and the voice of denunciation fell
silent.

       *       *       *       *       *

Thus, for a season, they won a little measure of peace. But throughout
the fourteenth century spurts of persecution broke out here and
there, and massacres took place in Castile, Aragon, and Navarre. The
authorities, too, with the precedent of the Partidas before them,
whilst not going the length of sanctioning, or even permitting violence
where they could repress it, yet practised upon the Jews the most
flagrant and cruel injustices. Of these the worst instance is that of
the tax of 20,000 gold dobles levied upon the aljamas of Toledo by
Henry II on his accession in 1369. To realize this sum he ordered the
public sale not only of the property of the Jews, but actually of their
persons into slavery, as is to be seen by his decree.[44]

The persecutions with which they were visited were chiefly procured by
the monks, who went abroad preaching against them, fomenting the hatred
of the Christians against a people who were largely their creditors.
Even where the religious incentive was insufficient, the easy way of
wiping out debts which this gratification of their piety afforded
proved irresistible to a people whose flagrant immorality--in every
sense of the term--went hand in hand with their perfervid devoutness.

These persecutions, as we have said, the authorities made haste to
quell. But there arose presently a rabid fanatic who proved altogether
irrepressible. His name was Hernando Martinez. He was a Dominican
friar, and Canon of Ecija. Of his sincerity there can be no doubt;
and their sincerity is the most terrible thing about such men,
blinding them to the point of utter madness. He was ready to suffer
any martyrdom sooner than be silent in a cause in which he considered
it his sacred duty to give tongue. About this sacred duty he went
forth, screaming his denunciations of the Jews, frenziedly inciting
the mob to rise up and destroy this accursed race, these enemies of
God, these crucifiers of the Saviour. Indeed, he could not have shown
a more fierce and frothing hatred of them had they been the very men
who at the throne of Pilate had clamoured for the blood of Christ--and
for whose pardon the gentle Redeemer had prayed in His expiring
moments: a matter this which escaped the attention of the Archdeacon
of Ecija, being--like many another--too full of piety to find room for
Christianity in his soul.

Appeals against him were made to the Archbishop of Seville, whose
official, or representative, he was. He was ordered by his Archbishop
to desist, and when in flagrant disobedience to his superior he
continued to preach his gospel of blood and hatred, appeals were
made to the King, and even to the Pope; and by King and Pope was he
commanded to cease his inflammatory sermons.

But he defied them all alike. In his fanatical fury he carried his
contumacy so far as to call in question the papal authority, and to
declare illicit the sanction given by the popes for the erection and
preservation of synagogues. This was perilously akin to heresy. Men
had been sent to the stake for less, and Hernando Martinez must have
been utterly mad if he conceived that the Church would permit him to
continue the diffusion of such doctrines.

He was brought before the episcopal court to answer for his words. He
answered defiantly--told them that the breath of God was in him, and
that it was not for men to stop his mouth.

Thereupon Don Pedro Barroso--the archbishop--ordered that he should
stand his trial for contumacy and heresy, and meanwhile suspended him
from all jurisdiction and all duties as archiepiscopal official.

It happened, however, that Barroso died shortly thereafter, before the
trial could take place; and Martinez contrived to get himself elected
by the Chapter to the position of one of the provisors of the diocese
pending the appointment of a successor to Barroso. Thus he resumed his
power and the faculty to preach; and he used it so ruthlessly that in
December of 1390 several synagogues in Seville were laid in ruins by
the mob acting in obedience to his incitement.

The Jews appealed to the King for protection, and the authorities, now
thoroughly roused, ordered that Martinez be deposed from his office and
forbidden to preach, and that the demolished synagogues be rebuilt by
the Chapter which had made itself responsible by electing him.

But Martinez, ever defiant, disregarded both King and Chapter. He
pursued his bloodthirsty mission, stirring up a populace that was but
too ready to perceive--through his arguments--a way to perform an act
that must be pleasing to God whilst enriching itself at the same time.
What populace could have been proof against such reasoning?

Finally, in the summer of 1391, the whole country was ablaze with
fanatical persecution. The fierce flames broke out first in Seville,
under the assiduous fanning of the deposed archdeacon.

Three years before, in view of the harm that it was urged the Jews
were doing to religion by their free intermingling with Christians,
King John I had ordered them to live apart in districts appointed for
them, which came to be known as Juderias (Jewries or ghettos). It
was commanded that the Christians should not enter these, and that
for purposes of trade the Jews should come to the public markets and
there erect tents, but they must own no house or domicile beyond the
precincts of the Juderias, and they must withdraw to these at nightfall.

Into the Juderia of Seville the mob now penetrated, wrought by Martinez
to a pitch of frenzy almost equal to his own. They went armed, and
they put the place to sack and slaughter, butchering its every tenant
without discrimination or pity for age or sex. The number of the slain
has been estimated at some four thousand, men, women, and children.[45]

From Seville the conflagration spread to the other cities of Spain,
and what had happened there happened in Burgos, Valencia, Toledo, and
Cordova, and further in Aragon, Cataluna, and Navarre, whilst the
streets of Barcelona are said to have run with the blood of immolated
Jews.

Into the Jewry of every town went the infuriated mob to force
Christ--as these Christians understood Him--upon the inhabitants;
to offer the terror-stricken Jews the choice between steel and
water--death and baptism.

So mighty and violent was the outbreak that the authorities were
powerless to quell it, and where they attempted to do so with any
degree of determination they were themselves caught in the fury of
the populace. Nor did the slaughter cease until the Christians were
glutted, and some fifty thousand Jews had perished.

The churches were now filled with Jews who came clamouring for baptism,
having perceived that through its waters lay the way to temporal as
well as to spiritual life, and having in most cases--in the abject
state of terror to which they had been reduced--more concern for the
former than for the latter. Llorente estimates the number of baptized
at over a million, and this number was considerably swelled by the
conversions effected by St. Vincent Ferrer, who came forth upon his
mission to the Jews in the early years of the fifteenth century,
and who induced thousands to enter the fold of Christianity by his
eloquence and by the marvels which it is said he wrought.

       *       *       *       *       *

The fury of the mob having spent itself, peace was gradually restored,
and little by little those Jews who had remained faithful to their
religion and yet survived began to come forth from their hiding-places,
to assemble, and, with the amazing, invincible patience and pertinacity
of their race, to build up once more the edifice that had been
demolished.

But if the sword of persecution was sheathed, the spirit that had
guided it was still abroad, and the Jews were made to experience
further repressive measures. Under decrees of 1412-13 they lost most of
the few privileges that the late king had left them.

It was ordained by these that henceforth no Jew should occupy the
position of a judge even in a Hebrew court, nor should any Jew be
permitted to bear witness. All synagogues were to be closed or
converted into Christian temples, with the exception of one in every
town in which Jews should be established. They were forbidden to
continue the practice of the professions of medicine, surgery, and
chemistry, in which they had specialised with such good results to the
community. They were no longer to occupy the offices of tax-collectors,
and all commerce with Christians was forbidden them. They must neither
buy nor sell in trade with Christians, nor eat with them, nor use
their baths, nor send their children to the same schools. The ghetto
was ordered to be walled round, so as to be enclosed and cut off
from the rest of the city, and they were forbidden to issue from it.
Intercourse between a Jew and a Christian woman was forbidden under
pain of death by burning, even though the woman were a prostitute.
They were forbidden to shave, and compelled to allow their beards and
hair to grow, in addition to which they were ordered to wear as a
distinguishing mark a circle of red cloth upon the shoulder of their
gabardines. They were further compelled to hear three sermons annually
from a Christian preacher, whose aim it was to pour abuse and contumely
upon them, to inveigh against their accursed race and creed, to assure
them of the certainty of the damnation that awaited them, and to exalt
before them the excellences of the Catholic religion (based, be it
remembered, that we may fully savour the irony, upon Faith, Hope, and
Charity).[46]

When King John I had established the Juderias in 1388, curtailing at
the same time the privileges which until then the Jews had enjoyed--at
least by paying for them--there had been many who, finding the
restraint imposed upon them altogether intolerable, had abandoned the
faith of their fathers and embraced Christianity. Those who held
the affairs of this world in esteem had sought baptism, and whilst
many in doing so had entirely broken with the past--and often, as is
the way of converts, become zealots in their observance of the faith
embraced--many others, whilst outwardly complying with the obligations
of the Christian religion, continued in secret to observe the law of
Moses and their Jewish rites. Similarly these further decrees against
their liberty had the effect of causing still more numerous conversions
to Christianity.

These converts were termed “New-Christians” by the Spaniards. By
those of their own race who had remained faithful they were called
“marranos”--a contemptuous epithet derived from _Maran-atha_, (“The
Lord is coming”), but supposed by the Christians to signify “accursed.”
It came into general use before very long.

These New-Christians, as a consequence of their conversion, gained
not merely the privileges recently lost to them as Jews, but found
themselves upon a footing of absolute equality with the Old-Christians;
every profession was open to them, and by applying themselves to these
with all their energy and intelligence, they found themselves before
very long in possession of some of the highest offices in the land.

But in the meanwhile the rigour of the decrees of 1412 came to be
considerably relaxed; a degree of liberty and of intermingling with
Christians was permitted to the Jews, and many of the offices which
they had occupied of old came once more under their control, chiefly
those concerned with commerce and finance and the farming of the
taxes. Under the deplorable rule of Henry IV the nobles, whose slave
he was, demanded that he should “expel from his service and States the
Jews who, exploiting public misery, have contrived to return to the
appointments of tax-gatherers.”

The weak King agreed, but neglected to execute his promise; it was
presently forgotten, and the Jewish section of the community was
allowed to continue under the conditions of ease we have described.
Under these conditions was it found by Ferdinand and Isabella upon
their accession, nor does it appear that they paid any particular
attention to it until invited to do so by the “clerics and laymen” who,
as Pulgar[47] tells us, represented to them that in the re-Judaizings
that were taking place was matter for their jurisdiction.




CHAPTER VI

THE NEW-CHRISTIANS


It must clearly be understood that so far the Inquisition, which for
some three centuries already had been very active in Italy and Southern
France, had not reached Castile.

Even as recently as 1474, when Pope Sixtus IV had ordered the
Dominicans to set up the Inquisition in Spain, and whilst in
obedience to that command inquisitors were appointed in Aragon,
Valencia, Cataluña, and Navarre, it was not held necessary to make
any appointment in Castile, where no heresy of any account could
be perceived. Trials of such offences against the Faith as might
occur were conducted by the bishops, who were fully empowered to
deal with them; and such offences being rare, the necessity for a
special tribunal did not suggest itself, nor did the Pope press the
matter, desirous though he might be to see the Inquisition universally
established.

There was, of course, a large Hebrew population, and also a
considerable number of Moslems, in the peninsula. But these did
not come within the jurisdiction of any ecclesiastical court. The
Inquisition itself could take no cognizance of them, as they did not
offend against the Faith.

Explanation is perhaps necessary. We touch here upon a point on which
the religious persecution known as the Inquisition compares favourably
with any other religious persecution in history, and in common justice
this point should not--as but too frequently has been the case--be
obscured. There is too little to be urged in favour of this tribunal so
terribly inequitable in its practices that we can afford to slur over
the one feature of its constitution that is invested with a degree of
equity.

Whatever may have been the case in the course of civil and popular
persecutions, whatever may have been done by a frenzied populace
at the instigation of odd fanatical preachers acting without the
authority of their superiors in giving rein to the fierce bigotry they
had nurtured in their souls, the Church herself, it must be clearly
understood, neither urged nor sanctioned the persecution of those
born into any religion that was not in itself a heresy of the Roman
Faith. The tribunal of the Inquisition was established solely--and
moved solely--to deal with those who apostatized or seceded from
the ranks of the Roman Church, precisely as an army deals with
deserting soldiers. Fanatical, horribly narrow, cruelly bigoted as
was the spirit of the Inquisition, yet the inquisitors confined their
prosecutions to apostates, to the adulterers of a faith whose purity
and incorruptibility they had made it their mission to maintain.

If the Church repressed liberty of conscience, if she stifled
rationalism and crushed independence of thought, she did so only where
her own children were concerned--those who had been born into the
Catholic Faith or who had embraced it in conversion. With those born
into any other independent religion she had no concern. To Jew, Moslem,
Buddhist, and Pagan, and to the savages of the New World, when it came
presently to be discovered, she accorded the fullest religious freedom.

To appreciate this, it is but necessary to consider such enactments
as those of Honorius III for the protection of the Jews, of Clement
VI, who threatened their persecutors with excommunication, and the
action of Pope and Archbishop in the case of the inflammatory sermons
of Hernando Martinez. It is sufficient to consider that when the Jews
were driven out of Spain--as shall presently be seen--they actually
found a refuge in Rome itself, and were received with kindliness by
Pope Alexander VI (Roderigo Borgia), which in itself is one of the
oddest ironies that ecclesiastical history can offer.

And if this is not sufficient, let us for a moment consider the
immunity and comparative peace enjoyed by the Jews who dwelt in Rome
itself, in their district of Trastevere.

They were a recognized section of the community in the Papal City. On
his coronation procession each Pope would pause near the Campo de’Fiori
to receive the company of Jews that came, headed by the Rabbi, to pay
homage to their sovereign--precisely as their ancestors had come to pay
homage to the emperor.

To the Vicar of Christ the Rabbi would now proffer the rolls of the
Pentateuch, swathed in a cloth. The Pope would take them into his
hands, to show that he respected the law contained in them, and would
then put them behind him, to signify that this law now belonged to the
past. From behind the Pontiff the Rabbi would receive back his sacred
scriptures, and depart with his escort, usually accompanied by the
jeers, insults, and vituperations of the Roman populace.[48]

It will be understood, then, that the Inquisition’s establishment
in Spain was not urged for the purpose of persecuting the Jews.
It had no concern with Jews, if we confine the term purely to its
religious meaning, signifying the observers of the law of Moses. Its
concern was entirely with the apostasy of those who, although of the
Jewish race, had become Christians by conversion. By the subsequent
secret re-Judaizings, or return of these New-Christians to the
religion of their fathers (which they had abandoned out of material
considerations), they came within the jurisdiction of the Inquisition,
and rendered themselves liable to prosecution as heretics, a
prosecution which could never have overtaken them had they but
continued in their original faith.

There is no denying that many of those who had been baptized against
their will, as the only means of saving their lives when the fury
of the Christian mob was unleashed against them, had remained Jews
at heart, had continued in secret to practise the Jewish rites, and
were exerting themselves to bring back to the fold of Israel their
apostate brethren. Others, however, upon receiving baptism may have
determined to keep the law to which they now pledged themselves and
to persevere honestly in Christianity. Yet many of the old Jewish
observances were become habitual with them: the trained--almost the
hereditary--repugnance to certain meats, the observance of certain
feast days, and several minor domestic laws that are part of the Jewish
code, were too deeply implanted in them to be plucked up by the roots
at the first attempt. Time was required in which they could settle
into Christian habits; two or three generations might be necessary
in some families before these habits came to be perfectly acquired
and the old ones to be entirely obliterated. Had those who urged the
Sovereigns to introduce the Inquisition into Castile, or had the
Sovereigns themselves but perceived this and exercised the necessary
and reasonable patience in the matter, Spain might have been spared
the horrors that took root in her soil and sapped the vigour and
intellectual energy of her children, so that in her case decadence
pressed swift and close upon the very heels of supreme achievement.

Execrable as is the memory of the Inquisition to all the world, to none
should be it so execrable as to Spain, since the evil that it wrought
recoiled entirely upon herself.

       *       *       *       *       *

It was on the occasion of Isabella’s first visit to Seville--that
punitive visit already mentioned--that the establishment of the Holy
Office in Spain was first proposed to her. The King was at the time
in Estremadura upon the business of fortifying his frontiers against
Portugal.

The proposal came from Alonso de Ojeda, the Prior of the Dominicans of
Seville, a man who enjoyed great credit and was reputed saintly (“vir
pius ac sanctus,” Paramo calls him).

Seeing her zeal to put down lawlessness and to purify and restore
order to the country, Ojeda urged upon her notice the spread of the
detestable Judaizing movement that was toward. He laid stress upon
the hypocrisy that had underlain so many of the conversions of the
Jews. He pointed out--with some degree of justice--that these men had
made a mock of the Holy Church, had defiled her sacraments, and had
perpetrated the most abominable sacrilege by their pretended acceptance
of the Christian faith. He urged that not only must this be punished,
but that the havoc which these Judaizers were working among the more
faithful New-Christians, and the proselytizing which they went so far
as to attempt among Old-Christians, must be checked.

To carry out this urgently-required purification, he implored the Queen
to establish the Inquisition.[49]

There was a speciousness, and even a justice, in his arguments which
must have impressed that pious lady. But her piety, intense as it
was, did not carry her to the lengths required of her by her priestly
counsellor. The balance of her splendid mind was singularly true.
She perceived that here was matter that called for a remedy; but she
perceived also the fanaticism inspiring the friar who stood before her,
and realized how his fanaticism must exaggerate the evil.

She was aware also of the extreme malevolence of which the
New-Christians were the object. By their conversion they might have
deflected the religious hostility of the Castilians; but the more
deeply-rooted racial antagonism remained. It not only remained, but it
was quickened by the envy which these New-Christians were exciting.
The energy and intelligence inherent in men of their race were serving
them now, as they had served them before, to their undoing. There were
no offices of eminence in which New-Christians were not to be found;
there were none in which they did not outnumber the Old-Christians--the
pure-blooded Castilians.

This the Queen knew, for she was herself surrounded by converts and
the descendants of converts. Several of her counsellors, her three
secretaries--one of whom was that chronicler, Pulgar, whose record
of the situation has been quoted--and her very treasurer were all
New-Christians.[50]

These men Isabella knew intimately, and esteemed. Judging the
New-Christians generally by those in her immediate service, she was
naturally led to discount Ojeda’s imputations against them. She
perceived the source of these imputations, and she must have taken
into consideration the ineradicable bitterness of the popular feeling
against Jews and the intensity of a prejudice which extended--as we
have said--to the New-Christians to such an extent that they continued
to be known as “Judios,” notwithstanding their conversion, so that
often in contemporary chronicles it is difficult to determine to which
class the writer is referring.

We have said that, in spite of conversions, the racial hostility
remained. The Christian attitude towards the Hebrew had not changed
in the hundred years that were sped since, under the incitings of the
Archdeacon of Ecija, the mob had risen up and massacred them. They were
the descendants of the crucifiers always.

A vestige of this feeling lingers to this day in the peninsula.
In the vocabulary of the Portuguese lower orders, and even of the
indifferently educated, there is no such word as “cruel.” “Jew” is the
term that has entirely usurped its functions, and as an injunction
against cruelty to man or beast, “Don’t be a Jew!” (_Não seja judeu!_)
is still the only phrase.

No conception of what was the popular feeling at the time can be
conveyed more adequately than by a translation of the passage from
Bernaldez concerning the manners and customs of the Jews. Bernaldez was
a priest, and therefore, to some extent, an educated man--as in the
main his history bears witness--yet a piece of writing so ludicrously
stupid and detestably malicious as this passage can only have emanated
from a mind in which bigotry had destroyed all sense of proportion.

The only historical value of the passage lies in the deplorable fact
that undoubtedly it may be accepted as a faithful mirror of the
prejudice that existed in Isabella’s day.

It runs:

“Just as heretics and Jews have always fled from Christian doctrines,
so they have always fled from Christian customs. They are great
drinkers and gluttons, who never lose the Jewish habit of eating
garbage of onions and garlic fried in oil, and of meat stewed in oil,
which they use instead of lard; and oil with meat is a thing that
smells very badly, so that their houses and doorways stink vilely of
that garbage; and they have the peculiar smell of Jews in consequence
of their food and of the fact that they are not baptized. And although
some have been baptized, yet the virtue of the baptism having been
annulled by their credulity [_i.e._ their adherence to their own faith]
and by their Judaizing, they stink like Jews. They will not eat pork
save under compulsion. They eat meat in Lent and on the eve of feast
days.... They keep the Passover and the Sabbath as best they can. They
send oil to the synagogues for the lamps. Jews come to preach to them
in their houses secretly--especially to the women, very secretly. They
have Rabbis to slaughter their beasts and poultry. They eat unleavened
bread in the Jewish season. They perform all their Jewish rites as
much in secret as possible, and women as well as men seek whenever
possible to avoid the sacraments of Holy Church.... They never confess
truthfully, and it happened that a priest, once confessing one of
these, cut a fragment of cloth from his garment, saying: ‘As you have
never sinned, let me have this as a relic to heal the sick.’... Not
without reason did Our Lord call them _generatio prava et adultera_.
They do not believe that God rewards virginity and chastity, and all
their endeavour is to multiply. And in the days of the strength of
this heresy many monasteries were violated by their merchants and
wealthy men, and many professed nuns were ravished and derided, they
not believing in or fearing excommunication, but rather doing this
to vituperate Jesus Christ and the Church. Commonly swindling people
by many wiles and cheats, as in buying and selling, they have no
conscience where Christians are concerned. Never would they undertake
agriculture, ploughing or tilling or raising cattle, nor have they
ever taught their children any office but that of sitting down to earn
enough to eat by as little labour as possible. Many of them have raised
up great estates in a few years, not being sparing of their thieving
and usury, maintaining that they earn it from their enemies....”[51]

[Illustration:

  _Photo by Donald Macbeth._

SEVILLE.

From Colmenar’s “Délices d’Espagne.”]

This atrocious tissue of misrepresentation would be utterly negligible
and contemptible were it not for the fact--as has been said--that it
was written in good faith (the good faith of a bigot) and reflects
what was currently believed, fostered by the envy which is plainly
revealed when Bernaldez alludes to the occupations of the Jews and the
New-Christians--all of whom he assumes to be false to the faith they
have embraced.

Isabella must have been conscious of this feeling, and she must have
rated it at its proper value. She had received in 1474 a very pitiful
narrative poem of the New-Christian Anton Montoro, which painted with
terrible vividness a slaughter of the _conversos_ and implored justice
upon the assassins, protesting the innocence of the New-Christians
and the sincerity of their conversions. Her gentle nature must have
been moved to compassion by that lament, and her acute mind must have
perceived the evil passions and the envy that were stirring under the
fair cloak of saintly zeal.

All these considerations being weighed, she resisted the
representations of Ojeda.

But weightier than any may have been the reflection of the power which
the tribunal of the Inquisition must place in the hands of the clergy.
Already and very bravely she had expressed her resentment of clerical
usurpation of royal rights in Spain, and to repress it she had not
hesitated to front the Pope himself. If she acceded now to Ojeda’s
request, she would be permitting the priesthood to set up a court
which, not being subject to any temporal law, must alienate from her
some portion of that sovereignty which so jealously she guarded.

Thus she came to dismiss the petition of the Dominican, and there can
be little doubt when all the circumstances are considered--as presently
they shall be--that in this she had the entire support of the Cardinal
of Spain, Don Pedro Gonzalez de Mendoza, Archbishop of Seville, who was
with her at the time.

Ojeda withdrew, baffled, but by no means resigned. He awaited a more
favourable season, what time he kept the popular feeling in a state
of ferment. And no sooner had Ferdinand come to rejoin his Queen in
Seville than the Dominican renewed his importunities.

He hoped to find an ally in the King. Moreover he was now supported by
Fr. Filippo de’ Barberi, the Sicilian Inquisitor. The latter had newly
arrived in Spain, where he came to seek at the hands of the Catholic
Sovereigns--who were rulers of Sicily--the confirmation of an ancient
decree promulgated in 1223 by the Emperor Frederic II. By virtue of
this decree one-third of the confiscated property of heretics became
the perquisite of the Inquisition; and it also ordained that the
governors of all districts should afford protection to the inquisitors
and assistance in their work of prosecuting heretics and any Jew who
might have contracted marriage with a Christian.

These privileges the Sovereigns duly confirmed, accounting it their
duty to do so since they related to the Inquisition as established by
Honorius III. But not on that account did Isabella yet lean towards the
introduction of the tribunal into Castile.

It happened, however, that to the arguments of Ojeda and Barberi were
added the persuasions of the papal legate _a latere_ at the court of
Castile--Nicolao Franco, Bishop of Trevisa--who conceived, no doubt,
that the institution of the Inquisition here would be pleasing to Pope
Sixtus IV, since it must increase the authority of the Church in Spain.

To Ferdinand it is probable that the suggestion was not without
allurement, since it must have offered him a way at once to gratify
the piety that was his, and--out of the confiscations that must ensue
from the prosecution of so very wealthy a section of the community--to
replenish the almost exhausted coffers of the treasury. When the way
of conscience is also the way of profit, there is little difficulty
in following it. But, after all, though joint sovereign of Spain
and paramount in Aragon, Ferdinand had not in Castile the power of
Isabella. It was her kingdom when all was said, and although his
position there was by no means that of a simple prince-consort, yet he
was bound by law and by policy to remain submissive to her will. In
view of her attitude, he could do little more than add his own to the
persuasions of the three priestly advocates, and amongst them they so
pressed Isabella that she gave way to the extent of a compromise.

She consented that steps should be taken not only to check the
Judaizing of the New-Christians, but also to effect conversions among
the Jews themselves; and she entrusted the difficult task of enforcing
the observance of the Christian faith and the Catholic dogmas to the
Cardinal of Spain--than whom, from a Christian and humanitarian point
of view, no man of his day could have been more desirable, which
is as much as to say that from the point of view of his Catholic
contemporaries no man could have been less so.

Isabella’s announcement of her determination in the matter must have
come as something of a shock to Ojeda, who conceived himself on the way
to prevail with her. This concession to his wishes was far from being
the concession that he sought, since it passed over the heads of the
preaching friars, who had made such work--by their own methods--their
special mission.

The Queen, however, had decided, and there was no more to be said. The
Cardinal of Spain went about his task in that sincere Christian spirit
and with that zeal for truth and justice that is associated with his
name. He compiled for the purpose of his mission an _instrucción_,
which has not survived, but which Ortiz de Zuñiga[52] and Pulgar[53]
inform us was in the form of a catechism.

In this “he indicates,” says Pulgar, “the duties of the true Christian
from the day of his birth, in the sacrament of baptism as in all other
sacraments which it is his obligation to receive, as well as what he
should be taught, what believe and what perform as a faithful Christian
at all times and on all days until the day of his death.”

       *       *       *       *       *

Mariana, Zurita, and other historians, upon the word of Paramo[54] and
of Salazar de Mendoza, have ventured to ascribe the establishment of
the Inquisition in Castile to the Cardinal of Spain. Their object in
so doing has been to heap honour and glory upon his name and memory;
for in their opinion he could have had no greater claim than this to
the gratitude and reverence of humanity. But the justice of a less
bigoted age demands that truth shall prevail in this respect, and that
his memory be deprived of that very questionable honour. The Cardinal’s
contemporaries do not justify what Paramo claims for him. And, to
reduce the argument to its lowest plane, it would have been extremely
unlikely that Cardinal Mendoza should advocate the establishment of
a court that must deprive him and the other Spanish bishops of the
jurisdiction in _causas de Fé_ hitherto vested in themselves.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Primate pursued, then, the task imposed upon him, causing his
“catechism” to be expounded and taught by all parish priests in all
pulpits and schools.

But however zealous his methods, they were not the methods desired by
Ojeda and the papal legate. The Dominican, vexed by the turn of events,
and determined to return to the assault as soon as ever occasion
offered, cast about him for fresh arguments that should prevail with
the Sovereigns.

And then there befell an incident in Seville to supply his fanatical
needs and place in his hands the very weapon that he sought.

A young nobleman of the famous house of Guzman had engaged in an
amorous intrigue with the daughter of a New-Christian. In the pursuit
of this amour he repaired secretly to her father’s house on the night
of Thursday in Holy Week of that year 1478, and was admitted by the
girl. But the lovers being disturbed by voices in the house, Guzman
was driven to conceal himself. From his concealment he overheard the
conversation of several Judaizers who were being entertained by the
father of his mistress. He heard them vehemently denying the divinity
of Christ and as vehemently blaspheming His name and the Holy Faith.

Having quitted the house, he went straight to the Prior of the
Dominicans to relate what he had overheard and to denounce the
blasphemers.

This young Castilian is so very interesting a type that a slight
digression to consider him more closely may be permitted. It is of
assistance to understand the mental attitude, the crass complacency
of the bigot. He knew that the highest virtue that a Christian could
practise was the virtue of chastity, and, conversely, that the worst
offence against God into which he could fall was that of unchastity.
Or at least he had been taught these things, and he accepted them in a
sub-conscious, automatic sort of way. Yet since the sin was his own,
it gave his consciousness no uneasiness that he should perpetrate it,
that he should slink like a thief into the house of this New-Christian
to debauch his daughter. But let him hear this New-Christian or his
friends express opinions of disbelief in this God whom he believed
in and--by his own lights--insulted, and behold him outraged in all
his feelings against those unspeakable fellows. Behold him running
hot-foot to Prior Ojeda to relate with horror the tale of this vileness
that he had overheard, so little concerned about the vileness through
which he himself had acquired his knowledge that he makes no effort
to conceal it. And, apparently, the Dominican, in a like horror at
the New-Christians’ offence against a God in whom they do not believe,
accounts of little moment the Castilian’s offence against the God in
whom he does believe.

It is a nice illumination of the contrast between the theory and the
practice of Christianity.

Upon the young man’s information Ojeda instituted an inquiry, and
six Judaizers were arrested. They confessed their guilt, and begged
to be reconciled to the Church. As the Inquisition had not yet been
established, with its terrible decree against “relapsos,”[55] their
prayer was granted, after the fulfilment of the penance imposed.[56]

With the tale of this “execrable wickedness” Ojeda repaired at once to
Cordova, whither the Sovereigns had by now withdrawn. The story would
lose nothing in its repetition by this pious and saintly man, and he
was in a position to add to it that the good folk of Seville were
almost in revolt from indignation at that happening in their midst.

Having shown thus how urgently it was required, he once more implored
the Sovereigns to establish the Inquisition. And it is not to be
doubted that his petition would be backed by that of the legate Franco,
who was at the Court.

Yet Isabella still showed repugnance, still hesitated to consent to the
extreme course advocated.

But at this moment, according to Llorente,[57] another advocate
appears upon the scene to plead the cause of the Faith--a figure in
the white habit and black cloak of the Dominican Brotherhood, a man
in his fifty-eighth year, tall and gaunt and stooping slightly at the
shoulders, mild-eyed, of a cast of countenance that is gentle, noble,
and benign.

This is Frey Tomás de Torquemada, Prior of the Dominican Convent of
Holy Cross of Segovia, the nephew of the late illustrious Juan de
Torquemada, Cardinal of San Sisto.

His influence with the Queen is vast; his eloquence fiery; his mental
energy compelling. Ojeda looks on, and his hopes grow confident at
last.




CHAPTER VII

THE PRIOR OF HOLY CROSS


If ever a name held the omen of a man’s life, that name is Torquemada.
To such an extraordinary degree is it instinct with the suggestion
of the machinery of fire and torture over which he was destined to
preside, that it almost seems a fictitious name, a _nom de guerre_,
a grim invention, compounded of the Latin _torque_ and the Spanish
_quemada_, to fit the man who was to hold the office of Grand
Inquisitor.

It was derived from the northern town of Torquemada (the Turre Cremata
of the Romans), where the illustrious family had its beginnings. This
family first sprang into historical distinction with the knighting by
Alfonso XI of Lope Alonso de Torquemada (_Hijodalgo a los Fueros de
Castilla_), and thereafter was maintained in prominence by several
members who held more or less distinguished offices. But the most
illustrious bearer of the name was the cultured Dominican Juan de
Torquemada (Lope Alonso’s great-grandson), who was raised to the
purple with the title of Cardinal of San Sisto. He was one of the most
learned, eminent, and respected theologians of his age, an upholder of
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the most ardent champion
since Thomas Aquinas of the doctrine of papal infallibility. He
enriched theological literature by several works, the best known of
which is his “Meditations.”

Fr. Tomás de Torquemada was the son of the Cardinal’s only brother,
Pero Fernandez de Torquemada. He was born at Valladolid in 1420, and
after a scholastic career of some distinction--if Garcia Rodrigo is
to be believed in this particular[58]--he followed in his uncle’s
footsteps, soliciting the habit of the Order of St. Dominic, which he
assumed in the Convent of St. Paul of Valladolid upon completing his
studies of philosophy and divinity, and receiving a doctor’s degree.

He filled with distinction the chair of canon law and theology, and in
the fullness of time was elected Prior of the Convent of Santa Cruz of
Segovia. He so distinguished himself in the discharge of the duties
of this office by his piety, his learning, and his zeal, that he was
repeatedly re-elected, there being at the time no rule of the order
to inhibit it. Such was the austerity of his character that he never
ate meat, or used linen either in his clothing or on his bed.[59] He
observed the rule of poverty imposed by his order so rigorously that he
was unable to provide his only sister with an endowment suitable to her
station, and could allow her no more than would permit her to live as a
nun under the rule of the tertiary order of St. Dominic.

At what epoch the Prior of Holy Cross first became the confessor of the
Infanta Isabella it is not now possible to ascertain. Jaime Bleda tells
us that in the fulfilment of this office he had extracted from her,
during her youth at the Court of her brother King Henry IV, a promise
that should she ever come to the throne she would devote her life to
the extirpation of heresy from her realm.[60]

This may be dismissed as one of those popular fictions that arise
concerning the intimate affairs of princes, for it cannot be said that
it is borne out by the circumstances under consideration.

Isabella’s reluctance to proceed to extreme--or even vigorous--measures
against those of her subjects accused of Judaizing is admitted by every
serious student of her reign, however opinions may vary as to the
motives that swayed her in this course.

There remains, however, out of Bleda’s anecdote, the fact that
Torquemada had been Isabella’s confessor in early years--which in
itself bears out the statement that the Dominican had achieved
distinction. It follows by virtue of his having occupied this office
that he must have acquired over the mind of a woman so devout a
considerable ascendancy where matters connected with the Faith were
concerned.

This influence he came now to exert.

To support it he brought an indubitable sincerity and disinterestedness
of motives; he brought a reputation for sanctity derived from the rigid
purity of his life and the stern asceticism which he practised--a
reputation which could not fail to act upon the imagination of a woman
of Isabella’s pious temperament; and, finally, he brought the dominant,
masterful personality and the burning eloquence that were his own.

When all this is taken into account it is not surprising that the
Queen’s resistance, weakened already by the onslaughts of Ojeda and his
associates, the King and the papal legate, should at last have broken
down; and that under the compelling persuasion of the Prior of Holy
Cross she should reluctantly have consented to the establishment of the
Holy Office in her dominions.

       *       *       *       *       *

Thus it befell that by order of the Catholic Sovereigns their Orator at
the Pontifical Court, D. Francisco de Santillana, applied to Sixtus IV
for a bull that should empower Ferdinand and Isabella to set up the
tribunal of the Inquisition in Castile, to enable them--as Bernaldez
puts it--to proceed to the extirpation of heresy “by the way of
fire”--_por via del fuego_.

This bull was duly granted under date of November 7, 1478.

It gave the Sovereigns the faculty of electing three bishops or
archbishops or other God-fearing and upright priests, regular or
secular, of over forty years of age, who must be masters or bachelors
of divinity and doctors or licentiates of canon law, to make
inquisition throughout the kingdom against heretics, apostates, and
their abettors.

His Holiness accorded to the men so elected the requisite jurisdiction
to proceed according to law and custom, and he further empowered the
Sovereigns to annul such nominations as they might make and to replace
their nominees as they saw fit.[61]

The Sovereigns were in Cordova when the bull reached them in the
following month of December. But they did not at once proceed to act
upon it. Before doing so, Isabella made one last effort to repress the
Judaizing and apostatizing movement by the gentler measures concerted
with the Cardinal of Spain in 1477.

To the task of continuing with increased vigour the teachings of the
“catechism” drawn up by Mendoza she now appointed Diego Alonso de
Solis, Bishop of Cadiz, D. Diego de Merlo, Coadjutor of Seville, and
Alonso de Ojeda, to whom these royal orders must have been a fresh
source of disappointment and chagrin.

Torquemada, we must assume, had withdrawn once more to his convent of
Segovia, and perhaps the removal of his stern influence enabled the
Queen to make this last effort to avoid the course to which he had all
but constrained her.

Having concluded these arrangements, the Sovereigns repaired to Toledo.
There, in the spring of the year 1480, the Cortes assembled to make
oath of fealty to the infant Prince of Asturias to whom Isabella had
given birth in June of 1478. Whilst this oath was the chief motive of
the assembly, it was by no means the only business with which it had to
deal. Many other matters received attention; amongst them the necessity
for remedying the evils arising out of the commerce between Christians
and Jews was seriously considered.

It was decreed that the old laws concerning the Jews, which lately
had been falling into partial desuetude, should be re-enforced,
particularly those which prescribed that all Jews should wear the
distinguishing badge of the circlet of red cloth on the shoulders of
their gabardines; that they should keep strictly to their Juderias,
always retiring to these at nightfall; that walls to enclose these
Juderias should be erected wherever they might still be wanting, and
that no Jew should practise as a doctor, surgeon, apothecary, or
innkeeper.

Beyond that, however, the Cortes did not go; and the institution of
the Inquisition to deal with Judaizers was not so much as mentioned,
which circumstance Llorente accepts as a further proof of the Queen’s
antipathy to the Holy Office.

Coming at a time when the Jews were once more beginning to taste the
sweets of freedom, there can be little doubt that these provisions,
which thrust them back into bondage and ignominy, must have been
extremely galling to them. It is possible that these measures
against the men of his race spurred a New-Christian to the rash
step of publishing a pamphlet in which he criticized and censured
the royal action in the matter. Carried away by his feelings, the
writer--intentionally or not--fell into heresy in the course of his
writings, to which the Jeronymite monk, Hernando de Talavera, published
a reply.

Rodrigo[62] assumes that this heretical pamphlet put an end to the
Queen’s patience. It may very well have been the case, or at least it
may have afforded Ferdinand and the others who desired the Inquisition
a final argument whereby to overcome what reluctance still lingered
with her.

Be that as it may, it was very soon after this--September 27,
1480--that the Sovereigns, who at the time were at Medina del Campo,
acted at last upon the papal bull which had now been in their hands for
nearly two years, and delegated their faculty of giving inquisitors to
Castile to the Cardinal of Spain and Fr. Tomás de Torquemada.

Mendoza and Torquemada proceeded at once to carry out the task
entrusted to them, and appointed as inquisitors of the faith for
Seville--where Judaizing was represented to be most flagrant--the
Dominican friars Juan de San Martino and Miguel Morillo. The latter was
the Provincial of the Dominicans of Aragon, and was already a person of
experience in such matters, having acted as inquisitor in Rousillon. To
assist them in the discharge of their office, the secular priest Juan
Ruiz de Medina, a doctor of canon law, and Juan Lopez de Barco, one of
the Queen’s chaplains, were appointed, the former to the position of
assessor, the latter to that of fiscal.

       *       *       *       *       *

It is necessary, in view of the much that has been written, and
although the danger be incurred of labouring the point, to examine more
closely the attitude of the Sovereigns towards the tribunal which they
now sanctioned.

Isabella’s zeal, both pious and political, urged her, as has been said,
to proceed in such a way as should set a term to the unrest arising
out of the public feeling against Judaizers and apostatizing Moriscoes
(baptized Moors). Ferdinand not only shared her feelings, but pious
zeal in him went to the lengths of bigotry, and he aimed essentially at
a political unity that should be inseparably allied and interwoven with
religious unity.

Isabella would have laboured slowly, preferring, even at the sacrifice
of time, to achieve her ends by gentle means and the exercise of
that patience which was so very necessary if good results were to be
obtained. Ferdinand, perhaps less pitiful, perhaps--to do him full
justice--less hopeful of the power of argument and indoctrination,
lending an ear to the priestly assertion “contra negantes veritatis
nulla est disputatio,” would have proceeded at once to the introduction
into Castile of the stern repressive measures already being exerted in
his native Aragon.

On the score of their different attitudes the Sovereigns might have
found themselves in conflict, but that in this matter they had a ground
of common interest. Both were agreed that in no case should Spain be
brought under the ecclesiastical sway which the establishment of the
usual form of Inquisition must set up. If this were to be--as usual
hitherto--under pontifical control, its officers would be appointed
by the Pope, or, vicariously, by the Dominican provincials, and a
proportion of the confiscations consequent upon conviction would be
gathered into the pontifical coffers.

For all his bigotry and his desire to see the Holy Office instituted in
Castile, Ferdinand was as averse as Isabella to its introduction in a
form that must restore the clerical usurpations they had been at such
pains to repress.

If Isabella admitted the Inquisition as a last means of quelling the
disturbing elements in her kingdom, it must be an Inquisition on lines
entirely different from those which hitherto had obtained elsewhere.
The appointment of its officers must no more rest with the Pope than
the bestowal of Spanish benefices. It must be the prerogative of the
Sovereigns themselves, and it must carry with it the power to depose
and replace, where necessary, such inquisitors as they might appoint.
Further, Rome must have no share in the property confiscated from
Spanish subjects, the disposal of this being entirely controlled by
the Sovereigns.

It has been argued that here was the cause of all Isabella’s hesitancy:
that greed and statecraft were the mainsprings of her conduct in the
matter, and that humanitarian considerations had no part in it; that
the bull had been applied for earlier than has been generally supposed,
and that the delay had resulted from the Pope’s disinclination to grant
any such terms as were demanded.

The latter statement may not be without foundation. But to say
deliberately that no humanitarian considerations governed the Queen’s
conduct is to say a great deal more than the circumstances warrant.
To establish this hypothesis it would be necessary to advance some
adequate reason for her reluctance to act upon the bull when once it
was in her hands. For the bull of November 1478 conceded all that the
Sovereigns demanded, all that they desired. Yet Isabella allowed nearly
two years to pass before proceeding to exercise the faculties conferred
by it, and during that time Cardinal Mendoza and his co-operators
diligently pursued the work of effecting conversions by means of his
“catechism.”

The conclusion that this was dictated by humane considerations on the
part of the Queen is the only one that appears reasonable, nor is any
alternative put forward to account for the delay of nearly two years.

       *       *       *       *       *

When the Cardinal of Spain and the Prior of Holy Cross, acting jointly
on behalf of the Sovereigns, appointed the first inquisitors for
Castile, they instructed these to set up a tribunal in Seville, which
of all the cities of Spain was the one where Judaizing was alleged to
be most flagrantly conducted.[63]

The Sovereigns issued on October 9 a command to all loyal subjects to
afford the two inquisitors every assistance they might require on their
journey to Seville and all facilities there for carrying out their
mission.

The subjects, however, were so little loyal on this occasion that upon
the arrival of the inquisitors at Seville, these found a reception of
all solemnity awaiting them and every respect accorded to them, but
no assistance. To such an extent was this withheld that they found it
quite impossible to set about the business upon which they came. They
complained of this state of things to the King, and as a result he sent
special orders on December 27 to the Coadjutor of Seville and the civil
authorities of the district, commanding them to lend the inquisitors
every support.

In consequence of this they were at last enabled to establish their
court and proceed to the business upon which they came.[64]

The very rumour of their approach had filled the New-Christians with
anxiety, and a glimpse of the gloomy funereal pageant--the white-robed,
black-hooded inquisitors, with their attendant familiars and barefoot
friars, the procession headed by a Dominican carrying the white
cross--on its way to the Convent of St. Paul, where they took up their
quarters, was enough to put to flight some thousands of those who had
cause to fear that they might become the objects of the attention of
that fearful court.

These fugitives sought refuge in the feudal lordships of the Duke of
Medina Sidonia, of the formidable Rodrigo Ponce de Leon, Marquis of
Cadiz, and of the Count of Arcos.

But in all ages it had been the way of the Inquisition not only to
suspect readily, but to allow suspicion to usurp the place that
elsewhere is reserved for proof. And so they proceeded to construe into
evidence of guilt this flight of the timorous, as is shown by the
edict they published on January 2 of 1481.

In this--having set forth their appointment by the Sovereigns, and the
terms of the bull under which such appointment had been made--they
announced that, inasmuch as it had come to their knowledge that many
persons had departed out of Seville in fear of prosecution upon
grounds of heretical pravity, they commanded the Marquess of Cadiz,
the Count of Arcos, and the other nobles of the Kingdom of Castile,
that within fifteen days of the publication of this edict they should
make an exact account of the persons of both sexes that had sought
refuge in their lordships or jurisdictions; that they should arrest
all these and bring them safely to the prison of the Inquisition in
Seville, confiscating their property and placing this together with an
inventory in the hands of some person of trust, to be held by them at
the disposal of the inquisitors; that none should dare to shelter any
fugitive, but comply exactly with the terms of this edict under pain
of greater excommunication and the other penalties by law established
against abettors of heretics, amongst which penalties was that of the
annulment of their dignities and offices, their subjects and vassals
being absolved of all vassalage and subjection; and the inquisitors
reserved to themselves and their superiors the power of absolution from
the ecclesiastical censure incurred by all who might fail to obey the
terms of this edict.




CHAPTER VIII

THE HOLY OFFICE IN SEVILLE


The stern purpose of the inquisitors and the severity with which they
intended to proceed were plainly revealed by that edict of January 2,
1481. The harsh injustice that lay in its call upon the authorities
to arrest men and women merely because they had departed from Seville
before departure was in any way forbidden is typical of the flagrantly
arbitrary methods of the Inquisition. That it should have struck terror
into the New-Christians who had remained in Seville, and that it should
have moved them to take measures to protect themselves against a court
in which justice seemed little likely to be observed, and to whose
cruel mercies the most innocent might find himself exposed at any
moment, is not surprising--particularly when it is considered how great
was the number of New-Christians who occupied positions of eminence in
Seville.

A group of these prominent citizens assembled at the invitation of
Diego de Susan, one of the wealthiest and most influential men of
Seville, whose fortune was estimated at ten million maravedis. They
came together to consider what measures should be taken for the defence
of themselves, their persons and property, from the unscrupulous
activities of this tribunal, and they determined that if necessary they
would resort to force.

Among those who entered into this conspiracy were some ecclesiastics,
and several who held office under the Crown, such as the Governor of
Triana, Juan Fernandez Abolafio, the Captain of Justice and farmer of
the royal customs, his brother Fernandez the licentiate, Bartolomé
Torralba, and the wealthy and well-connected Manuel Sauli.

Susan addressed them. He reminded them that they were the principal
citizens of Seville, that they were wealthy not only in property but
in the good-will of the people, and that it but required resolution
and solidarity on their part to enable them to prevail against the
inquisitors in the event of these friars making any attempt upon them.

All concurring, it was concerted that each of the conspirators should
engage himself to provide a proportion of the men, arms, and money and
what else might be necessary for their purpose.

But Susan to his undoing had a daughter. This girl, whose beauty was
so extraordinary that she was surnamed _la hermosa fembra_, had taken
a Castilian lover. What motives may have actuated her, what part the
lover may have played in these, does not transpire. All that is known
is that she betrayed the conspiracy to the inquisitors--“impiously
violating the natural laws engraved by God’s finger upon the human
heart.”

Susan and his unfortunate confederates were seized as a consequence of
that infamous delation; they were lodged in the cells of the Convent of
St. Paul, which meanwhile did duty as a prison, and brought to trial
before the Court of the Holy Office sitting in the convent.[65]

They were tried for heresy and apostasy, of course; since upon no other
grounds was it possible for the Holy Office to deal with them. It is
unfortunate that Llorente should have unearthed no record of this
trial--one of the first held by the Inquisition in Castile--and that
nothing should be known of what took place beyond the fact that Susan,
Sauli, Bartolomé Torralba, and the brothers Fernandez were found guilty
of the alleged offence of apostasy and were delivered up to the secular
arm for punishment.

Garcia Rodrigo has devoted a couple of pages of his “Historia
Verdadera” to an elaborate piece of fiction in which he asserts that
these men were persistent in their error in spite of the strenuous
efforts made to save them. He invests the fanatical Ojeda with the
character of an angel of mercy, and represents him hovering round
the condemned, exhorting them, almost with tears, to abjure their
error, and he assures us that although the Dominican persevered in his
charitable efforts up to the last moment, all was vain.

There is not a grain of evidence to support the statement, nor does
Garcia Rodrigo pretend to advance any. As a matter of fact, Bernaldez,
the only available authority who mentions Susan’s end, tells us
specifically that he died a Christian. And when it is considered
that Bernaldez is an ardent admirer and champion of the Inquisition,
such a pronouncement from his pen is sufficient to convict the
inquisitors Morillo and San Martin of having proceeded in a manner
that was vindictive and _ultra vires_. For at this epoch it was not
yet decreed that those who had relapsed (_relapsos_) should suffer
capital punishment unless they persisted in their apostasy--as Rodrigo,
obviously for the purpose of justifying the inquisitors, unwarrantably
asserts did Susan and his confederates.

Llorente considers the blood-lust of the inquisitors established by
these merciless convictions, urging that it is incredible that all the
prisoners should have refused to recant and to submit themselves to
penance--even assuming that they were actually guilty of apostasy as
alleged. For when all is considered it must remain extremely doubtful
whether they had Judaized at all, and it is not improbable--from what
we see of the spirit that actuated the inquisitors--that Morillo
and San Martin may have construed the action of those men into an
offence against the Faith for the purpose of bringing them within the
jurisdiction of the Holy Office.

They were condemned to be the chief actors in the first Auto de Fé that
was held in Seville. This took place on February 6.[66]

There was about this Auto comparatively little of that pomp and
ceremonial, that ghastly theatricality that was presently to
distinguish these proceedings. But the essentials were already present.

Susan and his fellows were led forth barefoot, in the ignominious,
yellow penitential sack, a candle in the hand of each. Hemmed about by
halberdiers, they were paraded through the streets of a city in which
they had won the goodwill and respect of all, to be gazed upon by a
people whose eyes must have been filled with horror and dismay. To head
the procession went a black-robed Dominican holding aloft the green
cross of the Inquisition, now swathed in a veil of crape; behind him,
walking two by two, came the familiars of the Holy Office, members of
the Confraternity of St. Peter the Martyr; next followed the doomed men
amid their guards; and last came the inquisitors with their attendants
and a considerable body of Dominicans from the Convent of St. Paul,
headed by their prior, the fanatical Ojeda.

The procession headed for the Cathedral, where the sufferers were taken
to hear Mass and forced to listen to a sermon framed for the occasion
which was preached by Ojeda, and must have increased the exquisite
torment of their protracted agony. Thence they were conducted--once
more processionally--out of the city to the meadows of Tablada. There
they were attached to the stakes that had been erected, fire was set to
the faggots, and thus they perished miserably, to the greater honour
and glory of the Catholic Apostolic Church.[67]

Ojeda may have looked with satisfaction upon that holocaust, upon those
cruel flames which more than any man in Spain he had been instrumental
in kindling, and which being kindled would continue to cast their lurid
glow over that fair land for close upon four centuries. It was the
first burning that Ojeda witnessed, and it was the last. His own hour
was at hand. His mission, whatever ends it had to serve in the eternal
scheme of things, was completed there on the meadows of Tablada, and he
might now depart. A few days later he lay dead, stricken down by the
plague that was ravaging the south of Spain, and sought him out for one
of its first victims.

And from the pulpits of Seville the Dominicans thundered forth
declarations that this pestilence was a visitation of God upon an
unfaithful city. They never paused to consider that if that were indeed
the case either God’s aim must be singularly untrue since the shafts of
His wrath overtook such faithful servants as Ojeda, or else....

But an incapacity to conduct its reasonings to a logical conclusion,
and an utter want of any sense of proportion, are the main factors in
all fanaticism.

Lest they should themselves be stricken by these bolts of pestilence
launched against the unfaithful, behold next the inquisitors scuttling
out of Seville! They go in quest of more salubrious districts,
and, presumably upon the assumption that these--since they remain
healthy--are escaping divine attention, the Dominicans zealously
proceed to light their fires that they may repair this heavenly
oversight.[68]

But that _villegiatura_ of theirs did not take place until they had
transacted a deal more of their horrible business in Seville. Great
had been the results of the edict of January 2. The nobles, not daring
to run the risk of the threatened ecclesiastical censure, proceeded
to effect the arrests demanded, and gangs of pinioned captives were
brought daily into the city from the surrounding country districts
where they had sought shelter. And in the city itself the familiars of
the Holy Office were busily effecting the capture of suspects and of
those against whom, either out of bigotry or malice, delations had been
made.

So numerous were the arrests that by the middle of the month of January
already the capacity of the Convent of St. Paul was strained to its
utmost, and the inquisitors were compelled to remove themselves, their
tribunal and their prison to the ampler quarters of the Castle of
Triana, accorded to them by the Sovereigns in response to their request
for it.[69]

The edict of January 2 was soon succeeded by a second one, known as the
“Edict of Grace.” This exhorted all who were guilty of apostasy to come
forward voluntarily within a term appointed, to confess their sins and
be reconciled to the Church. It assured them that if they did this with
real contrition and a firm purpose of amendment, they should receive
absolution and suffer no confiscation of property. And it concluded
with a warning that if they allowed the term of grace to expire without
taking advantage of it, and they should afterwards be accused by
others, they would be prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the law.

Amador de los Rios is of opinion that Cardinal Mendoza was
“instrumental” in having this edict published, in which case it would
hardly be too much to assume that he was the instrument of Isabella
in the matter. Nor is it too much to assume that the inspiration
was purely merciful, and that there was no thought in the mind of
either Queen or Cardinal of the edict’s being turned, as it was, to
treacherous account.

The response was immediate. It is estimated that not less than 20,000
_conversos_ who had been guilty of Judaizing came forward to avail
themselves of its promise of amnesty and to secure absolution for
their infidelity to the religion they had embraced. They discovered
to their horror that they had walked into a trap as cruel as any that
smooth-faced, benign-voiced priestcraft had ever devised.

The inquisitors had thought well to saddle the promised absolution and
immunity from punishment with a condition which they had not published,
a condition which they had secretly reserved to spring it now upon
these self-convicted apostates at their mercy. They pointed out with
infernal subtlety that the edict provided that the contrition of the
self-accused must be sincere, and that of this sincerity the penitents
must give the only proof possible by disclosing the names of all
Judaizers known to them.

The demand was an infamy; for not even under the seal of private
confession is a priest authorized to impose upon a penitent as a
condition of absolution that he shall divulge the name even of an
accomplice or a partner in guilt. Yet here it was demanded of these
that they should go much further, and denounce such sinners as they
knew; and the demand was framed in such specious terms--as the only
proof they could offer of the sincerity of their own contrition--that
none dared have taxed the inquisitors with malpractice or with
subverting the ends and purpose of this edict they had been forced to
publish.

The wretched apostates found themselves between the sword and the
wall. Either they must perpetrate the infamy of betraying those of
their race whom they knew to be Judaizers, or they must submit not only
to the cruel death by fire, but to the destitution of their children
as a consequence of the confiscation of their property. Most of them
gave way, and purchased their reconciliation at the price of betrayal.
And there were men like Bernaldez, the parish priest of Palacios, who
applauded this procedure of the Holy Office. “A very glorious thing”
(_muy hazañosa cosa_), he exclaims, “was the reconciliation of these
people, as thus by their confessions were discovered all that were
Judaizers, and in Seville knowledge was obtained of Judaizers in
Toledo, Cordova, and Burgos.”[70]

       *       *       *       *       *

Upon the expiry of the term of grace a further edict was published by
Morillo and San Martin, in which they now commanded, under pain of
mortal sin and greater excommunication, with its attendant penalties,
the discovery of all persons known to be engaged in Judaizing practices.

And that there should be no excuse offered by any on the score of
ignorance of such practices, these were published in thirty-seven
articles appended to the edict, articles whose malign comprehensiveness
left no man secure.

They set forth the following signs by which New-Christians guilty of
Judaizing might be recognized:

    I. Any who await the Messiah, or say that he has not yet come,
    and that he will come to lead them out of captivity into the
    promised land.

    II. Any who after baptism have returned expressly to the Mosaic
    faith.

    III. Any who declare that the law of Moses is as good as that
    of Jesus Christ and as efficient for salvation.

    IV. Any who keep the Sabbath in honour of the law of Moses--of
    which the proof is afforded by their assuming clean shirts and
    more decent garments than on other days, and clean covers on
    the table, as well as by their refraining from lighting fires
    and from engaging in all work from Friday evening.

    V. Any who strip the tallow or fat from meats that they are
    to eat and purify it by washing in water, bleeding it, or
    extracting the glandule from the leg of lambs or other animals
    slaughtered for food.

    VI. Any who cut the throats of animals or poultry that
    are intended for food, first testing the knife on their
    finger-nail, covering the blood with earth, and uttering
    certain words that are customary among Jews.

    VII. Any who eat meat in Lent and on other days on which it is
    forbidden by Holy Church.

    VIII. Any who keep the great fast of the Jews known by
    different names, or the fast of _Chiphurim_ or _Quipur_ in the
    tenth Hebrew month--whereof the proof shall be their having
    gone barefoot during the period of the said fast, as is the
    custom of the Jews, their having said Jewish prayers, or asked
    pardon one of another, or fathers having laid hands upon the
    heads of their children without making the sign of the Cross or
    saying anything but “By God and by me be thou blessed.”

    IX and X. Any who keep the fast of Queen Esther, which is
    observed by the Jews in memory and imitation of what they
    did in captivity in the reign of Ahasuerus, or the fast of
    _Rebeaso_.

    XI. Any who shall keep other fasts peculiar to the Jews, such
    as those of Monday and Thursday, of which the proof shall be:
    their not eating on such days until after the appearance of the
    first evening star; their having abstained from meat; their
    having washed on the previous day or cut their nails or the
    points of their hair, keeping or burning these; their reciting
    certain Jewish prayers, raising or lowering their heads with
    their faces to the wall, after washing their hands in water or
    in earth; their dressing themselves in sackcloth and girding
    themselves with cords or strips of leather.

    XII, XIII, and XIV concern any who keep the Paschal seasons;
    which is to be discovered by their setting up green boughs,
    inviting to table and sending presents of comestibles, and the
    keeping of the feast of candles.

    XV to XIX concern any who observe Hebrew table-customs: whether
    they bless their viands according to the Jewish custom, whether
    they drink “lawful” wine--_i.e._ wine that has been pressed by
    Jews--and eat meat that has been slaughtered by Jews.

    XX. Any who recite the Psalms of David without concluding with
    the versicle “Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritu Sancto.”

    XXI. Any woman who abstains from going to church for forty days
    after delivery of child, out of reverence for the law of Moses.

    XXII to XXVI concern any who circumcise their children, give
    them Hebrew names, or after baptism cause their heads to be
    shaven where anointed with the sacred oil, or any who cause
    their children to be washed on the seventh day after birth in a
    basin in which, in addition to the water, they have placed gold
    and silver, pearls, wheat, barley, and other things.

    XXVII. Any who are married in the Jewish manner.

    XXVIII. Any who hold the _Ruaya_--which is a valedictory supper
    before setting out upon a long journey.

    XXIX and XXX. Any who carry Hebrew relics or make
    burnt-offerings of bread.

    XXXI. Any who _in articulo mortis_ have turned or been turned
    with their faces to the wall to die in this attitude.

    XXXII. Any who wash a corpse in warm water or shave it
    according to the Jewish custom, and otherwise dress it for the
    grave as is prescribed by the Mosaic law.

    XXXIII to XXXVI concern Jewish expressions of mourning, such as
    the abstaining from meat, the spilling of water from the jars
    in the dwelling of the deceased, etc.

    XXXVII. Any who bury their dead in virgin soil or in a Jewish
    cemetery.[71]

Reference has already been made to the inherent character of many
Jewish customs, which even the most sincere of New-Christians retained
despite themselves; these customs, being racial rather than religious,
were very far from signifying Judaic apostasy, since they contained
nothing that was directly opposed to the Christian teaching. In the
list published by the Seville inquisitors it will be seen that such
customs were deliberately included as evidences of apostasy.

Consider Articles IV, V, and VII, concerning the assumption of clean
linen on Saturdays and the stripping of fat from beef and mutton,
which nowise offend against the Christian faith, and might well be the
perpetuation of customs acquired before baptism was received.

Even more flagrant is Article XXXI, which lays it down as evidence
of Judaizing that a man shall turn his face to the wall when at the
point of death; but most flagrant of all is Article XXVIII, concerning
the valedictory meal partaken of before setting out upon a journey,
for it is a custom that at all times has been as much in vogue among
Christians as among men of any other religion.

Clearly not a New-Christian in Seville was safe from the delations of
the malevolent, since such ridiculously slight grounds of suspicion
were set forth by the tribunal. So extravagant and absurd are some
of these articles that one is forced to agree with Llorente, that in
formulating them the inquisitors proceeded with deliberate malice. He
contends that deliberately they cast a wide net that by their heavy
draught they should satisfy the Queen that she had heard no more than
the truth as to the extent to which Judaizing was rampant in Castile,
and the urgent need there was for the introduction of the Inquisition.

Whether in this they proceeded according to instructions received from
Torquemada or Ojeda does not transpire, but there can be little doubt
that the results obtained must have been in accordance with the wishes
of both, since they justified to the Queen the representations these
friars had so insistently made to her.

And the system of espionage which the inquisitors set up to increase
their haul of victims was as sly and cunning as anything in the history
of spying. Conceive the astuteness of the friar who climbed to the roof
of the Convent of St. Paul on Saturday mornings to observe and note the
houses of New-Christians from whose chimneys no smoke was to be seen
issuing, that he might lay the information thus obtained before the
tribunal, which would proceed to arrest the inhabitants upon a strong
suspicion that they were Judaizers who would not desecrate the Sabbath
by lighting fires.[72]

“What,” asks Llorente, “could be expected of a tribunal that began
in this way?” And he at once supplies the answer: “That which
happened--neither more nor less.”

With the methods of procedure that obtained in the trials conducted
by these inquisitors we need not just now concern ourselves. For
the moment it is enough to say that to the vices inherent in such a
judicial system must be added, in the case of the first inquisitors
of Seville, a zeal--not only to convict, but actually to be burning
heretics--so ferociously excessive as to proclaim that they were
gratifying their hatred of these Jews.

This upon the word of that sober chronicler Pulgar, who, whilst in
general terms approving the introduction of the Inquisition, as has
been seen, denounces in the following particular terms the practices of
Morillo and San Martin: “In the manner in which they conducted their
proceedings they showed that they held those people in hatred.”[73]

The Auto of February 6 was followed by another on March 26, at which
seventeen victims were burnt on the fields of Tablada. And now that
the fires were lighted, the inquisitors saw to it that they were well
supplied with human fuel. Burnings followed one another at such a rate
that by the month of November--upon the word of Llorente--298 condemned
had been sent to the flames in the town of Seville alone, whilst 79
others by reconciling themselves to the Church secured the commutation
of their sentence to one of perpetual imprisonment.

Mariana, the historian who gave thanks to God for the introduction of
the Inquisition into Castile, informs us with flagrant calm that the
number of Judaizers burnt in the Archbishopric during that year 1481
amounted to 8,000, whilst some 17,000 were submitted to penance.

In addition to those burnt alive, many who had fled the country were
burnt in effigy, having been tried and found guilty during an absence
described as contumacious. And similarly the court went through the
horrible farce of sitting in judgment upon many who were dead, and,
having convicted them, it dug up their bones and flung these to the
flames.

Such was the prodigious activity of the Holy Office, and to such an
extent did its holocausts promise to continue, that the Governor of
Seville ordered the erection on the fields of Tablada of a permanent
platform of stone of vast proportions known as the Quemadero, or
Burning-place. It was adorned by figures of the four Prophets. At each
of its four corners towered one of these colossal statues of plaster,
and Llorente tells us that they were not merely for ornament. He says
that they were hollow and so contrived that a condemned person might be
placed in each and so die by slow fire.[74]

This Quemadero remained standing, a monument to religious intolerance
and fanatical cruelty, until the soldiers of Napoleon demolished it in
the nineteenth century.[75]

So ruthless were Morillo and San Martin, and so negligent of equity or
even the observance of the ordinary rules of judicial procedure, that
in the end we find the Pope himself--in January of 1482--addressing a
letter of protest to the Sovereigns.

The first edict commanding the nobles to arrest all those who had fled
from Seville had had the effect of driving many of these fugitive
New-Christians farther afield in their quest for safety. Some had
escaped into Portugal, others had crossed the Mediterranean and sought
shelter in Morocco, whilst others still had taken their courage in
both hands and sought sanctuary in Rome itself, at the very feet of
the Pontiff. Other fugitives followed presently, when the tribunal had
already inaugurated its terrible work; and these came clamouring their
grievances and protesting that in spite of their innocence they dared
no longer remain in a State where no New-Christian was safe from the
hatred and injustice shown by the inquisitors to men of their race.
Therefore they were driven to seek from Christ’s Vicar the protection
to which all Christians and true Catholics were entitled at his hands.

[Illustration:

  _Photo by Lacoste._

FERDINAND OF ARAGON AND THE INFANTE DON JUAN.

From the Painting in the Prado Gallery attributed to Miguel Zittoz.]

They informed the Pontiff of the methods that were being pursued;
they set forth how the inquisitors in their eagerness to secure
convictions proceeded entirely upon their own initiative and without
the concurrence of the assessor and diocesan ordinary, as had been
prescribed; how they were departing from all legal form, imprisoning
unjustly, torturing cruelly and unduly, and falsely stigmatizing
innocent men as formal heretics, thereafter delivering them to the
secular arm for punishment, in addition to confiscating their property
so that their children were left in want and under the brand of infamy.

The Pope gave ear to these plaints, convinced himself of their truth,
and made his protest to Ferdinand and Isabella. He announced in his
brief that he would have deprived the inquisitors of their office
but that he was restrained by consideration for the Sovereigns who
had appointed them; nevertheless, he was sending them a brief of
admonition, and should they again give cause for complaint he would
be constrained to depose them. In the meantime he revoked the faculty
given the Sovereigns of appointing inquisitors, protesting that when
conceding this he had not sufficiently considered that already there
were inquisitors in the Sovereigns’ dominions and that the General of
the Dominicans and the Spanish provincials of that order had the right
to make such appointments. The bull that he had granted was therefore
in opposition to that right, and would never have been granted had the
matter been sufficiently considered.[76]




CHAPTER IX

THE SUPREME COUNCIL


The Sovereigns appear to have submitted without protest to this papal
interference and to the revocation of the faculty bestowed upon them of
nominating the inquisitors in their kingdom. This submission was hardly
to have been expected from their earlier attitude, but there are two
reasons, either or both of which may possibly account for it.

It will be remembered that there was a considerable number of
New-Christians about the Court and in immediate attendance upon the
Queen, one of whom was her secretary Pulgar. What view Pulgar took of
the Seville proceedings we know, and it is not too much to assume that
his view was the view of all Christians of Jewish extraction. These
New-Christians and others may very well have urged upon the notice of
the Sovereigns the cruelties and injustices that were being practised,
drawing their attention to the decree that made innocent children
suffer for the offences of which their parents had been convicted--a
decree which, hideous enough when the parents were actually guilty,
became unspeakably hideous when that guilt was no more than presumed.

In view of such representations the Sovereigns may have found the papal
rebuke unanswerable and the Pope’s action justified.

Then, again, they may have taken into consideration the projected war
upon Granada, the last province of the peninsula remaining in Moorish
hands. Funds were urgently required for this campaign, and the
confiscations that were daily being effected by the Holy Office were
rapidly supplying these--for the early victims of the Inquisition, as
we know, were persons of great wealth and distinction.[77]

Now the papal brief, whilst it cancelled the royal prerogative of
appointing inquisitors, did not attempt to divert the course of this
stream of confiscated property, nor, indeed, made any mention of
the matter. So that they may have hesitated to oppose themselves to
measures which they recognized as just and which continued to supply
them with the means for what they looked upon as a righteous crusade.

Bigotry and acquisitiveness were again joining forces, and, united,
they must prove, as ever, irresistible.

But on February 11, 1482, the Roman Curia issued another brief
addressed to the Sovereigns, wherein--entirely ignoring what already
had been written--it was announced that the General of the Dominicans,
Fr. Alonso de Cebrian, having represented to the Pope the need to
multiply the number of inquisitors in Spain, his Holiness had resolved
to appoint the said Fr. Alonso and seven other Dominicans to conduct
the affairs of the Holy Office in that kingdom, commanding them to
exercise their ministry in conjunction with the diocesan ordinary and
in accordance with the terms set forth in the briefs that were being
addressed to them.[78]

One of the eight Dominicans mentioned by the Pope was Fr. Tomás de
Torquemada, who by now was become confessor to the King and to the
Cardinal of Spain.

This brief, following so rapidly upon that which revoked the
Sovereigns’ power, may have caused Ferdinand and Isabella to look upon
it as the second move in an intrigue whose aim was to strengthen the
ecclesiastical arm in Spain to the detriment of the royal authority.

On April 17 Sixtus sent the promised instructions to the inquisitors of
Aragon, Cataluña, Valencia, and Mallorca. These indicated a procedure
in matters of faith so contrary to common law, that no sooner did the
inquisitors attempt to carry them into execution than there was an
uproar which afforded Ferdinand grounds upon which to indite a protest
to the Holy Father.

A reply came in the following October. Sixtus wrote that the briefs of
last April had been drawn up after conference with several members of
the Sacred College; that these cardinals were now absent from Rome,
but that on their return the matter should be further considered.
Meanwhile, however, in view of the results that had attended those
briefs, he was informing the inquisitors that they were exempt from
acting upon the terms set forth in them and instructing them to
proceed, as formerly, in co-operation with the diocesan ordinaries.

But in the meantime, for all the Pope’s protest against the excessive
severity of the Seville tribunal, this severity continued so
undiminished, not only in Seville but also in the districts under
the jurisdiction of other inquisitors, that there was a continuous
emigration from Spain of the wealthy New-Christian families. Many
of these repaired to Rome to appeal to the Pontifical Courts and to
procure there an absolution which should accord them immunity from the
Spanish tribunals of the Holy Office.

But even when this absolution was procured a large number of these
emigrants never thought of returning to Spain, considering it wiser to
settle in a country in which they were in less danger of persecution.

Although it is certain that the Sovereigns can have had no prevision of
what actually was to happen as a consequence--though not in their own
day, nor for some time afterwards--although they may have been very
far from foreseeing that by driving out these energetic, industrious,
intelligent men they were depriving the country of the financially
able, wealth-producing element of the community--still they did
undoubtedly perceive what was immediately before them; and they began
to fear the possibility of their country’s being drained of its present
wealth if these emigrations were to continue.

So Isabella wrote to the Pope entreating him to establish a court of
appeal in Spain, and thus dispose that proceedings started within the
kingdom could there be carried to their conclusion without the need
for these appeals to Rome. To this the Pope replied in affectionate
terms on February 23, 1483, promising to give the matter every
consideration.[79]

Shortly thereafter he held a conference of the Spanish Cardinals, the
principal of whom in wealth, importance, and distinction was Roderigo
Borgia, Cardinal of Valencia. At this conference several provisions
were agreed upon, and these were embodied in the briefs dispatched from
the Vatican on May 25 following.

The first of these was to the Sovereigns. It contained a gracious
assent to their petition, and exhorted them to be zealous in this
matter of the Faith, reminding them that Jehu had consolidated his
kingdom by the destruction of idolatry, and that the Sovereigns would
meet with the same good fortune, as already God was giving them many
victories over the Moors to reward their piety and the purity of their
faith.

The second was to Iñigo Manrique, Archbishop of Seville (having
succeeded in this see to the Cardinal of Spain, who was now Archbishop
of Toledo), appointing him judge of appeal in _Causas de Fé_.

The remaining briefs were addressed to the Archbishop of Toledo and
the other Spanish archbishops, commanding them, to the end that the
functions of the Inquisition should be discharged with integrity,
that in the event of there being in their ecclesiastical provinces any
bishops who were of Jewish descent, they should suavely admonish these
not to intervene in person in the proceedings of the Holy Office, but
to allow themselves to be represented by their principal officials,
provisors, and diocesan vicars-general--always provided that none of
these was of Jewish blood.

This decree was natural enough, and there was some occasion for it,
considering the number of Spanish families of Jewish consanguinity as
a consequence of marriages between Christians and _conversos_--many
of these marriages having been contracted between Castilians of good
birth and the daughters of wealthy baptized Jews. It is a decree that
entirely contradicts Pulgar’s assertion that Torquemada was of Jewish
extraction.

The appointment of Manrique as judge of appeal was a very brief one,
nor did it work satisfactorily and accomplish what the Queen desired.
In the following August came another papal brief, stating that,
notwithstanding that appointment, fugitive New-Christians from the
Archbishopric of Seville continued to arrive in Rome and to make their
appeals to the Apostolic Courts, protesting that they dared not address
these to the appointed tribunal in Seville, for fear of being treated
with excessive rigour.

Many stated that, by virtue of the ban against them for having left
the city, they were fearful of being flung into prison unheard. Many,
again, had already been tried during their absence and burnt in effigy,
and they were apprehensive that if they returned their appeals would
be refused a hearing, and they would be sent at once to the flames in
execution of the sentence already pronounced against them.

Therefore the Pope now ordered Manrique to admit to reconciliation
all who might seek it, in despite of any judgment or sentence already
passed upon them.

Had these commands prevailed, the destruction wrought by the
Inquisition would have been considerably reduced, since none could
have suffered but the persistent apostate. The brief, however, does
not appear to have been even dispatched. No sooner was its merciful
decree indited than it was regretted and retracted. Eleven days later
Sixtus wrote to Ferdinand acquainting him with the terms of that brief
which had been intended for Manrique, but explaining that these had not
been sufficiently considered, and that, therefore, he was retaining it
whilst fresh measures were deliberated.

The position must have been growing intolerable to the Sovereigns,
for the Holy Office in Spain, directed in this fashion from Rome, was
governed by unstable and ever-shifting elements that were eminently
disturbing to the State--particularly now that the Inquisition was
growing rapidly in importance. Therefore Isabella wrote again,
imploring the Holy Father to give that institution a settled form. To
this the Pope acceded, perhaps himself aware of the necessity for the
thing requested. A head was necessary for the consolidated institution
it was now proposed to form, and Frey Tomás de Torquemada, from what
was known of his life, his character, and his ability, was judged to be
the man to fill this important office. Accordingly he was recommended
to Sixtus by the Sovereigns, and he received his appointment from the
Pope, first as Grand Inquisitor for Castile, and soon after (by the
bull of October 17, 1483) his jurisdiction was extended to include
Aragon; so that he found himself at the head of the Holy Office in
Spain, and invested with the fullest powers. It was his to elect,
depose, and replace subaltern inquisitors at his will, and the
jurisdiction of all those he appointed was subject to and dependent
upon himself.[80]

Llorente says of him: “The result accredited the election. It seemed
almost impossible that there should be another man so capable of
executing the intentions of King Ferdinand to multiply confiscations,
the intentions of the Roman Curia to propagate its jurisdiction
and pecuniary maxims, and the intentions of the projectors of the
Inquisition and its Autos de Fé to inspire terror.”[81]

With his elevation to that important position--a position whose
importance his own energy and determination were to increase until
his power in the land should almost rival that of the Sovereigns
themselves--the Spanish Inquisition enters now upon a new phase. Under
the jurisdiction and control of that stern-souled, mild-eyed ascetic,
the entire character of the Holy Office is transformed.

Immediately upon his appointment he set about reconstituting it so that
it should be in harmony with the wishes of the Sovereigns. To assist
him he appointed as his assessors the jurisconsults Juan Gutierrez de
Lachaves and Tristan de Medina, and he proceeded to establish four
permanent tribunals: one in Seville, under Morillo and San Martin,
whom he left undisturbed in their office, but subject to the new rules
which he laid down for the transaction of affairs; one in Cordova,
under Pedro Martinez de Barrio and Anton Ruiz Morales, with Fr. Martin
de Caso as assessor; one in Jaen, under Juan Garcia de Cañas and Fr.
Juan de Yarza; and one in Villa Real,[82] which shortly afterwards was
transferred to Toledo, under Francisco Sanchez de la Fuente and Pedro
Dias de Costana.

In addition to these he appointed other inquisitors who, without being
attached to any permanent tribunal, were to proceed wherever he should
direct them as occasion arose to set up temporary courts.

In Toledo, Valladolid, Avila, Segovia, and other cities there were
inquisitors already of the Pope’s appointing. Some of these failed to
show the complete submission to his orders which Torquemada demanded,
with the result that they were promptly deposed and their places filled
by others whom he nominated. Those who manifested obedience to his rule
he confirmed in their appointments, but usually he sent a nominee of
his own to act in conjunction with them.

Torquemada himself remained at Court; for now that the Inquisition was
established upon its new footing it became necessary that he should
be in constant communication with the Sovereigns for whom he acted.
Consultations were necessary on the score of the measures to be taken
for the administration of what was rapidly become a corporation of
great importance in the realm. From this it presently resulted that
to the four royal councils already in existence for the conduct of
the affairs of the kingdom, a fifth was added especially to deal
with inquisitorial matters. Whether the suggestion emanated from the
Sovereigns or from Torquemada, there are no means of ascertaining, nor
does it greatly signify.

This Supreme Council of the Inquisition was established in 1484.
It consisted of three royal councillors: Alonso Carillo, Bishop of
Mazzara, Sancho Velasquez de Cuellar, and Poncio de Valencia, all
doctors of laws, and of Torquemada’s two assessors. To preside over
this “Suprema”--as the council came to be called--Torquemada was
appointed, thus enormously increasing the power and influence which
already he wielded.

The three royal councillors had a definite vote in all matters
that appertained to the jurisdiction of the Sovereigns; but in all
matters of spiritual jurisdiction, which was vested entirely in
the Grand Inquisitor by the papal bull, their votes were merely
consultative--amounting to no more than an expression of opinion.

It was Torquemada’s desire that his subordinates should act with
absolute uniformity in the discharge of the duties entrusted to them,
and that the courts of the Holy Office throughout Spain should one and
all be identical in their methods of procedure, the instruments of his
will and the expression of his conceptions. With this end in view he
summoned the inquisitors by him appointed to the Tribunals of Seville,
Cordova, Jaen, and Villa Real to confer with him and his assessors and
the royal councillors.

The assembly took place in Seville on October 29, and its business
was the formulation of the first instructions of Torquemada for the
guidance of all inquisitors.

In the library of the British Museum there is a vellum-bound copy of
the edition of this code, which was subsequently published at Madrid
in 1576.[83] It contains, in addition to Torquemada’s articles of
1484 and subsequent years, others added by his successors, and there
are marginal notes giving the authorship of each. The work is partly
printed, partly in manuscript, and a considerable number of pages
remain in blank, that further instructions may be filled in as the need
occurs. The printed matter is frequently underscored by the pen of one
or another of the inquisitors through whose hands this copy passed
during its active existence.

The twenty-eight articles compiled by Torquemada at the assembly of
1484, and constituting his first “Instructions for the Governance of
the Holy Office,” demand a chapter to themselves.




CHAPTER X

THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HOLY OFFICE--THE FIRST “INSTRUCTIONS” OF
TORQUEMADA


The first manual for the use of inquisitors was probably written
somewhere about 1320. It was the work of the Dominican friar Bernard
Gui--“Practica Inquisitionis Heretice Pravitatis--Bernardo Guidonis,
Ordinis Fratrum Predicatorum”--and it summarised the experience
gathered during a hundred years by the inquisitors of Southern France.

It is divided into five parts. The first three are directly concerned
with procedure, and the formulæ are given for every occasion--citation,
arrest, pardon, commutation, and sentence--with the fullest particulars
for the guidance of inquisitors. The fourth part treats of the
powers vested in the tribunal of the Inquisition, and cites the
authorities--_i.e._ the decrees of pontiffs and of councils. The fifth
part surveys and defines the various heretical sects of Gui’s day,
gives particulars of the doctrines, rites, and ceremonies by which each
one may be known, and lays down methods by which heretical guile may be
circumvented in examination.

The work was used by French inquisitors in general and those of
Toulouse in particular, and it is more than probable that it inspired
Nicolaus Eymeric to compile his voluminous “Directorium Inquisitorum”
towards the middle of the fourteenth century.

Nicolaus Eymeric was Grand Inquisitor of Aragon, and he prepared his
directory, or manual of procedure, as a guide for his confrères in the
business of prosecuting those guilty of heretical pravity.

The work circulated freely in its manuscript form, and it was one
of the first to be printed in Barcelona upon the introduction of
the printing-press, so that in Torquemada’s day copies were widely
diffused, and were in the hands of all inquisitors in the world.

The bulk of the “Directorium” is little more than a compilation. It is
divided into three parts. The first lays down the chief Articles of the
Christian Faith; the second is a collection of the decretals, bulls,
and briefs of the popes upon the subject of heretics and heresies,
and the decision of the various councils held to determine matters
connected with heretics and their abettors, sorcerers, excommunicates,
Jews and infidels; the third part, which is Eymeric’s own contribution
to the subject, deals with the manner in which trials should be
conducted, and gives a detailed list of the offences that come under
the jurisdiction of the Holy Office.

It may be well before proceeding further to give a résumé of the
grounds upon which the Inquisition instituted proceedings, as set forth
in the “Directorium.”

       *       *       *       *       *

All heretics in general are subject to the animadversions of the Holy
Office; but there are, in addition, certain offenders who, whilst not
exactly guilty of heresy, nevertheless render themselves justiciable by
the Inquisition. These are:

BLASPHEMERS who in blaspheming say that which is contrary to the
Christian Faith. Thus, he who says, “The season is so bad that God
Himself could not give us good weather,” sins upon a matter of faith.

SORCERERS AND DIVINERS, when in their sorceries they perform that
which is in the nature of heresy--such as re-baptizing infants,
burning incense to a skull, etc. But if they confine their sorceries
to foretelling the future by chiromancy or palmistry, by drawing the
short straw, or consulting the astrolabe, they are guilty of simple
sorcery, and it is for the secular courts to prosecute them.

Amongst the latter are to be placed those who administer love-philtres
to women.

       *       *       *       *       *

DEVIL-WORSHIPPERS: Those who invoke devils. These are to be divided
into three classes:

    (_a_) Those who worship the devil, sacrificing to him,
    prostrating themselves, singing prayers and fasting, burning
    incense or lighting candles in his honour.

    (_b_) Those who confine themselves to offering a _Dulie_ or
    _Hyperdulie_ cult to Satan, introducing the names of devils
    into the litanies.

    (_c_) Those who invoke the devil by tracing magic figures,
    placing an infant in a circle, using a sword, a bed, or a
    mirror, etc.

In general it is easy to recognize those who have dealings with devils
on account of their ferocious aspect and terrible air.

The invocation in any of the three manners cited is always a heresy.
But if the devil should only be asked to do things that are of his
office--such as to tempt a woman to the sin of luxury--provided that
this is done without adoration or prayer, but in terms of command,
there are authors who hold that in such cases the person so proceeding
is not guilty of heresy.

Amongst those who invoke devils are astrologers and alchymists, who
when they do not succeed in making the discoveries they seek never fail
to have recourse to the devil, sacrificing to him and invoking him
expressly or tacitly.

JEWS AND INFIDELS: The first when they sin against their religion
in any of the articles of faith that are the same with them as with
us--_i.e._ that are common alike to Jew and to Christian--or when they
attack dogmas that are, similarly, common to both creeds.

As for infidels, the Church and the Pope, and consequently the
Inquisition, may punish them when they sin against the laws of
nature--the only laws they know.

Jews and infidels who attempt to pervert Christians are also regarded
as abettors or _fautores_.

In spite of the prohibition to succour a heretic, a man would not be
regarded as an abettor who gave food to a heretic dying of hunger,
since it is possible that if spared the latter might yet come to be
converted.

EXCOMMUNICATES who remain in excommunication during a whole year, by
which are to be understood not merely those who are excommunicate as
heretics, or abettors of heretics, but excommunicate upon any grounds
whatsoever. In fact, the indifference to excommunication renders them
suspect of heresy.

APOSTATES.--Apostate Christians who become Jews or Mohammedans (these
religions not being heresies), even though they should have apostatized
through fear of death. The fear of torture or death not being one that
can touch a person who is firm in the Faith, no apostasy is to be
excused upon such grounds.[84]

       *       *       *       *       *

With the “Directorium” of Eymeric before him, Torquemada set to work
to draw up the first articles of his famous code. Additions were to
be made to it later, as the need for such additions came to be shown
by experience; but no subsequent addition was of the importance of
these original twenty-eight articles. They may be said to have given
the jurisprudence of the Spanish Inquisition a settled form, which
continued practically unchanged for over three hundred years after
Torquemada’s death.

A survey of these articles and of the passages from Eymeric that have
a bearing upon them, together with some of the annotations of the
scholiast Francesco Pegna,[85] should serve to convey some notion of
the jurisprudence of the Holy Office and of the extraordinary spirit
that inspired and governed it--a spirit at once crafty and stupid,
subtle and obvious, saintly and diabolical, consistent in nothing--not
even in cruelty, for in its warped and dreadful way it accounted itself
merciful, and not only represented but believed that its aims were
charitable. It practised its abominations of cruelty out of love for
the human race, to save the human race from eternal damnation; and
whilst it wept on the one hand over the wretched heretic it flung to
the flames, it exulted on the other in the thought that by burning
one who was smitten with the pestilence of heresy it saved perhaps a
hundred from infection and from purging that infection in an eternity
of hell-fire.

They are rash who see hypocrisy in the priestly code that is to follow.
Hypocrites there may have been, there must have been, and many; such a
system was a very hotbed of hypocrisy. Yet the system itself was not
hypocritical. It was sincere, dreadfully, tragically, ardently sincere,
with the most hopeless, intolerable, and stupid of all sincerity--the
sincerity of fanaticism, which destroys all sense of proportion, and
distorts man’s intellectual vision until with an easy conscience he
makes of guile and craft and falsehood the principles that shall enable
him to do what he conceives to be his duty by his fellow-man.

The doctrine of exclusive salvation was the source of all this evil.
But that doctrine was firmly and sincerely held. Torquemada or any
other inquisitor might have uttered the words which an inspired poet
has caused to fall from the lips of Philip II.:

    “The blood and sweat of heretics at the stake
     Is God’s best dew upon the barren field.”[86]

And he would have uttered them with a calm and firm conviction, assured
that he did no more than proclaim an obvious truth which might serve
him as a guide to do his duty by man and God. For all that he did he
could find a commandment in the Scriptures. Was burning the proper
death for heretics? He answered the question out of the very mouth of
Christ, as you shall see. Should a heretic’s property be confiscated?
Eymeric and Paramo point to the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden as
a consequence of their disobedience--the first of all heresies--and ask
you what was that but confiscation. Is it proper to impose a garment of
shame upon those convicted of lesser heresies, or upon penitents who
are reconciled? Paramo will answer you that Adam and Eve wore skins
after their fall, and implies that this is a proper precedent for the
infamous _sanbenito_.

And so on: Moses, David, John the Baptist, and the gentle Saviour
Himself are made to afford reason for this course and for that, as the
need arises, and each reason is more grotesque than the other, until
you are stunned by the blows of these clumsy arguments. You cease to
wonder that the translation of the Bible was forbidden, that its study
was inhibited. If those who were learned in theology could interpret it
so extravagantly, what might not the unlearned achieve?

But let us pass on to the consideration of Torquemada’s code.


ARTICLE I

    Whenever inquisitors are appointed to a diocese, city, village,
    or other place which hitherto has had no inquisitors, they
    shall--after having presented the warrants by which they are
    empowered to the prelate of the principal church and to the
    governor of the district--summon by proclamation all the people
    and convoke the clergy. They shall appoint a Sunday or holiday
    upon which all are to assemble in the cathedral or principal
    church to hear a sermon of the Faith.

    They shall contrive that this sermon is delivered by a good
    preacher or by one of the actual inquisitors, as they deem
    best. Its aim shall be to expound the capacity in which they
    are there, their powers, and their intentions.




  COPILACION
  DE LAS INSTRVCIONES DEL
  Officio de la sancta Inquisicion, hechas por
  el muy Reuerendo Señor Fray Thomas de Torquemada, Príor del
  Monasterio de sancta Cruz de Segouia, primero Inquisidor
  general de los Reynos y Señorios de España.


E POR LOS OTROS REVERENDISSIMOS SENO-_res Inquisidores generales
que despues succedieron, cerca de la orden que se ha de tener en el
exercicio del Sancto Officio. Donde van puestas successiuamente por su
parte todas las Instructiones que tocan a los Inquisidores. E a otra
parte, las que tocan a cada vno delos Officiales y Ministros del sancto
Officio: las quales se copilaron en la manera que dicha es, por mandado
del Illustrissimo y Reuerendissimo señor don Alonso Manrrique, Cardenal
de los doze Apostoles, Arçobispo de Seuilla Inquisidor General de
España.:._

[Illustration:

EN MADRID,

En casa de Alonso Gomez, Impressor de su Magestad. Año. 1576.

TITLE-PAGE OF THE FIRST PRINTED EDITION OF THE “INSTRUCTIONS” OF
TORQUEMADA.

  _Photo by Donald Macbeth_

Upon the conclusion of this sermon the inquisitors shall order all
faithful Christians to come forward and make oath upon the Cross and
the Gospels to favour the Holy Inquisition and its ministers, and to
offer them no impediment directly or indirectly in the prosecution of
their mission.

This oath shall be specially imposed upon the governors or other
justiciaries of the place, and it shall be witnessed by the notaries of
the inquisitors.


ARTICLE II

    After the conclusion of the said sermon the inquisitors shall
    order to be read and published an admonition with censures
    against those who are rebellious or who contest the power of
    the Holy Office.


ARTICLE III

    After the conclusion of the said sermon the inquisitors shall
    publish an edict granting a term of grace, of thirty or forty
    days--as they may deem proper--so that all persons who have
    fallen into the sin of heresy or apostasy, who have observed
    Jewish rites or any other that are contrary to the Christian
    Religion, may come forward to confess their sins, assured that
    if they do so with a sincere penitence, divulging all that is
    known to them or that they remember, not only of their own sins
    but also of the sins of others, they shall be received with
    charity.

    They shall be subjected to a salutary penance, but they shall
    not suffer death, imprisonment, or confiscation of their
    property, nor shall they in any way be mulcted unless the
    inquisitors, in consideration of the quality of the penitents
    and of the sins they confess, should think well to impose some
    pecuniary penance upon them.

    Concerning this grace and mercy that their Highnesses consider
    well to accord to those who are reconciled, the Sovereigns
    order the delivery of letters-patent, bearing the royal seal,
    whose tenor shall be included in the published edict.

It is sufficiently plain, from the terms of this article, that the
edict of grace was published by royal command, and that it was not,
as Garcia Rodrigo represents it, a merciful dispensation spontaneously
emanating from the Holy Office.


ARTICLE IV

    Self-delators shall present their confessions in writing to the
    inquisitors and their notaries with two or three witnesses who
    shall be officers of the Inquisition or other upright persons.

    Upon receipt of this confession by the inquisitors, let the
    oath be administered to the penitents in legal form, not only
    concerning the matters confessed but concerning others that
    may be known to them and upon which they may be questioned.
    Let them be asked how long it is since they Judaized or
    otherwise sinned against the Faith, and how long it is since
    they abandoned their false beliefs, repented, and ceased to
    observe those ceremonies. Next let them be examined upon the
    circumstances of the matters confessed, that the inquisitors
    may satisfy themselves that these confessions are true.
    Especially let them be questioned as to what prayers they
    recite, where they recite them, and with whom they have been in
    the habit of assembling to hear the law of Moses preached.


ARTICLE V

    Self-delators who seek reconciliation to Holy Mother Church
    shall be required publicly to abjure their errors, and penance
    shall publicly be imposed upon them at the discretion of the
    inquisitors, using mercy and kindness as far as it is possible
    for them to do so with an easy conscience.

    The inquisitors shall admit none to secret penance and
    recantation unless his sin shall have been so secret that none
    else knows or could know of it save his confessor; such a one
    all inquisitors may reconcile and absolve in secret.

Llorente says that the admission to secret penance was a source of much
gold to the Roman Curia, as thousands appealed to the Pope offering a
secret confession and firm purpose of amendment if secretly absolved,
for which a papal brief was necessary.

A word must here be said on the score of ABJURATION. It was the amende
provided by Eymeric[87] for those who by their speech or conduct
should have fallen into suspicion of heresy; those, for instance, who
abstained from the sacraments imposed by Mother Church being liable to
this suspicion.

There were three degrees of suspicion into which a man might fall:
light, vehement, and violent. The abjuration required was practically
the same in all three cases, but the punishment imposed upon the
abjurer varied according to the degree. This abjuration must be
publicly made in church before the assembled people, the suspects
being placed--like all penitents or convicts of heresy--upon a raised
platform in full view of the assembled faithful. The inquisitor would
read out the Articles of the Christian Faith, and a list of the
principal errors against it, laying particular stress upon those errors
of which the penitents were suspected, and which they were required to
abjure with both hands upon the Gospels, and according to the formula
laid down by Eymeric.

Those who are suspected lightly (_leviter_) are admonished that should
they again fall into error they will be abandoned to the secular arm
for punishment. With that admonition, and the imposition of a penance
which may take the form of fasts, prayers, or pilgrimages, they are
dismissed.

Those suspected vehemently (_vehementer_) are similarly admonished,
but in addition they may be sent to prison for a time, whereafter they
must undergo a heavy penance, such as standing on certain days at the
door of the principal church or near the altar during the celebration
of Mass holding a candle--but not wearing a _sanbenito_, as, properly
speaking, they are not heretics--or they may be sent upon a pilgrimage.

He who is violently suspected (_violenter_) shall be absolved of the
excommunication incurred, but as his crime may not go unpunished, and
to the end that he may suffer less severely in the next world, he is
sentenced to a term of imprisonment, whereafter he shall be condemned
to stand at the church door during the great feasts of the year wearing
the penitential scapulary known as the _sanbenito_, that all may be
made aware of his infamy.

After passing sentence, the inquisitor shall admonish the penitent in
these terms:

“My dear Son, be patient and do not despair; if we observe in you
the signs of contrition we shall soften your penance; but beware of
departing from what we have prescribed for you; should you do so you
shall be punished as an impenitent heretic.”

The punishment for the impenitent was, of course, the fire.

The inquisitor shall conclude the ceremony by granting an indulgence of
forty days to all who have attended it and an indulgence of three years
to those who shall have taken part in it.

The sentence of prison, with its bread-and-water diet, might be
relaxed; but never that of the _sanbenito_, which is considered by
Eymeric--and inquisitors generally--as the most salutary of penances
for him that undergoes it and the most edifying to the public generally.

The self-delators admitted by Torquemada to abjuration were treated as
suspects of the first degree--_leviter_.


ARTICLE VI

    Inasmuch as heretics and apostates (although they return to
    the Catholic Faith and become reconciled) are infamous at law,
    and inasmuch as they must perform their penances with humility
    and sorrow for having lapsed into error, the inquisitors shall
    order them not to hold any public office or ecclesiastical
    benefice, and they shall not be lawyers or brokers,
    apothecaries, surgeons or physicians, nor shall they wear gold
    or silver, coral, pearls, precious stones or other ornaments,
    nor dress in silk or camlett, nor go on horseback nor carry
    weapons all their lives, under pain of being deemed relapsed
    (_relapsos_) into heresy, as must all be considered who after
    reconciliation do not carry out the penances imposed upon them.

This decree was no more than the revival of the enactment made a
century and a half earlier by Alfonso XI in the code known as the
Partidas, which had mercifully been allowed to fall into desuetude. It
was, Llorente tells us, a considerable source of wealth to the Roman
Curia. Frequent appeals for “rehabilitation” were made in consequence,
and accorded under an apostolic brief whose heavy charges the
appellants were required to defray.

Torquemada mercifully stops short of ordering the self-delators to wear
the _sanbenito_. Even so, however, by decreeing that they must wear
no garments of silk or wool, and therefore none but the very plainest
raiment, unadorned by any precious metal or jewel--not to mention the
prohibition to use weapons or go on horseback--he imposed upon them a
garb that was only some degrees removed from the penitential sack and
served the same purpose of marking them out for infamy.

The wearing of the _sanbenito_, too, was a custom that had fallen
somewhat into desuetude. But the ascetic Torquemada was not the man
to allow a form of penance accounted so very salutary to continue
neglected. He revived and extended the use of it, adding innovations
of his own, so that it came to be imposed not only upon condemned
heretics, but upon the reconciled--other than self-delators--and upon
suspects, who were required to wear it during the abjuration ceremony.

This odious garment, its origin and history, shall presently be more
fully considered.


ARTICLE VII

    As the crime of heresy is a very heinous one, it is desired
    that the reconciled may realize by the penances imposed
    upon them how gravely they have offended and sinned against
    Our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, as it is our aim to treat them
    very mercifully and kindly, pardoning them from the pain of
    fire and perpetual imprisonment, and leaving them all their
    property should they, as has been said, come to confess their
    errors within the appointed time of grace, the inquisitors
    shall, in addition to the penances imposed upon the said
    reconciled, order them to bestow as alms a certain portion of
    their property, according to the position of the penitent and
    the gravity of the crimes confessed. These pecuniary penances
    shall be applied for the Holy War which the most serene
    Sovereigns are making upon the Moors of Granada, enemies of
    our Holy Catholic Faith, and to other pious works that may
    be undertaken. For just as the said heretics and apostates
    have offended against Our Lord and His Holy Faith, so, after
    re-incorporation in the Church, it is just that they should
    bear pecuniary penances for the defence of the Holy Faith.

    These pecuniary penances shall be at the discretion of the
    inquisitors; but they shall be guided by the tariff given
    them by the Reverend Father Prior of Holy Cross (_i.e._ by
    Torquemada).

It was no inconsiderable proportion of their property that was required
of them, as may be seen from the penance of “alms” for the war against
Granada imposed upon those who were reconciled in Toledo two years
later; one-fifth of their property being demanded.[88]


ARTICLE VIII

    Should any person guilty of the said crime of heresy fail
    to present himself within the appointed period of grace,
    but come forward voluntarily after its expiry and make his
    confession in due form before having been arrested or cited
    by the inquisitors, or before the inquisitors shall have
    received testimony against him, such person shall be received
    to abjuration and reconciliation in the same manner as those
    who presented themselves during the term of the said edict,
    and he shall be submitted to penances at the discretion of
    the inquisitors. But such penances shall not be pecuniary
    because his property is confiscate [_so that his admission to
    abjuration is not quite upon the same terms_].

    But if at the time of his coming to confess and seek
    reconciliation, the inquisitors should already be informed by
    witnesses of his heresy or apostasy, or should already have
    cited him to appear before the Court to answer the charge,
    in such a case the inquisitor shall receive the penitent to
    reconciliation--if he entirely confesses his own errors and
    what he knows of the errors of others--and shall impose upon
    him heavier penances than upon the former, even up to perpetual
    imprisonment should the case demand it.

This is merely one of those quibbles that permeate this jurisprudence.
The article in this last respect is so framed as to make it appear
that under such circumstances the inquisitors would be acting more
mercifully than against an accused heretic; but the latitude of
punishment is such that they need display no such mercy--perpetual
imprisonment being the punishment prescribed for any heretic (who is
not “relapsed”) seeking reconciliation.

    But no persons who shall come to confess after expiry
    of the period of grace shall be subjected to pecuniary
    penances--unless their Highnesses should mercifully condescend
    to remit all or portion of the confiscation incurred by those
    so reconciled.

This last clause seems rather in the nature of a provision against any
merciful weakness on the Sovereigns’ part.


ARTICLE IX

    If any children of heretics having fallen into the sin of
    heresy by indoctrination of their parents, and being under
    twenty years of age, should come to seek reconciliation and
    to confess the errors they know of themselves, their parents
    and any other persons, even though they should come after the
    expiry of the term of grace, the inquisitors shall receive them
    kindly, imposing penances lighter than upon others in like
    case, and they shall contrive that these children be tutored in
    the Faith and the Sacraments of Holy Mother Church, as they are
    to be excused upon the grounds of age and education.

They are not, however, to be excused to the extent of enjoying any of
their parents’ property. That is confiscate by virtue of the parents’
heresy; and by virtue of that same heresy on the part of their parents
these children and their own children must remain under the ban of
infamy, inhibited from wearing gold or silver, etc., and from holding
any office under the crown or any ecclesiastical benefice. It seems
almost ironical to talk of imposing light penances upon wretches who
are automatically subject to such penalties as these. But by that
“light penance” Llorente conceives would be meant their wearing a
_sanbenito_ for a couple of years, appearing in it at Mass and being
paraded in it in processions.


ARTICLE X

    Persons guilty of heresy and apostasy, by the fact of their
    having fallen into these sins, incur the loss of all their
    property and the administration of it, counting from the
    day when first they offended, and their said property is
    confiscate to their Highnesses’ treasury. But in the matter
    of ecclesiastical pains in the case of those reconciled, the
    inquisitors in pronouncing upon them shall declare them to be
    heretics, apostates, or observers of the rites and ceremonies
    of the Jews; but that since they seek conversion with a pure
    heart and true faith, and they are ready to bear the penances
    that may be imposed, they shall be absolved and reconciled to
    Holy Mother Church.

The object of this article is really to make the act of confiscation
retrospective where necessary, so as to circumvent any who should
attempt, by alienation of his property, to avoid its confiscation.
Since the confiscation was incurred upon the date of the first offence
against the Faith, the inquisitors were to trace any property that
might subsequently have been disposed of by the delinquent, and even
should it have gone to the paying of debts or the endowment of a
daughter married to one who was an old and “clean” Christian, the Holy
Office must seize and confiscate it to the Royal Treasury.


ARTICLE XI

    If any heretic or apostate who shall have been arrested upon
    information laid against him should say that he desires
    reconciliation and confess all his faults, what Jewish
    ceremonies he may have observed, and what is known to him
    of the faults of others, entirely and without reservations,
    the inquisitors shall admit him to reconciliation subject to
    perpetual imprisonment as by law prescribed. But should the
    inquisitors, in conjunction with the diocesan ordinary, in
    view of the contrition of the offender and the quality of his
    confession, think well to commute this penance to another
    lighter one, they shall have faculty so to do.

    It seems that this should take place chiefly if the heretic at
    the first sitting of the court, or upon his first appearance
    before it, without awaiting the declaration of his offences,
    should announce his desire to confess and abjure; and such
    confession should be made before there is any publication of
    witnesses or of the matters urged by them against him.


ARTICLE XII

    Should the prosecution of an accused have been conducted to the
    point of the publication of witnesses and their depositions,
    but should he then confess his faults and beg to be admitted
    to reconciliation, desiring formally to abjure his errors,
    the inquisitors shall receive him to the said reconciliation
    subject to perpetual imprisonment, to which they shall sentence
    him--save if in view of his contrition and other attendant
    circumstances the inquisitors should have cause to consider
    that the reconciliation of such a heretic is simulated; in such
    case they must declare him an impenitent heretic and abandon
    him to the secular arm: all of which is left to the conscience
    of the inquisitors.

“Abandonment to the secular arm” is, as shall presently be considered,
the ecclesiastical equivalent to a sentence of death by fire.

The term “publication of witnesses” must not be accepted literally.
What it really meant will become clear upon reading Article XVI,
which was specially framed by Torquemada to modify and limit this
time-honoured custom of civil and ecclesiastical courts.


ARTICLE XIII

    If any of those who are reconciled during the period of grace
    or after its expiry should fail to confess all their own sins
    and all that they know of the sins of others, especially
    in grave cases, and should such omission arise not from
    forgetfulness but from malice, as may afterwards be proved
    by witnesses, since it is clear that the said reconciled
    have perjured themselves, and it must be presumed that their
    reconciliation was simulated, although they may have been
    absolved let them be proceeded against as impenitent heretics
    as soon as the said fiction and perjury are discovered.

    Similarly if any person reconciled at the time of the edict of
    grace or afterwards, shall boast himself in public in such a
    manner that this can be proved, saying that he did not commit
    the sins to which he confessed, he must be deemed impenitent
    and a simulated convert, and the inquisitors shall proceed
    against him as if he were not reconciled.


ARTICLE XIV

    If any, upon being denounced and convicted of the sin of
    heresy, shall deny and persist in his denial until sentence
    is passed, and the said crime shall have been proved against
    him, although the accused should confess the Catholic Faith
    and assert that he has always been and is a Christian, the
    inquisitors must declare him a heretic and so sentence him, for
    juridically the crime is proved, and by refusing to confess his
    error the convict does not permit the Church to absolve him and
    use him mercifully.

    But in such cases the inquisitors should proceed with
    great care in their examination of the witnesses, closely
    cross-questioning them, gathering information on the score of
    their characters, and ascertaining whether there exist motives
    why they should depone out of hatred or ill-will towards the
    prisoner.


ARTICLE XV

    If the said crime of heresy or apostasy is half-proven
    (_semiplenamente provado_) the inquisitors may deliberate upon
    putting the accused to the torture, and if under torture he
    should confess his sin, he must ratify his confession on one
    of the following three days. If he does so ratify he shall be
    punished as convicted of heresy; if he does not ratify, but
    revokes his confession as the crime is neither fully proved
    nor yet disproved, the inquisitors must order, on account of
    the infamy and presumption of guilt of the accused, that he
    should publicly abjure his error; or the inquisitors may repeat
    the torture.

There is nothing in this article that may be considered as a departure
from or an enlargement upon any of the rules laid down by Eymeric in
his “Directorium,” as we shall see when we come to deal with this
gruesome subject of torture.

It is urged by apologists that, when all is said, the torture to which
the inquisitors had recourse, and, similarly, the punishment of death
by fire, were not peculiarly ecclesiastical institutions; that they
were the ordinary civil methods of dealing with offenders, and that in
adopting them the Church had simply conformed, as was her custom, with
that which was by law prescribed.

It is quite true that originally these were the methods by which the
secular tribunals proceeded against those who sinned against the Faith.
But it must also be borne in mind that if the civil authorities so
proceeded they implicitly obeyed the bull “ad extirpanda” of Sixtus IV,
which imposed this duty upon them under pain of excommunication.

Owing to the inconvenience that attended this procedure in so far as
torture and questions upon matters of Faith were concerned, it was
later accounted desirable that the inquisitors themselves should take
charge of it. They were enjoined, however, to see to it that there
should be no shedding of blood or loss of life, since it was against
the Christian maxims that a priest should be guilty of such things. So
that when by misadventure it happened that blood was shed or a patient
died under the hands of the torturers, the inquisitor conducting the
examination became guilty of an irregularity. For this he must seek
absolution at the hands of a brother cleric; and the inquisitors were
informed--to make matters easier for them and to spare them anxieties
in this matter--that they had the right to absolve one another under
such circumstances.

But even if we fully admit that the use of torture--and similarly of
fire--had been secular institutions of which the Church had simply
availed herself as the only methods that commended themselves in such
an age, it must still be held against the inquisitors that these
methods were by no means tempered or softened in their priestly hands.


ARTICLE XVI

    It being held that the publication of the names of witnesses
    who depone upon the crime of heresy might result in great
    harm and danger to the persons and property of the said
    witnesses--since it is known that many have been wounded and
    killed by heretics--it is resolved that the accused shall not
    be supplied with a copy of the depositions against him, but
    that he shall be informed of what is declared in them, whilst
    such circumstances as might lead to the identification of the
    deponents shall be withheld.

    But the inquisitors must, when proof has been obtained from
    the examination of the witnesses, publish these depositions,
    withholding always the names and such circumstances as might
    enable the accused to learn the identity of the witnesses; and
    the inquisitors may give the accused a copy of the publication
    in such form [_i.e._ truncated] if he requires it.

    If the accused should demand the services of an advocate, he
    shall be supplied. The advocate must make formal oath that he
    will faithfully assist the accused, but that if at any stage
    of the pleadings he shall realize that justice is not on his
    side, he shall at once cease to assist the delinquent and shall
    inform the inquisitors of the circumstance.

    The accused shall pay out of his own property, if he have any,
    the services of the advocate; if he have no property, then the
    advocate shall be paid out of other confiscations, such being
    the pleasure of their Highnesses.

It is extremely doubtful if a more flagrant departure from all the laws
of equity would be possible than that which is embodied in Torquemada’s
enactment on the subject of witnesses.

The notion of an accused hearing nothing of what is deposed against
him, of his not even being informed of the full extent of such
depositions nor yet confronted with his accusers, is beyond a doubt one
of the most monstrously unjust features of this tribunal. And by taking
the fullest advantage of that enactment and reducing the proceedings to
a secrecy such as was never known in any court, the inquisitors were
able to inspire a terror which was even greater than that occasioned by
the fires they fed with human fuel at their frequent Autos.

Torquemada based this enactment upon the caution laid down by Eymeric
on the score of divulging the names of witnesses. But Eymeric went
no further than to say that these names should be suppressed where a
possibility of danger to the delators lay in their being divulged. The
accused, however, might have the full record of the proceedings read to
him, and he might infer for himself who were his accusers. There was no
question in Eymeric of any truncations.

Torquemada’s aim is perfectly clear. It was not based, as is said
in the article, upon concern for any danger that the delators might
incur. For, after all, it shall be made plain before we conclude the
survey of inquisitorial jurisprudence, that the wounding or even the
death of those witnesses would be regarded (professedly, at least) as
an enviable thing; they would be suffering for the Faith, and thus
qualifying for the immortal crown of martyrdom. Rather was Torquemada’s
object to remove all fear that might trammel delators and stifle
delations. The delator must be protected solely to the end that other
delators might come forward with confidence to inform against secret
heretics and apostates, so that the activities of the Holy Office
should suffer no curtailment.

Trasmiera, a later inquisitor, in the course of an eulogium of
secrecy, speaks of it as “the pole upon which the government of the
Inquisition is balanced, calling for the veneration of the faithful;
it facilitates the delations of witnesses, and it is the support and
foundation of this tribunal; once deprived of it, the architecture of
the edifice must undoubtedly give way.”[89]

The clause relating to advocates is founded upon the ancient
ecclesiastical law which forbade an advocate to plead for heretics. His
being enlisted under the present clause would clearly serve to increase
the peril of the accused.


ARTICLE XVII

    The inquisitors shall, themselves, examine the witnesses, and
    not leave such examinations to their notaries or others, unless
    a witness should be ill or unable to come before the inquisitor
    and the inquisitor similarly unable to go to the witness, in
    which case he may send the ordinary ecclesiastical judge of the
    district with another upright person and a notary to take the
    depositions.


ARTICLE XVIII

    When any person is put to the torture the inquisitors and
    the ordinary should be present--or, at least, some of them.
    But when this is for any reason impossible, then the person
    entrusted to question should be a learned and faithful man
    (_hombre entendido y fiel_).


ARTICLE XIX

    The absent accused shall be cited by public edict affixed to
    the door of the church of the district to which he belongs, and
    after thirty days’ grace the inquisitors may proceed to try him
    as contumaciously absent. If there is sufficient evidence of
    his guilt, sentence may be passed upon him. Or, if evidence is
    insufficient, he may be branded a suspect and commanded--as is
    due of suspects--to present himself for canonical purgation.
    Should he fail to do so within the time appointed, his guilt
    must be presumed.

    Proceedings against the absent may be taken in any of the
    following three ways:

    (1) In accordance with the chapter “Cum contumatia de
    hereticis,” citing the accused to appear and defend himself
    upon certain matters concerning the Faith and certain sins of
    heresy, under pain of excommunication; if he does not respond,
    he shall be denounced as a rebel, and if he persists in this
    rebellion for one year he shall be declared a formal heretic.
    This is the safest and least rigorous course to adopt.

    (2) Should it seem to the inquisitors that a crime against any
    absent can be established, let him be cited by edict to come
    and prove his innocence within thirty days--or a longer period
    may be conceded if such is necessary to permit him to return
    from wherever he may be known to be. And he shall be cited at
    every stage of the proceedings until the passing of sentence,
    when, should he still be absent, let him be accused of
    rebellion, and should the crime be proved he may be condemned
    in his absence without further delay.

    (3) If in the course of inquisitorial proceedings there is
    presumption of heresy against an absent person (although the
    crime is not clearly proved) the inquisitors may summon him by
    edict commanding him to appear within a given time to clear
    himself canonically of the said error, on the understanding
    that should he fail to appear, or, appearing, should fail to
    clear himself, he shall be deemed convicted and the inquisitors
    shall proceed to act as by law prescribed.

    The inquisitors, being learned and discriminating, will select
    the course that seems most certain and is most practical under
    the particular circumstances of the case.

Any person condemned as contumacious became an outlaw, whom it was
lawful for any man to kill.

CANONICAL PURGATION, which is mentioned in this article, differs
considerably from ABJURATION, and the difference must be indicated.

It is applicable only to those who are accused by the public
voice--_i.e._ who have acquired the “reputation” of heresy--without yet
having been detected in any act or speech that might cause them to be
suspected of heresy in any of the defined degrees of such suspicion.

It almost amounts to a distinction without a difference, and is an
excellent instance of the almost laboured equity in which this tribunal
indulged in matters of detail whilst flagrantly outraging equity in the
main issues.

For Canonical Purgation, says Eymeric,[90] the accused must find a
certain number of sureties or _compurgatores_, the number required
being governed by the gravity of the (alleged) offence. They must be
persons of integrity and of the same station in life as the accused,
with whom they must have been acquainted for some years. The accused
shall make oath upon the Gospels that he has never held or taught the
heresies stated, and the _compurgatores_ shall swear to their belief
that this is the truth. This Purgation must be made in all cities where
the accused has been defamed.

The accused shall be given a certain time in which to find his
_compurgatores_, and should he fail to find the number required he
shall at once be convicted and condemned as a heretic.

And Pegna adds, in his commentary upon this, that any who shall be
found guilty of heresy after having once been in this position is
to be regarded as a “relapso” and delivered to the secular arm. For
this reason he enjoins that Canonical Purgation should not lightly be
ordered, as it is so largely dependent upon the will of third parties.

Eymeric adds, further, that sometimes Canonical Purgation may be
ordered to those who are defamed by the public voice but who are not
in the hands of the inquisitors. Should they refuse to surrender, the
inquisitors shall proceed to excommunicate them, and if they persist in
their excommunication for one year they shall be deemed heretics, and
subject to the penalties entailed by such a sentence.


ARTICLE XX

    If any writings or trials should bring to light the heresy of
    a person deceased, let proceedings be taken against him--even
    though forty years shall have elapsed since the offence--let
    the fiscal accuse him before the tribunal, and if he should be
    found guilty the body must be exhumed.

    His children or heirs may appear to defend him; but should they
    fail to appear, or, appearing, fail to establish his innocence,
    sentence shall be passed upon him and his property confiscated.

It will, of course, be obvious that since no good or useful purpose
could be served by instituting proceedings against the dead, nothing
but cupidity can have inspired so barbarous a decree as this. The
avowed object of the Inquisition--and very loudly and insistently
avowed--was the uprooting of heresies to prevent their spread, and the
inquisitors maintained that it was a painful necessity thrust upon them
by their duty to God to destroy those who persisted in heresy, lest
these, by their teaching and example, should contaminate and imperil
the souls of others. Thus the Inquisition justified itself, and removed
all doubt as to the purity of its motives.

But how should this justification apply to the trial of the dead--even
though they should have been dead for over forty years?

The provision, however, was not Torquemada’s own. He followed in the
footsteps of earlier inquisitors. He found his precedent in the 120th
question propounded by Eymeric--“Confiscatio bonorum hæretici fieri
potest post ejus mortem.” In this the author of the “Directorium” lays
it down that although in civil law legal action against a criminal
ceases with his death, such is not to be the case where heresy is
concerned, on account of the enormity of the crime. (It may seem that,
had he been quite honest, he would have said, “on account of the
profits that may accrue from the prosecution.”)

Heretics, he pursues, may be proceeded against after their death, and,
if convicted, their property may be confiscated--and this within forty
years of their decease--depriving the heirs of all enjoyment of it,
even though the third generation should be in possession.

All that Torquemada did was to extend the term of procedure beyond the
forty years to which Eymeric had limited it.

And to the foregoing Eymeric adds that, should the heirs at any time
have acquired knowledge that the deceased was a heretic, they shall
be censured for having acted in bad faith and kept the matter secret!
By this he actually puts it upon men to come forward voluntarily and
accuse their dead fathers or grandfathers of heretical practices, to
the end that they themselves may be rendered destitute and infamous to
the extent of being incapacitated from holding any public office or
following any honourable profession--and this though they themselves
should be the most faithful of Catholics, untouched by the faintest
breath of suspicion!

It is beyond words a monstrous and inequitable enactment. Yet, like
all else, they can justify it. If there is one thing in which the
inquisitors were truly admirable, it is in the deftness with which they
could justify and reconcile with their conscience the most inhuman
practice. They would answer questions as to the lawfulness of this
proceeding by urging that they did it with the greatest reluctance,
but that their duty demanded it to the end that the living should
beware how they failed in fidelity to the Faith, lest punishment should
overtake them in their descendants after they themselves had passed
beyond the reach of human justice. Thus would they represent the act
as salutary and to the advantage of the Faith. And since there is
at least a scintilla of truth in this, who shall say that they did
not tranquillize their consciences and delude themselves that the
confiscations were a mere incident which nowise swayed their judgment?

That proceedings against persons deceased were by no means rare is
shown by the frequent records of corpses burnt--one of the purposes for
which they were exhumed; the other being that they must cease to defile
consecrated ground.


ARTICLE XXI

    The Sovereigns desiring that inquisition be made alike in
    the domains of the nobles as in the lands under the Crown,
    inquisitors shall proceed to effect these, and shall require
    the lords of such domains to make oath to comply with all that
    the law ordains, and to lend all assistance to the inquisitors.
    Should they decline to do so, they shall be proceeded against
    as by law established.


ARTICLE XXII

    Should heretics who are delivered to the secular arm leave
    children who are minors and unmarried, the inquisitors shall
    provide and ordain that they be cared for and reared by
    some persons who will instruct them in our Holy Faith. The
    inquisitors shall prepare a memorial of such orphans and the
    circumstances of each, to the end that of the royal bounty
    alms may be provided to the extent necessary, this being the
    wish of the Sovereigns when the children are good Christians,
    especially in the case of girls, who should receive a dower
    sufficient to enable them to marry or enter a convent.

Llorente tells us that although he went through very many records of
old proceedings of the Inquisition, in no single instance did he
discover a record of any such provision in favour of the child of a
condemned heretic.[91]

Harsh as were the decrees of the Inquisition in all things, in nothing
were they so harsh as in the enactments concerning the children of
heretics. However innocent themselves of the heresy for which their
parents or grandparents might have suffered, not only must they go
destitute, but further they must be prevented from ever extricating
themselves appreciably from that condition, being inhibited--to the
second generation--from holding any office under the Crown, or any
ecclesiastical benefice, and from following any honourable or lucrative
profession. And, as if that were not in itself sufficient, they were
further condemned to wear the outward signs of infamy, to go dressed in
serge, without weapons or ornaments, and never ride on horseback, under
pain of worse befalling them. One of the inevitable results of this
barbarous decree was the extinction of many good Spanish families of
Jewish blood in the last decade of the fifteenth century.

This the inquisitors understood to be the literal application to
practical life of the gentle and merciful precepts of the sweet Christ
in Whose name they acted.

Eymeric and his commentator Pegna make clear, between them, the
inquisitorial point of view. The author of the “Directorium” tells us
that commiseration for the children of heretics who are reduced to
mendicity must not be allowed to soften this severity, since by all
laws, human and divine, it is prescribed that the children must suffer
for the sins of the fathers.[92]

The scholiast expounds at length the justice of this measure. He says
that there have been authors, such as Hostiensis, who pretend that it
lacks the equity of the ancient laws, which admitted Catholic children
to inheritance. But he assures us that they are wrong in holding such
views, that there is no injustice in the provision, and that it is
salutary, since the fear of it is calculated to influence parents and
to turn them--out of love for their offspring--from the great crime of
heresy.

To minds less dulled by bigotry it must have been clear that by this,
as, for that matter, by many other of their decrees, all that was
achieved was to put a premium upon hypocrisy.

Another consideration that escaped their notice--being, as they were,
capable of perceiving one thing only at a time--was that if this
precious measure was prescribed by all laws, human and divine, it
should have been unavoidable. Yet they themselves provided the means of
avoiding it--as we know--for the child vile enough to lay information
of his parents’ heresy. By what laws, human or divine, did they dare
to encourage such an infamy? By no law but their own--a law whose
chief aim, it is obvious at every turn, was to swell the number of
convictions.

What opinion was held of children who informed against their parents to
avert the awful fate that awaited them should their parents’ heresy be
discovered by others, is apparent in the case of the daughter of Diego
de Susan--who, very possibly, was actuated by just such motives.


ARTICLE XXIII

    Should any heretic or apostate who has been reconciled within
    the term of grace be relieved by their Highnesses from the
    punishment of confiscation of his property, it is to be
    understood that such relief applies only to that property
    which by their own sin was lost to them. It does not extend to
    property which the person reconciled shall have the right to
    inherit from another who shall have suffered confiscation. This
    to the end that a person so pardoned shall not be in better
    case than a pure Catholic heir.


ARTICLE XXIV

    As the King and Queen in their clemency have ordained that
    the Christian slaves of heretics shall be freed, and even
    when the heretic is reconciled and immune from confiscation,
    this immunity shall not extend to his slaves; these shall be
    manumitted in any case, to the greater honour and glory of our
    Holy Faith.


ARTICLE XXV

    Inquisitors and assessors and other officers of the
    Inquisition, such as fiscal advocates, constables, notaries,
    and ushers, must excuse themselves from receiving gifts
    from any who may have or may come to have affairs with the
    Inquisition, or from others on their behalf; and the Father
    Prior of Holy Cross orders them not to receive any such gifts
    under pain of excommunication, of being deprived of office
    under the Inquisition and compelled to make restitution and
    repay to twice the value of what they may have received.

Eymeric’s “Directorium” permitted the reception of gifts by
inquisitors, provided that these gifts were not too considerable, but
he enjoined inquisitors not to show too much avidity--not, it would
seem, on account of the sin that lurks in avidity, but so as not to
give scandal to the laity.[93]


ARTICLE XXVI

    Inquisitors shall endeavour to work harmoniously together; the
    honour of the office they hold demands this, and inconveniences
    might result from discords amongst them. Should any inquisitor
    be acting in the place of the diocesan ordinary, let him not
    on that account presume that he enjoys pre-eminence over his
    colleagues. If any difference should arise between inquisitors
    and they be unable themselves to adjust it, let them keep the
    matter secret until they can lay it before the Prior of Holy
    Cross, who, as their superior, will decide it as he considers
    best.


ARTICLE XXVII

    Inquisitors shall endeavour to contrive that their officers
    treat one another well and dwell in harmony and honourably.
    Should any officer commit an excess, let them punish him
    charitably, and should they be unable to cause an officer
    to fulfil his duty, let them advise the Prior of Holy Cross
    thereof, and he will at once deprive such a one of his office
    and make such an appointment as may seem best for the service
    of Our Lord and their Highnesses.


ARTICLE XXVIII

    Should any matter arise for which provision has not been
    made by this code, the inquisitors shall proceed as by
    law prescribed, it being left to them to dispose as their
    consciences show them to be best for the service of God and
    their Highnesses.

To these twenty-eight articles Torquemada was to make further
additions--in January of the following year, in October of 1488 and
in May of 1498. We shall indicate to them, but for the moment it is
sufficient to say that--saving some of those of 1498--they are of
secondary importance, being mainly in the nature of corollaries upon
those we have dealt with, and chiefly concerned with the internal
governance of the Inquisition rather than with its relations to the
outside world.




CHAPTER XI

THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HOLY OFFICE--THE MODE OF PROCEDURE


No complete notion of the jurisprudence of the Holy Office can be
formed without taking a glance at this tribunal at work and observing
the methods upon which it proceeded in its dealings with those who were
arraigned before it.

Its scope has already been considered, and also the offences that
came within its pitiless jurisdiction at the time of Torquemada’s
appointment to the mighty office of Grand Inquisitor and President
of the Suprema. It remains to be added that in his endeavours to
cast an ever-wider net he sought to increase the jurisdiction of the
Inquisition beyond matters immediately concerned with the Faith and to
include certain offences whose connection with it was only constructive.

Whether he succeeded to the full extent of his aims we do not know.
But we do know that he contrived that bigamy should become the concern
of the Holy Office, contending that it was primarily an offence
against the laws of God and a defilement of the Sacrament of Marriage.
Adultery, which is no less an offence against that sacrament, and
which is not punishable by civil law, he passed over; but he contrived
that sodomy should be brought for the first time within inquisitorial
jurisdiction and that those convicted of it should be burnt alive.

Himself a man of the most rigid chastity, he must have been moved to
anger by the unchastity so prevalent among the clergy. It was, however,
beyond his power to deal with it without special authority from Rome,
and he would have been bold indeed to have sought such authority at
the hands of that flagrant paterfamilias Giovanni Battista Cibo, who
occupied the Chair of St. Peter with the title of Pope Innocent VIII.

The most scandalous form of this unchastity was that known as
“solicitation”--_solicitatio ad turpia_--or the abuse of the
confessional for the purpose of seducing female penitents. It was a
matter that greatly vexed the Church as a body, since it placed a
terrible weapon in the hands of her enemies and detractors. It was
admittedly rampant, and it is more than probable that it was directly
responsible for the institution of the confessional-box--enforced in
the sixteenth century--which effectively separated confessor from
penitent, and left them to communicate through a grille.

The matter, like all other offences of the clergy, was entirely within
the jurisdiction of the bishops, who would vigorously have resisted
any attempts on the part of Torquemada to encroach further upon their
province. So the Church was left to combat that evil as best she might;
and, with the exception of an odd bishop who assumed a stern attitude
and dealt with it as became his own dignity and the honour of the
priesthood, the utmost lenience appears to have prevailed,[94] as we
may judge by the penances imposed upon convicted offenders.

The perils and temptations to which a priest was exposed in the course
of the intimate communications that must pass between him and his
penitents were given full recognition and allowed full weight in the
balance against the offence itself.

Later on, however, this matter which Torquemada had considered
beyond his power was actually thrust within the jurisdiction of the
Inquisition by a Church resolved, for the very sake of its existence,
that the evil should cease.

Vexatious as this crime of “solicitation” had always been, it became
most urgently and perilously so after the Reformation, when it provided
those who denounced the confessional with an apparently unanswerable
reason for their denunciations. It was wisely thought that the methods
of the Holy Office were best calculated to deal with it, and the matter
was relegated to the inquisitors. The defilement of the sacrament was
the link that connected solicitation with heresy. Moreover, in some
cases there might be heresy of a more positive kind; as when, for
instance, the priest assured the penitent that her consent was not a
sin. And the woman accusing a priest of solicitation before the Holy
Office was always questioned closely upon this particular point.

In the later editions of the “Cartilla,” or Manual for the guidance
of Inquisitors--all of which publications were issued by the private
press of the Inquisition--are to be found under the heading “Causas de
Solicitacion” instructions for the examination of a woman who denounces
a priest upon these grounds.[95]

Even so, however, it could not be in the interests of the Church to
parade these offenders, and thus expose the sore places in her own body.

Limborch urges that delinquents be sent to the galleys, or even
delivered to the secular arm. But for that--as Llorente points
out--it would have been necessary to include them in an Auto de Fé
of which there could be no question on account of the scandal which
must ensue in view of the character of the offence. This is very true,
and none can doubt the desirability of avoiding publicity for such a
matter, or suppose that the Church was in the least blame-worthy for
so proceeding. At the same time, however justifiable we may account
this secrecy, it is almost impossible to justify the lenience of the
sentences that were passed. It is above all extraordinary that the
usual punishment did not even go so far as to unfrock these offenders.
The inquisitors confined themselves to depriving the convicted priest
of the faculty of hearing confessions in future, and imposed a penance
of some years’ residence in the seclusion of a convent.

It is possible, however, that this punishment was heavier than may at
first appear. For--to their credit be it said--the regulars into whose
convent the penanced cleric was sent undertook that this penance should
be anything but easy.

This comes to light in the course of a case of which Llorente cites the
full particulars from the records he unearthed.[96]

It is the case of a Capuchin brother tried in the eighteenth century by
the Grand Inquisitor Rubin de Cevallos; and as much in the quality and
extent of the offence as in the brazenly ingenious defence set up by
the friar, the record reads like one of the least translatable stories
from Boccaccio’s “Decameron.” He was sentenced to go into retreat for
five years in a convent of his order; and so great a dread did that
sentence strike into the Capuchin that he besought of the inquisitors
the mercy of being allowed to serve the sentence in one of the dungeons
of the Inquisition. Questioned as to his reasons for a request that
sounded so extraordinary, he protested that he knew too well the
burden his brethren were wont to impose upon a friar penanced as was he.

His petition was dismissed, the Grand Inquisitor refusing to alter the
sentence; and Llorente adds that the Capuchin died three years later in
the convent to which he was sent.

       *       *       *       *       *

How far the crime was rampant when the Inquisition was entrusted with
its prosecution may be gathered from the statistics given by H. C.
Lea.[97] It appears from these that in the city of Toledo alone, during
the first thirty-five years that the matter was in the hands of the
Holy Office, fifty-two sentences were passed upon priests found guilty
of “solicitation,” and it is not to be supposed, as Lea very shrewdly
observes, that delations were forthcoming in more than a proportion
of the cases that occurred, or that more than a proportion of these
delations could lead to conviction--since, to avert scandal as much as
possible, no action would be taken save where the indications of guilt
were very clear.

This view is certainly supported by the injunction of caution and
the other instructions in the Manual under the heading “Causas de
Solicitaciones,” already cited.

Finally on this subject, Llorente’s statistics show that the offenders
were chiefly friars; the proportion of secular priests convicted
being only one in ten. This does not, however, signify greater
chastity on the part of secular priests. Llorente offers the obvious
explanation--an explanation too obvious to need repeating here.[98]

       *       *       *       *       *

Another offence that came later to be added to those within the
jurisdiction of the Holy Office was that of usury. But in Torquemada’s
day neither this nor solicitation was allowed to be the concern of the
Inquisition.

In its methods of procedure the tribunal of the Holy Office under
the zealous rule of the Prior of Holy Cross followed closely upon
the lines laid down by Eymeric. Indeed in the “Cartilla” or “Manual”
that was issued later for the use of inquisitors--of which several
editions are in existence to-day--these rules taken bodily from the
“Directorium” were incorporated as a supplement to the code promulgated
by Torquemada, consisting of the articles already considered and of
others to be added later.

These methods we will now consider.

       *       *       *       *       *

The accused was brought before the tribunal sitting in the
audience-chamber of the Holy Office--or Holy House (_Casa Santa_) as
the premises of the Inquisition came to be styled.

The court was composed of at least one of the inquisitors delegated by
Torquemada, the diocesan ordinary, the fiscal advocate, and a notary to
take down all that might transpire. They were seated about a table upon
which stood a tall crucifix, between two candles, and the Gospels upon
which the accused was to be sworn.

The oath being administered, the prisoner was asked his name,
birthplace, particulars of his family, and the diocese in which he
resided. Next he was vaguely questioned as to whether he had heard
speak of such matters as those upon which he was accused.[99]

Pegna warns inquisitors against being too precise in their questions,
lest they should suggest answers to the accused.[100] Another reason
for this vagueness was that being precisely questioned the accused
might in his answers confine himself to the matter of those questions,
whilst where the inquiry was conducted in vague, general terms, he
might in his reply betray matters or persons hitherto unsuspected.

Obviously with the same end in view, the scholiast suggests that the
accused be asked whether he knows why he has been arrested, and whom he
suspects of having accused him; whilst as a means of instantly testing
whether he is an observer of his Catholic duties the inquisitors are
instructed to ask him who is his confessor and when he was last at
confession. The answer of one who was secretly an apostate, or even
who had neglected to comply with his religious duties as prescribed,
must necessarily be enormously incriminating. It would justify violent
suspicion of heresy against him, which has already been considered,
together with its consequences.

Pegna further enjoins inquisitors to be careful that they do not afford
the accused any means of evading their questions, and not to be imposed
upon by protestations or tears, heretics being, he assures them, of an
extreme cunning in dissembling their errors.

Eymeric specifies ten different methods employed by heretics to trick
inquisitors. These are not of any real importance, nor do they leave us
in the least convinced that any such ruses were actually employed. They
are obviously based upon an intimate acquaintance with priestly guile
rather than upon any experience of the craftiness of actual heretics.
They may, in short, be said to be just such ruses as the inquisitors
themselves might employ if they found the tables turned upon themselves
and the heretic sitting in the seat of justice.

He urges the inquisitors to meet guile with guile: “ut clavus clavo
retundatur.” He justifies recourse to hypocrisy and even to falsehood,
telling the inquisitors that thus they will be in a position to say:
“Cum essem astutus dolo vos cepi,” and to the ten evasive methods which
he asserts are adopted by heretics, he bids their paternities oppose
ten specified rules by which to capture and entrap them.

These rules and Pegna’s commentaries upon them are worth attention
for the sake of the intimate glimpse they afford us of the mediæval
ecclesiastical mind.

The accused is to be compelled by repeated examinations to return clear
and precise answers to the questions asked.

If the accused heretic is resolved not to confess his fault, the
inquisitor should address him with great sweetness (_blande et
mansuete_), giving him to understand that all is already known to the
court, speaking as follows:

“Look now, I pity you who are so deluded in your credulity, and whose
soul is being lost; you are at fault, but the greater fault lies with
him who has instructed you in these things. Do not, then, take the
sin of others upon yourself, and do not make yourself out a master in
matters in which you have been no more than a pupil. Confess the truth
to me, because, as you see, I already know the whole affair. And so
that you may not lose your reputation, and that I may shortly liberate
and pardon you and you may go your ways home, tell me who has led
you--you who knew no evil--into this error.”

By similar kind words (_bona verba_), always imperturbable (_sine
turbatione_), let the inquisitor proceed, assuming the main fact to be
true and confining his questions to the circumstances.

Pegna adds another formula, which he says was employed by Fr. Ivonet.
Thus:

“Do not fear to confess all. You will have thought they were good men
who taught you so-and-so; you lent ear to them freely in that belief,
etc.... You have behaved with credulous simplicity towards people whom
you believed good and of whom you knew no evil. It might very well
happen to much wiser men than you to be so mistaken.”[101]

Thus was the wretch coaxed to self-betrayal, caressed and stroked by
the velvet glove that muffled and dissembled the iron hand within.

In the case of a heretic against whom the witnesses have not supplied
matter for complete conviction, let him be brought before the
inquisitor and let the inquisitor question him at random. When the
accused shall have denied something (_quando negat hoc vel illud_) that
has been put to him, let the inquisitor take up the minutes of the
preceding examinations, turn the leaves and say:

“It is clear that you conceal the truth; cease to employ dissimulation.”

Thus the accused may suppose that he is convicted, and that the minutes
supply proof against him.

Or let the inquisitor hold a document in his hand, and when the accused
denies, let him feign astonishment and exclaim:

“How can you deny such a thing? Is it not clear to me?” He will then
peruse his document anew, making changes, and then reading once more,
let him say, “I was right! Speak, then, since you perceive that I know.”

The inquisitor must be careful not to enter into any details that might
betray his ignorance to the accused. Let him keep to generalities.

If the accused persists in his denial, the inquisitor may tell him that
he is about to set out upon a journey and that he doesn’t know when he
will be returning. Thus:

“Look now, I pity you, and I wanted you to tell me the truth, for I
am anxious to expedite the affair and yourself. But since you are
obstinate in refusing to confess, I must leave you in prison and in
irons until I return; and I am sorry, because I do not know when I
shall return.”

[Illustration:

    _Photo by Donald Macbeth._

TOLEDO.

From Colmenar’s “Délices d’Espagne.”]

If the accused persists in denial, let the inquisitors multiply
examinations and questions; then either the accused will confess, or
(becoming confused) will contradict himself. If he contradicts himself
that will suffice to put him to torture, that thus the truth may be
extracted from his mouth. But frequent interrogations should not be
employed save with one of extreme stubbornness, because to frequent
questions upon the same matter it is easy to obtain variable
answers; there is hardly anybody who would not be surprised into a
contradiction.

       *       *       *       *       *

Here we have a glimpse of the extraordinary flexibility of the
inquisitorial conscience. The letter of the law must ever be observed
in all proceedings; but its spirit must by all means be circumvented
where it is expedient to do so. Certain conditions, presently to be
examined, must be present before an accused could be put to torture.
One of these was that under examination he should contradict himself.
This rule they scrupulously observed; but they had no qualms on
the score of bringing about the requisite condition by a trick--of
compelling the accused to contradict himself by repeated questions upon
the same subject. And Eymeric himself admits that hardly anybody could
avoid varying in his answers under such a test.

It may be uncharitable to suppose that the last paragraph of this rule
is intended as a hint rather than as the warning it pretends to be. But
it is a suspicion which the further consideration of the inquisitorial
conscience must inspire in every thoughtful mind. It is so much of a
piece with the inquisitors’ extraordinary attitude towards the letter
of the law to proceed in that way.

If the accused still persists in denial, the inquisitor should now
soften his conduct; let him contrive that the prisoner has better food,
and that worthy people visit him and win his confidence; these shall
then advise him to confess, promise that the inquisitor will pardon him
(_faciet sibi gratiam_), and that they themselves will act as mediators.

The inquisitor himself may in the end go so far as to join them, and
promise to accord grace (_i.e._ pardon) to the accused, and grant him
this grace in effect, since all is grace that is done in the conversion
of heretics; penances being themselves graces and remedies. When the
accused, having confessed his crime, demands the promised “grace,” let
him be answered in general terms that he shall receive even more than
he could ask, so that the whole truth may be discovered and the heretic
converted[102]--“and his soul saved, at least,” adds Pegna.[103]

Thoroughly to appreciate the deliberate duplicity here practised, it
is necessary to take into account the double or even treble meaning of
the term grace--“gratia”--employed by Eymeric, and having in Spanish
(_i.e._ its equivalent “gracia”) precisely the same meanings as in
Latin.

Although not so popularly used in these various meanings, the English
term “grace” can also signify (_a_) the prerogative of mercy exercised
as a complete pardon, (_b_) the same prerogative exercised to relieve
part of the penalty incurred, or (_c_) a state of acceptance with God.

The accused was deliberately led to suppose that “gratia” was employed
in the sense of a complete pardon. It remained with the inquisitor
to quiet his conscience for this _suggestio falsi_ by preferring the
letter to the spirit of his promise; he would enlighten the accused
that by “grace” no more was meant than a remission of part of the
penalty incurred (an insignificant remission usually), or even that all
that he had in mind was the grace of divine favour into which his soul
would enter--so that this might be saved at least, as Pegna explains.

Pegna has a good deal more to say on the same subject, and all of it is
extremely interesting.

He propounds the questions: “May an inquisitor employ this ruse to
discover the truth? If he enters into such a promise is he not obliged
to keep it?” By this latter question he means, of course, the promise
to pardon which the prisoner was given to understand was made him.

He proceeds to tell us that Dr. Cuchalon decided the first of these
questions by approving the use of dissimulation, justifying it by the
instance of Solomon’s judgment between the mothers.

It really seems as if there is nothing that theologians cannot justify
by inversion, subversion, or perversion of some precedent (more or less
apocryphal in itself) to suit their ends.

The scholiast himself agrees with the reverend doctor, and considers
that although jurisconsults may disapprove of such methods in civil
courts, it is quite fit and proper to use them in the courts of the
Holy Office; explaining that the inquisitor has ampler powers than the
civil judge [which seems to be an extraordinary reason for justifying
his abuse of them].

Thus, Pegna pursues, in this edifying treatise upon the uses of
hypocrisy, provided that the inquisitor does not promise the offender
absolute impunity, he may always promise him “grace” (which by the
offender is taken to signify “absolute impunity”) and keep his promise
by diminishing somewhat the _canonical_ pains that depend upon himself.

In actual practice this would mean that a heretic who has incurred the
stake may be promised pardon if he will confess to the sins of which it
is necessary to convict him before he can be burnt. And when, having
confessed and delivered himself into the hands of the inquisitor, he
claims his pardon, he is to be satisfied with the answer that the
pardon meant was pardon for his sins--absolution, that his soul may be
saved when they burn his body.

On the score of the second question propounded by the scholiast--“If
the inquisitor enters into such a promise is he not obliged to keep
it?”--he answers it by telling us that many theologians do not
consider there is any such obligation on the part of the inquisitor.
This attitude they explain by urging that such a fraud is salutary
and for the public good; and, further, that if it is licit to extract
the truth by torture, it is surely much more so to accomplish it by
dissimulation--_verbis fictis_.

This is the general but by no means the universal opinion, we gather.
There are some writers who are opposed to it. And now the scholiast
becomes more extraordinary still. Hear him:

“These two divergent opinions may be reconciled by considering that
whatever promises the inquisitors make, they are not to be understood
to apply to anything beyond the penalties whose rigour the Inquisition
has the right to lessen--namely, canonical penances, and not those by
law prescribed.”

       *       *       *       *       *

He writes this knowing that these promises are understood by the
prisoner to mean something very different--that the prisoner is desired
so to understand them, made so to understand them.

The honesty of Pegna’s reasoning is not to be suspected. He is not an
apologist of the Holy Office writing for the world in general, and
employing bad arguments perforce because he must make the best of
the only ones available, even though he should lapse into suspicion
of bad faith. He is writing, as a preceptor, for the private eye of
the inquisitor. Therefore we can only conclude that these learned
casuists who plunge into such profundities of thought and pursue such
labyrinthine courses of reasoning had utterly failed to grasp the
elementary moral fact that falsehood does not lie in the word uttered,
but in the idea conveyed.

“However little,” he continues, in the course of polishing this gem of
casuistry, “may be the remission granted by the inquisitor, it will
always be sufficient to fulfil his promise.”

You see what a stickler he is for the letter of the law. You shall see
a good deal more of the same sort of thing before we have gone much
further.

But here the scholiast begins to labour. His conscience is stirring;
possibly a ray of doubt penetrates his gloomy confidence that right
is wrong and wrong is right. And so, we fancy, to quiet these uneasy
stirrings comes the last paragraph on this subject:

“However, for greater safety of conscience, inquisitors should make no
promises save in very general terms, and never promise more than they
can fulfil.”[104]

       *       *       *       *       *

There is one more of Eymeric’s ruses for combating the guile of
stubborn heretics:

Let the inquisitor obtain an accomplice of the accused, or else a
person esteemed by the latter and in the inquisitor’s confidence, and
engage him to talk often to the accused and extract his secret from
him. If necessary, let this person pretend to be of the same heretical
sect, to have abjured through fear, and to have declared all to the
inquisitor.

Then one evening, when the accused shall have gained confidence in this
visitor, let the latter remain until he can say that it is too late
to return home and that he will spend the night in the prison. Let
persons be suitably placed to hear the conversation of the accused and
if possible a notary to take down in writing the confessions of the
heretic, who should now be drawn by the spy into relating all that he
has done.

       *       *       *       *       *

Upon this subject Pegna moralizes[105] for the benefit of the spy,
pointing out how the latter may go about his very turpid task without
involving himself in falsehood or besmirching in the least the
delicate, sensitive soul that we naturally suppose must animate him.

       *       *       *       *       *

“Be it noted that the spy, simulating friendship and seeking to draw
from the accused a confession of his crime, may very well pretend to be
of the sect of the accused, but” [mark the warning] “he must not say
so, because in saying so he would at least commit a venial sin, and we
know that such must not be committed upon any grounds whatever.”

       *       *       *       *       *

Thus the scholiast. He makes it perfectly clear that a man may simulate
friendship for another for the purpose of betraying that other to his
death; that to make that betrayal more certain he may even pretend to
hold the same religious convictions; all this may he do and yet commit
no sin--not even a venial sin--so long as he does not actually clothe
his pretence in words. What a store the casuist sets by words!

It is just such an argument as Caiaphas might have employed with Judas
Iscariot one evening in Jerusalem.

It is a cherished thesis with apologists of the Holy Office that in
its judicial proceedings it did neither more nor less than what was
being done in its day in the civil courts; that if its methods were
barbarous--if they shock us now--we are to remember that they were the
perfectly ordinary judicial methods of their time.

But there was no secular court in Europe in the fifteenth
century--steeped as that century was in dissimulation and bad
faith--that would not have scorned to have made such dishonourable and
dishonouring methods as these an acknowledged, regular and integral
part of its procedure.

Pegna himself reveals the fact, when he finds it necessary further to
justify these practices precisely because they were not in use in the
civil courts:

“Perchance the authority of Aristoteles--who out of the bosom of
Paganism condemned all manner of dissimulation--may be opposed to
us, as well as that of the jurisconsults who disapprove of artifices
of which judges may make use to extract the truth. But there are two
forms of artifice: one addressed to an evil end, which must not be
permitted; the other aiming at discovering truth, which none could
blame.”[106]

       *       *       *       *       *

When confession has been obtained it would be idle, Eymeric points
out, to grant the delinquent a defence. “For although in civil courts
the confession of a crime does not suffice without proof, it suffices
here.” The reason advanced for this is as specious as any in the
“Directorium”: “Heresy being a sin of the soul, confession may be the
only evidence possible.”

Where an advocate was granted to conduct the defence of an accused, we
have seen in Art. XVI of Torquemada’s “Instructions” that he was under
the obligation to relinquish such defence the moment he realized the
guilt of his client, since by canon law an advocate was forbidden to
plead for a heretic in any court, civil or ecclesiastical, or in any
cause whatsoever--whether connected with heresy or any other matter.

On the subject of witnesses, it should be added to what already
has been said in the previous chapter that the Inquisition, whilst
admitting the testimony of any man, even though he should be
excommunicate or a heretic, so long as such testimony was adverse
to the accused, refused to admit witnesses for the defence who were
themselves tainted with heresy.

Since to bear witness in defence of a person charged with heresy might
result in the witness himself becoming suspect, it will be understood
that witnesses for the defence were not easily procured by the accused.




CHAPTER XII

THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HOLY OFFICE--THE AUDIENCE OF TORMENT


Eymeric’s cold-blooded directions for leading an accused who refused
to confess into contradictions that should justify his being put to
torture have already been considered.

The inquisitors could not proceed to employ the question--as the
torture was euphemistically called--save under certain circumstances
prescribed by law; and the strict letter of the law, as you have seen,
and as you shall see further, was a thing inviolable to these very
subtle judges.

These circumstances, as expounded by Eymeric in his “Directorium,”[107]
are (_a_) the inconsistence of the accused’s replies upon matters of
detail whilst denying the main fact; (_b_) the existence of semi-plenal
proof of his offence.

This semi-plenal proof is considered forthcoming--

    (_a_) When an accused is “reputed” to be a heretic and there
    is but one witness against him who can depone to having seen
    or heard him do or say that which is against the Faith. (Two
    witnesses were by law required to establish his guilt.)

    (_b_) When in the absence of witnesses there are grounds for
    vehement or violent suspicion.

    (_c_) When there is no evil “reputation” attaching to the
    accused, but one witness against him and _grounds_ for
    vehement or violent suspicion--_i.e._ not actual suspicion but
    indications of it; a suspicion of suspicion, as it were. The
    distinction is most elusively fine.

The scholiast Pegna adds in his commentaries that this combination
of “reputation” (or grounds for suspicion) and one witness is not
necessary to justify submitting the accused to the question--

    (_a_) When to evil reputation are added evil morals, which
    lead easily to heresy--thus those who are incontinent and
    very greatly addicted to women persuade themselves that this
    incontinence is not in itself a sin. (Such an opinion if
    proclaimed would amount to heresy, therefore one who acts as if
    he held it lays himself open to suspicion of heresy.)

    (_b_) When the accused who has incurred evil reputation shall
    have fled. (The circumstance of his flight is accepted as
    evidence of evil conscience.)[108]

Eymeric further enjoins that the question shall be employed only when
all other means of obtaining the truth shall have failed, and he
recommends the use of exhortation, gentleness, and ruse to draw the
truth from the prisoner.[109]

He observes that, after all, not even the torture can be depended upon
always to extract the truth. There are weak men who under the first
torments confess even what they have not done; and there are others so
stubborn and vigorous that they can suffer the greatest pains; there
are those who having already undergone torture are able to endure it
with greater fortitude, knowing how to adapt themselves to it; and
there are others still who, by having recourse to sorcery, remain
almost insensible to the pain and would die before divulging anything.

These last, he warns inquisitors, use passages from the Gospel
curiously inscribed upon virgin parchment, intermingling in these
the names of angels that are unknown, designs of circles, and magic
characters. These charms they bear about their bodies.

“I don’t yet know,” he confesses, “what remedies are available against
these sorceries; but it will be well to strip and closely to examine
the patient before putting him to the question.”

He recommends that when the accused has been sentenced to torture, and
whilst the executioners are making ready to perform it, the inquisitor
should continually endeavour to induce the accused to confess. The
torturers should strip him with precipitation, but with a sorrowful air
and almost as if troubled for him (_quasi turbati_). When stripped, he
should be taken aside and once more exhorted to confess. His life may
be promised him, provided that the crime of which he is accused is not
such as to make it forfeit.

If all proves vain the inquisitor shall proceed to the question,
beginning by interrogating him upon the more trivial matters of which
he is accused, as he would naturally acknowledge these more readily
(and when acknowledged they can be made the stepping-stones to more),
the notary being at hand to write down all that is asked and answered.

If he persists in his denials he is to be shown further implements of
torture, and assured that he will have to undergo them all unless he
speaks the truth.

If he still denies, the question may be _continued_ on the second or
third day, but not _repeated_.

Here again we have them observing the letter and flagrantly violating
the spirit of the law. Torture must not be repeated because it is by
law forbidden to put an accused to the question more than once, unless
in the meantime fresh evidence has been forthcoming; but it is not
forbidden to continue it--not forbidden because those who formulated
that law never dreamt of such a quibble being raised.

It is almost incredible that men should juggle with words in this way.
But here is the passage itself:

“Ad continuandum non ad iterandum, quia iterari non debent, nisi novis
supervenientibus indiciis, sed continuari non prohibentur.”

Lest they should be in danger of having to repeat the torture, they
took care to suspend it as soon as the patient was at the limit of
his endurance, and merely resumed or continued it two or three days
later, to suspend again and continue again as often as they might deem
necessary.

That it can have made no difference to the wretched patient whether
they described the procedure by one verb or the other does not appear
to have weighed with them. There was a difference--an important verbal
difference.

       *       *       *       *       *

Upon this point the apologist Garcia Rodrigo, in his “Historia
Verdadera de la Inquisicion,” very daringly draws attention to the
meekness of the courts of the Inquisition as compared with the civil
tribunals. He contrasts the methods of the two, and to make out a case
in favour of the former, to prove to us that those who preached a
gospel of mercy knew also how to practise mercy, he tells us, rather
disingenuously, that whilst in civil courts a prisoner might be ordered
three times to the torture, in the courts of the Inquisition this
could not be imposed upon him more than once--_its rules forbidding
repetition_.

He does not consider it worth while to add that the “Directorium” in
which he found that rule points out, as we have seen, how it may be
circumvented

It is much easier to set up a case for the other side, to show that the
greater mercy in the matter of torture was practised by the secular
courts. In these, for instance, a nobleman was immune from torture.
Not so in the courts of the Inquisition, which proceeded, no doubt,
upon the grounds that all are equals in the sight of God. No exception
was made there in favour of any man. And in Aragon, where the torture
was never applied in civil trials, it was none the less resorted to by
the inquisitors.

       *       *       *       *       *

When the accused shall have endured torture without confessing, the
inquisitors may order his release by sentence, stating that after
careful examination they are unable to find anything against him on
the score of the crime of which he is accused--which, of course, is no
acquittal, since he may at any time be re-arrested and put upon his
trial once more.

In his commentaries Pegna tells us[110] that there are five degrees
of torture. He does not mention them in detail, saying that they
are sufficiently well known to all. These five degrees are given in
Limborch.[111]

The first four are not so much torture as terror--or mental torture; it
is only in the fifth degree that this becomes physical. The conception
is of an almost fiendish subtlety; and yet its aim, we must believe,
was merciful, since they accounted it more merciful to torture and
terrify the mind than to bruise the flesh.

Eymeric’s directions are the basis of this, although Eymeric himself
does not break up the procedure into degrees. These are:

(1) The threat of torture.

(2) Being conducted to the torture-chamber and shown the implements and
their functions.

(3) Stripping and preparing for the ordeal.

(4) Laying and binding upon the engine.

(5) The actual torture.

The actual torture was of various kinds, any of which the inquisitor
might employ as he considered most suitable and effective, but Pegna
admonishes him not to resort to unusual ones. Marsilius, the scholiast
informs us, mentions fourteen different varieties, and adds that he had
imagined others, such as that of depriving a prisoner of sleep. In this
he appears to have received the approval of other authors, but he does
not receive Pegna’s. Even the scholiast is shocked at an ecclesiastic’s
fertility of invention in this branch, and confesses that such
researches are better suited to executioners than theologians.

It must be admitted that the records show none of that fiendish
invention which is so widely believed to have been exercised. The cruel
subtleties of the inquisitors were spiritual rather than physical,
and we have just seen Pegna’s censure of an inquisitor who gave his
attention to the devising of novel and ingenious torments.

It is very clear, from the records we have, that the Holy Office must
have been content to depend upon the engines already in existence,
or, rather, upon a limited number of the most efficacious. There
were exceptions, of course. The torture of fire--which consisted in
toasting the feet of the patient after anointing them with fat--appears
upon rare occasions to have been employed; and a barbarous piece of
supererogative cruelty was practised at a great Auto de Fé held at
Valladolid in 1636: ten Jews convicted of having whipped a crucifix
were made to stand with one hand nailed to an arm of a St. Andrew’s
cross whilst sentence of death was being read to them.

As a rule, however, both in torturing and in punishing the inquisitors
avoided novelties. For the question they usually resorted to one of
three methods: the rack; the _garrucha_, which is the torture of the
hoist, the _tratta di corda_ of the Italians; and the _escalera_, or
_potro_, or ladder, or water torture.

The inquisitors attended in person--as prescribed by Torquemada--to
question the patient, accompanied by their notary, who wrote down in
fullest detail an account of the proceedings.

The hoist was the simplest of all engines; it consisted of no more
than a rope running through a pulley attached to the ceiling of the
torture-chamber.

The patient’s wrists were pinioned behind him, and one end of the rope
was attached to them. Slowly then the executioners drew upon the other
end, gradually raising the patient’s arms behind him as far as they
would go, backwards and upwards, and continuing until they brought him
to tip-toe and then slowly off the ground altogether, so that the whole
weight of his body was thrown upon his straining arms.

At this point he was again questioned and desired to confess the truth.

If he refused to speak, or if he spoke to no such purpose as his
questioners desired, he was hoisted towards the ceiling, then allowed
to drop a few feet, his fall being suddenly arrested by a jerk that
almost threw his arms out of their sockets. Again was the question put,
and if he continued stubborn he was given a further drop, and so on
until he had come to the ground once more, or until he had confessed.
If he reached the ground without confessing, weights were now attached
to his feet, thus increasing the severity of the torture, which was
resumed. And so it continued. The weights were increased, the drops
were lengthened--or else he might be left hanging--until confession was
extracted, or until with dislocated shoulders the patient had reached
the limit of his endurance.[112]

In the latter case the torture might be suspended, as we have seen,
to be continued two or three days later, when the prisoner should
sufficiently have recovered.

The notary made a scrupulous record of the _audiencia_--the weights
attached, the number of hoists endured, the questions asked and the
answers delivered.

The potro, or water-torture, was more complex, far more cruel, and
appears to have been greatly favoured by the Holy Office.

The patient was placed upon a short narrow engine, in the shape of a
ladder, and this was slanted a little so that his head was below the
level of his feet, for reasons that will soon be apparent. His head
was now secured by a metal or leather band which held it rigidly in
position, whilst his arms and legs were lashed to the sides of the
ladder so tightly that any movement on his part must cause the whipcord
to cut into his flesh.

In addition to these bindings garrotes were applied to his thighs and
legs and arms. This was a length of cord tied firmly about a limb--upon
occasion round the whole torso over the arms; a stick was thrust
between the cord and the flesh, and by twisting this stick a tourniquet
was formed; first strangury, then the most agonizing pain was thus
occasioned, whilst if the twisting was carried far enough the cords
would sink through nerve and sinew until they reached the bone.

The mouth of the patient was now distended and held so by a prong
of iron--called a _bostezo_. His nostrils were plugged, and a long
strip of linen was placed across his jaws, and carried deep into his
throat by the weight of water poured into his gaping mouth. Down this
_toca_--as the strip was called--water continued to be slowly poured.
As this water filtered through the cloth, the patient was subjected to
all the torments of suffocation, the more cruel because he was driven
by his instincts to make futile efforts to ease his condition. He would
constantly exert himself to swallow the water, hoping thus to clear the
way for a little air to pass into his bursting lungs. A little would
and did pass in--just enough to keep him alive and conscious, but not
enough to mitigate the horrible sufferings of asphyxiation, for the
cloth was always wet and constantly charged with water.

From time to time the _toca_ was brought up, and the gasping wretch
would be invited to confess. Further to combat stubbornness on his
part, and also, it would seem, to revive him when he was failing, the
executioners would give an agonizing turn or two to the garrotes upon
his--or her--limbs; for the Holy Office did not discriminate between
the sexes in these matters.

To prevent the vomiting which any form of torture might produce, and
the _potro_ in particular, the inquisitors, with their never-failing
attention to detail, provided that no patient should be given
food for eight hours before the question was applied. The notary
present at this _audiencia de tormento_ was required to set down, in
addition to questions asked and answers returned, the fullest details
of the torture applied, and particularly how many jars of water
were administered, these being the measure of the severity of the
ordeal.[113]

The rack is too well-known to need describing here, having in its time
been used in all European countries. Cruel as it was, it was perhaps
one of the least cruel engines of torture that have been employed.

       *       *       *       *       *

It was required by law that any confession extracted under torture
should afterwards be ratified by the prisoner. This was one of the
prescriptions of Alfonso XI in the Partidas code. It recognizes that
a man might be driven by pain to say that which is not true, and
therefore it forbids the courts to accept as evidence what might be
declared under torture.

Therefore on one of the three days after the question had been
applied--as soon, presumably, as the prisoner was sufficiently
recovered to attend--the prisoner was brought once more into the
audience-chamber.

His confession, reduced to writing by the notary, was placed before
him, and he was invited to sign it--the act being necessary to convert
that confession into admissible evidence. If he signed, the proceedings
now ran swiftly and uninterruptedly to their end. If he refused to
sign, repudiating the statements made, the inquisitors proceeded upon
the lines laid down by Torquemada in Article XV of his “Instructions”
to meet the case.

       *       *       *       *       *

Pegna warns inquisitors against delinquents who feign madness to avoid
the torture. They should not, he says, delay on that account, for the
torture may be the best means of ascertaining whether the madness is
real or simulated.[114]

Finally let it be added upon this gruesome subject that it was not
only the accused who was liable to be put to the question. A witness
suspected of falsehood, or one who had lapsed into contradictions
in the course of his evidence, might be put to torture _in caput
alienum_.[115]




CHAPTER XIII

THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HOLY OFFICE--THE SECULAR ARM


The comparatively light sentences imposed upon those who came forward
to abjure heresies which they were suspected of harbouring, and upon
those who submitted to canonical purgation to cleanse them of “evil
reputation,” have already been considered.

It remains to be seen how the Holy Office dealt with
_negativos_--_i.e._ those who persisted in refusal to confess a first
offence of heresy or apostasy after their guilt had been established to
the satisfaction of the court--and with _relapsos_--_i.e._ those who
were convicted of having relapsed into error after once having been
penanced and pardoned.

Offenders in either of these two classes were to be abandoned to the
secular arm--the ecclesiastical euphemism for death by fire. The same
fate also awaited impenitent heretics and contumacious heretics.

He who after having been convicted by sufficient witnesses persisted
in denying his guilt should, says Eymeric, be abandoned to the secular
arm upon the ground that he who denies a crime which has been proved
against him is obviously impenitent.[116]

The impenitence is by no means obvious. It is possible, after all, that
the accused might deny because he was innocent and a good Catholic. And
whilst, as we shall see, this possibility is not altogether ignored,
yet it is given very secondary consideration. It was the inquisitor’s
business to assume the guilt of any one brought before him.

It is true, however, that Eymeric urges the inquisitors to proceed very
carefully in the examination of the witnesses against such a man; he
recommends them to give the accused time in which to resolve himself to
confess, and to employ every possible means to obtain such confession.

He counsels them to confine the prisoner in an uncomfortable dungeon,
fettered hand and foot; there to visit him frequently and exhort him to
confess. Should he ultimately do so, he is to be treated as a penitent
heretic[117]--in other words he is to escape the fire but suffer
perpetual imprisonment.

The term perpetual imprisonment, or perpetual immuration, is not to be
accepted too literally. It lay at the discretion of the inquisitors
to modify and commute part of such sentences, and this discretion
they exercised so far as the imprisonment was concerned. But the
confiscation of the prisoner’s property and the infamy attaching to
himself, his children, and his grandchildren--by far the heavier part
of the punishment--could not in any way be commuted.

However tardily confession might come from the _negativo_, the
inquisitors must accept and recognize it. Even if he were already bound
to the stake, and, at last, being taken with the fear of death, he
turned to the friar who never left him until the faggots were blazing,
admitted his guilt and offered to abjure his heresy, his life would be
spared. And this for all that they recognized that a confession in such
extremes was wrung from him by “the fear of death rather than any love
of truth.”

It must naturally occur to any one that, conducted in secret as were
the examinations of the witnesses, and no opportunity being afforded
the accused of demolishing the evidence offered against him, since he
was rarely informed of its extent, many a good Catholic, or, at least,
many a man innocent of all heretical practices, must have gone to his
death as a _negativo_. For the methods of the Holy Office opened the
door extraordinarily wide to malevolence; and human nature being such
as it is--and such as it was in the fifteenth century--it is not to be
supposed that malevolence never seized the chance, that it never slunk
in through that gaping door to vent itself in such close and sheltered
secrecy--to strike in the back, in the dark, with almost perfect
immunity to itself, at the man who was hated, or envied, or whom it was
desired to supplant.

It was not sufficient for the prisoner to protest his innocence. He
must prove it categorically. An innocent man might be unable to furnish
categorical proof; witnesses for the defence were extremely difficult
to obtain by one who was charged with heresy; it was a dangerous thing
to testify in favour of such a man; should his conviction none the less
follow, the witness for the defence might find himself prosecuted as
a befriender, or _fautor_, of heretics. Yet, even when testimony for
the defence was obtained, the judges leaned upon principle to the side
of the accusers; and since they considered it their mission to convict
rather than to judge, they would always assume that the accusers were
better informed than the defenders.

Therefore this danger of death to the innocent existed. The inquisitors
themselves did not lose sight of it, for they lost sight of nothing.
But how did they provide for it? Pegna has a great deal to say upon
the subject. He tells us that some authorities pretend that when a
_negativus_ protests that he staunchly believes all that is taught by
the Roman Catholic Church such a man should not be abandoned to the
secular arm.

But this is an argument mentioned by the scholiast merely that he may
demolish it. It is indefensible, he says with confidence; and, as
indefensible, it is almost universally rejected.

Torquemada most certainly did not favour it. He lays it down clearly in
Art. XXIV of his first “Instrucciones” that a _negativo_ must be deemed
an impenitent heretic, however much he may protest his Catholicism. The
accused will not satisfy the Church, which demands confession of his
fault solely that she may pardon it; and she cannot pardon it until it
is confessed. That is the inquisitorial view of the matter.

It is evident that the danger of occasionally burning an innocent man
did not perturb the inquisitorial mind. In fact, Pegna reveals to the
full the equanimity with which it could contemplate such an accident.

“After all,” says he, “should an innocent person be unjustly condemned,
he should not complain of the sentence of the Church, which was founded
upon sufficient proof, and which cannot judge of what is hidden. If
false witnesses condemned him, he should receive the sentence with
resignation, and rejoice in dying for the truth.”[118]

He is also, we are to suppose, to rejoice with the same
lightheartedness at the prospect of his children’s destitution and
infamy.

Anything, it seems, is possible to argument, and the craziest argument
may be convincing to him who employs it. Pegna makes this abundantly
clear.

An innocent man might be tempted to save his life by a falsehood, by
making the desired confession; and many a man may so have escaped
burning. This also the scholiast duly weighs. He propounds the question
whether a man convicted by false witnesses is justified in saving his
life by a confession of crimes which he has not committed.[119]

He contends that, reputation being an external good, each is at liberty
to sacrifice it to avoid torments that are hurtful, or to save his
life, which is the most precious of all possessions.

In this contention the scholiast lacks his usual speciousness. He has
entirely overlooked that whether an innocent man confesses or not,
whether he is burnt or sent to perpetual imprisonment, his reputation
is equally blasted. The inquisitors see to that. His silence is
interpreted as impenitence.

But it is evident that Pegna himself is not quite satisfied with what
he urges. He vacillates a little. Strong swimmer though he is, these
swirling waters of casuistry begin to give him trouble. He seems
here to turn in an attempt to regain the shore. “Who thus accuses
himself,” he concludes, “commits a venial sin against the love which
he owes himself and a falsehood in confessing a crime which he has not
committed. This falsehood is particularly criminal when uttered to a
judge who examines juridically, for it then becomes a mortal sin. And
even though it were no more than venial, it would not be permitted to
commit it for the sake of avoiding death or torture.”

“Therefore,” he sums up, “however hard it may seem for an innocent
man condemned as a _negativus_ to die under such circumstances, his
confessor must exhort him not to accuse himself falsely, reminding him
that if he suffers death with resignation he will obtain the martyr’s
immortal crown.”

In short, to burn at the stake for crimes never committed is a boon, a
privilege, a glory to be enjoyed with a profound gratitude towards the
inquisitors who vouchsafed it. One cannot help a pang of regret at the
thought that the scholiast himself should have been denied that glory.

       *       *       *       *       *

A person was considered _relapsus_--relapsed into heresy--not only if,
as in the case of the self-delator who availed himself of the edict of
grace, he had once been pardoned an avowed heresy, but if he had once
abjured a heresy of which he had been suspected either vehemently or
violently. And it was of no account whether the heresy of which he was
now convicted was that particular one of which formerly he had been
suspected, or an entirely fresh one. Moreover, to convict as a relapsed
heretic one who had already abjured, it was sufficient to show that he
held intercourse with heretics.

Further, a person would be dealt with as _relapsus_ in the event of
formal proof appearing that he had actually committed the heresy which
he had abjured as suspect, although his conduct since abjuration might
have been entirely blameless. For it was argued that these fresh
proofs, although acquired after abjuration, revealed the person’s
real guilt, and showed that he had been judged too leniently in being
allowed to abjure merely upon suspicion.[120]

In fact, it was held that he had acted in bad faith towards the
inquisitors; that he had neglected to confess his sin when he was given
the opportunity; that he had attempted to defraud the treasury of his
property, which was due to it by confiscation. Since he had not made
an open and complete confession, it was argued that he was clearly an
impenitent heretic, for whom there could be no mercy--or only a very
slight one, as we shall see.

Canonical purgation entailed the same sequel as abjuration for one
against whom proofs of heresy were afterwards forthcoming. Thus,
to quote an instance given by Pegna: if a man should be suspected
of thinking that heretics should be tolerated, and if after being
canonically purged of the offence against the Faith contained in that
sentiment of which he was suspected, it should be proved against him
that his acts or words had actually expressed that sentiment, he must
be considered a relapsed heretic.

Torquemada further decreed that any who after reconciliation should
fail to fulfil the penance imposed upon him, or any part of it, must
be deemed relapsed. The argument, obviously, was that a neglect of
this penance showed a want of proper contrition, which could only be
explained in one way.

       *       *       *       *       *

A relapsed heretic, once his guilt was thoroughly established, must be
“abandoned to the secular arm,” and this notwithstanding any repentance
he might manifest or any promises he might make for the future. “_Sine
audientia quacumque_,” says Eymeric.[121] “In effect,” adds his
commentator, “it is enough that such people should once have defrauded
the Church by false confession”[122]--a statement this, diametrically
opposed to the injunction of the Founder of Christianity on the score
of forgiveness.

All the mercy they vouchsafed a relapsed heretic who confessed and
expressed repentance was the mercy of being strangled at the stake
before his body was burnt.

Eymeric instructs inquisitors to see that the prisoner is visited and
entertained on the subject of contempt for this world, the miseries of
this life and the joys of Paradise. He should be given to understand
that there is no hope of his escaping temporal death, and he should
be induced to put the affairs of his conscience in order. He is to be
accorded the sacraments of Penitence and the Eucharist if he solicits
them with humility. Further, the inquisitor is advised not to visit him
personally, lest the sight of him should excite the sin of anger in the
doomed man, and so turn him from the sentiments of patience and penance
which are to be inspired in him.

It would seem at least that the inquisitors had no delusions as to
the sentiments which the sight of them inspired in their victims,
just as it seems that they were able to endure these with Christian
resignation--perhaps even with that sense of martyrdom of him who
accounts himself misunderstood or misjudged.

After some days thus employed in preparing the prisoner for death, the
inquisitor should advise the secular justices of the day and hour and
place when and where he would abandon to them a heretic. At the same
time an announcement should be made to the people inviting them to
attend, as the inquisitor is to preach a sermon of the Faith, and those
who are present will gain the usual indulgences.[123]

It is not necessary at present to enter into particulars of the
dread ceremonial, the ghastly, almost theatrical, solemnities that
went to compose the greatest horror that has sprung from the womb of
Christianity: the Auto de Fé.

“An Asiatic,” says Voltaire, “arriving in Madrid on the day of an
Auto de Fé, would doubt whether here was a festival, a religious
celebration, a sacrifice, or a massacre. It is all of these. They
reproach Montezuma with sacrificing human captives to God. What would
he have said had he witnessed an Auto de Fé?”[124]

Occasion to enter into these details will occur later. We are more
concerned at the moment with the words of the inquisitors than with
their acts, and it is necessary on the subject of the laws that
governed the Auto de Fé to touch upon quite the most extraordinary of
all the quibbles by means of which the Holy Office avoided--in the
letter--committing an irregularity.

Nothing in the whole of its jurisprudence savours more rankly of
hypocrisy than this matter of abandoning a heretic to the secular arm.
It is the very last word in that science which it is the fashion to
call “Jesuitism,” but which we think might quite as aptly and justly
be termed “Dominicanism.” Yet it would be very rash to say that these
men were prompted by conscious hypocrisy. Such is certainly not
the inference to be drawn from their jurisprudence. Stupidity--the
stupidity of the man of one idea, of the man who is able to perceive
but one thing at a time--was, rather than hypocrisy, responsible for
what they did.

They were imbued with a passion for formality, for procedure that
should be scrupulously correct, scrupulously in accordance with the
letter of the law; and they justified their circumvention, their
perversion of its spirit, with crazy arguments that must at least
have been convincing to themselves, obfuscated as they were by the
fanaticism that bubbled through their extraordinary intelligences.

We say that these arguments must have been convincing to themselves,
because we find them in books that were never intended to be perused
by any but inquisitors and ecclesiastics. Since these books were never
meant to be placed before the world, no suspicion can attach to them of
having deliberately and hypocritically resorted to sophistries for the
purpose of hoodwinking the lay mind.

It was themselves they hoodwinked--by the arguments they themselves
conceived--and although it is undeniable that they practised a
deception which must provoke the scorn of every thoughtful man, yet it
must be remembered that this deception was the self-deception that lies
in wait for every fanatic, whatever the subject of his fanaticism. By
staring too long and too intently at one object, that object itself
becomes blurred and indistinct.

“_Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine._”

That was the principle that governed them. Conceive it!

The tenet that a Christian must not be guilty of shedding blood or
causing the death of a fellow-creature has been touched upon more
than once in these pages. It has been seen how in the very dawn of
Christianity the Christian’s refusal to bear arms in the service of
the State gave rise to friction with the Roman authorities, and,
being construed into insubordination, was one of the causes of the
persecutions to which Christians were subjected in the first and second
centuries. As time went on, under stress of the necessities of this
world, the Christian was forced to abandon that fine and loftily
humanitarian ideal. Soon he had not only abandoned it under pressure
of expediency, but he had forgotten it altogether; so that he donned
the cross of the crusader, and went forth sword in hand, exultantly, to
shed the blood of the infidel in the name of that tender Founder Whose
disciple had brought to Rome the great Message of Forbearance.

But however much it might be accounted justifiable and even necessary
for the Christian layman to wield the sword, the priest still continued
under the prohibition to shed blood or compass the death of any man.
And if a priest lay under such an injunction, so must a tribunal that
was controlled by priests.

Therefore it follows that not only was it admittedly illicit for the
inquisitor to pass a capital sentence, to send a man to his death, but
even to be in any way a party to such an act.

This was the letter of the law, and, happen what might, that letter
must suffer no violence. Nor did it. When the accused was found guilty
of heresy, when he was impenitent, or relapsed, the inquisitor was
careful that the sentence he passed contained no single word that could
render him responsible for the delinquent’s death. Far from it. The
inquisitors earnestly implored the secular justiciaries to whom they
abandoned him not to do him any hurt whatever.

But consider the actual formula of the sentence as prescribed by
Eymeric. It concluded thus:

“The Church of God can do no more for you, since you have already
abused its goodness.... Therefore we cast you out from the Church, and
we abandon you to the secular justice, beseeching it none the less,
and earnestly, so to moderate its sentence that it may deal with you
without shedding your blood or putting you in danger of death.”[125]

       *       *       *       *       *

They were careful not so much as to say that they _delivered_ him
to the secular arm; for delivery suggests activity in a matter in
which they must remain absolutely passive. They merely _abandoned_
him. Pilate-like, they washed their hands of him. If the secular
justiciaries chose to bear him away and burn him at the stake in spite
of their “earnest intercessions” to the contrary, that was the secular
justiciaries’ affair.

Thus was the letter of the law most scrupulously observed, and the
inquisitor displayed in his intercession on the heretic’s behalf the
benignity proper to his sacerdotal office. His conscience was entirely
at peace.

For the rest, he knew, of course, that there was a bull of Innocent IV,
known as “ad extirpanda,” which compelled the secular justiciaries,
under pain of greater excommunication, and of being themselves
prosecuted as heretics and _fautores_, to put to death within a term
of not more than five days any convicted heretic taken within their
jurisdiction.

Francesco Pegna recommends inquisitors to be careful not to omit
the intercession on the prisoner’s behalf, lest they should render
themselves guilty of an irregularity. At the same time he raises
the interesting question whether an inquisitor can reconcile this
intercession with his conscience--not, as you might suppose, upon the
score of the dissimulation it entails; but purely on the ground that it
is most strictly forbidden to intercede on behalf of heretics; to do
so, indeed, is to incur suspicion of being a befriender of heretics--an
offence as punishable as heresy itself.

This question he has no difficulty in answering. Thus:

“In truth it would not be permitted to employ for a heretic an
intercession that would be of any advantage to him, or which tended to
hinder the justice which is to be executed upon his crime, but only
an intercession whose aim it is to relieve the inquisitor of the
irregularity he might otherwise incur.”

He goes on to say that when the heretic has been abandoned to the
secular justiciaries, the latter must pronounce their own sentence and
conduct him to the place of execution, permitting him to be accompanied
by pious men, who will pray for him and not leave him until he shall
have delivered up his soul. And he reminds the inquisitors--though it
hardly seems necessary--that should the magistrates delay in putting to
death a heretic who has been abandoned to them, they must be regarded
as _fautores_ and themselves prosecuted.

       *       *       *       *       *

Innocent IV, as we have seen, allowed the magistrates a term of five
days in which to do their duty in this matter, and in Italy it was
usual to take the heretics back to prison after sentence, and bring
them forth again upon a week-day--always within the prescribed term--to
be burnt. In Spain, however, the custom was that the magistrates having
pronounced their own sentence--as soon as the heretic was abandoned to
them--should immediately proceed to execute it.

According to some authorities the sentence, by which was meant the
Auto de Fé generally, should not take place in church. Pegna agrees
with these, but not upon the score of the desecration of sanctuary,
which was their reason. He agrees because in a large open space
higher scaffolds can be erected for the Auto, and greater multitudes
can assemble to witness this uplifting spectacle of the triumph of
the Faith. On the same grounds does he belittle those who maintain
that heretics should not be put to death on Sundays. He considers
it quite the best day of the week, and excellent the Spanish custom
that appoints it for the Auto, “for,” he says, “it is good that large
multitudes should attend, so that fear may turn them from evil ways;
the spectacle being one that inspires the attendance with terror and
presents a fearful image of the last judgment.”

That it is expedient to put heretics to death no pious authority has
ever ventured to dispute. But there have been differences of opinion on
the subject of the means by which this should be done. The scholiast
is entirely on the side of the large majority that considers fire the
proper instrument, and actually cites the Saviour’s own authority for
this: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch that is
withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they
are burned” (John xv. 6).

       *       *       *       *       *

If the accused should happen to be a cleric, he must be unfrocked and
degraded by a bishop before being arrayed in the hideous _sanbenito_
and abandoned to the secular arm, whilst those convicted of contumacy
were--if still absent at the time of the sentence--to be burnt in
effigy pending their capture, when, without further trial, they would
be burnt alive.

In effigy also were burnt those convicted after death, these effigies
being cast into the flames together with the remains of the dead man,
which were exhumed for the purpose.

       *       *       *       *       *

Reference has several times been made here to the _sanbenito_ which was
imposed upon all whom the Holy Office found guilty of heresy, whether
reconciled or abandoned, and also upon those who were suspected in the
degree _violenter_.

In this garment they attended the Auto de Fé, and went to execution if
they were abandoned; or they might be required to wear it for varying
periods after reconciliation, and in some instances for as long as they
lived, to advertise their infamy.

It was the perversion into a garb of shame and disgrace of the
penitential garment originally prescribed by St. Dominic; for whereas
once it--or, rather, that from which it was derived--had been worn
even by princes as an outward mark of contrition for the sins into
which they had fallen, it was now imposed that it might subject its
wearer to opprobrium and contempt.

St. Dominic’s instructions were that it should be a sackcloth habit,
of the kind worn by his own brotherhood, and that its colour might be
at the discretion of the wearer so long as it was sombre. As it had
ever been the custom of the Church to bless the “sack” or tunic worn by
members of religious confraternities or by those upon whom it had been
imposed as a penance, such a garment was called a _saco bendito_, which
in course of time was contracted into _sanbenito_, though also known by
its proper Spanish name of _zamarra_.

When the crusade against the Albigensian heretics was at its height in
Southern France, not only did the crusaders wear the cross upon their
garments, but all faithful Catholics assumed it for their protection;
for--as on the night of the St. Bartholomew, some four centuries
later--no man’s life was safe if he did not display that device. St.
Dominic desired that the penitent should enjoy the same protection, but
so that his penance should still be proclaimed, he was ordered to wear
two crosses, one on each breast.

Later, when the wars of religion had ceased, and the general wearing
of the cross was abandoned, the Council of Toulouse decreed, in 1229,
that these penitential crosses should be yellow, whilst the Council of
Beziers, four years later, going further into the matter, ordained that
they should be two and a half hands long (vertical) by two hands wide
(horizontal), and that they should be made of cloth of the width of
three fingers. Instead of being worn upon the breast, as hitherto, they
were now placed one on the breast and one on the back, with a third on
the hood or veil if hood or veil were worn.

For abettors of heresy the following solemn penance was enjoined by
the Council of Tarragona in 1242:

“On All Saints’, on the First Sunday in Advent, on the feasts of
Christmas, the Circumcision, the Epiphany, St. Mary of February
(Purification), St. Mary of March, and all Sundays in Lent, the
penitents shall go to the Cathedral to take part in the procession.
They shall be dressed only in their shirts, barefoot, their arms
crossed, and they shall be whipped in the procession by the bishop or
parish priest. Similarly shall they repair to the Cathedral on Ash
Wednesday in their shirts, barefoot, their arms crossed, and submit
to banishment from church for all Lent; so that during that season
they must remain at the church door and hear the service thence. On
Thursday in Holy Week they shall come to the church to be reconciled
in accordance with the canonical provisions, it being understood that
this penance of remaining out of the church through Lent and of being
whipped in procession on the days appointed shall be performed yearly
for the remainder of the penitents’ lives.”

       *       *       *       *       *

At first, and down to Eymeric’s day, the _sanbenito_ preserved its
original form--a tunic similar to that worn by the members of regular
orders. But in the fourteenth century it was altered to a scapulary or
tabard, with an opening at the top through which the head was passed;
it was to be of the full width of the body, and to descend no lower
than the knees, lest it should too closely resemble the scapulary
which the regulars wore in addition to their tunic. Soon after it was
resolved that it should be of yellow sackcloth, and that the crosses
should be red.

Once this stage was reached, it may be said that the transition from a
garment solely of penitence into a garment chiefly of shame and infamy
was complete. [Illustration:

  _Photo by Donald Macbeth._

PROCESSION TO AUTO DE FÉ.

From Limborch’s “Historia Inquisitionis.”]

We have said that the imposition of the _sanbenito_ had been falling
into desuetude during the fifteenth century. But for Torquemada it
might indeed have become entirely obsolete. It happened, however,
that the Prior of Holy Cross perceived the virtues of it, the salutary
results to be obtained from parading the victims of the Holy Office in
that hideous garb. Therefore he revived it, and strongly enjoined its
use by all offenders save those against whom there was no more than
evil reputation, and who submitted themselves to be purged of this
canonically.

It was not, however, until the famous Ximenes de Cisneros, who became
Grand Inquisitor some ten years after Torquemada’s death--that the
_sanbenito_ attained its full development, the form which it was to
preserve until the extinction of the Inquisition.

Cisneros substituted for the ordinary rectangular cross worn on back
and breast of the _sanbenito_ an _aspa_, or St. Andrew’s cross, and he
otherwise disposed that the _sanbenito_ might proclaim the offence and
sentence of its wearer. Three varieties were devised for those who were
abjuring a heresy of which they had incurred suspicion: the suspect of
the degree _leviter_ wore a perfectly plain _sanbenito_ without any
cross or other device; the suspect _vehementer_ wore upon back and
breast one arm only of the St. Andrew’s cross; the suspect _violenter_
was made to wear the full cross.

Those actually convicted of heresy wore in addition to the _sanbenito_
a tall mitre, or pyramidal cap, made of cardboard and covered
with yellow sackcloth; and that their precise condition might be
distinguished, the following differentiations were prescribed: the
heretic who repented before the passing of sentence, and who--not being
a relapsed--was not to die by fire, bore upon the breast and back of
his _sanbenito_ and upon the front and back of his _coroza_, as the
mitre was called, a full St. Andrew’s cross; the relapsed heretic
who had repented before the Auto bore, in addition to the crosses,
the device of a bust upon burning faggots on the nether part of his
_sanbenito_; further his _sanbenito_ and _coroza_ were flecked with
tongues of flame, which pointed downwards to signify that he was not
to die by fire, although his body was to be burnt. He had deserved
the charity of being strangled at the stake before the faggots were
ignited. And this mercy, be it added, the Holy Office conceded to any
heretic who at the eleventh hour confessed his guilt and desired to
make his peace with the Church and die, as it were, upon her loving
bosom. To this end the condemned was accompanied from the Auto to the
stake by two friars, who never ceased to exhort him to make confession,
save his body from the temporal torment of physical fire, and his soul
from the eternal torment of spiritual fire.

Finally, the impenitent heretic bore the same devices as the relapsed
penitent, but in his case the tongues of flame pointed upwards to show
that he was to die by them, and his _sanbenito_ was further daubed
with crude paintings of devils--horrible, grotesque caricatures--to
advertise the spirits ruling over his soul.

       *       *       *       *       *

Something should by now have been gathered of the spirit of the
Inquisition as reflected in the pages of Eymeric and his commentator
Pegna in that “Directorium” upon which such copious draught has been
made for these chapters upon the Jurisprudence of the Holy Office. It
is worth while, before proceeding, to cite another author’s views upon
Justice and Mercy as understood by the Inquisition, and to consider an
illuminating passage from the pen of Garcia de Trasmiera.

This Trasmiera--to whom reference has been made already--was an
Aragonese, an inquisitor who lived in the seventeenth century--nearly
two hundred years after the epoch with which we are here concerned. We
might go to a score of other sources, from Paramo downwards, for very
similar sentiments, and the only reason for choosing this particular
passage from Trasmiera is that it is almost in the nature of an
epitome.

He seems to summarize the very arguments with which Torquemada and his
delegates convinced themselves not merely of the righteousness, but of
the inevitability--if they were to do their duty by God and man, and
fulfil the destinies for which they had been sent into this world--of
the task to which they had set their hands.

“These two virtues of Mercy and Justice,” says the Aragonese writer,
with all the authority of an Evangelist, “are so closely united in
God, although we imperfectly judge them to be opposed, that Divine
Wisdom but avails Itself of the one, the more gloriously to exercise
the other. The most proper effect of the Divine Mercy, none doubts,
is the salvation of souls, and who can doubt that what in this court
of the Inquisition appears to be rigour of Justice is really medicine
prescribed by Mercy for the good of the delinquents? Just as it would
be a barbarous judgment to attribute to cruelty on the part of the
surgeon the cautery of fire which he employs to destroy the contagious
cancer of the patient, so it would be crass ignorance to suppose that
these laws which appear to be severities are prescribed for any purpose
other than that which governs the surgeon in curing his patient, or
a father in punishing his child. Says the Holy Ghost: ‘Who does not
use the rod hates the child,’ and elsewhere: ‘God punishes whom He
loves.’”[126]

Could perversity of interpretation go further? In Rome, in Torquemada’s
day, the Father of Christianity was granting absolutions, commuting the
punishment of hanging to pecuniary penances where such penances were
solicited, and justifying such commutation by reminding Christianity
that God does not desire the death of a sinner, but rather that he
should live and be converted.

It would seem as if Inquisitor and Pontiff did not see eye to eye in
this matter of Mercy and Justice. To the credit of the Pontiff be it
said.

Trasmiera, echoing the inquisitorial casuistry of centuries, holds
that the rigour of Justice is prescribed by Mercy for the good of the
delinquents. The impenitent Judaizer was sent to the stake. How could
that redound to his good in this world or the next? We could admit a
certain logical consummation of their arguments if the inquisitors had
confined themselves to burning those who repented, or those who were
innocent even; by burning these whilst they were in a state of grace
they would have ensured their salvation by abstracting them from all
perils of future sin. But to burn the impenitent upon such grounds as
they themselves urged, believing, as they did, that just as surely as
his mortal part was burnt there at the stake, just so surely would his
immortal part burn through all eternity in hell--that was, clearly, by
their own lights, to perpetrate the murder of his soul.




CHAPTER XIV

PEDRO ARBUÉS DE EPILA


There is no difficulty in believing Llorente’s statement--based
upon extracts from contemporary chronicles--to the effect that the
Inquisition was not looked upon with favour in Castile. It was
impossible that a civilized and enlightened people should view with
equanimity the institution of a tribunal whose methods, however based
fundamentally upon those of the civil courts, were in the details of
their practice so opposed to all conceptions of equity.

In no Catholic country does the cherishing of a fervent faith, in
itself, imply respect for the clergy. Nor, for that matter, does
the respect of any religion in itself signify respect for those who
administer it. It appears to do so; it is even prescribed that it
should; but in point of fact it seldom does, other than with simple
peasant classes. The ministers, after all, are men; but by virtue of
their office they labour under disadvantages greater than the ordinary
man’s. When they display the failings to which all men are subject,
these failings wear a much graver aspect by virtue of the office they
hold and the greater purity which that office implies. Holiness is
looked upon as the priest’s trade, and it is expected that he should
conduct that trade honestly, as any layman conducts the affairs by
which he earns his livelihood. The only test of honesty in the priest,
of whatever denomination, lies in his own conduct; and when this falls
short of that high standard in which he claims to deal, he earns a
contempt akin to that which overtakes the trader who defrauds his
creditors. It is remembered then, to his disadvantage, that under his
cassock the cleric is a man, and so subject to all the faults that
are man’s heritage. But it happens that in addition to these he is
subject to other failings that are peculiarly of the cassock, failings
which the world has never been slow to discern in him. The worst of
these is the ecclesiastical arrogance, the sacerdotal pride which
has been manifested by priests of all cults, but which in none is so
intolerable as in the Christian, who expounds a gospel of humility and
self-abnegation. He is akin to a feudal tyrant who grinds the faces of
his serfs whilst he lectures them upon the glories of democracy.

Of such priests Spain of the fifteenth century had an abundant share.
She knew them and mistrusted them, and hence she mistrusted any
organization of theirs which should transcend the strict limits of
their office.

Now, the tribunal of the Inquisition laid itself peculiarly open to
this mistrust in consequence of the secrecy of its proceedings--a
secrecy, as we know, greatly increased by the enactments of Torquemada.
Its trials were not conducted in open court; the examination of
witnesses took place in secret and under the veil of anonymity, so that
the world had no assurance of the honesty of the proceedings. When it
happened that a man was arrested, the world, as a rule, knew him no
more until he came forth, candle in hand, arrayed in a _sanbenito_ to
play his tragic part in an Auto.

By virtue of this secrecy the Inquisition had invested itself with a
power far greater, more subtle, and farther-reaching than that of any
civil court. The might of the Grand Inquisitor was almost boundless,
and he was unanswerable to any temporal authority for the arbitrariness
with which he exercised it. Rivalling the sovereign power in much, in
much else the Grand Inquisitor’s went above and beyond it, for not even
the King himself could interfere in matters of the Faith with one who
held his office directly from the Pope.

The net which Torquemada cast was of the very widest; the meshes of
that net were of the closest, so that no man, however humble, could
account himself safe; its threads were of the strongest, so that no
man, however powerful, could be sure of breaking through were he once
brought within its scope.

What, then, but terror could Torquemada and his grim machinery
inspire? It is not difficult to believe the sometime secretary of the
Inquisition when he assures us that the Holy Office was not favourably
viewed in Spain. The marvel is that whilst the Castilians were chilled
by awe into inactivity and meek submission, it should have remained for
Aragon, which already had known an inquisition for a century, to rise
up in rebellion.

And yet what may seem at first glance a reason why Aragon should have
submitted to Torquemada’s rule in matters of the Faith, may be the
very reason of its rash and futile rebellion. For a hundred years
already the court of the Holy Office had been operating there; but its
operations, never vigorous, had become otiose. In this inactive form
Aragon had suffered it to continue. But of a sudden it was roused from
that lethargy by Torquemada. It was bidden to enforce its stern decrees
and other sterner decrees which he added to those already in existence,
and to follow the course of arbitrary procedure which he laid down.
Never welcome in Aragon, it now became intolerable. The New-Christians,
who knew the fate of their Castilian brethren, went with fear in their
countenances, and despair and its fierce courage in their hearts.

In the spring of 1484 Ferdinand held his Cortes at Tarragona. He was
attended on the occasion by Torquemada, and he seized the opportunity
to present to his kingdom the gaunt Prior of Holy Cross, its
pontifically-appointed Grand Inquisitor.

Torquemada’s activity matched his boundless zeal. At once he
convened a council composed of the Vice-Chancellor of Aragon, Alonso
de Caballeria--himself a New-Christian--the Royal Councillor Alonso
Carillo, and some doctors of canon law, that they might decide upon the
course to be adopted in Aragon to the end that the Inquisition might be
conducted with absolute uniformity there, as in Castile. This done, he
proceeded to appoint inquisitors to the Archbishopric of Zaragoza, and
his choice fell upon Frey Gaspar Yuglar and Frey Pedro Arbués de Epila,
Master of Theology and Canon of the Metropolitan Church of Zaragoza.

After the publication of the “Instructions” drawn up that same year in
Seville, Torquemada further appointed to the Holy Office of Zaragoza a
fiscal advocate, an apparitor, notaries, and receivers, whereupon that
office began immediately to exercise its functions under the new system.

At once the courage of despair roused the New-Christians to opposition.
Amongst them were many who held high positions at court, persons of
great influence and esteem, and these immediately determined to send a
deputation to the Vatican and another to the Sovereigns to voice their
protests against the institution of this tribunal in Aragon, and to
beseech that it be abolished, or at least curtailed in its powers and
inhibited from proceeding to confiscation, which was contrary to the
law of the land.

This last was a shrewd request, based no doubt upon the conviction
that, deprived of the confiscations upon which it battened, the
tribunal must languish and very soon return to its former inoperative
condition.

Nor were the _conversos_ the only ones to denounce the procedure of the
Holy Office. Zurita records that many of the principal nobles of Aragon
rebelled against it, protesting that it was against the liberties of
the kingdom to confiscate the property of men who were never allowed to
learn the names of those who bore witness against them.

As well might they have appealed against death--for death itself was
not more irresistible or inexorable than Torquemada. All the fruit
borne by their labours was that those who had lent their names to the
petition were ultimately prosecuted as hinderers of the Holy Office.
But this did not immediately happen.

In the meanwhile Torquemada’s delegates, Arbués and Yuglar, went about
the business entrusted to them with that imperturbability which the
“Directorium” enjoins. They published their edicts, ordered arrests,
carried out confiscations, and proceeded with such thoroughness that it
was not long before Zaragoza began to present the same lurid, ghastly
spectacles that were to be witnessed in the chief cities of Castile.

In the following May (1485) they celebrated with great solemnity the
first Auto de Fé, penancing many and burning some. This was followed by
a second Auto in June.

The despair and irritation of the New-Christians mounted higher at
these spectacles. It is believed to have reached its climax with the
sudden arrest of Leonardi Eli, one of the most influential, wealthy,
and respected _conversos_ of Zaragoza.

Those who had put the petition afoot, abandoning now all hope of
obtaining any response either from the Sovereigns or from Rome, met
to concert other measures. Their leader was a man of influence named
Juan Pedro Sanchez. He had four brothers in influential positions at
Court, who had lent their services in the matter of the petition to the
Sovereigns.

A meeting took place in the house of one Luis de Santangel, and Sanchez
urged a desperate remedy for their desperate ills. They must strike
terror into their terrorizers. He proposed no less than the slaughter
of the inquisitors, urging with confidence that if they were slain
no others would dare to fill their places. In this he seems to have
underestimated the character of Torquemada.

The proposal was adopted, an oath of secrecy was pledged, plans
were laid, measures were taken, and funds were collected to enable
these plans to be executed. Six assassins were chosen, among whom
were Juan de Abadia and his Gascon servant Vidal de Uranso, and Juan
de Esperandeu. This last was the son of a _converso_ then lying in
the prisons of the Inquisition, whose property had already been
confiscated; so that he was driven by the added spur of personal
revenge. There was, too, the further incentive of a sum of five hundred
florins promised by the conspirators to the slayer of Arbués, and
deposited by them for that purpose with Juan Pedro Sanchez.[127]

Several early attempts to execute this project were baffled by
circumstances. It would seem, moreover, that Arbués had received some
warning of what was in store for him--or else he was simply conscious
of the general hatred he had incurred--for he exercised the greatest
prudence, took to wearing body armour, and was careful not to expose
himself in any way; all of which does not suggest in him that eagerness
for the martyr’s crown with which his biographer Trasmiera would have
us believe that he was imbued.

At last, however, the assassins found their opportunity. Late on the
night of September 15 of that year, 1485, they penetrated into the
Metropolitan Church to lie in wait for their victims when these should
come to the midnight office imposed by the rule of their order.

Juan de Abadia, with his Gascon servant Uranso and another, entered by
the main door. Esperandeu and his companions gained admittance through
the sacristy.

About the pillars of the vast church, in the gloom that was scarcely
relieved by the altar-lamp, they waited silently, “like bloody wolves,”
says Trasmiera, “for the coming of that gentle lamb.”

Towards midnight there was a stir overhead; lights beat faintly upon
the darkness; the canons were assembling for matins in the choir.

A note of the organ boomed through the silence, and then Arbués entered
the church from the cloisters.

It seemed that even now chance did not favour them, for Arbués came
alone, and their aim was to take both the inquisitors.

The dominican was on his way to join his brethren in the choir. He
carried a lantern in one hand and a long bludgeon in the other. Nor did
his precautions end in this. He wore a shirt of mail under his white
habit, and there was a steel lining to his black velvet skull-cap.
He must indeed have gone in fear, that he could not trust himself to
matins save armed at all points.

He crossed the nave on his way to the staircase leading to the choir.
But as he reached the pulpit on the left he halted and knelt to offer
up the prescribed prayer in adoration of the Sanctissimum Sacramentum.
He set the lantern down upon the ground beside him, and leant his club
against a pillar.

Now was the assassins’ opportunity. He was at their mercy. And
although to strike now was to leave half their task undone, they must
have resolved that rather than postpone the matter again in the hope
of slaying both inquisitors, they had better take the one that was
delivered up to them.

The chanting overhead muffled the sound of their steps as they crept
up behind Arbués, out of the blackness into the faint wheel of yellow
light cast by his lantern.

Esperandeu was the first to strike, and he struck clumsily, doing no
more than wound the inquisitor in the left arm. But swift upon that
blow followed another from Uranso--a blow so violent that it smashed
part of the steel cap, and, presumably glancing off, opened a wound in
the inquisitor’s neck, which is believed to have been the real cause of
his death.

It did not, however, at that moment incapacitate him. He staggered up,
and turned to the staircase that led to the choir. But now Esperandeu
returned to the assault, and drove at the Dominican so furiously
with his sword that, despite the shirt of mail with which Arbués was
protected, the blade went through him from side to side.

The inquisitor fell, and lay still. The organ ceased abruptly, and the
assassins fled.

There was confusion now in the choir. Down the stairs came the
friars with their lanterns, to discover the unconscious and
bleeding inquisitor. They took him up and carried him to bed. He
died forty-eight hours later at midnight on Saturday, September 17,
1485.[128]

By morning all the town had heard of the deed, and the effect which
it produced was very different from that for which its perpetrators
had hoped. The Old-Christians, some moved by religious zeal, some by a
sense of justice, snatched up weapons and went forth to the cry of “To
the fire with the _conversos_!”

The populace--an uncertain quantity, ever ready to be swayed by the
first voice that is loud enough, to follow the first leader who points
the way--took up the cry, and soon Zaragoza was in turmoil. Through
every street rang the clamours of the multitude, which threatened to
offer up one of those hecatombs in which fire disputes with steel the
horrid laurel of the day.

The uproar penetrated to the Palace of Alfonso of Aragon, the
seventeen-year-old Archbishop of Zaragoza. It roused that bastard of
Catholic Ferdinand from his slumbers. A high-spirited lad, he summoned
the grandees of the city and the officers of justice, and rode out at
their head to meet and quell the rioters. But only by a promise that
the fullest justice should be done upon the murderers did he succeed
in dispersing them and restoring order to that distracted city.

       *       *       *       *       *

“Divine Justice,” says Trasmiera, “permitted the deed, but not its
impunity.”

Rash indeed had been the action of the New-Christians, and terrible
was the penalty exacted, terrible the price they were made to pay for
the life they had taken. In conceiving that they could intimidate by
such an act a man of Torquemada’s mettle, they displayed a lamentable
want of judgment, as was speedily proved. To fill the place of the
dead inquisitor, and to set about the stern business of avenging him,
Torquemada instantly dispatched to Zaragoza Fr. Juan Colvera, Fr. Pedro
de Monterubio, and Dr. Alonso de Alarcon. For the greater security of
themselves and their prisoners, these delegates set up their tribunal
in the royal alcazar of the Castle of Aljaferia, and proceeded to
institute an active search for the culprits. Several were seized,
amongst whom was Abadia’s servant, Vidal de Uranso. He was put to the
question, and an admission of his own guilt extracted from him. He was
tortured further in the endeavour to wring from him the names of his
associates in the deed, and finally he was promised “grace” if he would
divulge them.

At this price the unfortunate Gascon consented to speak, betraying
all whom he had known to be in the plot and all whom he had known
to sympathize with it. And Llorente, who saw the records of the
proceedings, tells us that when Uranso claimed the promised grace, he
was benignly answered that he should receive the grace of not having
his hands hacked off--as must the others--before being hanged, drawn,
and quartered.

Amongst those taken were Juan de Abadia, Juan de Esperandeu, and Luis
de Santangel.

Esperandeu and Uranso suffered together at the Auto of June 30,
1486--the seventh held in Zaragoza that year. Esperandeu was dragged
through the city on a hurdle, his hands were hacked off on the steps
of the Cathedral, whereafter he was hanged, drawn, and quartered. Five
other conspirators suffered in the same Auto, being abandoned to the
secular arm and burnt alive. Two others, who had escaped, were burnt
in effigy, and one of these was that Juan Pedro Sanchez who had been
the leading spirit in the affair. And together with these living men
and the grotesque effigies of straw arrayed in _sanbenito_ and _coroza_
they burnt the corpse of Juan de Abadia. He had cheated in part the
Justice of the Holy Office. He had committed suicide in prison by
eating a glass lamp.[129]

Autos succeeded one another at such a rate now in Zaragoza that no less
than fourteen were held in that year 1486; 42 persons were burnt alive,
14 in effigy, and 134 were penanced in varying degrees from perpetual
imprisonment to public whippings. And to the end that the publicity of
these Autos might be increased and the salutary lesson inculcated by
them might be as far-reaching as possible, Torquemada ordered that a
fortnight before the holding of each it should be announced by public
proclamation, with great solemnity and parade of mounted familiars of
the Holy Office--a matter which upon this precedent became customary
throughout Spain.

In his allusion to these Autos Trasmiera[130] advances one of the usual
sophistries employed by the Inquisition to justify its constant claim
that its proceedings were dictated by mercy.

He assures us that it was a happiness (_dicha_) for the culprits to
die so soon, and he explains that to have allowed them to live would
have shown a greater rigour of justice--“as witnesseth Cain, upon whom
God placed a sign ordering that none should kill him since by the
prolongation of his life, his nature being what it was, he must commit
more sins, and thus more surely deserve greater degrees of punishment
in his eternal damnation.”

It is a priest who puts forward this blasphemous assertion that God
desires the damnation of a sinner, and suggests that by burning
that sinner betimes, God is to be cheated--at least in part--of His
unspeakable purpose. It serves excellently to show to what desperate
shifts of argument men could be urged in the attempt to justify the
practices of the Holy Office.

With precisely the same degree of authority does he assure us that all
the murderers died penitent--in consequence of the affectionate prayers
offered up for them by Arbués in the hour of his death.

Vidal de Uranso’s confession had yielded up to the inquisitors the
names not only of participators in the murder of Arbués, but of those
who were believed by the Gascon to be in sympathy with the deed. By
pursuing the methods peculiarly their own to cause a prosecution to
spread like an oil-stain, slowly and surely covering an ever-widening
area, the inquisitors were able to cause the indictment of many whose
connection with the crime was of the remotest, and of others who,
moved by a very Christian pity, had afforded shelter to New-Christians
fleeing in terror before the blind vengeance of the Holy Office.
Among the latter many were prosecuted where there was no proof that
the fugitives they had sheltered were Judaizers or unfaithful. It
is believed that sheer panic had driven many perfectly innocent
New-Christians to depart from a city where no New-Christian might
account himself secure. But in consequence of the clause introduced by
the merciless Torquemada into his “Instructions,” a man’s flight was in
itself a sufficient reason for the presumption of his guilt.

A reign of terror was established in Zaragoza. The tribunal of that
city became one of the busiest in Spain, and it is computed that
altogether some two hundred victims paid in one way and another for the
death of Pedro Arbués, so that there was hardly a family, noble or
simple, that was not plunged into mourning by the Justice of the Faith.

Amongst those against whom proceedings were instituted were men of the
very first importance in the kingdom. One of these was that Alonso
de Caballeria, Vice-Chancellor of Aragon, who had been prominent in
the council summoned by Torquemada to determine the details of the
introduction of the Inquisition into Aragon. Nor did they confine their
attention to New-Christians. Amongst those they summoned to render to
the Holy Office an account of their deeds we find no less a person than
Don Jaime de Navarre, known as the Infante of Navarre or the Infante
of Tudela, the son of the Queen of Navarre, and King Ferdinand’s own
nephew.

A fugitive New-Christian coming to Tudela cast himself upon the mercy
of the prince, and found shelter in Navarre for a few days until he
could escape into France. The inquisitors, whom nothing escaped, had
knowledge of this, and such was their might and arrogance that they
did not hesitate to arrest the Infante in the capital of his mother’s
independent kingdom. They haled this prince of the blood-royal
to Zaragoza to stand his trial upon the charge of hindering the
Holy Office. They cast him into prison, and subjected him to the
humiliating penance of being whipped round the Metropolitan Church by
two priests in the presence of his bastard cousin, the seventeen-year
old Archbishop, Alfonso of Aragon. Thereafter he was made to stand
penitentially, candle in hand, in view of all during High Mass, before
he could earn absolution of the ecclesiastical censure he had incurred.

       *       *       *       *       *

Alonso de Caballeria is one of the few men in history who was able
successfully to defy and withstand the terrible power of that
sacerdotal court.

This Vice-Chancellor was a man of great ability, the son of a wealthy
baptized Hebrew nobleman, whose name had been Bonafos, but who had
changed this to Caballeria upon receiving baptism, in accordance with
the prevailing custom. He was arrested not only upon the charge of
having given shelter to fugitives, but also upon suspicion of being,
himself, a Judaizer.

Presuming upon his high position, and also upon the great esteem in
which he was held by his king, Caballeria showed the Inquisition an
intrepid countenance. He refused to recognize the authority of the
court and of Torquemada himself, appealing to the Pope, and including
in his appeal a strong complaint of the conduct of the inquisitors.

This appeal was of such a character and the man’s own position was
so strong that on August 28, 1488, Innocent VIII dispatched a brief
inhibiting the inquisitors from proceeding further against the
Vice-Chancellor, and avocating to himself the case. But such was
Torquemada’s arrogance by now that he was no longer to be intimidated
by papal briefs. Under his directions the inquisitors of Zaragoza
replied that the allegations contained in Caballeria’s appeal were
false. The Pope, however, was insistent, and he compelled the Holy
Office to bow to his will and supreme authority. On October 20 of
that year the minutes of the case were forwarded to the Vatican. As a
result of their perusal His Holiness must have absolved Caballeria, for
not only was he delivered of the peril in which he had stood, but he
continued to rise steadily in honour and consequence until he became
Chief Judge and head of the Hermandad of Aragon.[131]

       *       *       *       *       *

Llorente informs us[132] that he perused the records of some thirty
trials in connection with the Arbués affair, and that the publication
of any one of them would suffice to render the Inquisition detested,
were it not sufficiently detested already in all civilized countries,
including Spain.

He mentions, however, two cases of interest and importance,[133]
to show how arbitrary was the spirit of the Inquisition, and how
far-reaching its arm.

Juan Pedro Sanchez, the leader of the affair, having fled to Toulouse,
was, as we have seen, sentenced as contumacious and burnt in effigy
pending the seizure of his person.

In Toulouse at this time there was a student named Antonio Agustin, a
member of an illustrious family of Aragon and a man destined to rise to
great dignity and honour. Under the impulse of fanaticism, and acting
in conjunction with several other Spaniards in Toulouse, he petitioned
for the arrest of Sanchez. When this had been effected, he indited a
letter to the inquisitors of Aragon, and forwarded it to his brother
Pedro in Zaragoza for delivery.

Pedro, however, first discussed the matter with Guillerme Sanchez,
brother of the fugitive, and three friends, and all were opposed to
Agustin’s purpose. They decided not to deliver the letter, and they
wrote to Agustin begging him to withdraw his plea against Sanchez and
consent to the fugitive’s being restored to liberty.

Agustin was persuaded, and replied informing his brother that he had
done as they had requested. Once Pedro Agustin in Zaragoza was assured
of this, he delivered the letters to the inquisitors--though why he
should have done so is not by any means clear. Possibly he conceived
that this was the wisest course to pursue, lest it should afterwards
transpire that he had suppressed such a communication. But from what
follows it will be seen how ill-advised he was.

The Holy Office having received the letters, and supposing Juan Pedro
Sanchez still under arrest in Toulouse, ordered him to be brought to
Zaragoza. The courts of Toulouse replied that he had already been
released and that his whereabouts were now unknown.

The inquisitors inquired into the matter with that terrible
thoroughness of which they commanded the means. They controlled the
most wonderful police system that the world has ever seen. A vast
civilian army was enrolled in the service of the Holy Office, as
members of the tertiary order of St. Dominic. These were the lay
brothers of the family, and as the position conferred upon those who
held it certain signal benefits, of which immunity from taxation was
one,[134] it will be understood that their number had to be limited, so
very considerable were the applications for enrolment.

Originally this had been a penitential order, but very quickly it came
to be known as the Militia Christi, and its members as familiars of the
Holy Office--_i.e._ part of the family of St. Dominic. They dressed
in black, and wore the white cross of St. Dominic upon their doublets
and cloaks, and they were made to join the Confraternity of St. Peter
Martyr. The inquisitors seldom went abroad without an escort of these
armed lay-brothers.

In the ranks of the Militia Christi were to be found men of all
professions, dignities, and callings. They formed the secret police
of the Inquisition, they were the eyes and ears of the Holy Office,
ubiquitous in every stratum of social life.

Through these agents the inquisitors were not long in ascertaining what
had taken place in the matter of Juan Pedro Sanchez, and soon the five
friends were under arrest and forced to answer the serious charge of
hindering the Holy Office.

They were paraded in public in the Auto of May 6, 1487, as
suspects--_leviter_--of Judaizing; they were penanced to stand in full
view of the people, candle in hand and wearing the _sanbenito_, during
Mass, and they were thereafter disqualified from holding any office or
benefice or pursuing any honourable profession during the good pleasure
of the inquisitors.

As it was, they escaped lightly. That they were suspected _leviter_ of
Judaizing, shows us how easily that suspicion might be incurred. It was
purely constructive in this instance--an inference to be drawn from the
fact that they had befriended a Judaizer who was under sentence.

       *       *       *       *       *

The other case is far more horrible. It shows in operation Torquemada’s
decree regarding the children of heretics, and reveals in the fullest
measure its appalling inhumanity.

Another who had fled to Toulouse, fearing implication in the affair of
the murder of Arbués, was one Gaspar de Santa Cruz. It happened that
he died there, after having been sentenced as contumacious and burnt
in effigy at Zaragoza. It came to the ears of the inquisitors that he
had been assisted in his flight by his son; and not content with the
heavy punishment of infamy that must fall automatically upon that son
for sins that were not his own, not content with having reduced him to
destitution by confiscating his inheritance and by disqualifying him
from office, benefice, or honourable employment, they now seized his
person and indicted him for hindering.

Arrayed in a yellow _sanbenito_, this son, who had discharged by his
father the sacrosanct duty which nature and humanity impose, was
exhibited to scorn in an Auto, and further penanced by being compelled
to come before the court of the Holy Office and testify to his father’s
contumacious flight. Nor did that ghoulish tribunal count itself
satisfied even then. It was further imposed upon him that he must
repair to Toulouse, exhume his father’s remains, and publicly burn
them, returning to Zaragoza with a properly attested report of the
performance, when he should receive absolution of the censures incurred.

Santa Cruz carried out that barbarous command, as the only means of
saving his liberty and perhaps his life. For it is certain that had he
refused, it would have been argued that he had rejected the offered
means of reconciliation with the Church he had so grievously offended,
and he would have been prosecuted as impenitent; whilst had he availed
himself of the only alternative and fled, he must have been sentenced
as contumacious and would have gone to the stake if he were ever taken.

       *       *       *       *       *

From the hour of his death Pedro Arbués de Epila was looked upon as a
saint and martyr, the notion being carefully fostered by the members of
his order in the minds of the faithful.

And, as is usual in such cases, miraculous manifestations of his
sanctity are alleged to have begun in the very hour of his death.
Trasmiera tells us that the bells rang of themselves when he died, and
he opines that this serves to approve their use in a time when Luther
and others were condemning them as vain.

The blood of the inquisitor, we learn from the same source, boiled
upon the stones of the church where it had fallen, and continued to
do so for a fortnight afterwards; whilst on any of the twelve days
immediately following the night of his murder, a handkerchief pressed
to the stones upon which his blood had been shed, when removed, was
found to be blood-stained.

These, says Trasmiera, were miracles of which all were witnesses. There
is much more of the same kind--including an account of the inquisitor’s
apparitions after death, as testified by Mosen Blanco, to whom the
ghost appeared, and with whom it conversed at length--to be found in
Trasmiera’s “Vida y Muerte del Venerable Inquisidor, Pedro Arbués.”

The sword with which he was slain was preserved in the Metropolitan
Church of Zaragoza, a relic sanctified by the blood that had embrued it.

He was buried in the same church, and on the spot where he fell
Isabella raised a beautiful monument to his memory in 1487. Part of its
inscription ran: “Happy Zaragoza! Rejoice that here is buried he who is
the glory of the martyrs.”

He was beatified two hundred years later by Alexander VII, largely in
consequence of the efforts of the Spanish inquisitors, who perceived
what an added prestige it would give their order if one of its
members were worshipped as a martyr. His canonization followed in
the nineteenth century. It was effected by Pope Pius IX, and was the
subject of much derisory comment in the Rome of that day, which had
just broken the shackles of clerical government that had trammelled it
for some fifteen hundred years.




CHAPTER XV

TORQUEMADA’S FURTHER “INSTRUCTIONS”


The intrepid but ineffectual resistance offered by Zaragoza to the
Inquisition was emulated by the principal cities of Aragon; one and all
protested against the institution of this tribunal under the new form
which Torquemada had given it.

But nowhere was resistance of the least avail against the iron purpose
of the Grand Inquisitor, armed with the entire force of civil justice
to constrain the people into submission to the ecclesiastical will.

Teruel had been thrown into open revolt by the proposal to appoint
inquisitors there; and so fierce and determined was the armed
resistance, that not until the King’s troops made their appearance
in the streets of that city, in March 1485, were order and obedience
restored.

In Valencia, too, there was a vigorous opposition led by the nobles,
and throughout Cataluña the resistance was so resolute that it was
not until two years later that the Sovereigns were able to reduce the
people to submission.

Barcelona urged an ancient right to appoint her own inquisitors,
and refused persistently and angrily to recognize the authority of
Torquemada or his delegates, in spite of any bulls that might have been
issued by Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII. Nor was this city’s obstinacy
conquered until 1487, after Pope Innocent had issued his second bull,
confirming Torquemada in the office of Grand Inquisitor of Castile,
Leon, Aragon, and Valencia, and further extending his jurisdiction so
that it included all the Spains--in which bull he formally cancelled
the ancient rights of Barcelona to appoint her own inquisitors.

       *       *       *       *       *

It should be sufficiently clear from this that, notwithstanding
the racial antipathy between Spaniard and Jew, notwithstanding the
religious spirit so very ardent in the people of Spain, serving
to aggravate beyond all reason that hatred of the Israelite, the
Inquisition--as Torquemada understood and controlled it--was very
far from being desired by them. That this grim institution should
have contrived so firmly to establish itself upon Spanish soil and to
wield there a power such as it wielded in no other Catholic country
of Europe, was due entirely to the brothers of St. Dominic and the
fanaticism of Torquemada playing upon the bigotry and acquisitiveness
of the Sovereigns.

Assailants of the Roman Church have urged that the Inquisition was
a religious institution. Defenders of that same Church, in their
endeavour to shift so terrible a burden from her shoulders, have sought
to show that the Inquisition was a political machine. It was neither,
and at the same time it was both. But chiefly and primarily it was
just a clerical weapon. And clericalism in the Iberian Peninsula,
pervaded by the spirit of Torquemada, converted that institution into
an instrument far more dreadful and oppressive than was its character
in Italy, or France, or any other Roman Catholic country of the world
in which the Holy Office held jurisdiction.

In Spain it had set up in the evening of the fifteenth century an
absolute reign of terror, depriving men of all liberty of conscience
and of speech and spreading a network of espionage over the face of the
land.

And in the meantime, practice having brought to light certain
shortcomings in the decrees which he had already issued, Torquemada
added a further eleven articles in 1485. In the main, however, these
are concerned with the internal affairs of the Holy Office rather than
with its attitude towards offenders.

Articles I and II provide for the payment of officers of the
Inquisition, and decree that no officer shall receive gifts of any
nature under pain of instant dismissal.

Article III disposes that the inquisitors shall keep a permanent agent
in Rome, who shall be skilled in the law, so that he may attend to
matters appertaining to the Holy Office.

From this it is to be inferred that appeals to the Vatican continued
to be numerous, notwithstanding the provisions made by the Pope to
constitute Torquemada the supreme arbiter in matters of the Faith.

Articles V to XI are entirely concerned with details relating to
confiscations. These would be of no particular interest, but that they
serve to show how vast by now was the business of confiscation, since
the manner of conducting it and disposing of confiscated property
should demand so many decrees to govern it.

Article IV is the only one that may be said to concern the actual
jurisprudence of the Holy Office. This is intended not so much to
soften the rigour as to remove the inconveniences that might arise out
of Article X of the “Instructions” of 1484.

By that article it was decreed that confiscation should be
retrospective--_i.e._ that a heretic’s property should be confiscate
not from the day of the discovery of his heresy, but from the date of
the offence itself. So that any property that might in the meantime
have been alienated--whether in the ordinary way of commerce or
otherwise--must be considered as the property of the Holy Office, and
was to be seized by the Holy Office, no matter into whose hands it
might meanwhile have passed.

Such a decree, as will be seen, was proving a serious hindrance to
trade; for it became unsafe to purchase anything from any one, since
should either party to the transaction subsequently be discovered to
have fallen into the sin of heresy prior to that transaction, the other
would be stripped of the acquired property, and might be subjected
to the entire loss. Moreover, as proceedings were taken against the
dead, and as there was no limit imposed upon the retrospection allowed
to inquisitors, no man could account himself safe from confiscations
incurred through the sin of some other from whom he or his forbears had
acquired the property.

The vagueness of this article urgently demanded amending, and this
was the purpose of Article IV of the “Instructions” of 1485. It
decreed that all contracts concluded before 1479 should be accounted
valid, although it might come to be discovered against either of the
contracting parties that he was guilty of heresy at the time of such
contract.

This is the only instance in which we find Torquemada promulgating a
decree to soften the rigour of any previous enactment, and it is very
clear that it is a decree dictated not by clemency but by expediency.

In the event of fraud, or of any one being a party to a fraud to abuse
the privilege conferred by this article, Torquemada provided that the
offender, if reconciled, should receive a hundred lashes and be branded
on the face with a hot iron; whilst, if not reconciled--even though
he should be a good Catholic--he must suffer confiscation of all his
property.[135]

To justify the punishment of branding on the face, the case of Cain
is urged as a proper precedent, and so modern a historian as Garcia
Rodrigo does not hesitate to put this seriously forward.[136]

Three years later--in 1488--Torquemada found it necessary to add a
further fifteen articles to his “Instructions,” and we may anticipate a
little by briefly surveying their provisions at this stage.

Complaints to Rome of the injustices and the excessive rigour
of the inquisitors--a constant feature of Torquemada’s
Grand-Inquisitorship--had by that time become so numerous that the Pope
found it necessary to order Torquemada to re-edit what Amador de los
Rios very aptly terms his “Code of Terror.”[137]

The chief ground of these complaints had concerned the delays that so
commonly occurred in bringing an accused to trial. When a prisoner’s
acquittal ultimately chanced to take place, it was after a long term
of imprisonment for which there was no compensation or redress; and
when the person so treated was a man of position and influence, it is
natural that he would protest strongly against the treatment to which
he had been subjected before it was discovered that no charge could
be sustained against him. The real reason of these delays must not be
supposed to lie in dilatoriness or sluggishness on the part of the
inquisitors. Indeed, the excessive dispatch with which they conducted
the affairs of their tribunal is a matter to the scandal of which
Llorente draws attention more than once--and particularly in the course
of chronicling the fact that in the year of its introduction into
Toledo this court dealt--as we shall see--with no less than some 3,300
cases, 27 of the accused being burnt and the remainder penanced in
various degrees. He protests with reason that it is utterly impossible
that at such a rate of procedure evidence can properly have been sifted
and any sort of justice done.

Where delays took place they were the result of the extreme reluctance
on the part of the Holy Office to allow any to go free upon whom
its talons had once fastened. Thus, when even the slight degree or
evidence necessary to enable the inquisitors to convict was lacking,
they would delay in the daily hope that such evidence might be
forthcoming, and by repeated examinations they would meanwhile seek to
force the unfortunate prisoner into contradictions that should justify
them in resorting to torture.

In view of the explicit pontifical command, Torquemada was compelled to
amend this state of things, at least in theory, by decreeing (Article
III) that there should be no delays in proceeding to trial through
lack of proof. Where proof was lacking, the accused should at once be
restored to liberty, since he could at any time--when fresh proof was
forthcoming--be rearrested.

Similarly, with a view of expediting trials, he ordered (Article IV)
that since in all the courts of the Inquisition there were not the
necessary lawyers, henceforth, when a case was completed, the _dossier_
of the proceedings should be sent to the Grand Inquisitor himself, and
he would then submit it to the lawyers of the Suprema, who would advise
upon it.

But he amply made up for what softening of rigour might be contained in
these articles by the greater severity enjoined in some of the other
decrees which he embodied in these “Instructions” of 1488.

Finding that the inquisitors of Aragon had been departing from certain
of his enactments of 1484, diluting them with the weaker rules that
had obtained under the old Inquisition in that kingdom, he commanded
that all inquisitors should proceed in strict obedience to the statutes
contained in the past “Instructions.”

He provided (Article V) that the inquisitors should themselves visit
the prisons once in every fortnight, but that no outsiders should be
permitted to communicate with the prisoners, save of course the priests
who would go to comfort them. To the end that a still greater secrecy
should be observed in the trials, he commanded (Article VI) that when
the depositions of the witnesses were being taken none should be
present other than those who were by law absolutely necessary; and he
enjoined (Article VII) the safe and secret custody of all documents
relating to the cases tried.

We are left to gather that the harshness of his enactment concerning
the children of heretics had been tempered a little by a natural
humane pity which did not at all commend itself to the pitiless Grand
Inquisitor; for we now find him (Article XI) enjoining inquisitors to
take care that the decree forbidding those unfortunates the use of gold
and silver and fine garments, and disqualifying them from honourable
employment, should be rigorously enforced.

He provided (Article XIII) that all the expenses of the Holy
Office--which must have been enormous by now, considering to what vast
proportions he had developed that organization--should be defrayed
out of confiscated property before this was surrendered to the Royal
treasury; and further (Article XV), that all appointed notaries,
fiscals, and constables should discharge their functions in person and
not by deputy.

The most interesting of these statutes of 1488, in consequence of
the information it conveys on the subject of the activities of the
Inquisition and the enormous scale of the prosecutions upon which it
was engaged, is contained in Article XIV. The prisons of Spain were
becoming so crowded, and the expense of maintaining the prisoners
was imposing so heavy a tax upon the Holy Office, that it had become
urgently necessary to make some fresh provision that would relieve this
burden. Therefore, as this article sets forth, Torquemada enjoined the
Sovereigns to order the building in every district of the Inquisition
of a quadrangular enclosure of small houses (_casillas_) for the
residence of those sentenced to the penance of imprisonment. These
houses were to be so contrived that the penitents might pursue in them
their business or trade and earn their own livelihood, thus relieving
the Inquisition of the heavy expense of supporting them. Each of these
quadrangular penitentiaries--for this is the origin of the term--was to
be equipped with its own chapel.[138]




CHAPTER XVI

THE INQUISITION IN TOLEDO


Llorente, the historian of the Spanish Inquisition, and M. Fidel Fita,
the distinguished contributor to the “Boletin de la Real Academia de la
Historia,” both had access to and both made use of a record left by the
licentiate Sebastian de Orozco, an eyewitness of the establishment of
the Inquisition in Toledo. This has been printed verbatim by M. Fidel
Fita.[139]

The details afforded by Orozco are so circumstantial that it is worth
while to follow them closely, since they may be said to afford a
typical picture of what was happening not only in the city with which
they are concerned, but throughout the whole of Spain.

It was in May of the year 1485 that the Inquisition was first set up in
Toledo, that noble city erected upon a rock that rises sheer from the
swirling waters of the Tagus, and is crowned by the royal palace which
still bears the Moorish name of Alcazar. It was transferred thither, by
Torquemada’s orders, from Villa Real, where it had been operating for
some months.

“To the end that our Infinite Redeemer Jesus Christ be praised in all
that He does, and for the greater power of His Holy Catholic Faith,”
writes Orozco, “know all who shall come after us that in the year 1485,
in the month of May, the Holy Inquisition against heretical pravity
was sent to this very noble City of Toledo by our very enlightened
Sovereigns, Don Fernando and Donna Isabella.... Of this Inquisition
were administrators Vasco Ramirez de Ribera, Archdeacon of Talavera,
and Pedro Dias de la Costana, Licentiate of Theology, and with them
one of the Queen’s Chaplains as fiscal and prosecutor, and one Juan de
Alfaro, a patrician of Seville, as chief constable (_alguazil_), and
two notaries.”

The licentiate Pedro Dias de la Costana preached to the people on the
third day of Pentecost (Tuesday, May 24), notifying them of the papal
bull under which the inquisitors were acting and of the power vested in
these inquisitors to deal with matters of heresy; pronouncing greater
excommunication against any who by word or deed or counsel should dare
to oppose the Inquisition in the execution of its duty.

At the conclusion of his announcement the Gospels and a crucifix were
brought, and upon these all were required to make solemn oath of their
desire to serve God and the Sovereigns, to uphold the Catholic Faith,
and to defend and shelter the administrators of the Holy Inquisition.

Lastly the licentiate published the usual edict of grace for
self-delators. He summons all Judaizers to return to the Faith and
become reconciled to the Church within a term of forty days, as set
forth by the edict itself, which by his orders was nailed to the door
of the Cathedral.

A week elapsed without any response to this summons. The _conversos_ of
Toledo had been preparing to resist the introduction of the Inquisition
to their city, and under the guidance of one De la Torre and some
others they had already matured their plans and laid down the lines
which this resistance was to take.

[Illustration:

  _Photo by Donald Macbeth._

THE AUTO DE FÉ.

From Limborch’s “Historia Inquisitionis.”]

The plot was--according to Orozco, who, you will have gathered, was
an ardent partisan of the Holy Office--that on the feast of Corpus
Christi, which fell that year on June 2, the conspirators should
be armed to lie in wait for the procession, falling upon it as it was
advancing through the streets, and slaying the inquisitors and their
defenders. That done, they were to seize the gates of the city and hold
Toledo against the King.

The fine strategic position of the city might have lent itself to so
daring a scheme, and presumably the aim of the New-Christians would
have been to hold it rebelliously until accorded terms of capitulation
that should guarantee the immunity of the rebels from all punishment,
and the immunity of Toledo itself from the jurisdiction of the Holy
Office. But, on the whole, it was so very crack-brained a conspiracy
that we are more than justified in doubting whether it ever had any
real existence.

“It pleased our Redeemer,” says Orozco, “that this conspiracy was
discovered on the eve of Corpus Christi.” He does not satisfy our
curiosity as to how the discovery was made, and the omission increases
our doubts.

The details, we are told, were derived from several of the plotters who
were arrested on that day by the Corregidor of Toledo, Gomes Manrique.
In view of the information thus obtained, Manrique proceeded to capture
De la Torre and four of his friends. One of these captives, a cobbler
named Lope Mauriço, the Corregidor hanged out of hand on the morning of
the festival, before the procession had issued from the Cathedral. The
act may have been intended as a deterrent to any who still entertained
the notion of putting the plot into execution.

The procession passed off without any disturbances; and having hanged
another of his prisoners Manrique subjected the remainder to heavy
fines, whereby they escaped far more lightly than if they had been
tried by the court of the Holy Office. Fortunately for themselves, it
was deemed that their offence was one that came within the jurisdiction
of the secular courts.

Soon thereafter, possibly because they now realized that they had
nothing left to hope for, self-delators began to come before the
inquisitors to solicit reconciliation.

But when the term of the edict had expired, it was found that the
indefatigable Torquemada had prepared a second one to supplement it. He
ordered the publication of an entirely fresh measure, commanding that
all who knew of any heretics, apostates, or Judaizers, must, under pain
of excommunication and of being deemed heretics themselves, divulge to
the inquisitors the names of such offenders within a term of sixty days.

There was already in existence an enactment of the Inquisition,
which instead of offering, as in all times has been done by secular
tribunals, a reward for the apprehension of fugitives from justice,
imposed upon those who neglected spontaneously to set about that
catchpoll work when the occasion arose, a fine of 500 ducats in
addition to excommunicating them. But Torquemada’s fresh measure went
even beyond that. Nor did it end with the edict we have mentioned.
When the sixty days expired, he ordered the prolongation of the term
by another thirty days--not only in Toledo, but also in Seville, where
he had commanded the publication of the same edict--and now came the
cruellest measure of all. He commanded the inquisitors to summon the
Rabbis of the synagogues and to compel them to swear according to the
Mosaic Law that they would denounce to the inquisitors any baptized Jew
whom they found returning to the Jewish cult, and he made it a capital
offence for any Rabbi to keep such a matter secret.

Not even now did he consider that he had carried far enough this
infamous measure of persecution. He ordained that the Rabbis should
publish in their synagogues an edict of excommunication by the Mosaic
Law against all Jews who should fail to give information to the
inquisitors of any Judaizing whereof they might have knowledge.

In this decree we catch a glimpse of the intensity of the fanatical,
contemptuous hatred in which Torquemada held the Israelites. For
nothing short of blended hatred and contempt could have inspired him
so to trample upon the feelings of their priests, and to compel them
under pain of death to a course in which they must immolate their
self-respect, violate their consciences, and render themselves odious
in the esteem of every right-thinking Jew.

By this unspeakable enactment the very Jews themselves were pressed
into the secret service of the Inquisition, and compelled by the fear
of spiritual and physical consequences to turn informers against their
brethren.

“Many,” says Orozco, who no doubt considered it a measure as laudable
as it was fiendishly astute, “were the men and women who came to bear
witness.”

Arrests commenced at once, and were carried on with an unprecedented
activity revealed by the records of the Autos that were held, which
Orozco has preserved for us.

And already fire had been set to the faggots piled at the stake of
Toledo, for the first victims had soon fallen into the eager hands of
the Inquisitors of the Faith.

These were three men and their three wives, natives of Villa Real, who
had fled thence when first the inquisitors had set up their tribunal
there. They reached Valencia safely, purchased there a yawl, equipped
it, and set sail. They were on the seas for five days, when, of course,
“it pleased God to send a contrary wind, which blew them back into
the port from which they had set out”--and thus into the hands of the
benign inquisitors, so solicitous for the salvation of their souls.
They were arrested upon landing, and brought to Toledo, whither the
tribunal had meanwhile been transferred. They were tried; their flight
confirmed their guilt; and so--_Christi nomine invocato_--they were
burnt by order of the inquisitors.

       *       *       *       *       *

As a result of the self-delations the first great Auto de Fé was
held in Toledo on the first Sunday in Lent (February 12), 1486. The
reconciled of seven parishes, numbering some 750 men and women,
were taken in procession and submitted to the penance known as
_verguenza_--or “shame”--which, however humiliating to the Christian,
was so hurtful to the pride of the Jew (and no less to that of the
Moor) that he would almost have preferred death itself. It consisted
in being paraded through the streets, men and women alike, bareheaded,
barefooted, and naked to the waist.

At the head of the procession, preceded by the white cross, and walking
two by two, went a section of the Confraternity of St. Peter the
Martyr--the familiars of the Holy Office--dressed in black, with the
white cross of St. Dominic displayed upon their cloaks. After them
followed the horde of half-naked penitents, cruel physical discomfort
being added to their mental torture, for the weather was so raw and
cold that it had been considered expedient to provide them with
sandals, lest they should have found it impossible to walk.

In his hand each carried a candle of green wax--unlighted, to signify
that as yet the light of the Faith did not illumine his soul. Anon,
when they should have been admitted to reconciliation and absolution,
these candles would be lighted, to signify that the light of the Faith
had once more entered their hearts--light being the symbol of the
Faith, just as “light” and “faith” have become almost convertible terms.

Orozco informs us that among the penitents were many of the principal
citizens of Toledo, many persons of eminence and honour, who must
deeply have felt their shame at being paraded in this fashion through
crowded streets, that they might afford a salutary spectacle to the
multitude which had assembled in Toledo from all the surrounding
country districts. To ensure this good attendance the Auto had been
proclaimed far and wide a fortnight before it was held.

The chronicler of these events tells us that many and loud were the
lamentations of these unfortunates. But it is very plain that their
condition did not move his pity, for he expresses the opinion that
their grief was rather at the dishonour they were suffering than--as it
should have been--because they had offended God.

The procession wound its way through the principal streets of the
city, and came at last to the Cathedral. At the main doors stood two
chaplains, who with their thumbs made the sign of the cross on the
brow of each penitent in turn, accompanying the action by the formula:
“Receive the Sign of the Cross which you denied, and which, being
deluded, you lost.”

Within the Cathedral two large scaffolds had been erected. The
penitents were led to one of these, where the reverend inquisitors
waited to receive them. On the other an altar had been raised,
surmounted by the green cross of the Inquisition, and as soon as all
the penitents were assembled, the crowd of holiday-makers being closely
packed about the scaffolds, Mass was celebrated and a sermon of the
Faith was preached.

This being at an end, the notary of the Holy Office rose and called
over the long roll of the penitents, each answering to his name and
hearing his particular offence read out to him. Thereafter the penance
was announced. They were to be whipped in procession on each of the
following six Fridays, being naked to the waist, bareheaded and
barefooted; they were to fast on each of those six Fridays, and they
were disqualified for the rest of their lives from holding office,
benefice, or honourable employment, and from using gold, silver,
precious stones, or fine fabrics in their apparel.

They were warned that if they relapsed into error, or failed to
perform any part of the penance imposed, they would be deemed
impenitent heretics and abandoned to the secular arm; and upon that
grim warning they were dismissed.

On each of the following six Fridays of Lent they were taken in
procession from the Church of San Pedro Martir to a different shrine
on each occasion, and when at last they had completed this humiliating
penance it was further ordained that they should give “alms” to the
extent of one-fifth of the value of their property, to be applied to
the holy war against the infidels of Granada.

       *       *       *       *       *

Scarcely are the penitents of this Auto disposed of--the last
procession took place on March 23--than the second Auto was held.

This occurred on the second Sunday in April, and 486 men and women were
penanced on this occasion, the procedure and the penance imposed being
the same.

At Whitsuntide of that year a sermon of the Faith was preached by the
inquisitor Costana, whereafter an edict was publicly read and nailed to
the Cathedral door, summoning all who had fled to surrender themselves
to the Holy Office within ninety days, under pain of being sentenced as
contumaciously absent. Among those cited there were, we learn, several
clerics, including three Jeronymite friars.

Finally, on the second Sunday in June--the 11th of that month--we have
the last Auto within the period of grace. In this the penitents of four
parishes, numbering some 750 persons, were conducted to reconciliation
under precisely the same conditions as had already been observed in the
two previous Autos.




CHAPTER XVII

AUTOS DE FÉ


The Inquisition of Toledo had now to deal with heretics who must
be considered impenitent, since they had not availed themselves
of the benign leniency of the Church and spontaneously sought the
reconciliation offered. From this moment the proceedings assume a far
more sinister character.

The first Auto under these altered conditions was held on August 16,
1486. Among the accused brought up for sentence were twenty men and
five women, whose offences doomed them to be abandoned to the secular
arm, and one of these was no less a personage than the Regidor--or
Governor--of Toledo, a Knight-Commander of the Order of Santiago.

They were brought forth from the prison of the Inquisition at a
little before six o’clock on that summer morning, arrayed in the
yellow _sanbenito_ and _coroza_. Each _sanbenito_ bore an inscription
announcing the name of the wearer and the nature of his offences
against the Faith, and they were smeared in addition with grotesque
red images of dragons and devils. A rope was round the neck of each
prisoner, and his hands were pinioned with the other end of it. In his
hands, thus bound, he carried the unlighted candle of green wax.

Thus they were led in procession through the streets, the procession
being headed as usual by a posse of familiars of the Confraternity of
St. Peter the Martyr--the Soldiers of the Faith--and preceded now by
the green cross of the Inquisition, which was shrouded in a mourning
veil of black crape.

The green cross did not merely symbolize, by its colour, constancy
and eternity, but it was fashioned as if of freshly-cut boughs,
to represent living wood, the emblem of the true faith in
contradistinction to the withered branches that are to be flung into
the fire.[140]

Following the Soldiers of the Faith, under a canopy of scarlet and
gold, borne by four acolytes and preceded by a bell-ringer, came
the priest who was to celebrate the Mass, in the crimson chasuble
prescribed by the liturgy for these dread solemnities. He bore the
Host, and as he advanced the multitude sank down upon their knees,
beating their breasts to the clang of the bell.

Behind the canopy walked another posse of familiars, and after these
again followed the doomed prisoners, each attended by two Dominican
brothers in their white cassocks and black cloaks, fervently exhorting
those who had not yet confessed to do so even at this late hour.

The constables of the Holy Office and the men-at-arms of the secular
authorities flanked this section of the procession, shouldering their
glittering halberts.

They were closely followed by a group of men who bore aloft, swinging
from long green poles, the effigies of those who were to be sentenced
as contumaciously absent--horribly grotesque mannequins of straw with
painted faces and bituminous eyes, tricked out in the _sanbenitos_ and
_corozas_ that should have adorned the originals had not these remained
fortunately at large.

Next, mounted upon mules in trailing funereal trappings, rode the
reverend inquisitors, attended by a group of mounted gentlemen in
black, the white cross upon their breasts announcing them as familiars
of the Holy Office, the officers of the tribunal.

They were immediately preceded by the banner of the Inquisition,
displaying in an oval medallion upon a sable ground the green cross
between an olive-branch (dexter) and a naked sword (sinister). The
olive-branch, emblem of peace, symbolized the readiness of the
Inquisition to deal mercifully with those who by true repentance and
confession were disposed to reconcile themselves with Holy Mother
Church. The mercy of which so much parade was made might consist, as
we know, of strangulation before burning, or, at best, of perpetual
imprisonment, the confiscation of property, and infamy extending to the
children and grandchildren of the condemned.

The sword, on the other hand, announced the alternative. Garcia Rodrigo
says that it proclaimed the Inquisition’s tardiness to smite. If so, it
is a curious symbol to have chosen for such a purpose; but in any case
the tardiness is hardly perceptible to the lay vision.

The procession was closed by the secular justiciary and his
_alguaziles_.

In this order that grim cortège advanced to the Cathedral
Square. Here two great scaffolds were draped in black for the
ceremony--blasphemously called an Act of Faith.

The prisoners were conducted to one of these scaffolds and accommodated
upon the benches that rose from it in tiers, the highest being always
reserved for those who were to be abandoned to the secular arm--to the
end, we suppose, that they should be fully in the view of the multitude
below. Each of the accused sat between two Dominican friars. The poles
bearing the effigies were placed so that they flanked the benches.

On the other scaffold, on which an altar had been raised and chairs set
for the inquisitors, these now made their appearance, accompanied by
the notaries and fiscal and attended by their familiars.

The shrouded green cross was placed upon the altar, the tapers were
lighted, the thurible kindled, and as a cloud of incense ascended and
spread its sweetly pungent odour the Mass began.

At the conclusion a sermon of the Faith was preached, wherein the
sins of the accused were denounced, and those who had incurred the
penalty of being abandoned to the secular arm were exhorted fervently
to repent and make their peace with Holy Mother Church that they might
save their souls from the damnation into which, otherwise, it was the
Inquisition’s business to hurry them.

As the preacher ceased, the notaries of the Holy Office of Toledo
proceeded to the business of reading out the crime of each accused,
dwelling in detail upon the particular form which his Judaizing was
known to have taken. As the name of each was called, he was brought
forward, and placed upon a stool,[141] whilst the reading of the
lengthy sentence took place.

It requires no great imaginative effort to form a mental picture of
these proceedings, and of the poor livid wretch, horror-stricken and
bathed in the sweat of abject terror which that long-drawn agony must
have extorted from the stoutest, sitting there, perhaps half-dazed
already by the merciful hand of Nature, in the glaring August sun,
under the stare of a thousand eyes, some pitiful, some hateful, some
greedy of the offered spectacle. Or it might be some poor half-swooning
woman, steadied by the attendant Dominicans, who seek to support her
fainting courage, to mitigate her unutterable anguish with comfortless
words that hold out the promise of pitiless mercy.

And all this, _Christi nomine invocato!_

The reading of the sentence is at an end. It concludes with the formula
that the Church, being unable to do more for the offender, casts him
out and abandons him to the secular arm. Lastly comes the mockery of
that intercession, _efficaciter_--to preserve the inquisitors from
irregularity--that the secular justice shall so deal with him that his
blood may not be shed, and that he may suffer no hurt in life or limb.

Thereupon the doomed wretch is removed from the scaffold; the
_alguaziles_ of the secular justiciary seize him; the Regidor mutters a
few brief words of sentence, and he is thrust upon an ass and hurried
away, out of the city to the burning-place of La Dehesa.

A white cross has been raised in this field, where twenty-five stakes
are planted with the faggots piled under each, and a mob of morbid
sightseers surges, impatient to have the spectacle begin.

The condemned is bound to the stake, and the Dominicans still continue
their exhortations. They flaunt a crucifix before his dazed, staring
eyes, and they call upon him to repent, confess, and save his soul from
Eternal Hell. They do not leave him until the fire is crackling and the
first cruel little tongues of bluish flame dart up through the faggots
to lick the soles of his naked feet.

If he has confessed, wrought upon by spiritual or physical terror, the
Dominican makes a sign, and the executioner steps behind the stake
and rapidly strangles the doomed man. If his physical fears have not
sufficed to conquer his religious convictions, if he remains firm in
his purpose to die lingeringly, horribly, a martyr for the faith that
he believes to be the only true one, the Dominican withdraws at last,
baffled by this “wicked stubbornness,” and the wretch is left to endure
the terrible agony of death by slow fire.

Meanwhile, under that limpid sky--_Christi nomine invocato_--the
ferocious work of the Faith goes on; accused succeeds accused to hear
his or her sentence read, until the last of the twenty-five victims has
been surrendered to the tireless arm of the secular justice. In the
meadows of La Dehesa there is such a blaze of the fires of the Faith,
that it might almost seem that the Christians have been avenging upon
their enemies those human torches which an enemy of Christianity is
alleged to have lighted once in Rome.

Six mortal hours, Orozco informs us, were consumed in that ghastly
business,[142] for the Court of the Holy Office must in all things
proceed with stately and pompous leisureliness, with that calm
equanimity enjoined by the “Directorium”--_simpliciter et de
plano_--lest by haste it should fall into the unpardonable offence of
irregularity.

Not until noon did the proceedings conclude with the hurrying away to
La Dehesa of the last of those twenty-five.

The inquisitors and their followers descended at length from their
scaffold, and withdrew to the Casa Santa to rest them from these
arduous labours of propagating Christianity.

There was more to be done upon the morrow--very important business,
demanding an entirely different ceremonial, wherefore it had been set
apart and allotted a day to itself.

The accused on this occasion were only two, but they were two clerics.
One was the parish priest of Talavera; the other occupied the
distinguished position of a royal chaplain. Both had been found guilty
of Judaizing. They were conducted to the Auto in full canonicals, as
if about to celebrate Mass, each carrying his veiled chalice. Led to
the scaffold of the condemned, they found themselves confronted from
the other scaffold not only by the inquisitors and their attendants
and familiars, but further by the Bishop, who was attended by two
Jeronymites--the Abbot of the Convent of St. Bernard and the Prior of
the Convent of Sisla.

The notary of the Holy Office read out the crimes of the accused, and
pronounced them cast out from the Church. Thereupon each was brought
in turn before the Bishop, who proceeded to degrade him, since the law
could not without sacrilege lay violent hands upon an ecclesiastic.

Beginning by depriving each of his chalice, the Bishop passed on to
divest the priestly offender of his chasuble; stole, maniple, and alb
were removed in succession, the Bishop pronouncing the prescribed
formula for each stage of the degradation, and defacing the tonsure by
clipping away a portion of the surrounding fringe of hair.

At last the doomed clerics stood stripped of all insignia of their
office. And now the _sanbenito_--that chasuble of infamy--was flung
upon the shoulders of each; their heads were crowned with the
tragically grotesque _coroza_, a rope was put about each neck, and
their hands were pinioned. The sentence was fulfilled at last by their
being abandoned to the secular authorities, who seized them and bore
them away to the stake.

       *       *       *       *       *

On Sunday, October 16, a proclamation was read in the Cathedral,
pronouncing several deceased persons to have been heretics, and setting
forth that, although dead themselves, their reputations lived as those
of Christians. Therefore it became necessary to publish their heresy,
and their heirs were summoned to appear within twenty days and render
to the inquisitors an account of their inheritances, from the enjoyment
of which they were disqualified, since all property that had belonged
to the deceased was, by virtue of Torquemada’s decree, confiscate to
the royal treasury.

       *       *       *       *       *

On December 10 900 persons were admitted to public reconciliation. They
were self-delators from remote country districts who had responded to a
recent edict of grace published in those districts.

The notary announced the forms of Judaizing of which each had been
guilty and proclaimed it as their intention henceforth to live and die
in the faith of Christ. He then read out the Articles of Faith, and
they were required to say “I believe” after each, and lastly to make
oath upon the Gospels and the crucifix never again to fall into the
error of Judaism, to denounce any whom they knew to be Judaizers, and
ever to favour and uphold the Holy Inquisition and the Holy Catholic
faith.

The penance imposed was that they should be scourged in procession for
seven Fridays, and thereafter on the first Friday of every month for a
year. This in their own districts. In addition, they were required to
come to Toledo and be scourged in procession on the Feast of St. Mary
of August and on the Thursday of Holy Week. Two hundred of them were
further ordered to wear a _sanbenito_ over their ordinary garments for
a year from that date, and never to appear in public without it under
pain of being deemed impenitent and punished as relapsed.

Another 700 came to be reconciled on January 15, 1487, and yet another
1,200 on March 10. These last, Orozco says, were from the districts of
Talavera, Madrid, and Guadalajara; and he adds that some amongst them
were penanced to the extent of being condemned to wear the _sanbenito_
for the remainder of their lives.

In the Auto of May 7 fourteen men and nine women were burnt. Amongst
the former was a Canon of Toledo who was accused of horrible heresies,
and who, writes Orozco, had confessed under torture to abominable
subversions of the words of the Mass. Instead of the prescribed formula
of the consecration, he had stated that he was in the habit of uttering
the absurd and almost meaningless gibberish--“Sus Periquete, que mira
la gente.”

On the following day there was held a supplementary Auto, especially
for the purpose of dealing with deceased and fugitive heretics,
conducted with a ceremony of an unusual and singularly theatrical
order, which is not so much typical--as are the other Autos
described--of what was taking place throughout Spain, as indicative of
a morbid inventiveness on the part of the Toledan inquisitors.

On the scaffold usually occupied by the accused a sepulchral monument
of wood had been erected and draped in black. As each accused was cited
by the notary, the familiars opened the monument and drew out the
effigy of the dead man dressed in the grave-clothes peculiar to the
Jews.

To this dummy of straw the detailed account of his crimes and the
sentence of the court whereby he was condemned as a heretic were
solemnly read out. When all the condemnations had thus been proclaimed,
the effigies were flung into a bonfire that had been kindled in the
square; and together with the effigies went the bones of the deceased,
which had been exhumed to that end.

After that the next Auto of importance was held on July 25, 1488,
when twenty men and seventeen women were sent to the stake, with a
supplementary Auto upon the morrow in which they burnt the effigies of
over a hundred dead and fugitive heretics.

And so it goes on, as recorded by the licentiate Sebastian Orozco,
and cited by Llorente[143] and Fidel Fita.[144] From now onwards
the burnings increase in number. Indeed, all edicts of grace having
expired, and no new ones being permissible, sentencing to the
flames--through the medium of the secular arm--and to perpetual
imprisonment becomes the chief business of the Inquisition in Toledo
and elsewhere.

The _sanbenitos_ of the burnt were preserved in the churches of the
parishes where they had lived. They were hung in these churches as
banners won in battle are hung--trophies of victory over heresy.




CHAPTER XVIII

TORQUEMADA AND THE JEWS


During that first year of the Inquisition’s establishment in Toledo,
twenty-seven persons there convicted of Judaizing were burnt and 3,300
were penanced. And what was taking place in Toledo was taking place in
every other important city in Spain.

Numerous now and vehement were the protests against the terrible and
excessive rigour of Torquemada. Already, upon the death of Pope Sixtus
IV, a vigorous attempt had been made by some Spaniards of eminence to
procure the deposition of the Prior of Holy Cross from the office of
Grand Inquisitor. It was argued that as his appointment had been made
by Sixtus, so it was automatically determined by that Pope’s decease.
But whatever hopes may have been founded upon such an argument were
very quickly overthrown. Innocent VIII, as we have already seen, not
only confirmed Torquemada in his office, but considerably increased his
powers and the scope of his jurisdiction.

Indeed, not only was he given jurisdiction over all the Spains, but
Innocent’s bull of April 3, 1487, _motu proprio_, commanded all
Catholic princes that, upon being requested by the Grand Inquisitor so
to do, they should arrest any fugitives he might indicate and send them
captive to the Inquisition under pain of excommunication.[145]

Notwithstanding the threat by which it was backed, this command
from the Vatican appears to have been generally disregarded by the
Governments of Europe.[146]

That such a bull should have been solicited gives us yet another
glimpse of the terrible rancour against the Jews which fanaticism
had kindled in the soul of Torquemada. Had his aim been merely, as
expressed, to weed the tares of heresy from the Catholic soil of Spain,
the self-imposed exile of those wretched fugitives would fully have
satisfied him, and he would not have thought it necessary to hound them
out of such shelter as they had found abroad that he might have the
satisfaction of hurling them into the bonfire he had kindled.

His position being so greatly strengthened by the wider and ampler
powers accorded to him by the new Pontiff, Torquemada gave a still
freer rein to the terrible severity of his nature, and thus occasioned
those frequent and very urgent appeals to the Vatican.

Many New-Christians who secretly practised Jewish rites, being repelled
from taking advantage of the edict of grace by the necessity it imposed
of undergoing the horrible _verguenza_ already described, applied now
to the Pontiff for secret absolution. This required special briefs.
Special briefs brought money into the papal coffers, and procured
converts to the Faith. Two better reasons for granting these requests
it would have been impossible to have urged, and so the Curia acceded.

But the result of this curial interference with the autonomous
jurisdiction of the Holy Office in Spain was to provoke the resentment
of Torquemada. Wrangles ensued between the Grand Inquisitor and the
Pontifical Court--wrangles which may be likened to those of two lawyers
over a wealthy client.

Torquemada arrogantly demanded that this Roman protection of heretics
should not only cease in future but be withdrawn where already it
had been granted in the past, and his demand had the full support of
Catholic Ferdinand, who did not at all relish the spectacle of the gold
of his subjects being poured into any treasury other than his own.
Rome, having meanwhile pocketed the fees, was disposed to be amenable
to the representations of the Catholic Sovereigns and their Grand
Inquisitor; and the Pope proceeded flagrantly to cancel the briefs of
dispensation that had been granted.

There was an outcry from the swindled victims. They protested
appealingly to the Pope that they had confessed their sins against the
Faith, and that absolution had been granted them. Very rightly they
urged that this absolution could not now be rescinded--for not even the
Pope had power to do so much--and they argued that, being in a state of
grace, they could not now be prosecuted for heresy.

But they overlooked the retrospective power which--however
unjustifiable by canon or any other law--the Inquisition had arrogated
to itself. By virtue of this, as we have seen, the inquisitors could
take proceedings even against one who had died in a state of grace,
at peace with Holy Mother Church, if it were shown that an offence of
heresy committed at some stage of his life had not been expiated in a
manner that the Holy Office accounted condign.

These protests of the unfortunate Judaizers, who by their own action
had achieved--as they now realized--no more than self-betrayal,
were met by the priestly answer that their sins had been absolved
in the tribunal of conscience only, and that it still remained
for them to seek temporal absolution in the tribunal of the Holy
Office. This temporal absolution would accord them, as we know--and
as they knew--the right to live in perpetual imprisonment after the
confiscation of their property and the destitution and infamy of their
children.

The answer, crafty and sophistical as it was, did not suffice to
silence the protests. Clamorously these continued, and the Pope, unable
to turn a deaf ear upon them, fearful lest a scandal should ensue,
effected a sort of compromise. With the royal concurrence, Innocent
VIII issued several bulls, each commanding the Catholic Sovereigns to
admit fifty persons to secret absolution with immunity from punishment.
These secret absolutions were purchased at a high price, and they
were granted upon the condition that in the event of the re-Judaizing
of a person so absolved, he would be treated as relapsed, the secret
absolution being then published.

These absolutions were particularly useful in the case of persons
deceased, several of whom, at the petition of the heirs, were included
among the secretly reconciled--the inheritance being thereby secured
from confiscation.

Altogether Pope Innocent granted four of these bulls in 1486.[147] In
the last one issued he left it at the discretion of the Sovereigns to
indicate those who should be admitted to this grace, and they were
permitted to include the names even of persons against whom proceedings
had already been initiated.

With what degree of equanimity Torquemada viewed these bulls of
absolution we do not know. But very soon we shall see him vexed by
papal interference of a fresh character.

Simoniacal practices were never more rampant in Rome than under the
rule of Innocent VIII. His greed was notorious and scandalous, and a
number of alert baptized Jews bethought them that this might be turned
to account. They slyly submitted to the Holy Father that although they
were good Catholics, such was the harshness of the Grand Inquisitor
towards men of their blood that they lived in constant dread and
anxiety lest the mere circumstance of their having originally been Jews
should be accounted a sufficient reason to bring them under suspicion
or should lay them open to the machinations of malevolent enemies.
Hence they implored his Holiness to grant them the privilege of
exclusion from inquisitorial jurisdiction.

At a price this immunity was to be obtained; and soon others, seeing
the success that had attended the efforts of the originators of this
crafty idea, were following their example and setting a drag upon the
swift wheels of Torquemada’s justice.

That it stirred him to righteous anger is not to be doubted, however
subservient and injured the tone in which he addressed his protest to
the Pontiff.

Innocent replied by a brief of November 27, 1487, that whenever the
Grand Inquisitor found occasion to proceed against one so privileged,
he should inform the Apostolic Court of all that might exist against
the accused, so that his Holiness should determine whether the
privilege was to be respected.[148]

It follows inevitably that if there was heresy, or the suspicion of it,
the Pope must allow the justice of the Holy Office to run its course.
So that the Jews who had purchased immunity must have realized that
they were dealing with one who understood the science of economics (and
the guile to be practised in it) even better than did they, famous as
they have always been for clear-sightedness in such matters.

       *       *       *       *       *

Meanwhile, with the power that was vested in him, Torquemada was
amassing great wealth from the proportion of the confiscations that
fell to his share. But whatever his faults may have been, he was
perfectly consistent in them, just as he was perfectly, terribly
sincere.

Into the sin of pride he may have fallen. We see signs of it. And,
indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a man climbing from the
obscurity of the monastic cell to the fierce glare of his despotic
eminence and remaining humble at heart. Humble he did remain; but with
that aggressive humility which is one of pride’s worst forms and akin
to self-righteousness--the sin most dreaded by those who strive after
sanctity.

We know that he unswervingly followed the stern path of asceticism
prescribed by the founder of his order. He never ate meat; his bed
was a plank; his flesh never knew the contact of linen; his garments
were the white woollen habit and the black mantle of the Dominican.
Dignities he might have had, but he disdained them. Paramo says[149]
that Isabella sought to force them upon him, and that, in particular,
she would have procured his appointment to the Archbishopric of Seville
when this was vacated by the Cardinal of Spain. But he was content to
remain the Prior of Holy Cross of Segovia, as he had been when he was
haled from his convent to direct the affairs of the Holy Office in
Spain. The only outward pomp he permitted himself was that whenever
now he went abroad he was attended by an escort of fifty mounted
familiars and two hundred men on foot. This escort Llorente admits[150]
was imposed by the Sovereigns. It is possible, as is suggested, that
it was to defend him from his enemies, since the death of Arbués had
shown to what lengths the New-Christians were prepared to go. But it
is more probable that this escort was accepted as an outward sign of
the dignity of his office, and perhaps also to serve the terrorizing
purpose which Torquemada considered so very salutary.

That he practised the contempt for worldly riches which he preached
is beyond all doubt. We cannot discover that any of the wealth that
accrued to him was put to any worldly uses or went in any way to
benefit any member of his family. Indeed, we have already seen him
refusing suitably to dower his sister, allowing her no more than the
pittance necessary to enable her to enter a convent of the Tertiary
Order of St. Dominic.[151]

He employed the riches which his office brought him entirely to the
greater honour and glory of the religion which he served with such
terrible zeal. He spent it lavishly upon such works as the rebuilding
of the Dominican Convent of Segovia, together with the contiguous
church and offices. He built the principal church of his family’s
native town of Torquemada and half of the great bridge over the River
Pisuerga.[152]

Fidel Fita quotes an interesting letter of Torquemada’s, dated August
17, 1490, in which he thanks the gentry of Torquemada for having sent
him a sumpter-mule, but rather seems to rebuke the gift.

“To me,” he writes, “it was not, nor is necessary to send such things;
and it is certain that I should have sent back the gift but that it
might have offended you; for I, praised be our Lord, possess nine
sumpter-mules, which suffice me.”[153]

In sending the gift they had asked him for assistance towards the work
being carried out in the church of Santa Ollala, the contribution he
had already made not having proved sufficient. He replies regretting
that he can do nothing at the moment, as he is not with the Court, but
promises that upon his return thither he will do the necessary with
the Sovereigns so as to be able to send them the further funds they
require.[154]

As early as 1482 he began to build at Avila the church and monastery of
St. Thomas. This pleasant little country town, packed within its narrow
red walls and flanked with towers so that it presents the appearance
of a formidable castle, stands upon rising ground in the fertile plain
that is watered by the River Adaja. Torquemada built his magnificent
monastery beyond the walls, upon the site of a humbler edifice that
had been erected by the pious D. Maria de Avila. It was completed
by the year 1493, and what moneys came to him thereafter appear to
have gone to the endowment of this vast convent--a place of handsome,
spacious, cloistered courts and splendid galleries--which became at
once his chief residence, tribunal, and prison.[155]

Again his fanatical hatred of the Israelites displays itself in the
condition he laid down--and whose endorsement he obtained from Pope
Alexander VI--that no descendant of Jew or Moor should ever be admitted
to these walls, upon which he engraved the legend:

  PESTEM FUGAT HÆRETICAM.[156]

In this monastery the amplest provisions were made, not only for the
tribunal of the Inquisition, but also for the incarceration of its
prisoners.

Garcia Rodrigo, anxious to refute the widespread belief that the
prisons of the Inquisition were unhealthy subterranean dungeons,
draws attention to the airy, sunny chambers here set apart for
prisoners.[157] It is true enough in this instance, as transpires from
certain records that are presently to be considered.[158] But it is not
true in general, and it almost seems a little disingenuous of Garcia
Rodrigo to put forward a striking exception as an instance of the rule
that obtained.

Whatever the simplicity of Torquemada’s life, and whatever his personal
humility, it would be idle to pretend that he was not imbued with the
pride and arrogance of his office, swollen by the increase of power
accorded him, until in matters of the Faith he did not hesitate to
dictate to the Sovereigns themselves, and to reproach them almost to
the point of menace when they were slow to act as he dictated, whilst
it was dangerous for any under Sovereign rank to come into conflict
with the Grand Inquisitor.

As an instance of this, the case of the Captain-General of Valencia
may be cited. The Inquisition of Valencia had arrested, upon a charge
of hindering the Holy Office, one Domingo de Santa Cruz, whose
particular offence, in the Captain-General’s view, came rather within
the jurisdiction of the military courts. Acting upon this opinion, he
ordered his troops to take the accused from the prison of the Holy
Office, employing force to that end if necessary.

The inquisitors of Valencia complained of this action to the Suprema,
whereupon Torquemada imperiously ordered the Captain-General to appear
before that council and render an account of what he had done. He was
supported in this by the King, who wrote commanding the offender and
all who had aided him in procuring the release of Santa Cruz to submit
themselves to arrest by the officers of the Inquisition.

Not daring to resist, that high dignitary was compelled humbly to sue
for absolution of the ecclesiastical censure incurred, and he must have
counted himself fortunate that Torquemada did not subject him to a
public humiliation akin to that undergone by the Infante of Navarre.

The brilliant and illustrious young Italian, Giovanni Pico, Count
of Mirandola, had a near escape of falling into the hands of the
dread inquisitor. When Pico fled from Italy before the blaze of
ecclesiastical wrath which his writings had kindled, Pope Innocent
issued a bull, December 16, 1487, to Ferdinand and Isabella, setting
forth that he believed the Count of Mirandola had gone to Spain with
the intention of teaching in the universities of that country the evil
doctrines which he had already published in Rome, notwithstanding that,
having been convinced of their error, he had abjured them. (Another
case of the “_e pur si muove_” of Galileo.) And since Pico was noble,
gentle, and handsome, amiable and eloquent of speech (_Pseudopropheta
est; dulcia loquitur et ad modicum placet_), there was great danger
that an ear might be lent to his teachings. Wherefore his Holiness
begged the Sovereigns that in the event of his suspicions concerning
Pico’s intentions being verified, their highnesses should arrest the
Count, to the end that the fear of corporal pains might deter him where
the fear of spiritual ones had proved insufficient.

The Sovereigns delivered this bull to Torquemada that he might act
upon it. But Pico, getting wind of the reception that awaited him, and
having sufficient knowledge of the Grand Inquisitor’s uncompromising
methods to be alarmed at the prospect, took refuge in France, where he
wrote the apologia of his Catholicism, which he dedicated to Lorenzo
de’ Medici.[159]

       *       *       *       *       *

We have said, on the subject of the Inquisition’s introduction into
Spain, that to an extent and after a manner this must be considered
the most justifiable--by which we are to be taken to mean the least
unjustifiable--of religious persecutions, inasmuch as it had no
concern save with deserters from the fold of the Roman Church.
Liberty was accorded to all religions that were not looked upon as
heretical--_i.e._ that were not in themselves secessions from Roman
Catholicism--and Jew and Moslem had nothing to fear from the Holy
Office. It was only when, after having received baptism, they reverted
to their original cults, that they rendered themselves liable to
prosecution, being then looked upon as heretics, or, more properly
speaking, as apostates.

But this point of view, which satisfied the Roman See, did not at
all satisfy the Prior of Holy Cross. His bitter, fanatical hatred of
the Israelites--almost rivalling that of the Dean of Ecija in the
fourteenth century--urged him to violate this poor remnant of equity,
drove him to overstep the last boundary of apparent justice, and carry
the religious war into the region of complete and terrible intolerance.

The reason he advanced was that as long as the Jews remained
undisturbed in the Peninsula, so long would a united Christian Spain
be impossible. Despite penances, imprisonments, and burnings, the
Judaizing movement went on. New-Christians were seduced back into
the error of the Mosaic Law, whilst conversion amongst the Jews was
checked by respect for the feelings of those who remained true to their
ancient faith. Nor did the Hebrew offences against Christianity end
there. There were the indignities to which holy things were subjected
at their hands. There were criminal sacrileges in which--according to
Torquemada--they vented their hatred of the Holy Christian Faith.

Such, for instance, was the outrage upon the crucifix at Casar de
Palomero in 1488.

On Holy Thursday of that year, in this village of the diocese of Coria,
several Jews, instead of being at home with closed doors at such a
season, as the Christian law demanded, were making merry in an orchard,
to the great scandal of a man named Juan Caletrido, who there detected
them.

The spy, moved to horror at the mere thought of these descendants of
the crucifiers daring to be at play upon such a day as that, went
to inform several others of what he had witnessed. A party of young
Spaniards, but too ready to combine the performance of a meritorious
act with the time-honoured sport of Jew-baiting, invaded the privacy
of the orchard, set upon the Jews, and compelled them to withdraw into
their houses.

Smarting under this indignity--for, when all is said, they had been
more or less private in their orchard, and they had intended no offence
by their slight evasion of the strict letter of the law--they related
the event to other members of the synagogue, including the Rabbi.

From what ensued it seems plain that they must there and then have
determined to avenge the honour of their race, which they conceived had
been affronted.

Llorente, basing himself upon the chronicler Velasquez and the
scurrilous anti-Jewish writings of Torrejoncillo, supposes that their
aim was to repeat as nearly as possible the Passion of the Nazarene
upon one of His Images. That, indeed, may have been the prejudiced view
of the Grand Inquisitor.

But it is far more likely that, to spite these Christians who had added
this insult to the constant humiliations they were putting upon the
Israelites, the latter should simply have resolved to smash one of the
public symbols of Christianity. The details of what took place do not
justify the supposition that their intentions went any deeper.

On the morrow, which was Good Friday, the circumstance of the day
contributing perhaps to the more popular version of the story, whilst
the Christians were in church for the service of the Passion, a party
of Jews repaired to an open space known as Puerto del Gamo, where stood
a large wooden crucifix. This image they shattered and overthrew.

It is alleged that before finally breaking it they had indulged in
elaborate insult, “doing and saying all that their rage dictated
against the Nazarene.”

An Old-Christian, named Hernan Bravo, having watched them, ran to bear
the tale of their sacrilegious deed. The Christians poured tumultuously
out of church, and fell upon the Jews. Three of the latter were stoned
to death on the spot; two others, one of whom was a lad of thirteen,
suffered each the loss of his right hand; whilst the Rabbi Juan, being
taken as an inciter, was put to the question with a view to inducing
him to confess. But he denied so stoutly the things he was required to
admit, and the inquisitors tortured so determinedly, that he died upon
the rack--an irregularity this for which each inquisitor responsible
would have to seek absolution at the hands of the other.

All those who took part in the sacrilege suffered confiscation of
their property, whilst the pieces of the crucifix, which had become
peculiarly sanctified by the affair, were gathered up and conveyed to
the Church of Casar, where, upon being repaired, the image was given
the place of honour.[160]

It is extremely likely that the story of this outrage, exaggerated as
we have seen, would be one of the arguments employed by Torquemada
when first he began to urge upon the attention of the Sovereigns the
desirability of the expulsion of the Jews. He would cite it as a
flagrant instance of the Jewish hatred of Christianity, which gave
rise to his complaint and which he contended rendered a united Spain
impossible as long as this accursed race continued to defile the land.
Further, there can be very little doubt that it would serve to revive
and to lend colour to the old stories of ritual murder practised by the
Jews and provided for by one of the enactments in the “Partidas” code
of Alfonso XI.

The reluctance of the Sovereigns to lend an ear to any such arguments
is abundantly apparent. Not Ferdinand in all his bigotry could be blind
to the fact that the chief trades of the country were in the hands of
the Israelites, and to the inevitable loss to Spanish commerce, then
so flourishing, which must ensue on their banishment. Of their ability
in matters of finance he had practical and beneficial experience, and
the admirable equipment of his army in the present campaign against the
Moors of Granada was entirely due to the arrangements he had made with
Jewish contractors. Moreover, there was this war itself to engage the
attention of the Sovereigns, and so it was not possible to lend at the
moment more than an indifferent attention to the fierce pleadings of
the Grand Inquisitor.

Suddenly, however, in 1490 an event came to light, to throw into
extraordinary prominence the practice of ritual murder of which the
Jews were suspected, and to confirm and intensify the general belief
in the stories that were current upon that subject. This was the
crucifixion at La Guardia, in the province of La Mancha, of a boy of
four years of age, known to history as “the Holy Child of La Guardia.”

A stronger argument than this afforded him for the furtherance of
his aims Torquemada could not have desired. And it is probably this
circumstance that has led so many writers to advance the opinion that
he fabricated the whole story and engineered the substantiation of a
charge that so very opportunely placed an added weapon in his hands.

Until some thirty years ago all our knowledge of the affair was derived
from the rather vague “Testimonio” preserved in the sanctuary of the
martyred child, and a little history of the “Santo Niño,” by Martinez
Moreno, published in Madrid in 1786. This last--like Lope da Vega’s
drama upon the same subject--was based upon a “Memoria” prepared by
Damiano de Vegas of La Guardia in 1544, at a time when people were
still living who remembered the incident, including the brother of a
sacristan who was implicated in the affair.[161]

Martinez Moreno’s narrative is a queer jumble of possible fact and
obvious fiction, which in itself may be responsible for the opinion
that the whole story was an invention of Torquemada’s to forward his
own designs.

But in 1887 the distinguished and painstaking M. Fidel Fita published
in the “Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia” the full record,
which he had unearthed, of the proceedings against Yucé (or José)
Franco, one of the incriminated Jews.

A good deal still remains unexplained, and must so remain until the
records of the trials of the other accused are brought to light. It
may perhaps be well to suspend a final judgment until then. Meanwhile,
however, a survey of the discovered record should incline us to the
opinion that, if the story is an invention, it is one for which those
who were accused of the crime are responsible--an unlikely contingency,
as we shall hope to show--and in no case can the inventor have been
Frey Tomás de Torquemada.




CHAPTER XIX

THE LEGEND OF THE SANTO NIÑO


The extravagant story related by Martinez Moreno, the parish priest of
La Guardia, in his little book on the Santo Niño, is derived, as we
have said, partly from the “Testimonio” and partly from the “Memoria”
by de Vegas; further, it embodies all those legendary, supernatural
details with which the popular imagination had embellished the theme.

Either it is one of those deliberate frauds known as “pious,” or else
it is the production of an intensely foolish mind. When we consider
that the author was a doctor of divinity and an inquisitor himself, we
prefer to incline to the former alternative.

This mixture of fact and fiction sets forth how a party of Jews from
the townships of Quintana, Tenbleque, and La Guardia, having witnessed
an Auto de Fé in Toledo, were so filled with rage and fury, not only
against the Holy Tribunal, but against all Christians in general, that
they conspired together to encompass a complete annihilation of the
Faithful.

Amongst them was one Benito Garcia, a wool-comber of Las Mesuras, who
was something of a traveller, and who had learnt upon his travels of
a piece of sorcery attempted in France for the destruction of the
Christians, which had miscarried owing to a deception practised upon
the sorcerers.

The story is worth repeating for the sake of the light it throws upon
the credulity of the simple folk of Spain in such matters, a credulity
which in remote districts of the peninsula is almost as vigorous
to-day as it was in Moreno’s century.

The warlocks, in that earlier instance of which Benito had knowledge,
were alleged to be a party of Jews who had fled from Spain on the first
institution of the Inquisition in Seville in 1482. They had repaired to
France bent upon the destruction of all Christians, to the end that the
Children of Israel might become lords of the land, and that the Law of
Moses might prevail. For the sorcery to which they proposed to resort
they required a consecrated wafer and the heart of a Christian child.
These were to be reduced to ashes to the accompaniment of certain
incantations, and scattered in the rivers of the country, with the
result that all Christians who drank the waters must go mad and die.

Having obtained the wafer, they now approached an impoverished
Christian with a large family, and tempted him with money to sell them
the heart of one of his numerous children. The Christian, of course,
repudiated the monstrous proposal. But his wife, who combined cunning
with cupidity, drove with the Jews the bargain to which her husband
refused to be a party, and having killed a pig she sold them the heart
of the animal under obviously false pretences.

As a consequence, the enchantment which the deluded Jews proceeded to
carry out had no such effect as was desired and expected.

Armed with his full knowledge of what had happened, Benito now proposed
to his friends that they should have recourse to the same enchantment
in Spain, making sure, however, that the heart employed was that
of a Christian boy. He promised them that by this means, not only
the inquisitors, but all the Christians would be destroyed, and the
Israelites would remain undisputed lords of Spain.

[Illustration: + EXURGE DOMINE ET JUDICA CAUSAM TUAM. PSALM 73.

  _Photo by Donald Macbeth._

BANNER OF THE INQUISITION.

From Limborch’s “Historia Inquisitionis.”]

Amongst those who joined him in the plot was a man named Juan Franco,
of a family of carriers of La Guardia. This man went with Benito to
Toledo on the Feast of the Assumption, intent upon finding a child
for their purpose. They drove there in a cart, which they left outside
the city while they went separately about their quest.

Franco found what he sought in one of the doorways of the Cathedral,
known as the Puerta del Perdon--the door, adds Moreno, through which
the Virgin entered the church when she came from heaven to honour with
the chasuble her votary St. Ildefonso. The Jew beheld in this doorway a
very beautiful child of three or four years of age, the son of Alonso
de Pasamontes. His mother was near at hand, but she was conveniently
blind--_i.e._ conveniently for the development of Moreno’s story,
this blindness serving not only the purpose of rendering the child’s
undetected abduction easily possible, but also that of affording the
martyred infant scope for the first miraculous manifestation of his
sanctity.

Juan Franco lured the boy away with the offer of sweetmeats. He
regained his cart with his victim, concealed the latter therein,
and so returned to La Guardia. There he kept the child closely and
safely until Passion Week of the following year, or, rather, until the
season of the Passover, when the eleven Jews--six of whom had received
Christian baptism--assembled in La Guardia. They took the child by
night to a cave in the hills above the river, and there they compelled
him to play the protagonist part in a detailed parody of the Passion,
scourging him, crowning him with thorns, and finally nailing him to a
cross.

On the subject of the scourging, Moreno tells us that the Jews
carefully counted the number of lashes, aiming in this, as in all other
details, at the greatest historical fidelity. But when the child had
borne without murmuring upwards of five thousand strokes, he suddenly
began to cry. One of the Jews--finding, we are to suppose, that this
weeping required explanation--asked him: “Boy, why are you crying?”

To this the boy replied that he was crying because he had received five
lashes more than his Divine Master.

“So that,” says this doctor of divinity quite soberly, “if the lashes
received by Christ numbered 5,495, as computed by Lodulfo Cartujano in
his ‘In Vita Christi,’ those received by the Holy Child Christoval were
5,500.”[162]

He mentions here the child’s name as “Christoval,” to which he informs
us that it was changed from “Juan,” to the end that the former might
more aptly express the manner of his death. There is no doubt that some
such consideration weighed when the child was given that suggestive
name; but the real reason for it was that no name was known (for the
identity of the boy did not transpire), and it was necessary to supply
him with one by which he might be worshipped.

When he was crucified, his side was opened by one of the Jews, who
began to rummage[163] for the child’s heart. He failed to find it, and
he was suddenly checked by the child’s question--“What do you seek,
Jew? If you seek my heart, you are in error to seek it on that side;
seek on the other, and you will find it.”

In the very moment of his death, Moreno tells us, the Santo Niño
performed his first miracle. His mother, who had been blind from birth,
received the gift of sight in the instant that her child expired.[164]

This interpolation appears to be entirely Moreno’s own, and it is one
of the justifications of our assumption that the work is to be placed
in the category of pious frauds. But he is, of course, mistaken, by
his own narrative, in announcing this as the first of the child’s
miracles. He overlooks the miracle entailed in the capacity to count
displayed by a boy of four years of age, and the further miracle of the
speech addressed by the crucified infant to the Jew who had opened his
side.

Benito Garcia was given the heart, together with a consecrated wafer
which had been stolen by the sacristan of the Church of Sta. Maria de
La Guardia, and with these he departed to seek out the mage who was to
perform the enchantment. It happened, however, that in passing through
Astorga, Benito--who was himself a _converso_--pretending that he was
a faithful Catholic, repaired to church, and, kneeling there, the
more thoroughly to perform this comedy of devoutness, he pulled out a
Prayer Book, between the leaves of which the consecrated wafer had been
secreted.

A good Christian kneeling some little way behind him was startled
to see a resplendent effluence of light from the book. Naturally he
concluded that he was in the presence of a miracle, and that this
stranger was some very holy man. Filled with reverent interest,
he followed the Jew to the inn where he was lodged, and then went
straight to the father inquisitors to inform them of the portent he had
witnessed, that they might investigate it.

The inquisitors sent their familiars to find the man, and at sight of
them Benito fell into terror, “so that his very face manifested how
great was his crime.” He was at once arrested, and taken before the
inquisitors for examination. There he immediately confessed the whole
affair.

Upon being desired to surrender the heart, he produced the box in which
it had been placed, but upon opening the cloth that had been wrapped
round it, the heart was discovered to have miraculously vanished.

Yet another miracle mentioned by Moreno is that when the inquisitors
opened the grave where it was said that the infant had been buried,
they found the place empty, and the Doctor considers that since the
child had suffered all the bitterness of the Saviour’s Passion, it was
God’s will that he should also know the glories of the Resurrection,
and that his body had been assoomed into heaven.

       *       *       *       *       *

The “Testimonio” from the archives of the parochial church of La
Guardia, printed on tablets preserved in the Sanctuary of the Santo
Niño, is quoted by Moreno,[165] and runs as follows:

“We, Pedro de Tapia, Alonso Doriga and Matheo Vazquez, secretaries
of the Council of the Holy and General Inquisition, witness to all
who may see this that by certain proceedings taken by the Holy Office
in the year 1491, the Most Reverend Frey Tomás de Torquemada being
Inquisitor-General in the Kingdoms of Spain, and the inquisitors and
judges by him deputed in the City of Avila being the Very Reverend
Dr. D. Pedro de Villada, Abbot of San Marcial and San Millan in the
Churches of Leon and Burgos, the Licentiate Juan Lopez de Cigales,
Canon of the Church of Cuenca, and Frey Fernando de Santo Domingo
of the Order of Preachers, inquisitors as is said against heretical
pravity, and with power and special commission from the Very Reverend
D. Pedro Gonzalez de Mendoza, Cardinal of Santa Cruz, Archbishop of
Toledo, Primate of Spain, Grand Chancellor of Castile, and Bishop of
Siguenza.

“It transpires that the said inquisitors proceeding against certain
Jews and some New-Christians converted from Jews, of the neighbourhood
of La Guardia, Quintanar, and Tenbleque, ascertained that amongst
other crimes by these committed was that: one of the said Jews and
one of the newly-converted being in Toledo and witnessing a burning
that was being done by the Holy Office in that city, they were cast
down by this execution of justice. The Jew said to the convert that
he feared the great harm that might come and did come to them from the
Holy Inquisition, and having treated of various matters germane to
this subject, the Jew said that if they could obtain the heart of a
Christian boy all could be remedied. And so, after his wide practice in
this matter, the Jew from the neighbourhood of Quintanar undertook to
procure a Christian boy for the said purpose.

“And it was agreed that the said New-Christian should go to Quintanar
as soon as bidden by the Jew; and upon this understanding each of the
aforesaid left the City of Toledo and returned to his own district.

“A few days later the said Jew summoned the New-Christian to come to
him in the village of Tenbleque, where he awaited him in his father’s
house. There they foregathered, and agreed upon a day when they
should meet at Quintanar, whither the New-Christian now returned, and
informed, as he had agreed, a brother of his own, who like himself was
also a New-Christian, and he related fully all that had been arranged,
his brother being of the same mind.

“The better to execute their accursed project, they arranged a place
to which the child should be brought, and what was to be done--that
this should be in a cave near La Guardia, on the road to Ocaña, on the
right-hand side. And thus to execute the matter, the said New-Christian
went to Quintanar on the day arranged together with the said Jew.

“The better to dissemble, he went to a tavern, where presently he
was able to communicate with the Jew, and as a result of what passed
between them, the New-Christian went out to await him on the road to
Villa Palomas in a ravine, where presently he was joined by the said
Jew on an ass with the child before him--of the age of three or four
years.

“They went on together, and arrived after nightfall at the said cave,
whither came, as was arranged, the brother of the New-Christian, and
with him other newly-converted Jews, with whom it appears that the
aforesaid matter had been treated.

“Being all assembled in the cave, they lighted a candle of yellow wax,
and so that the light should not be seen they hung a cloak over the
mouth of the cave. They seized the boy, whom the said Jew had taken
from the Puerta del Perdon in Toledo--which boy was named Juan, son of
Alonso Pasamontes and of Juana La Guindera. The said New-Christians
now made a cross out of the timbers of a ladder which had been brought
from a mill. They threw a rope round the boy’s neck and they set him on
the cross, and with another rope they tied his legs and arms, and they
nailed his feet and hands to the cross with nails.

“Being thus placed (_puesto_), one of the New-Christians from the
neighbourhood of La Guardia bled the child, opening the veins of his
arms with a knife, and he caught the blood that flowed in a cauldron;
and with a rope in which they had tied knots some whipped him, whilst
others set a crown of thorns upon his head. They struck him, spat upon
him, and used opprobrious words to him, pretending that what they were
saying to the said child was addressed to the Person of Christ. And
whilst they whipped him, they said: ‘_Betrayer, trickster, who, when
you preached, preached falsehood against the Law of God and Moses;
now you shall pay here for what you said then. You thought to destroy
us and to exalt yourself. But we shall destroy you._’ And further:
‘_Crucify this betrayer who once announced himself King, who was to
destroy our temple_....’ etc. etc.[166]

“After the ill-treatment and vituperation, one of the New-Christians
from La Guardia opened the left side of the child with a knife and drew
out his heart, upon which he threw some salt; and so the child expired
upon the cross. All of which was done in mockery of the Passion of
Christ; and some of the New-Christians took the body of the child and
buried it in a vineyard near Sta. Maria de Pera.

“A few days later the said Jew and New-Christians met again in the cave
and attempted certain enchantments and conjurations with the heart of
the child and a consecrated Host obtained through a sacristan who was
a New-Christian. This conjuration and experiment they performed with
the intention that the inquisitors of heretical pravity and all other
Christians should enrage and die raging (_rabiendo_), and the Law of
Jesus Christ our Redeemer should be entirely destroyed and superseded
by the Law of Moses.

“When they saw that the said experiment did not operate nor had the
result they hoped, they assembled again elsewhere, and having treated
of all that they desired to effect, by common consent one of them was
sent with the heart of the said child and the consecrated Host to the
Aljama of Zamora, which they accounted the principal Aljama in Castile,
to the end that certain Jews there, known to be wise men, should with
the said heart and Host perform the said experiment and sorcery that
the Christians might enrage and die, and thus accomplish what they so
ardently desired.

“And for the greater ascertaining of the crime and demonstration of the
truth, the said inquisitors having arrested some of the said offenders,
New-Christians and Jews, they set the accused face to face, so that
in the confession of their crimes there was conformity, and these
confessions consisted of what has been here set down. In addition other
further steps were taken to verify the places where the crimes were
committed and the place where the child was buried; and they took one
of the principal accused to the place where the child was buried, and
there they found signs and demonstration of the truth of all.[167] Some
of the said accused, and some already deceased, being prosecuted, they
were sentenced and abandoned to the secular arm, all that we have set
down being in accordance with the records of the proceedings to which
we refer.

“The said ‘Testimonio’ written upon three sheets bearing our rubrics,
we the said secretaries deliver by request of the Procurator-General of
the village of La Guardia, by order of the Very Illustrious Señores of
His Majesty’s Council of the Holy Inquisition in the City of Madrid in
the Diocese of Toledo, on the 19th day of September of the year of the
birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1569.

    “ALONSO DE DORIGA = Nec auro frangenda fides.
     MATHEO VAZQUEZ = In cujus fide fœdera consistunt.
     PEDRO DE TAPIA.”

       *       *       *       *       *

This “Testimonio” does not afford us the name of any one of the
offenders--presumably that the holy place in which the tablets were
exposed should not be desecrated. When it is compared with the account
left by Moreno and the discrepancies between the two become apparent,
when, further, the extravagances of Moreno’s story are considered, it
is not surprising that the conclusion should have been reached that the
whole affair was trumped up to forward that campaign against the Jews
to which Torquemada was employing his enormous energies.

But the records of the trial of Yucé Franco discovered by Fidel Fita
throw a very different light upon the matter. And whilst we know that
Torquemada did avail himself to the utmost of this affair of the Santo
Niño to encompass the banishment of the Jews from Spain, we must
consider all notion that he himself simply invented the story to that
end as completely dispelled by the evidence that is now to be examined.

From the records of the trial of Yucé Franco we are to-day not only
able very largely to reconstruct the event, but also to present a
complete instance of the application of the jurisprudence of the
Inquisition. Indeed, had the archives of the Holy Office been ransacked
for an entirely typical prosecution, embodying all the features
peculiar to that terrible court, no better instance than this could
have been forthcoming.




CHAPTER XX

THE ARREST OF YUCÉ FRANCO


In May or June of 1490--the time of year being approximately determined
by the events that follow--a baptized Jew of Las Mesuras named Benito
Garcia put up at an inn in the northern village of Astorga. He was an
elderly man of some sixty years of age, a wool-comber by trade and a
considerable traveller in the course of his trading.

In the common-room of the tavern where he sat at table were several
men of Astorga, who, either in a drunken frolic or because they were
thieves, went through the contents of his knapsack, and discovered in
it some herbs and a communion wafer, which they at once assumed to be
consecrated (and which it was grossest sacrilege for a layman so much
as to touch).

Uproar followed the announcement of the discovery. With cries of
“Sacrilege!” these thieving drunkards fell upon the Jew. They beat him.
They flung a rope about his neck, dragged him from the inn and haled
him into the presence of the Provisor of Astorga, Dr. Pedro de Villada.
The reverend doctor discharged there the functions of an agent of the
Holy Office. He was fully experienced in inquisitorial affairs, and he
was upon the eve of being promoted to the dignity of inquisitor in the
court of Avila.

Villada received the wafer, heard the accusation, and took a short way
with Benito when the latter refused to explain himself. He ordered him
two hundred lashes, and finding the man still obdurate after this
punishment, he submitted him to the water-torture. Under this the
wretched fellow at last betrayed himself. Of precisely what he said we
have no record taken at the time; but we have his own word for it--as
reported afterwards by Yucé Franco to whom he uttered it--that “he had
said more than he knew, and enough to burn him.”[168]

Having, as is clear, obtained from him an admission of his own guilt,
Villada now proceeded, as prescribed by the “Directorium,” to induce
him to incriminate others. We know the methods usually employed; from
these and from what follows it is quite reasonable to assume that
recourse was had to them now.

Following Eymeric’s instructions, Villada would, no doubt, admonish
him with extreme kindness, professing to cast no blame upon Benito
himself but rather upon those evil ones who had seduced him into error,
and he would exhort the prisoner to save himself by showing a true
penitence, pointing out that the only proof of his penitence he could
advance would be a frank and free delation of those who had led him so
grievously astray.

From the occasional glimpses of this Benito Garcia vouchsafed us in
the records of the trial of Yucé Franco, we perceive a rather reckless
personality, of a certain grim, sardonic humour, gleams of which
actually pierce through the dehumanization of the legal documents to
ensnare our sympathy.

He is imbued with contempt for these Christians whose religion he
embraced forty years ago, in what he accounts a weak moment of his
youth, and from which he secretly seceded again some five years before
his arrest. He is weighed down by remorse for having been false to the
Jewish faith in which he was born; he believes himself overtaken by the
curse which his father launched upon him when he took that apostatizing
step; he is out of all conceit with Christianity; since seeing the
bonfires of the Faith he has come to the conclusion that as a religion
it is an utter failure; it has been his habit to sneer at Jews who were
inclining to Christianity.

“Get yourselves baptized,” was the gibe he flung at them, “and go and
see how they burn the New-Christians.”[169]

In the prison of Avila--when he gets there--his one professed aim is to
die in the faith of his fathers.

But it would seem that when first taken in the toils of the
Inquisition, and having experienced in his own person the horrors of
its methods, he realizes the sweetness of life, and eagerly avails
himself of the false loophole so alluringly exposed by the reverend
doctor.

In his examination of June 6 he betrays to Villada the course of his
re-Judaizing. He relates that five years ago, whilst in talk with one
Juan de Ocaña, a converso whom he believes to be a Jew at heart under
an exterior of Christianity, the latter had urged him to return to
the Jewish faith, saying that Christ and the Virgin were myths, and
that there is no true law but that of Moses. Lending an ear to these
persuasions, Benito had done many Jewish things, such as not going to
church (although he whipped his children when they stayed away, lest
their absence should betray his own apostasy) nor observing holy-days,
eating meat on Fridays and fast-days at the house of Mosé Franco and
Yucé Franco--Jews of the neighbourhood of Tenbleque--and wherever else
he could eat it without being detected. Indeed, for the past five
years, he admits, he has been a Jew at heart, and if during that
time he did not more completely observe Jewish rites and practices,
it was because he dared not for fear of being discovered; whilst all
the Christian acts he had performed had been merely a simulation, that
he might appear to be a Christian still. The confessions he had made
to the priest of La Guardia had been false ones, and he had never
gone to Communion--“believing that the Corpus Christi was all a farce
(_creyendo que todo era burla el Corpus Christi_).” He even added that
whenever he saw the Viaticum carried through the streets, it was his
habit to spit and to make _higas_ (a gesture of contempt).[170]

In these last particulars his confession is of an extreme frankness,
and we can only suppose that he is merely repeating what the torture
had already extracted from him. Completely to elucidate the matter as
it concerns Benito Garcia, we should require to be in possession of the
full records of his own trial (which have not yet been discovered),
whereas at present we have to depend upon odd documents from that
_dossier_ which are introduced in Yucé Franco’s as relating to the
latter.

Questioned more closely concerning these Jews he has mentioned--Mosé
and Yucé Franco--Benito states that they lived with their father, Ça
Franco, at Tenbleque, that he was in the habit of visiting them upon
matters of business, and that he had frequently eaten meat at their
house on Fridays and Saturdays and other forbidden days, and had often
given them money to purchase oil for the synagogue lamps.

We know that, as a consequence of these confessions, Ça Franco, an old
man of eighty years of age, and his son Yucé, a lad of twenty who was
a cobbler by trade, were arrested on July 1, 1489, for proselytizing
practices--_i.e._ for having induced Benito Garcia to abandon the
Christian faith to which he had been converted.

Ça’s other son, Mosé, was either dead at the time or else he died very
shortly after arrest and before being brought to trial.

Juan de Ocaña, too, was arrested upon the same grounds.

They were taken to Segovia, and thrown into the prison of the Holy
Office in that city. In this prison Yucé Franco fell so seriously ill
that he believed himself at the point of death.

A physician named Antonio de Avila, who spoke either Hebrew or the
jargon of Hebrew and Romance that was current among the Jews of the
Peninsula, went to attend to the sick youth. Yucé implored this doctor
to beseech the inquisitors to send a Jew to pray with him and to
prepare him for death--“_que le dixiese las cosas que disen los Judios
quando se quieren morir_.”

The physician, who, like all the family of the Inquisition, was himself
a spy, duly conveyed the request to the inquisitors. They seized
the chance to put into practice one of the instructions advanced by
Eymeric. They sent a Dominican, one Frey Alonso Enriquez, disguised as
a Jew, to minister to the supposed moribund. The friar had a fluent
command of the language spoken by the Jews of Spain. He introduced
himself to the lad as a Rabbi named Abraham, and completely imposed
upon him and won his confidence.

He pressed Yucé to confide in him, and in his manner of doing so he
proceeded along the crafty lines advocated by the “Directorium.”

Eymeric, as will be remembered, enjoins that when a prisoner is
examined, the precise accusation against him should not be disclosed;
rather he should be questioned as to why he conceives that he has been
arrested and by whom he supposes himself to have been accused, with the
object of perhaps discovering further and hitherto unsuspected matters
against him.

Against Yucé Franco and the other prisoners there was at this stage no
charge beyond that--serious enough in itself--of having induced Benito
Garcia to re-Judaize. But the disguised friar now pressed him with
probing questions, asking him what he had done to get himself arrested.

Yucé--who did not yet know what was the charge--entirely duped, and
believing that his visitor was a Rabbi of his own faith, replied that
“_he had been arrested on account of the_ mita _of a_ nahar, _which had
been after the manner of_ Otohays.”[171]

We have left the Hebrew words untranslated to illustrate the
unintelligibility of the phrase to the general.

_Mita_ means “killing,” _nahar_ means “a boy,” whilst
_Otohays_--literally “that man”--is startling because it is identical
with the term used in St. Luke (xxiii. 4) and in the Acts of the
Apostles (v. 28) to designate Christ.

Yucé begged the false Rabbi Abraham to go to the Chief Rabbi of the
Synagogue of Segovia,[172] a man of very considerable importance and
influence, and to inform him of this fact, but otherwise to keep the
matter very secret.

The Dominican repaired to the inquisitors who had sent him with this
very startling piece of information, which was corroborated by the
physician, who had remained well within earshot during the entire
interview.

By order of the inquisitors Frey Alfonso Enriquez returned to Yucé’s
prison a few days later to attempt to elicit from the young Jew
further particulars of the matter to which he had alluded. But the
lad--probably considerably recovered by now, and therefore more
alert--evinced the greatest mistrust of the physician Avila, who
was hovering near them, and would not utter another word on the
subject.[173]

The matter was of such gravity that we are quite safe in assuming--and
we have evidence to warrant the assumption--that it was instantly
communicated to Torquemada, who at the time was at his convent of
Segovia, practically upon the spot.

We know--as will presently transpire--that it was by order of
Torquemada that Yucé Franco and the others came to be in the prison of
the Holy Office at Segovia, instead of in that of the extremely active
Inquisition of Toledo, within whose jurisdiction the accused dwelt
and the crime had been committed. We are unable to give an absolutely
authentic reason for this. But we gather that the examination of Ça
Franco, or of Ocaña, or perhaps of Benito himself--who had said “more
than he knew”--must have yielded disclosures of such a nature that upon
learning them the Grand Inquisitor had desired that the trial should be
conducted immediately under his own direction.

The Sovereigns, who had been in Andalusia since May of the previous
year, about the war upon Granada, now wrote to Torquemada--in July
1490--bidding him join them there.

From Segovia the Grand Inquisitor replied, urging very pressing
business to which he proposed to give his personal attention, wherefore
he begged them to permit him to postpone his response to their
summons.[174]

       *       *       *       *       *

He quitted Segovia at about this time to repair to Avila, where the
work upon the church and monastery of St. Thomas was well advanced;
so well advanced, indeed, that already he was able to take up his
residence in the monastery.

We may assume that the pressing business he had urged to the Sovereigns
as an excuse for postponing his journey into Andalusia was the business
of inquiring into the alleged crimes of these Hebrew prisoners. For we
know that he had intended having them brought before himself at Avila,
but that being unable to dispose of the matter before the end of August
or to postpone beyond that time his departure to rejoin the Court, he
was compelled to entrust the matter to his delegates--the Dominican
Frey Fernando de Santo Domingo, and the sometime Provisor of Astorga,
Dr. Pedro de Villada, with whom, no doubt, he would leave--as he says
himself--the fullest instructions.

So much we are justified in assuming from the tenor of the following
letter, which he delivered to them under date of August 27, to serve
them as their warrant to remove the prisoners from Segovia and bring
them to Avila for trial.

He wrote as follows:

“We, Frey Tomás de Torquemada, Prior of the Monastery of Holy Cross of
Segovia, of the Order of Preachers, Confessor and Councillor to the
King and Queen, our Sovereign lords, Inquisitor-General of heretical
pravity and apostasy in the Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon and all
other Dominions of their Highnesses, so deputed by the Holy Apostolic
See,

  Make known to you,

Reverend and Devout Fathers, D. Pedro de Villada, Doctor of Canon Law
... Juan Lopes de Cigales, Licentiate of Holy Theology ... and to you,
Frey Fernando de Santo Domingo ... Inquisitors of heretical pravity in
the said City and Bishopric of Avila,

That we, by certain and legitimate information received, ordered the
arrest of the persons and bodies of Alonso Franco, Lope Franco, Garcia
Franco, and Juan Franco of the neighbourhood of La Guardia in the
Archbishopric of Toledo, and of Yucé Franco, a Jew of the neighbourhood
of Tenbleque, and of Mosé Abenamias, a Jew of the City of Zamora, and
of Juan de Ocaña and Benito Garcia, of the neighbourhood of the said
place of La Guardia, and the sequestration of all their property
for having practised heresy and apostasy and for having perpetrated
certain deeds, crimes, and offences against our Holy Catholic Faith,
and we ordered them to be taken to and held in the prison of the Holy
Inquisition of the City of Segovia until their cases should be fully
known to and decided by us or by such person or persons to whom we
consign them upon being so acquainted.

“But inasmuch as we are now occupied with other and arduous matters,
and therefore may not personally acquaint ourselves with the said
cases or with any one of them, trusting in the legality, learning,
experience, and sound conscience of you, the said Reverend Father
Inquisitors and of each of you, and that you are such persons as
will well and faithfully discharge what we entrust to you by these
presents we commit to you, the said Reverend Father Inquisitors,
and to each of you, _in solidum_, the said proceedings against and
trials of the aforementioned and of any of them, whether they may
have been participators or accessories before or after the fact of
the said crimes and offences in any way committed against our Holy
Catholic Faith, and likewise of the abettors, counsellors, defenders,
concealers, those who had knowledge of the facts and offenders of
whatsoever degree, to the end that concerning them you may receive
and obtain any information from any part of the said Kingdoms, and
seize and examine any witness, and inquire, learn, proceed, imprison,
sentence, and abandon to the secular arm such as you may find guilty,
absolve and liberate those without guilt, and do concerning them all
things and any thing that we ourselves should do being present....

“And by these presents we order the Father Inquisitors of the City of
Segovia and each and any of them in whose power are the said prisoners
to deliver them immediately in safe custody to you.

“Given in the Monastery of St. Thomas of the said Order of Preachers,
which is beyond and near the walls of the said City of Avila.”[175]

       *       *       *       *       *

At what stage of the affair the four brothers Franco of La
Guardia--Alonso, Lope, Garcia, and Juan--had been arrested, and upon
whose information, we do not know. But we do know--for the _dossier_ of
Yucé’s trial is complete--that they were not betrayed by Yucé.

That their names had been divulged is a confirmation of the surmise
that the examinations of Ocaña, or Ça Franco, or even Benito Garcia,
had already yielded further information on the subject of the affair of
La Guardia.

It must be understood that the record of any examination of these
prisoners in which the name of Yucé Franco was not mentioned would find
no place in the _dossier_ of the latter’s trial.

The four Francos of La Guardia were brothers, as we have said; but they
were nowise related to the Francos of Tenbleque--Ça and Yucé. They
were dealers in cereals--possibly millers--as we shall see, and they
owned a number of carts which they appear to have further employed in a
carrier’s business. They were baptized Jews, as is already made clear
in Torquemada’s letter by the fact that he does not describe them--as
he does the others--as Jews.

All concerned in the affair, with the exception of one Ribera, who
does not at present enter into consideration, were men drawn from a
humble class of life--a class which through ignorance has always been
credulous and prone to belief in sorcery and enchantments.

A curious circumstance is the omission in Torquemada’s letter of all
mention of the octogenarian Ça Franco, whom we know to have been
already under arrest.

Having thus entrusted the conduct of the affair to his subordinates,
the Grand Inquisitor set out to join the Sovereigns in Andalusia.

The prisoners were soon afterwards brought to Avila, secrecy being so
well observed that each remained in ignorance of the arrest of the
others. But before being transferred from Segovia Yucé was taken before
the Holy Office there for examination on October 27 and 28. And from
the nature of the questions--as revealed by the depositions made--we
are left to assume that the inquisitors aimed at further incriminating
the Francos of La Guardia, proceeding upon information extracted from
them, or else obtained from one of the other prisoners.

In answer to the questions set him, Yucé Franco deponed that some three
years earlier he had gone to La Guardia to buy wheat for the unleavened
bread of the Passover from Alonso Franco, having been told that the
latter had wheat of good quality for sale. He sought Alonso in the
market, and thence accompanied him to his house. Talking as they went,
Alonso asked him why they made this unleavened bread, to which Yucé
replied that it was to commemorate God’s deliverance of the Children of
Israel out of Egypt.

The question may certainly seem an odd one from a man who had been born
a Jew. But it should be remembered that ignorance and lack of education
might easily account for it.

Yucé further deponed that in the pursuit of this conversation Alonso
not only betrayed nostalgic leanings towards his original faith,
but actually admitted that together with some of his brothers he
had crucified a boy one Good Friday in the manner that the Jews had
crucified Christ.

Continuing, he said that Alonso had asked him whether the Paschal
lamb eaten by the Jews at the time of leaving Egypt had been _terefa_
(slaughtered and bled in the Jewish manner), to which Yucé had replied
that it had not, as at that time the Law had not yet been made.

These replies were construed by the inquisitors into admissions of
proselytizing on the part of Yucé, and when subsequently at Avila
(January 10, 1491) he was reminded of what he had said at Segovia
concerning what had passed between Alonso Franco and himself, and asked
whether he could remember anything further, he confirmed all that he
had already deponed, but could only add a question on the subject of
circumcision which had been addressed to him by Alonso.[176]

       *       *       *       *       *

The fiscal advocate, or prosecutor of the tribunal, prepared his case
against Yucé Franco, and on December 17, 1490, he came before the court
at the audience of vespers to open the prosecution.




CHAPTER XXI

THE TRIAL OF YUCÉ FRANCO


The Fiscal, D. Alonso de Guevára, announces to their Reverend
Paternities that his denunciation of Yucé Franco is prepared, and
he solicits them to order the prisoner to be brought into the
audience-chamber that he may hear it read.

The apparitor of the court introduces the accused into the presence of
the inquisitors and their notary, to whom Guevára now hands his formal
accusation. This the notary proceeds to read. Thus:

“Most Reverend and Virtuous Sirs,--I, Alonso de Guevára, Bachelor of
Law, Fiscal Prosecutor of the Holy Inquisition in this City and Diocese
of Avila, appear before your Reverend Paternities in the manner by
law prescribed, to denounce Yucé Franco, Jew, of the neighbourhood of
Tenbleque, who is present.

“Not content that, in common with all other Jews, he is humanely
permitted to abide and converse with the faithful and Catholic
Christians, he did induce and attract some Christians to his accursed
Law with false and deceptive doctrines and suggestions, telling them
that the Law of Moses is the true one, in which there is salvation,
and that the Law of Jesus Christ is a false and fictitious Law never
imposed or decreed by God.

“And with infidel and depraved soul he went with some others to crucify
a Christian boy, one Good Friday, almost in the manner and with that
hatred and cruelty with which the Jews, his ancestors, crucified
our Redeemer Jesus Christ, mocking and spitting upon him, striking
and wounding him with the aim of vituperating and deriding our Holy
Catholic Faith and the Passion of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

“Item, he contrived, as principal, together with others, to obtain
a consecrated Host to be outraged and mocked in vituperation and
contempt of our Holy Catholic Faith, and because amongst the other
Jews--accomplices in the said crime--there were certain sorcerers
who on the day of their Passover of unleavened bread were to commit
enchantments with the said Host and the heart of a Christian boy. And
if this were done, as said, all Christians were to enrage and die. The
intention moving them was that the Law of Moses should be more widely
kept and honoured, its rites and precepts and ceremonies more freely
solemnized, that the Christian Religion should perish and be subverted,
and that they, themselves, should become possessed of all the property
of the Catholic and Faithful Christians, and there should be none to
interfere with their perverse errors, and their generation should grow
and multiply upon the earth, that of the Faithful Christians being
entirely extirpated.

“Item, he committed other crimes concerning the Holy Office of the
Holy Inquisition, as I shall state and allege in the course of these
proceedings as far as I may consider necessary.

“Wherefore I beg you, Reverend Sirs, that you pronounce the said Yucé
Franco, for the said crimes, to be a malefactor, abettor of heretics,
and a subverter and destroyer of the Catholic and Christian Law; and
that he shall be deemed to have fallen into and incurred all the
penalties and censures prescribed by canon and civil law for those
who commit these crimes, and the confiscation and loss of all his
property, which shall be applied to the royal treasury, and that he may
be abandoned to the secular arm and justice that it may do with him
as by law befits with a malefactor, an abettor of heretics, and an
extirpator of the Catholic Faith....

“Wherefore I petition your Reverences to proceed against the said Yucé
Franco _simpliciter et de plano et sine estrepitu judicii_, as runs the
formula prescribed by law in such cases,[177] to the end that justice
may be fulfilled.

“And I swear to God on this Cross on which I set my hand, that this
petition and denunciation which I bring against Yucé Franco I do not
bring maliciously, but because I believe him to have committed all that
I have stated, and to the end that justice may be done and the wicked
and the abettors of heretics be punished, that the good men may be
known and that our Holy Catholic Faith may be exalted.”[178]

       *       *       *       *       *

It will be seen presently that at this stage of the proceedings Yucé
had not the slightest suspicion that the pretended Rabbi Abraham who
had visited him in his prison of Segovia when he lay sick was other
than he had announced himself. Nor did the accusation afford him the
least hint that any of his associates had been taken, or that Benito
Garcia had been examined under torture. So carefully had they managed
things that he was not even aware of the arrest of his old father.

Therefore it must have come as something of a shock to him to hear this
matter of the crucifixion of the child at La Guardia included in the
indictment. Nevertheless he unhesitatingly pronounced the denunciation
to be the “greatest falsehood in the world.”

Guevára answered this denial by petitioning the court to receive the
proofs which he was prepared to present.

Being asked whether in the preparation of his defence he would require
the services of counsel, Yucé replied in the affirmative, and the
tribunal appointed as his attorney the Bachelor Sanç,[179] and as
his advocate Juan de Pantigoso. The usual form of oath was imposed
upon these lawyers, and Yucé empowered them to act for him within the
narrow limitations imposed by the Holy Office, which afforded them no
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution or even
to be present at their examination.

The notary of the court was ordered to supply the defendant with a copy
of the indictment, and Yucé was allowed a term of nine days within
which to prepare his answer.

Five days later the accused successfully petitions the court that to
the advocate appointed him be added one Martin Vazquez, to whom he
gives the necessary powers. And it is this same Martin Vazquez who on
that very day--December 22, 1490--presents to the court the written
repudiation of the indictment, prepared by the Bachelor Sanç, in his
client’s name.

       *       *       *       *       *

The advocate begins by respectfully submitting that this court has no
jurisdiction over his client on the score of the crimes alleged against
him, since their Paternities are inquisitors appointed--_Auctoritate
Apostolica_--for the Diocese of Avila only, and only over persons
of that diocese. Yucé is of the Diocese of Toledo, where there are
inquisitors of heretical pravity, before whom he is ready to appear to
answer any charges. Therefore his case should have been referred to
that court of Toledo, and their Paternities should never have received
Guevára’s denunciation.

He proceeds to reprove their Paternities for having done so upon
sounder grounds, when he protests that the accusation is too vague and
general and obscure. It does not state place or year or month or day
or hour in which, or persons with whom, it is alleged that his client
committed the crimes set forth.

Further, he objects that since his client is a Jew, he cannot with
justice be accused of having fallen into the crime of heresy or
apostasy; and therefore it is not right that--as may be done in the
case of a heretic--the full expression and elucidation of what is
charged against him should be withheld, since thus it is impossible
for his client to defend himself, not knowing what precisely are the
charges made.

The advocate very rightly denounces it as against all equity that
the Fiscal should thus prejudice Yucé without particularizing his
accusation, and he warns their Paternities that it may prove hurtful to
their consciences if, as a result of Guevára’s generalizations, Yucé
should come to suffer and die undefended.

       *       *       *       *       *

It is very unsatisfactory equity which says to a man, “You are accused
of such-and-such crimes. Prove your innocence of them, or we punish
you.” But it is not equity at all that can say, “You are accused of
something; no matter what. Prove to us that you are innocent of all the
offences for which this tribunal may proceed against you, or we find
you guilty and send you to death.”

This, however, was precisely the method of the Holy Office, and being
aware of it, the advocate is forced to confess that in a case of heresy
secretly committed the Inquisition may admit an accusation that does
not specify time or place of the alleged offence.

But this, he insists, does not apply to his client, who, being a
Jew and not having a baptized soul, may not truly be denounced as a
heretic. He appeals to the consciences of the inquisitors not to admit
the accusation, and finally he threatens that if they do so, he will
lodge a complaint where by right he may.

From all this it appears that so completely--as completely as his
client--is the advocate in ignorance of the mainsprings of the
prosecution that he does not even know that the trial has been ordered
by Torquemada, himself, to take place in Avila. That warrant-letter of
the Grand Inquisitor’s has not been divulged to the defendant, lest in
learning the names of his fellow-accused he should learn too much, be
put upon his guard, and equipped to set up a tenable defence.

But in any case, and to be on the safe side, the advocate offers
a categorical and eloquent denial of every count in the Fiscal’s
indictment.

He scoffs at the absurdity of accusing Yucé Franco of seeking to seduce
Christians into embracing the Law of Moses. He urges the lad’s youth,
his station in life, his general ignorance (even of that same Law of
Moses by which he lives), and the fact that he has to work hard to
make a living by his cobbler’s trade; and he adduces that his client
has neither the time nor the knowledge necessary to attempt any such
proselytizing as that with which he is charged.

He declares that if at any time Yucé did expound any part of the Mosaic
Law in answer to questions addressed to him (this being obviously
inspired by Yucé’s recollection of the statements he has made under
examination concerning Alonso Franco) he did so simply and frankly,
with no thought of proselytizing, nor could it so be construed. In
fact, save for the answers returned by him to questions asked by Alonso
Franco, the lad does not remember ever to have done even so much, which
would have been no real offence in any case.

Full and formal, too, is the denial of Yucé’s participation in the
crucifixion of any boy, and of having procured or attempted to procure
a Host. The advocate ridicules the notion of this cobbler-lad being a
sorcerer, or having knowledge of, or interest in, sorcery.

Finally--burrowing ever in the dark, and seeking to undermine
possibilities, since he is given no facts that he may demolish--he
suggests that the depositions received against Yucé are perhaps
susceptible of being interpreted in different ways, and may refer
equally to good or evil, and that since he is accused and arrested the
things he has, himself, deponed (_i.e._ concerning Alonso Franco’s
Judaizing tendencies) should be interpreted in his favour, and not
against him.

Therefore he petitions their Reverend Paternities to order the
witnesses to declare with whom, where, when, and how Yucé committed
these things which are deponed against him. Failing that, he begs them
to declare his client acquitted, to release him, restoring him his good
fame and all property that may have been confiscated by order of their
Paternities or any other judges of the Inquisition.[180]

       *       *       *       *       *

The court commanded the notary to prepare a copy of this plea, and to
deliver it to the Fiscal, who was instructed to reply to it within
three days. And they further commanded that at the time of the delivery
of the said reply, Yucé Franco should again be brought before them that
he might learn what was determined concerning him.

       *       *       *       *       *

The only matter of interest in the next sitting[181]--and this from the
point of view of the illustration which these proceedings afford us of
inquisitorial methods--is the Fiscal’s repudiation of any obligation
on his part to precise the time or place of the crimes with which Yucé
Franco is accused, and his insistence that, in spite of all that has
been advanced by the defendant, the case must be considered one of
heresy.

The court evidently takes the same view, for it commands both parties
to the action to proceed to advance proof of their respective
contentions within thirty days. Meanwhile, to clear up the matter of
the venue, the court communicates with the Cardinal of Spain. The
Primate very promptly grants the requisite permission to transfer
the action to Avila from his own Archbishopric of Toledo within
whose jurisdiction it had lain. This was the merest formality; for
considering the explicit commands in the matter left by the supreme
arbiter, Torquemada, the Cardinal could hardly have proceeded otherwise.

       *       *       *       *       *

The methods now adopted by the Fiscal to obtain the proofs which
he requires, or at least to build a more complete and overwhelming
case--for we cannot but suppose that already he had sufficient material
upon which to have obtained a conviction--are eminently typical.

We know that Ça Franco, Benito Garcia, Juan de Ocaña, and the
four Francos of La Guardia were all at this time in the hands of
the inquisitors; and it is not to be doubted that these men would
be undergoing constant examination. But it is obvious, from the
absence in the _dossier_ with which we are concerned of any document
relating to this particular period, that no avowals were made by his
fellow-prisoners to increase the incrimination of Yucé.

Without wishing to set up too many hypotheses to bridge the _lacunæ_
that result from the absence of the records of the proceedings against
the other accused, we would tentatively suggest that in preparing
that portion of his denunciation relating to the crucifixion of the
child, Guevára had simply adapted details extracted from Benito to
Yucé’s vague admission in the prison of Segovia. This conclusion
is eminently justifiable. It is based upon the fact that Guevára
altogether overstepped the limits of any evidence brought to light in
the whole course of the proceedings when he said that Yucé “contrived
_as principal_ ... to obtain a consecrated Host.” Further it is based
upon the circumstance already mentioned that if in any deposition of
Benito or of any other of the accused, Yucé’s slightest participation
in the affair of La Guardia had been mentioned, such a deposition--or
at least the respective extract from it--must have found a place in the
_dossier_ of his trial. And we know that no such document is present.

Still further, we have the fact that the month prescribed by the
court for the submission of proof was allowed to expire and another
month after that, and still Guevára had no proofs to lay before their
Reverend Paternities, beyond the depositions we have already seen.
Meanwhile, Yucé continued to languish in prison.

And here the following question suggests itself: In view of the
admission made by Yucé to the false Rabbi in Segovia, why was he not
closely and directly questioned upon that matter? and in the event
of his withholding details, why was he not put to torture as by law
prescribed?

Instead of that direct method of procedure, he was left in complete
ignorance of his self-betrayal and of the source whence the inquisitors
had derived their knowledge of his association with the affair of La
Guardia.

The only answer that suggests itself is that Torquemada desired the
matter to be very fully elucidated, that the net should be very fully
and carefully spread--as we shall see--so that nothing and no one
should escape. And yet this answer is hardly entirely satisfactory.

       *       *       *       *       *

If Guevára allowed months to pass without being able to lay the
required proofs of Yucé’s guilt before the court, on the other hand
Yucé himself had been similarly unable to supply his counsel with any
proof of his innocence--as indeed was impossible in the absence of all
particulars of the charges against him.

Thus for a season the case remains in suspense.

Attempts to extract incriminating evidence from the other prisoners
having meanwhile failed by ordinary judicial methods, the tribunal now
has recourse to other means. Having failed to compel or induce the
prisoners into betraying one another, the inquisitors now seek to lure
them into self-betrayal.

A well-known scheme is employed.

Benito is moved into a chamber immediately under Yucé’s. To while away
the tedium of his imprisonment, and with a light-heartedness that is
a little startling in a man in his desperate position, Yucé sits by
his window thrumming a viol or guitar one day towards the end of March
or in early April. The instrument may have been left with him by the
gaoler who was in the plot.

What was no doubt expected comes to pass. Yucé’s music is abruptly
interrupted by a voice from below, which asks:

“Can you give me a needle, Jew?”

Yucé replies that he has no needle other than a cobbler’s.[182]

The speaker is Benito Garcia, and it is certain that spies have been
set to overhear what passes. We know that their conversation took place
through a hole in the floor contrived by the gaoler, who was acting
upon the instructions of the inquisitors.[183]

Yucé is very circumspect in all that he says; but Benito is entirely
reckless during those first days of their intercourse. And yet, whilst
he admits that he considers himself lost already through what “that dog
of a doctor” (by which he means the Reverend Inquisitor, Dr. Villada)
extracted from him under torture in Astorga, he shows himself at other
times not without hope of regaining his freedom.

He mentions a man named Peña, who is the Alcalde of La Guardia.
This man, he says, is interested in him, and has--or so Benito
fancies--influence at Court which he would exert on Benito’s behalf did
he but know of the latter’s position.

At another time he vows that, if ever he gets out of prison, he will
quit Spain and take himself off to Judea. He is convinced that all this
trouble has come upon him as a punishment for having abandoned the
Law of Moses and denied the true God to embrace the religion of the
Begotten God (_Dios Parido_).

But apart from these, there are no lamentations from him; more usually
he is sardonic in his grievances, as when he complains that all he
got in return for the money he gave for the souls in purgatory were
the fleas and lice that all but devoured him alive in the prison of
Astorga; or that all the recompense he enjoyed for having presented the
Church with a holy-water font was to be subjected to the water-torture
by “that dog of a doctor in Astorga.”

He vows that he will die a Jew, though he should be burnt alive. He
inveighs bitterly against the inquisitors, dubbing them Antichrists,
and Torquemada the greatest Antichrist of all; and he alludes
derisively to what he terms the frauds and buffooneries of the Church.

It was from Benito that Yucé, to his surprise, received news of his
father’s arrest and of the fact that Ça Franco lies in that same prison
of Avila. He was informed of this during their first talk, when Benito
reproved his music.

“Don’t thrum that guitar,” Benito had said, “but take pity on your
father who is here and whom the inquisitors have promised to burn.”[184]

In the course of another later conversation between the prisoners Yucé
asks Benito what has brought about the latter’s arrest. And when Benito
has related the happening in the inn at Astorga, Yucé questions him
on the subject of the consecrated wafer--and his questions certainly
betray the fact that the young Jew had previous knowledge of it and
generally of the affair that was afoot. He becomes so importunate in
his questions that Benito--perhaps finding them awkward to answer
without betraying the extent to which he has incriminated his
associates--sharply bids Yucé to leave the matter alone, assuring him
at the same time that he has never mentioned Yucé’s name to the
inquisitors.

[Illustration:

  _Photo by Donald Macbeth._

SANBENITO OF PENITENT ADMITTED TO RECONCILIATION.

From Limborch’s “Historia Inquisitionis.”]

At first glance this statement appears untrue. But it is obvious that
Benito means that he has never mentioned Yucé’s name in connection with
the Host or in any other way that could incriminate him. And in this he
is truthful enough as far as he knows, for he could not suppose that
what he had said about his own offences against the Faith committed in
Yucé’s house at Tenbleque could in any way be construed against the lad
or his father.

Passing on to other matters, they refer to a certain widow of La
Guardia, of whom Benito says that he knows her to be a Judaizer,
because she never ate anything containing lard or ham, and he has
frequently seen her eat _adafinas_ (the Jewish food prepared on the
Friday for the Sabbath) and drink _Caser_ wine.[185]

In the _dossier_ of Yucé Franco there are no depositions of the spy
set to overhear his conversations with Benito. But it is probable
that some such depositions will be found in the record of the trial
of the latter, where they must belong, since from the frankness which
he used he incriminated himself to an extraordinary degree and Yucé
not at all. And it is not to be doubted that the inquisitors made use
of information thus obtained when they came to examine Yucé Franco on
April 9 and 10[186] and in a subsequent examination of August 1,[187]
when they drew from him a deposition which embodies all the foregoing.

On the margin of the last of these depositions there is a note drawing
attention to what was said by Benito concerning the widow of La
Guardia, which shows that the inquisitors do not intend that this piece
of chance information shall be wasted.

Acting no doubt upon the report of the spy, and having at last obtained
information upon which they could go to work, the inquisitors, Villada
and Lopes, accompanied by their notary, pay Yucé Franco a surprise
visit in his cell on the morning of Saturday, April 9. Having obtained
his ratification of what he has already deponed at Segovia and in this
prison of Avila, they draw from him by vague and subtle questionings
the following additions to those admissions:

About three years ago he was told by a Hebrew physician, named Yucé
Tazarte, since deceased, that the latter had begged Benito Garcia to
obtain him a consecrated wafer, and that Benito had stolen the keys
of the church of La Guardia and so contrived to obtain a Host; that
in consequence of that theft, Benito was arrested--upon suspicion, we
suppose--two years ago last Christmas (_i.e._ 1488), and detained in
prison for two days.

Tazarte told Yucé that the wafer was required “to make a cord with
certain knots,” which cord, together with a letter, Tazarte gave the
witness for delivery to the Rabbi Peres of Toledo, with which request
Yucé had complied.

But beyond this, he adds, he has no knowledge of what became of the
Host, nor did Tazarte tell him; and that not only Tazarte, but also
Benito Garcia, Mosé Franco--his own brother, since deceased--and Alonso
Franco of La Guardia, were mixed up in the affair, according to what
had been related by Mosé to his wife Jamila. In this last particular he
presently corrected himself: it was not, he says upon reflection, to
Jamila that Mosé had related this, but to Yucé himself.

It is a curious statement, and would no doubt be made in answer to
the trend of the questions set him as to what he knew of a certain
Host that had been used for purposes of magic. And there is reason to
believe that--as we shall see presently--Yucé was deliberately lying,
in the hope of putting the inquisitors off the scent of the real affair.

But it is noteworthy that in this, as in other depositions, he is
careful to betray no Jews whom his evidence can hurt. His brother and
Tazarte are dead; Alonso and Benito Garcia are already under arrest,
and the latter has admitted to Yucé that he has already said enough to
burn him. Moreover, they are Christians--having received baptism--and
their betrayal cannot be to Yucé as serious a matter as would that of
a faithful Jew. Particularly is this emphasized by his retraction of
what he had said concerning the slight connection of his sister-in-law
Jamila with the affair, having perhaps bethought him that even so
little might incriminate her--as undoubtedly it would have done.

The inquisitors withdraw, obviously dissatisfied, and later on
that same day they order Yucé to be brought before them in the
audience-chamber. There they recommence their questions, and they
succeed in extracting from him a considerable portion of what passed
between him and Benito in prison--matters of which, beyond all doubt,
they would be already fully informed.

Twice on the following day, which was Sunday, was he haled before their
Reverend Paternities. At the first audience his statement of yesterday
is read over to him, and when he has ratified it he is again pressed
with stealthy questions to add a little more of what passed in those
conversations with Benito. But in the course of the second examination
on that Sunday, Yucé is at last induced or betrayed into supplying the
inquisitors with information nearer their requirements.

He says that four years ago he was told by his brother Mosé that the
latter, with Tazarte, Alonso Franco, Juan Franco, Garcia Franco, and
Benito Garcia had obtained a consecrated wafer, and that by certain
incantations they were to contrive that the justice of the Christians
and the inquisitors should not have power to touch them. Mosé invited
him to join in the affair, but he refused to do so, having no
inclination, and being, moreover, on his way to Murcia at the time.
And he knows, from what Mosé told him, that about two years ago the
same men repeated the same enchantment with the same Host.[188]

We do not know whether Yucé is now left in peace for a whole month, but
we cannot suppose it. And we have to explain the absence of any report
of an examination during that period by the assumption that whatever
examinations did take place were entirely fruitless and brought no
fresh particulars to light. As the _dossier_ does not anywhere contain
a single record of a fruitless examination, this assumption--although
we admit its negative character--does not seem unreasonable.

Anyway, on May 7 it is Yucé himself who begs to be taken before the
inquisitors to tell them that he remembers having asked Mosé where he
and his associates assembled to do what they did, so that the wives
of the latter--who were Christian women--should have no knowledge of
the affair, and Mosé had answered him that they assembled in the caves
between Dosbarrios and La Guardia, on the road to Ocaña.[189]

It is difficult to suppose such a statement to be entirely spontaneous
as following upon depositions made a month earlier. Much rather does
it appear to be the result of some fruitless questionings such as we
suggest may have taken place in the interval. Similarly we assume that
the examinations steadily continue, but another month passes before we
get the next recorded one, and this--on June 9[190]--contains a really
important admission.

He says that _he doesn’t remember whether_ he has mentioned that some
four years ago, being ill at Tenbleque and the physician Tazarte having
come to bleed him, he overheard a conversation between his brother
and Tazarte, from which he learnt that the latter, together with the
Francos of La Guardia, had performed an enchantment with a Host and the
heart of a Christian boy, by virtue of which the inquisitors could
take no proceedings against them in any way, or, if they did, the
inquisitors themselves would die.

His statement that he doesn’t remember whether he had mentioned a
matter of so grave a character is either a foolish attempt to simulate
guilelessness, or else, in itself, it suggests a bewildered state of
mind resulting from the multiplication of examinations in which this
matter of the heart of a Christian boy--contained, as we know, in
Guevára’s indictment--has been persistently thrust forward.

[Illustration: THE DISTRICT OF LA GUARDIA.]

He is asked whether he heard tell whence they procured the Host, and
where they killed the boy to obtain the heart. But he denies having
overheard anything, or having otherwise obtained any knowledge of these
particulars.

       *       *       *       *       *

We have seen Eymeric’s prescription for visiting a prisoner and
assuring him that the inquisitors will pardon him if he makes a frank
and full confession of his crime and of all that is known to him of
the crimes of others. Although it is not positively indicated, there
is reason to suppose from what follows that this course was now being
pursued in the case of Yucé Franco. To play the part of the necessary
mediator, the inquisitors have at hand the gaoler who must have been on
friendly terms with the prisoner, having contrived for him a means of
communication with Benito at the time when the latter had occupied the
cell immediately beneath Yucé’s. That Benito no longer occupies this
cell may safely be assumed; for having served his turn, he would of
course be removed again.

Whatever the steps that were taken to bring it about, on July 19--a
little over a year after his arrest--Yucé is brought before Villada
and Lopes,[191] at his own request, for the purpose of making certain
additions to _what he has already deponed_.

He begins by begging their Paternities to forgive him for not having
earlier confessed all that he knew, protesting that such is now his
intention, provided that they will pass him their word assuring him
of pardon and immunity for himself and his father for all errors
committed.[192]

It certainly seems that without previous assurance that some such
consideration was intended towards him, he would never have ventured
to prefer a request of this nature, at once incriminating--since it
admitted his possession of knowledge hitherto withheld--and impudent in
its assumption that such information would be purchased at the price he
named.

The inquisitors benignly answered him that they agreed to do so upon
the understanding that in all he should tell them the entire truth, and
they warned him that they would soon be able more or less to perceive
whether he was telling the truth.[193]

(This pretence of being already fully informed is the ruse counselled
by Eymeric to persuade the person under examination of the futility of
resorting to subterfuge.)

Reassured by this answer, and deluded no doubt by the apparent promise
of pardon conditional upon a full confession, Yucé begins by offering,
as an apology for his past silence upon the matters he is about to
relate, the statement that this has been due to an oath which he swore
not to divulge anything until he should have been in prison for a year.

Thereupon he is sworn in the Jewish manner to speak the entire truth
without fraud or evasions or concealment of anything known by him to
concern the Holy Office of the Inquisition, and he addresses himself to
the task of amplifying and rectifying what he has previously said.

His confession is that once some three years ago he had been in a cave
situated a little way back from the road that runs from La Guardia to
Dosbarrios, on the right-hand side as you go towards the latter place,
and midway between the two villages. There were present, in addition
to himself, his father, Ça Franco, his brother Mosé, since deceased,
the physician Yucé Tazarte and one David Perejon--both deceased--Benito
Garcia, Juan de Ocaña, and the four Francos of La Guardia--Juan,
Alonso, Lope, and Garcia.

Alonso Franco had shown him a heart, which he said had been cut out
of a Christian boy, and from its condition Yucé judged that this had
been lately done. Further, Alonso had shown him a wafer, which he said
was consecrated. This wafer and the heart Alonso enclosed together in
a wooden box which he delivered to Tazarte, and the latter took these
things apart, saying that he went to perform an enchantment so that the
inquisitors could not hurt any of them, or, if they attempted to do so,
they must themselves go mad and die within a year.

At this point the inquisitors interpolate two questions:

“Does he know whence the Host was obtained?”

“Does he know whether they sacrificed any boy to procure the heart?”

His answer to the first is in the negative--he has no knowledge.

To the second question he replies that he remembers hearing Alonso
Franco state that he and some of his brothers crucified a Christian boy
whose heart this was.

Resuming his statement, he says that some two years ago all the
above-mentioned assembled again between La Guardia and Tenbleque, and
that on this occasion it was agreed to send a consecrated wafer to
Mosé Abenamias of Zamora, and that such a Host was delivered to Benito
Garcia enclosed in parchment tied with red silk. This, Benito was to
take to Abenamias, together with a letter which had first been written
in Hebrew, but which--lest this should excite suspicion in the event of
the letter’s being discovered--was replaced by another one written in
Romance.

       *       *       *       *       *

The interpretation to place upon this seems to be that, doubts having
arisen as to the efficacy of the enchantments performed by Tazarte, it
was deemed expedient to have recourse to a magician of greater repute,
and to send a consecrated wafer to Abenamias in Zamora, that he might
accomplish with it the desired sorcery.

       *       *       *       *       *

The inquisitors press Yucé to say whether he knows if Benito did
actually deliver the wafer to Abenamias. He replies that he doesn’t
know what Benito did with it; but that he has been told by Benito [in
the course of their conversations in the prison of Avila] that he went
upon a journey to Santiago, and that in passing through Astorga he was
arrested by order of Dr. Villada, who was the provisor there at the
time.

As for the heart, he doesn’t know what happened to it; but he believes
that it remained in the possession of Tazarte, who performed his
enchantments with it.

Questioned as to who was the leading spirit in the affair, he replies
that Tazarte invited him together with his father and his brother Mosé,
and that they all went together to the cave, whilst he believes that
the Christians (_i.e._ Ocaña, the Francos, and Benito Garcia) and David
Perejon from La Guardia were also summoned by Tazarte.

Finally he is asked whether Tazarte received any money for his
sorceries, and whether Benito Garcia was paid to convey the Host
to Zamora; and he answers that money was given by Alonso Franco to
Tazarte, and that Benito too would be paid for his trouble.

       *       *       *       *       *

From a ratification on the next day (July 20) of a confession made by
the octogenarian Ça Franco, it becomes clear that immediately upon
dismissing Yucé, his father was introduced into the audience-chamber
for examination.

The inquisitors are now possessed of the information that Ça was
present in the cave when Alonso Franco produced the heart of a
Christian child. Working upon this and upon the other details obtained
from Yucé, they would now be able, by a clever parade of these--and a
seemingly intentional reticence as to the rest--convincingly to feign
the fullest and completest knowledge of the affair. Thus does the
“Directorium” enjoin the inquisitor to conduct his examination.

Believing that all is betrayed, and that further concealment will,
therefore, be worse than useless, Ça at last speaks out. He not only
confirms all that his son has already admitted, but he adds a great
deal more. He confesses that he himself, his two sons and the other
Jews and Christians mentioned, assembled in a cave on the right-hand
side of the road that runs from La Guardia to Dosbarrios, and he
says that some of them brought thither a Christian boy who was there
crucified upon two timbers rectangularly crossed, to which they
bound him. Before proceeding to do this, the boy was stripped by the
Christians, who whipped and otherwise vituperated him.

He protests that he, himself, took no part in this beyond being present
and witnessing all that was done. Pressed as to what part was taken by
his son Yucé, he admits that he saw the latter give the boy a light
push or blow.

It is to this mention of Yucé that we owe the inclusion in the present
_dossier_ of this extract from Ça’s ratification of his confession,
which reveals to us so clearly the method pursued by the tribunal.

Ça is removed, and Yucé is forthwith brought back again. Questions
recommence, shaped now upon the further information gained, and
betraying enough of the extent of that information to compel Yucé to
amplify his admissions.

No doubt they would question him directly upon the matter of the
crucifixion of the boy, insisting upon this--now the main charge--and
depending upon Yucé’s replies to supply them with further details than
they already possess, so as to enable them to probe still deeper.

Unable to persist in denial in the face of so much obvious knowledge on
the part of his questioners, Yucé admits having witnessed the actual
crucifixion in the cave some three or four years ago. He says (as his
father had said) that it was the Christians who crucified the child,
and that they whipped him, struck him, spat upon him, and crowned him
with thorns.

So far he merely confirms what is already known. But now he adds to
the sum of that knowledge. He states that Alonso Franco opened the
veins of the boy’s arms and left him to bleed for over half an hour,
gathering the blood in a cauldron and a jar; that Juan Franco drew a
Bohemian knife (_i.e._ a curved knife) and thrust it into the boy’s
side, and that Garcia Franco took out the heart and sprinkled it with
salt.

He admits that all who were present took part in what was done, and
he is able to indicate the precise part played by each, with the
exception of his father: he doesn’t remember having seen his father do
anything beyond just standing there while all this was going on; and
Yucé reminds the inquisitors that his father is a very old man of over
eighty years of age, whose sight is so feeble that he couldn’t so much
as see clearly what was being done.

When the child was dead, he continues, they took him down from the
cross. (They untied him, he says.) Juan Franco seized his arms, and
Garcia Franco his legs, and thus they bore him out of the cave. Yucé
didn’t see where they took him, but he heard Juan Franco and Garcia
Franco informing Tazarte that they had buried him in a ravine by the
river Escorchon.

The heart remained in the possession of Alonso until their next meeting
in the cave, when he gave it, together with the consecrated wafer, to
Tazarte.

“Did this,” they ask him, “take place by day or by night?”

“By night,” he answers, “by the light of candles of white wax; and a
cloak was hung over the mouth of the cave that the light might not be
seen outside.”

He is desired to say when precisely was this; but all that he can
answer is that he thinks it was in Lent, just before Easter, three or
four years ago.

They ask whether he had heard any rumours of the loss of a child at
about that time in that district, and he says that he heard rumours of
a child lost in Lillo and another in La Guardia; the latter had gone to
a vineyard with his uncle, and had never been seen again. But he adds
that, in any case, the Francos came and went between La Guardia and
Murcia, and that on one of their journeys they might easily have found
a child and carried it off, because they had sardine barrels in their
carts, and some of those would be empty--by which he means that they
could have concealed the child in one of these barrels.

Urged to give still further details, he protests that he can remember
no more at present, but promises to inform the court if he does succeed
in recalling anything else.

He is dismissed upon that with an injunction from Dr. Villada--which
may have been backed by a promise or a threat--to reflect and to
confess all that he knows to be the business of the Holy Office
concerning himself or any others.




CHAPTER XXII

THE TRIAL OF YUCÉ FRANCO (_Continued_)


It is not difficult to conjecture with what fresh energies the
court--armed with such information as it now possessed--proceeded to
re-examine the other seven prisoners accused of complicity in the crime
of La Guardia, pressing each with the particular share he was himself
alleged to have borne in the affair, and continuing to play off one
accused against another.

It is regrettable that the records of these proceedings should not at
present be available, so that all conjecture might be dispensed with
in reconstructing step by step this extraordinary case. And it is to
be hoped that M. Fidel Fita’s expectations that these records will
ultimately be brought to light may come to be realized.

       *       *       *       *       *

A week later, on July 28, Yucé is again brought into the
audience-chamber for further examination. But he has nothing more to
add on the subject of the actual crime. All that he has contrived to
remember in the interval are scraps of conversation that took place
when the culprits assembled--on that later occasion--for the purpose of
sending the consecrated wafer to Abenamias. Nevertheless, what he says
is, from the point of view of the inquisitors, as damaging to those
who uttered the things which he repeats as their actual participation
in the crucifixion of the boy, and it is hardly less damaging to Yucé
himself, since it shows him to have been a _fautor_, or abettor of
heretics--a circumstance which he may very well entirely have failed
to appreciate.

He depones that Alonso Franco had said that the letter they were
dispatching to Abenamias was better than the letters and bulls [of
indulgence] that came from Rome and were offered for sale. Ocaña agreed
by launching an imprecation upon all who should spend money on such
bulls, denouncing such things as sheer humbug (_todo es burla_), and
protesting that there is no saviour other than God. But Garcia Franco
reproved him with the reminder that it was good policy to buy one now
and then, as it gave them the appearance of being good Catholics.

On this same subject of appearances, Alonso grumbled at the trouble to
which they were put by the fact of their being married to Old-Christian
women who would not even permit the circumcision of their children.

       *       *       *       *       *

Three days later Yucé has remembered that it was Benito who crowned the
child with thorns. He is again questioned as to what he knows about the
boy, and he admits having heard Tazarte say that the child was obtained
“from a place whence it would never be missed.”

They press him further on the subject, but he can only repeat what he
has already said--that as the Francos travel a great deal with their
carts, they may have found the boy on one of their journeys.

As no more is to be extracted from him on the subject, they now
change the line of examination, and seek information concerning other
Judaizing practices of the Francos of La Guardia, asking Yucé what he
knows upon this matter.

He answers that about six years ago the Francos, to his own knowledge,
kept the Feast of the Tabernacles and gave the beggar Perejon money to
buy a trumpet which was to be sounded on the seventh day of the feast,
as is proper. He knows, further, that they sit down to meat prepared
in the Jewish manner, over which they utter Jewish prayers--the
_Beraká_ and the _Hamoçi_--and that they are believed to have kept
the great fast and to give money for the purchase of oil for the
synagogue.[194]

Asked further to explain the oath of secrecy which he says was imposed
upon him and to which he has said that his past silence has been
due, he states that all were solemnly sworn by Tazarte that under no
circumstances would they utter a word of what was done in the cave
between Dosbarrios and La Guardia until they should have been one year
in the prison of the Inquisition, and that even should the torture
betray them into infidelity to their oath, they must refuse to ratify
afterwards, and deny what they might have divulged.

       *       *       *       *       *

M. Isidore Loeb clung so tenaciously to the theory that the affair of
the “Santo Niño” was trumped up by Torquemada that he would not permit
his convictions to be shaken by the revelations contained in these
records of Yucé’s trial when they came to light. He fastens upon this
statement of Yucé’s and denounces such an oath as a flagrant absurdity,
concluding thence that here, as elsewhere, Yucé is lying.[195]

M. Loeb’s criticisms of this _dossier_ are worthy of too much attention
to be lightly passed over, and we shall return presently to the
consideration of them.

In the meanwhile we may permit ourselves a digression here to consider
just this point upon which he bases so much argument for the purpose of
proving false the rest of the story.

If we were to agree with M. Loeb that Yucé is lying in this instance,
that would still prove nothing as to the rest--and it would be very
far from proving that Torquemada is the inventor of the whole affair.
Assuming that this tale of an oath of silence to endure for one year
after arrest is a falsehood, it may very well be urged that it is
employed by Yucé in the hope that it will excuse his having hitherto
withheld information and that it will induce the inquisitors to deal
leniently with him for that same silence. Let it be observed that he
prefaces his confession with that excuse at the time of asking the
inquisitors to give him an undertaking that they will pardon him if he
divulges all that he knows.

But is he really lying?

It seems to us that in arriving at this conclusion, M. Loeb has either
overlooked or else not sufficiently weighed the following statement in
Yucé’s confession: “_Yucé Tazarte ... went to perform an enchantment so
that the inquisitors could not hurt any of them, or if they attempted
to do so they must, themselves, go mad and die_ within a year.” This
means, of course, within a year of attempting to hurt any of them,
which again means _within a year of the arrest of any of them_.

Now, the fact of our not believing to-day in the efficacy of Tazarte’s
incantations and in the power of his magic spells with the heart and
the Host to accomplish the things he promised, is no reason to suppose
that Tazarte himself was not firmly persuaded that his enchantments
would take effect. Indeed, he and his associates must firmly have
believed it, or they would never have gone the length of imperilling
their lives in so dangerous a business.

Tazarte’s belief was that these sorceries would invest them all with
an immunity from inquisitorial persecution, and that should any
inquisitors attempt to violate that immunity, such inquisitors must go
mad and die within a year of arresting any of Tazarte’s associates.
Therefore in the event of arrest, all that would be necessary to
procure ultimate deliverance would be stubbornly to withhold from the
inquisitors all information on the subject of this enchantment until
the period within which it was to work should have expired.

When this is sufficiently considered, it seems to us that such an
oath as Yucé says was imposed by Tazarte becomes not only likely but
absolutely inevitable. Some such oath must have been imposed to ensure
the efficacy of the enchantment in the event of the arrest of any of
them.

It is difficult to think that Tazarte was a mere charlatan performing
this business with his tongue in his cheek for the sake of the money he
could extract from his dupes; difficult, because he was dealing with
comparatively poor people, from whom the remuneration to be obtained
would be out of all proportion to the risk incurred. But even if we
proceed upon that assumption, are we not to conclude that, being a
deliberate charlatan, Tazarte would be at great pains to appear sincere
and to impose an oath which he must have imposed if he were sincere?

       *       *       *       *       *

It is rather singular and it seems to ask some explanation, which it
is not in our power to afford, that not until now do the inquisitors
make any use of that grave admission of Yucé’s to the supposed Rabbi
Abraham in Segovia. It is true that it was extremely vague, but in Ça’s
admissions of July 19--if not before--they had obtained the connecting
link required.

But not until September 16, when they pay Yucé a visit in his cell, do
they touch upon the matter. They then ask him whether he recollects
having talked when under arrest in Segovia, upon matters concerning the
Inquisition, and with whom.

His answer certainly seems to show that even now he has no suspicion
that the “Rabbi Abraham” was an emissary of the Holy Office. He says
that being sick in prison and believing that he was about to die, he
asked the physician who tended him to beg the inquisitors to allow him
to be visited by a Jew to pray with him, and his further admissions as
to what passed between himself and the “Rabbi” entirely corroborate
the depositions of Frey Alonso Enriquez and the physician Antonio de
Avila.

The inquisitors ask him to explain the three Hebrew words he used on
that occasion: _mita_, _nahar_, and _Otohays_. He replies that they
referred to the crucifixion of the boy, as related by him in his
confession.[196]

At this stage it would almost seem to transpire that Benito’s
admissions under torture at Astorga, when, as he has said, he admitted
enough to burn him, must have been confined to matters concerning the
Host found upon him, and that until now he has said nothing about the
crucifixion of the boy.

This assumption is one that deepens the mysterious parts of the affair
rather than elucidates them, for it leaves us without the faintest
indication of how the Fiscal Guevára was able to incorporate in his
indictment nine months ago the particulars of “enchantments with the
said Host and heart of a Christian boy.”

From what Benito has said to Yucé in prison we might be justified in
supposing that the former is the delator; but in view of the turn now
taken by the proceedings this supposition seems to become untenable. It
is of course possible that the particulars in question may have been
wrung out of one of the other prisoners, or it is possible that Benito
himself may have confessed and afterwards refused to ratify. But beyond
indicating these possibilities we cannot go.

The fact remains that on September 24 the inquisitors found it
necessary to put Benito Garcia to torture that they might obtain his
evidence relating to the crucifixion.

And on the rack he confesses that he and Yucé Franco and the others
crucified a boy in one of the caves on the road to Villapalomas on a
cross made of a beam and the axle of a cart lashed together with a rope
of hemp; that first they tied the boy to the cross and then nailed his
hands and feet to it; and that as the boy was screaming they strangled
or stifled him (_lo ahogaron_); that all was done at night, by the
light of a candle which Benito himself had procured from Santa Maria de
la Pera; that the mouth of the cave was covered with a cloak, so that
the light should not be seen outside; that the boy was whipped with a
strap and crowned with thorns--all in mockery and vituperation of our
Lord Jesus Christ; and that they took the body away and buried it in a
vineyard near Santa Maria de la Pera.[197]

There are some slight discrepancies between the details of the affair
afforded by Benito and those given by Yucé. The latter has not
mentioned that the child’s hands and feet were nailed to the cross;
according to him they were merely tied. Nor has he said that the boy
was strangled; his statement seems to be that the child was bled to
death, as a consequence of opening the veins of his arms--a matter
which Benito does not mention. But on the score of the strangling, it
is possible that by the word employed--_ahogaron_--Benito merely means
that the boy’s cries were stifled, a detail which would be confirmed by
Yucé’s statement that the child was gagged.

       *       *       *       *       *

The prisoners are evidently permitted to learn that Benito has been
tortured. Very possibly they are given the information to the end that
it may strike terror into them and so induce them to betray themselves
without more ado. But it does not seem that they are very greatly
frightened by the prospect of having to undergo the same suffering, if
we are to judge by Garcia Franco. This prisoner is permitted on the
following day (which is Sunday), by contrivance of the Holy Office, to
get into communication with Yucé. In the course of their conversation
Garcia strongly urges a policy of denial under torture, should they be
subjected to it,[198] from which it seems plain that he has no notion
of the extent to which Yucé’s tongue has been loosened already.

On the following Wednesday it is Juan Franco’s turn to be put to the
torture.

Under it he gives a general confirmation of what has already been
extracted from the others. He confesses that he and Yucé Franco and
the other Christians and Jews crucified a boy in the cave of Carre
Ocaña, which is on the right going from La Guardia to Ocaña; that
they crucified him on a cross made of two beams of olive-wood lashed
together by a rope of hemp; that they whipped him with a rope; and that
Yucé was present when the deponent himself cut out the boy’s heart--as
is more fully contained in the deponent’s confession (of which, again,
this is no more than an extract relating to Yucé’s share in the crime).
He states that an enchantment was performed with the heart, so that the
Inquisition might not proceed against them.

This confession was duly ratified upon the morrow.[199]

On the Friday of the same week they torture Juan de Ocaña and extract
from him a confession that is, in the main, in agreement with those
already obtained. He relates how he and the others crucified a boy in
the caves of Carre Ocaña; that they whipped him with ropes when he
was crucified; that they cut out his heart and caught his blood in a
cauldron; that it was night and that they had a light; and that when
they took the body down they buried it near Santa Maria de la Pera, as
fully set forth in his confession.[200]

As a consequence of his having in the course of this confession spoken
of the Host that was sent to Zamora for delivery to Abenamias, Ocaña is
questioned again--on October 11--touching this particular. He is asked
how he knows that this was done. He replies that he heard Alonso Franco
and the Jews--_i.e._ Ça Franco and his sons (Yucé and Mosé), Tazarte
and Perejon--say that such was the intention, but he doesn’t know
whether the Host was actually delivered or otherwise disposed of.

The persistence with which this apparently trivial question
arises--particularly when it is remembered that the inquisitors were,
themselves, in possession of the Host found upon Benito at the time
of his arrest--leads us to suppose that they were probing to discover
whether this consecrated wafer was the identical one dispatched upon
the occasion to which the confessions refer. Considering the lapse of
time between the dispatch of that wafer and Benito’s arrest, they may
reasonably have been concluding that the Host found upon the latter
relates to some similar, later affair. Such an impression is confirmed
by the fact that no letter--such as was addressed to Abenamias--had
been discovered upon Benito.

The question again crops up in an examination to which Yucé is
submitted on that same day.

“Did any of the Jews or Christians,” he is asked, “go to Zamora to
Abenamias in this matter?”

He answers precisely as he has answered before: that he doesn’t know
what became of the Host beyond the fact that he saw them dispatching it
together with a letter to the said Abenamias, as deponed, and that all
were present when this took place.

They seek to learn who was the instigator of the affair, but Yucé
cannot answer with certainty on that point. What he knows he tells
them--that Tazarte meeting him when he was on his way to Murcia, the
physician asked him would he join in a matter to be performed with a
consecrated wafer to ensure that the Inquisition could not harm the
Christians in question. Before they met to crucify the boy, Tazarte
told the deponent and his brother Mosé that he had arranged for it; and
although Yucé protests that he had no inclination to have anything to
do with the affair, he and his brother allowed themselves in the end to
be persuaded to be present, and they went with Tazarte that same night
to the cave. There they were joined by the Christians, who brought the
child with them.

       *       *       *       *       *

So far, it will be seen, the evidence collected from Yucé’s
fellow-prisoners, whilst admitting that he had been present in the cave
when the boy was crucified--an admission in itself grave enough and
quite sufficient to procure his being abandoned to the secular arm--did
not charge him with any active participation in the proceedings. In his
own depositions Yucé had insisted that he and his father had been no
more than spectators and that they had gone to the cave more or less in
ignorance, as if hardly understanding what they were to witness.

Moreover before relating the happenings in that cave of Carre Ocaña,
Yucé had made a sort of bargain with the inquisitors that his
confession should not be used against himself or his father. And it
is noteworthy that the other Jews whom he incriminated were all dead,
and that he suppressed the name of the only surviving Jew--Hernando
de Ribera--who had taken part in the affair. Of betraying the
New-Christians he would, as we have already said, have less concern, as
these by their apostasy must have become more or less contemptible in
the sight of a faithful Jew.

Whether the inquisitors conceived that in view of his passivity in the
matter, combined with the promise they had made him before obtaining
his confession, they were not justified in proceeding to extremes with
him, we do not know. It is difficult to suppose any such hesitation on
their part. Whatever their object, it is fairly clear that they did not
account themselves satisfied yet, and for the purpose of probing this
matter to the very bottom they now adopted a fresh method of procedure
which appears particularly to aim at the further incrimination of Yucé.

Just as the court was in the habit of suppressing evidence entirely or
in part, or the names of witnesses, when this course best served its
purposes, so, when the depositions were obtained from co-accused, there
must obviously come a moment when the publication of the evidence and
of the witnesses by confrontation must further the aims of the tribunal.

The anger aroused in each prisoner by the discovery that his betrayer
is one of his associates must spur him to reprisals, and drive him to
admit anything he may hitherto have concealed. There is, of course, the
danger that he may be urged to embark upon inventions to damage in his
turn the man who has destroyed him. But inquisitorial justice was not
deterred by any such consideration. Pegna--as we have seen--tells us
plainly enough that the point of view of the Holy Office was that it
was better that an innocent man should perish than that a guilty one
should escape.

In pursuit of this policy, then, Benito Garcia is brought before the
inquisitors on October 12, and he is asked whether in the matter of the
crucifixion and the Host he will repeat in the presence of any of the
participators in the crime what he has already deponed. He replies in
the affirmative. Thereupon he is taken out. Yucé Franco is introduced
and asked the same question with the same result. Benito is brought in
again, and, the two being confronted, each repeats in the presence of
the other the confession he has already made.

They are now asked whether they will repeat these statements once more,
in the presence of Juan de Ocaña, and they announce themselves ready
to do so. They are removed. Ocaña is introduced, and having similarly
obtained his agreement to repeat before others whom he has accused of
complicity what he has already confessed, the inquisitors order the
other two to be brought back.

The notary records that they actually manifest pleasure at seeing one
another.

Ocaña now repeats his confession, and Yucé and Benito again go over
theirs. The three agree one with the other, and it is now further
elicited that it was six months after the crucifixion, more or less,
when they assembled between Tenbleque and La Guardia to give Benito the
letter and the Host which he was to convey to Abenamias in Zamora.

       *       *       *       *       *

On October 17 there is another confrontation--of Juan Franco with Ça
and Yucé Franco. In this each repeats what he has already confessed,
which we now learn for the first time. Juan Franco admits that it was
he himself who opened the boy’s side and took out his heart, and in
this as in other particulars the depositions agree one with another.

Juan Franco goes on to say that they next met in the cave some time
after the crucifixion, and that his brother Alonso brought the heart
and the Host in a box which he gave to Tazarte, who withdrew with them
to a corner of the cave to carry out his enchantments. Later on they
assembled between Tenbleque and La Guardia--at a place which, according
to this witness, was called Sorrostros--and gave Benito a letter to
take to Zamora, this letter being tied with a coloured thread.

So far he is completely in accord with the other deponents; but now
there occurs a startling discrepancy. He says that at this last meeting
(which, we are told, took place some six months after the crucifixion),
in addition to the consecrated wafer and the letter for Abenamias, they
also gave Benito the heart to take to Zamora.

Now all the other depositions lead us to suppose that the heart and
the first wafer were employed--presumably consumed in some way--by
Tazarte in the enchantment performed at the first meeting after the
crucifixion, and that as doubts afterwards arose touching the efficacy
of the spells performed by the physician, another Host was obtained
some six months later, which they forwarded to Zamora.

Is the explanation the simple one that Juan Franco is mistaken on
the subject of the heart? It seems possible, because he adds that
he did not actually see the Host (on this particular occasion), but
that he understood that it was given to Benito. Similarly he may
have understood--erroneously taking it for granted--that the heart
accompanied it.

       *       *       *       *       *

And now you may see the confrontation bearing fruit, and yielding
the results which we must suppose are sought by the inquisitors--the
further incrimination of Yucé Franco.

Juan de Ocaña is examined again on October 20 and questioned as to
Yucé’s participation in the crime. He now adds to his former confession
that Yucé and the others used great vituperations to the child,
which vituperations were really aimed at Jesus Christ; he cites the
expressions, and in the main they are those we have already quoted from
the Testimonio[201]; these, he says, were used by Ça Franco and his
two sons. He says that they all whipped the boy, and that it was Yucé
himself who drew blood from the arms of the victim with a knife.

“Whence was the child?” they ask him.

He replies that it was the dead Jew Mosé Franco who had brought the
boy from Quintanar to Tenbleque on a donkey, and that, according to
Mosé’s story, he was the son of Alonso Martin of Quintanar.[202] From
Tenbleque several of them, amongst whom were Yucé and his father,
brought him on the donkey to the cave where he was crucified, and it
was Yucé who went to summon the brothers Franco of La Guardia, Benito
Garcia, and the witness himself.

So that from having been a more or less passive spectator of the
scene, Yucé is suddenly--by what we are justified in accounting the
vindictiveness of Ocaña--thrust into the position of one of the chief
actors, indeed, almost one of the instigators of the crime.

On the same day Benito Garcia is re-examined. His former depositions
are read over to him, and he is asked if he has anything to add to
them. He has to add, he finds, that Yucé--whom he has hardly mentioned
hitherto--had whipped and struck the boy, and that he was an active
participant in all that was done, his avowed aim being the destruction
of Christianity, which he spoke of as buffoonery and idolatry.

On the morrow Ocaña is brought back to ratify his statements of
yesterday. He is asked if he has anything to add that concerns the
participation of Yucé, and his answer is so very much in the terms of
the latest additions made by Benito that one is left wondering whether,
departing from their usual custom, the inquisitors put their questions
in a precise and definite form--founded upon what Benito has said--and
obtained affirmative replies from Ocaña. For Ocaña, too, remembers that
Yucé said that Christianity was all buffoonery and that Christians were
idolaters.




CHAPTER XXIII

THE TRIAL OF YUCÉ FRANCO--(_Concluded_)


It might now be said that, thanks to the patient efforts which the
inquisitors themselves have been exerting for close upon a year, the
prosecutor is at last furnished with the evidence necessary to support
his original charge against Yucé Franco.

To this end he appears before the court on that same October 21, 1491,
to present in proof of his denunciation the entire _dossier_, as taken
down by the notary of the tribunal. He begs that Yucé be brought into
the audience-chamber to hear the additions which he has to make to the
original charge. These additions are the matters lately extracted from
Ocaña and Benito Garcia: that Yucé used vituperative words to the child
when he was being crucified, and that these vituperations were really
aimed at our Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Faith; that he
struck the boy many times, and that he drew blood from the boy’s arm
with a penknife. Wherefore, he begs the inquisitors to abandon the
prisoner to the secular arm, as is right and proper.[203]

He does not, however, add that Yucé’s brother had procured the child,
and that Yucé was one of those who brought him to the cave and who
summoned the Francos to attend--an omission which shows the credit
attached to Ocaña’s statement and its lack of corroboration.

Yucé’s answer is a denial of all that is alleged and added by the
Fiscal, the lad protesting that he never did or said anything beyond
what he has, himself, confessed.

Guevára, thereupon, petitions the court to permit him to submit his
proofs of the matters of which he accuses the prisoner, and the court
having accorded him this petition, he puts in as evidence the entire
_dossier_ from which we have drawn these pages on the subject.[204]

Five days later both parties are again before the court, Guevára now
petitioning their Reverend Paternities to pass to the publication of
witnesses, that the trial may be brought to its conclusion. Dr. Villada
announces his readiness to do so, but accords the defendants three days
within which to lodge any objection to any of the matter contained in
the depositions.

Yucé begs through his advocate that copies be given him of all the
depositions of those who were present at the crucifixion, with the name
of each hostile witness and a statement of the day, month, year, and
place in which anything alleged against him is said to have taken place.

But Guevára immediately objects, urging that in the copies of the
depositions to be given defendant, no names shall appear of any of the
witnesses who had deponed, and no circumstances shall be included which
might enable Yucé to conjecture the names. It seems a purely formal
objection; for after the confrontations there have been it appears to
serve very little purpose. But some purpose it does serve, because
those confrontations after all were limited to Ocaña and Benito, and
from the moment that it was not considered necessary to proceed to
confrontation with any of the other prisoners it would seem that they
had needed no such spur to drive them into depositions hostile to Yucé.

However, the reverend inquisitor replies loftily enough that he will
do what justice demands, and he orders the notary to deliver to Yucé
copies of all the depositions against him. But from Yucé’s advocate’s
plea on October 29--upon the expiry of the three days appointed--it is
plain that the particulars claimed have been withheld.

From the fact that the advocate Sanç has drawn up so strong an
objection on behalf of his client, it is perfectly clear that even at
this date Yucé’s guilt of heresy cannot be considered as established.
If that were the case, Sanç, in obedience to the oath imposed upon him
when entrusted with the defence, would have been compelled to lay down
his brief and withdraw.

Yucé denies all the allegations against him which charge him with
having taken any active part in the crucifixion of the boy, and he
protests that he is unable properly to defend himself because the
copies of the depositions supplied him do not mention time or place
of the alleged offences nor yet the names of the witnesses by whom
these allegations are made. Upon the assumption, however, that these
deponents are Benito Garcia, Juan Franco, and Juan de Ocaña, he
proceeds to answer the charges as best he can.

This answer consists of a repudiation of those depositions as
inadmissible upon the grounds that they do not agree one with another,
and that each refers to a separate circumstance, no two confirming any
one particular accusation, and all being contrary to what the same
witnesses had stated in confrontation with the defendant, when each had
acknowledged that Yucé’s relation of the events was the true one. Hence
it is established that on one or the other of these occasions they must
have lied, from which it follows that they are perjured and unworthy of
faith.

Further, he claims that they may not be admitted as witnesses because
they were, themselves, participators in the crime committed. Finally,
he declares that their implication of himself is an act of spite and
vengeance upon him. It is his full and faithful confession which has
placed the inquisitors in possession of the facts of the case and the
names of the offenders, and the latter are determined that since they
themselves must die, Yucé shall die with them--out of which malice and
enmity they have accused him.

Upon these grounds, and insisting that he has told them the utter and
complete truth, and that he himself was no more than a witness of the
events, and in no way a participator, Yucé bases his defence, and begs
that the depositions should cease to weigh against him.[205]

Guevára’s answer, if it inclines to the grotesque, is quite typical,
and is certainly more to the taste of the court.

He denies that the witnesses are inspired by any such animosity as Yucé
suggests, and he asserts that they have deponed “with devout zeal of
faith, and to deliver their souls from peril.” And amongst these, be it
remembered, was Benito Garcia, who conceived that the worst thing he
had ever done in his life had been to get himself baptized a Christian,
and who continued firm in his resolve to die a Jew at all costs. Only
at the very stake itself--as we shall see--did he recant again, that he
might earn the mercy of strangulation. Yet Guevára does not hesitate
to say--what he must know to be untrue--that these men have confessed
“with devout zeal of faith.”

On these grounds Guevára urges that the depositions must be admitted
as made in good faith and as proof; and since the said Yucé Franco
would not spontaneously confess all that he had done, their Reverend
Paternities should put him to the question of torture, as by law
prescribed in such circumstances as the present.[206]

The court agrees with its Fiscal and proceeds to draw up a list of
fifteen questions to be put to the accused.[207]

With this list the inquisitors Villada and Santo Domingo, accompanied
by their notary, go down into the prisons of the Inquisition on
November 2, and order Yucé Franco to be brought before them.

“Very lovingly and humanely” they admonish him to tell the whole truth
of the things known to him that are the business of the Holy Office,
and particularly in answer to the questions they have prepared. These
questions being summed up amount to the following: Whence was the child
that was crucified? Whose child was it? Who brought it to the cave? Who
first set on foot this affair?

They promise him that if he makes truthful answer they will use him as
mercifully as the law and their consciences permit.

Yucé has cause to mistrust any such promises. His first confession
was made three months ago under a promise of pardon, and he has every
reason to suppose that it has been the ruin of him.

He says, however, that being in the cave on the occasion when they
foregathered there for the enchantment--about fourteen days after the
crucifixion--he heard Tazarte inquire whence was the child, and Juan
Franco replied before all that it was from a place whence it would
never be missed, “as stated in his confession.”

(When last asked this question--at the time of making his
confession--he had attributed these words to Tazarte.)

He protests that he can remember no more than he has already confessed.

Their Reverend Paternities deplore his stubbornness. They tell him that
since he will not speak the entire truth of what he knows--as they
have proof--they must proceed to other measures. They summon Diego
Martin, the torturer, and into his hands they deliver the prisoner,
with orders to take him to the torture-chamber, strip him naked, and
bind him to the _escalera_--intending, if necessary, to proceed to the
water-torture.

This is done, and Yucé is stretched naked and cruelly bound with ropes
that bite into his flesh as a foretaste of the _garrote_ by which his
torments will commence. The inquisitors enter--possibly after a delay
sufficient to allow the mental torture of anticipation to terrorize the
patient into a more amenable frame of mind.

Again they admonish him for his own sake to speak what he knows, and
they even point out to him that it is his duty as a God-fearing Jew
to speak the truth. Again they promise to deal mercifully with him if
he will answer their questions fully and truthfully; and lastly they
protest that if his blood is shed in the course of what is to follow,
or should he suffer any other harm, or mutilation of limb, or even
death, the blame must fall entirely upon himself and nowise upon their
reverences.

Fully intimidated by this skilful accumulation of terrorizing agents,
Yucé implores them to repeat their questions, which he will do his best
to answer.

“Whence,” they ask him again, “was the boy who was crucified at La
Guardia?”

“Juan Franco,” he replies, “brought him from Toledo.” He adds that Juan
Franco announced this before them all, and told them that he had kept
the child concealed in La Hos de La Guardia for a day before bringing
him to the cave to be crucified.

[Illustration:

  _Photo by Donald Macbeth._

SANBENITO OF PENITENT RELAPSED.

From Limborch’s ‘Historia Inquisitionis.’]

What is not to be explained is why Yucé should have waited until he was
strapped to the _escalera_ before making this statement. Why did he not
make it when the question was asked him at his last examination--if
not in his original confession? It cannot be pretended that he was
endeavouring to screen Juan Franco, because he has very amply betrayed
him in other ways. Is the explanation that under fear of torture he
felt the need to invent an answer likely to satisfy the inquisitors?
It can hardly be that, because Juan Franco himself is to admit--as we
shall see--the truth of this detail. It only remains to be supposed
that the lively fear of torture had sharpened the young Jew’s memory.
But that again seems hardly satisfactory as an explanation.

“Where,” they ask him next, “is La Hos?”

“It is,” he replies, “a meadow by the River Algodor,” and he goes on to
explain that Juan Franco had told them all that he had taken a load of
wheat to Toledo to sell, and that, having sold it, he went to an inn,
and later on he found the boy in a doorway and coaxed him away with
_nuégados_ (a sweetmeat composed of flour, honey, and nuts--nougat).
Thus he got him into his cart and brought him to La Guardia.

Yucé doesn’t know who were the child’s parents, nor in what street of
Toledo he was taken by Juan Franco, as the latter did not mention those
particulars.

“Who were the first to propose the affair? Did the Jews engage the
Christians in it, or the Christians engage the Jews?”

He answers that the Francos of La Guardia, fearing the Inquisition,
performed an enchantment in the first instance with a consecrated
wafer, as he has already confessed (October 11), and then repaired to
Tazarte asking him to do something more efficacious, as the sorcery
with the wafer had had no result. Tazarte agreed, and bade them procure
a Christian boy for the purpose. When Juan Franco brought him, it
was decided to cut out his heart, that with this heart and a wafer a
stronger enchantment might be performed.

“Why was he done to death by crucifixion rather than in any other way?”

Yucé believes that the crucifixion was preferred in vituperation of
Jesus Christ. But again he protests that his own share was no more than
he has confessed already.

“What were the particular vituperations used to the child, and by whom?”

His answer to this question incriminates all those who were present
at the affair; the vituperations which he tells the inquisitors were
employed were rather indecent, and include a scurrilous version of the
Incarnation which would, no doubt, be current at the time among Jews
and other enemies of Christianity in Spain and elsewhere--a story, it
is needless to add, entirely idle and foolish, and rather the obvious
thing to be conceived in those days against any historical character
who might be detested.

He says that Tazarte was the leader in all the vituperations (which
sounds likely enough, as Tazarte was the celebrant), that the others
uttered them after him, and he admits that he himself said some of the
things which he has mentioned, but he doesn’t enter into particulars.

“For what purpose were the heart and the Host required, and what good
purpose was expected to be served by these sorceries?”

He replies that these things were done to the end that the inquisitors
or any others who should aim at molesting these Christians concerned
should die of rabies.

“What advantage did the Jews look to gain?”

He states that Tazarte had assured them that as a consequence of the
enchantment all Christians in the land must either perish or become
Jews, so that the Law of Moses should triumph and prevail.

“To whom were the heart and the Host to be delivered for the said
enchantment?”

“To Mosé Abenamias at Zamora.”

“Was Abenamias himself to perform the enchantment?”

“No; he was to give orders for its performance to a wizard of Zamora.”

“Does he, or do any of the others, know the said wizard, and what is
his name?”

He cannot answer the question, beyond telling them that he had heard
Tazarte say that he knew Abenamias and the wizard, and that he had been
to school with the latter.

“How many times did they assemble to decide upon the crucifixion?”

He knows that all (with the exception of himself) assembled in the same
cave to perform an enchantment with a Host on an occasion previous to
that of the boy’s crucifixion. He knows this because he was invited to
the gathering; he did not wish to go, and so stayed away, but he was
told afterwards by the others what had been done.

“What Christians does he know to have kept the Sabbath, the Passover,
and to have performed Jewish rites?”

He says that Benito once came to their house at Tenbleque and spent
a Sabbath with them, doing no work, eating _adafinas_ and drinking
_Caser_ wine; and that he came upon another occasion and asked them
when was the fast of _Tisabeaf_ (the eve of Purim), and that he
believes that, being informed of this, he kept that fast.

He can remember no others, excepting one Diego de Ayllon and three of
his daughters and a son, all of whom kept the Sabbath and observed
the law of Moses in secret; and the widow of one Juan de Origuela,
deceased, who sometimes kept Jewish fasts; and Juan Vermejo of
Tenbleque, whom he knows once to have kept the great fast.

These names are duly noted on the margin of the notary’s document as
matters of importance which need inquiring into.

“Whence was the wafer procured, and how does he know that it was
consecrated?”

He answers that when they assembled, a fortnight after the crucifixion,
he heard Alonso Franco say that he had taken it from the monstrance in
the Church of Romeral, replacing it by an unconsecrated wafer.

“Was this the wafer given to Tazarte with the heart?”

He believes so, but he is not sure, nor does he know what became of it.

“Who brought the other wafer given to Benito, and whence was it
obtained?”

Alonso brought it, and said that he had obtained it in the church of La
Guardia, and that it was consecrated. But Yucé doesn’t know if anyone
gave it to him.[208]

This confession Yucé ratified two days later, adding now that Juan
and Garcia Franco together had brought the boy, and that one had
remained at La Hos with him whilst the other had come to La Guardia.
Further, he adds that the letter to Abenamias at Zamora bore six
signatures--Tazarte’s, Alonso Franco’s, Benito Garcia’s, Yucé Franco’s
own, his brother’s, and one other which he can’t recall.[209]

We have already indicated that a mystery attaches to this letter. What
has become of it? We are told that Benito bore it together with the
Host. How does it happen that it was not taken together with the Host
when he was arrested at the inn at Astorga? Possibly it was. But in
that case, and since it bore Yucé’s signature, why is it not included
in the _dossier_, and why can we find no trace of any use having been
made of it by the inquisitors? The only plausible explanation--and
it may be forthcoming when the _dossiers_ of the other accused are
discovered--is that the Host found upon Benito Garcia was not the one
sent with the letter by his hand some time in 1487 or 1488.

On November 3 the octogenarian Ça is examined in the torture-chamber,
strapped, as was his son, to the _escalera_. But the mere fear of
torture is not sufficient to loosen the tongue of this aged Jew. He
resists their questions, and will add nothing to what he has confessed,
until the executioner has submitted him to that frightful torment and
given him one jar of water. He then affords them, at last, the further
information they require, telling them the precise vituperations that
were addressed to the crucified boy, and admitting that this was done
in mockery of the Passion of Jesus Christ. He says that Tazarte uttered
the insults, and that the others--first the Jews, and after them the
Christians--repeated them. Further, he confesses that the child was
crucified and the sorceries performed that the inquisitors and all
Christians should enrage and die.[210]

On the same day Juan Franco was tied to the _escalera_, beyond which
it was not necessary to proceed with him, for he there satisfied the
inquisitors by confessing to the vituperations employed against the
crucified boy.[211]

On the 4th further confirmation of this is obtained from Juan de Ocaña,
who confesses to the vituperations, and says that they were first
uttered by the Jews, who then compelled the Christians to repeat them.
He does not remember the terms used, nor would he ever have known them
but for the Jews.[212]

Benito is next examined, and warned by the inquisitors to answer
truthfully, as the truth is already fully known to them. He admits that
many vituperations were used; he cites them, and in the main they agree
with what has already been deponed.

“Who,” he is asked, “were the first to utter these things?”

He replies that Ça Franco, his sons, and Tazarte (_i.e._ the Jews)
were the first, and that he and the other Christians repeated them
afterwards.

Lastly, on November 5, Alonso Franco affords the fullest confirmation
to all this that has been confessed by the other accused.[213]

The trial is now rapidly drawing to a close. On the 7th Yucé is again
before the court, and--sinister feature--this time he comes alone.
His counsel has vanished, in acknowledgment of the fact that it is no
longer tenable with his duty to God that he should continue to defend
one of whose “heresy” he is himself convinced. Yucé himself, in view
of this, must realize that he is lost, and must abandon his last shred
of hope.

Guevára, the prosecutor, is there, and Dr. Villada announces that
additional proof is now before the court. He orders copies of the
latest depositions, obtained in the torture-chamber, to be delivered
to the defendant, and he accords the latter three days within which he
must lodge any objection to anything contained in them.

But Yucé does not require so long. He realizes that all is lost, and
he forthwith confesses that what has been deponed by the witnesses
against him concerning the vituperations he used is true with certain
exceptions, and these were the most blasphemous and insulting.

Upon that the fiscal Guevára formally petitions the court to pass
sentence. The inquisitor Santo Domingo declares the trial to be at an
end, and dismisses both parties, requiring them to come before the
court again in three days’ time to hear the sentence.[214]

Yet, before proceeding to this, on the 14th day of that month of
November, the inquisitors ordered all the prisoners (with the exception
of Juan Franco) to be introduced together into the audience-chamber.
There, in the presence of his co-accused, each was bidden to recite
what he had already confessed, this being done with the aim of
obtaining a greater unanimity upon details.

Last of all, Juan Franco is brought in, and he now admits that it is
true that he brought the boy from Toledo, that they had crucified
him as he has confessed, that he himself had opened the boy’s side
and taken out his heart, and that his brother Alonso had opened the
veins of the child’s arms, etc.--all as confessed--and further that it
is true that he and his brother Alfonso had afterwards buried their
victim.

He now corroborates Benito’s statement that on the day they stole the
child he and Benito went together to Toledo, and that they agreed
that one should seek in one quarter of the city whilst the other
sought in another. And further, he says that he found the child in the
doorway--known as the Puerta del Perdon--of the cathedral, as he has
already stated in his confession (which is not before us).[215]

On the next day Guevára appears before the inquisitors to petition that
in view of what has been deponed against the deceased Mosé Franco, Yucé
Tazarte, and David Perejon, their Paternities should order it to be
recorded _ad perpetuam rei memoriam_, to enable the execution of the
deceased in effigy, the confiscation of their property, and the infamy
of their heirs.

That is on November 15. On the 16th the last scene of this protracted
trial is played in the market-square of Avila.

There, near the church of St. Peter, the scaffolds have been erected
for the Auto de Fé. On one, in their hideous yellow _sanbenitos_,
are grouped the eight prisoners and the three effigies. On the other
are the inquisitors, Dr. Pedro de Villada and Frey Antonio de Santo
Domingo, with all the _personnel_ of the Holy Office, their notaries,
the fiscal Guevára, familiars, and apparitors. Round the scaffolds
thronged the greater part of the inhabitants of Avila and many who had
come in from the surrounding country districts, whence it is clear
that the Auto had been announced some days before. The popular feeling
against the Jews runs high, and it is an angry, turbulent mob that
witnesses the Auto. Avila, indeed, is in uproar, and no Jew dare show
himself abroad without risk of being insulted or assaulted in the
street.[216]

The sentences are read by the notary Antonio Gonçales, commencing with
a very full narrative of the crimes of each of the accused, which we
need not render here as it is a summary of all that has been gone
through and practically a repetition of the matter contained in the
“Testimonio.”

They are sentenced all to be abandoned to the secular arm of the
Corregidor Don Alvaro de Sant’ Estiban, who, advised some days before,
is in attendance with his lieutenants and _alguaziles_.

The usual exhortation being duly pronounced, they are seized by the men
of the Corregidor and led away out of the city to the burning-place.
The inquisitors order their notaries to accompany the doomed men, that
they may record their final confessions at the stake.

In Yucé’s _dossier_ are included not only his own confession--made at
the last moment--but also Benito Garcia’s, Juan de Ocaña’s, and Juan
Franco’s, all recorded by the notary Gonçales. Further, this _dossier_
contains a letter written on the morrow of the event by the same notary
of the Holy Office to the authorities of La Guardia, accompanying a
relation of the crime and the sentences pronounced, for publication in
La Guardia, where the offences were committed.

From this we learn that Benito, in spite of his protestations that he
would die a Jew betide what might, accepted at the stake the spiritual
comforts of the Church, and thus earned the mercy of being strangled
before the faggots were fired.[217]

Similarly Juan de Ocaña and Juan Franco accepted the ministrations of
the attendant friars and returned to the Church from which they had
secretly seceded. But the Jews--the stalwart old man of over eighty
and his son--held staunchly to their faith, and refused to avoid by
apostasy any part of the agony prepared them. Wherefore, in a spite
that seems almost satanic, their flesh was torn with red-hot pincers
before they were consumed over slow fires.

“They refused,” writes the reverend notary, “to call upon God or the
Virgin Mary or to make so much as a sign of the Cross. Do not pray for
them,” he concludes, impatiently it seems to us, “for they are buried
in Hell.”

Finally, the notary begs the authorities of La Guardia not to permit
that the place where Juan Franco said that the Holy Child was buried
should be ploughed over, but to see that it is left intact. Their
Highnesses and the Cardinal of Spain, he adds, may desire to visit it,
and he prays that God “may reveal to us the bones of the infant.” It
is expedient to mark the spot, he concludes, because, in view of the
merits of such a place, he hopes that it may please God that the earth
of it will work miracles.

The sentence is sent, it should be added, with order that it shall be
read from the pulpit of La Guardia on the following Sunday, and this
under pain of excommunication.

In Avila the popular feeling against the Jews as a consequence of this
affair was so bitter that their lives were not safe, and it is on
record that one was stoned to death in the streets. It became necessary
for the Aljama of that city to petition the Sovereigns for protection,
and M. Fidel Fita quotes a royal letter commanding such protection
to be extended, with threats of rigour against any who should molest
them.[218]




CHAPTER XXIV

EPILOGUE TO THE AFFAIR OF THE SANTO NIÑO


The evidence given by Yucé Franco as to whence the consecrated wafers
had been obtained is hearsay evidence, and very vague even then. But it
would appear that from Benito Garcia or Alfonso Franco the inquisitors
have been able to obtain something more definite, for whilst the trial
of the eight accused has been drawing to a close, the familiars of the
Holy Office have been about the apprehension of the sacristan of the
church of La Guardia.

On November 18, 1491--two days after the Auto--this sacristan is
brought before the court at Avila, and admonished to tell the truth of
this matter, being promised mercy if he will do so.

He states that about two years ago his uncle, Alonso Franco, besought
him on two separate occasions to let him have two consecrated wafers,
promising him a cloak and money and much else if he would so.
Ultimately, in response to these requests, and in accordance with the
instructions he received from Alonso, he delivered a consecrated wafer
to Benito Garcia, who came for it on the other’s behalf.

He remembers that it was winter-time, but he cannot recall the day or
even the month. He explains that he took the Host from the pyx in the
sanctuary of the Church of Santa Maria, having obtained the keys from
the earthenware pot in which they were kept. He says that he begged
Benito to tell him what it was wanted for, but that he could not
induce him to say. He was assured, however, that no harm was intended.

He is able to fix the date more closely by remembering that the Francos
were arrested about five months later.

Under further examination he declares that he believes in the True
Presence, and always did, and that when he urged this upon Alfonso
Franco and Benito Garcia they admitted that his act was a sin, but they
assured him that it was not a heresy, and that no heresy was involved,
and that for the sin his confessor would absolve him.[219]

       *       *       *       *       *

One man who is alleged to have had a share in the affair of La Guardia
escaped all mention at the time in the depositions of the accused,
and was, consequently, entirely overlooked. This was one Hernando de
Ribera, a man of a station in life very much above that of the others,
and it is said that in consequence of this to him had been assigned the
aristocratic role of Pilate in that parody of the Passion.

Not until nearly thirty years later was he arrested, self-betrayed, it
is said, the man having boasted of his share in that affair. He was
convicted of that crime, and also of flagrant Judaizing, for in the
meanwhile he had accepted baptism to avoid expulsion from Spain when
the decree of banishment of all Jews was published.

       *       *       *       *       *

Now, whilst the publication by M. Fidel Fita of the records of the
trial of Yucé Franco has shed a good deal of light upon the affair,
it is not to be denied that much still remains to be explained, and
that until such explanations are forthcoming--until the records of the
proceedings against Yucé’s co-accused are brought to light and we are
able to compare them one with another--the affair of the Holy Infant
of La Guardia must to a certain extent continue in the category of
historic mysteries.

Meanwhile, however, in spite of the glaring contradictions contained in
the evidence at present available, in spite of the incongruities which
refuse to fit into the general scheme, we cannot hold that M. Loeb is
justified of his conclusion that the Holy Infant of La Guardia--and
consequently the crime with which we have dealt--never had any real
existence.[220]

M. Loeb makes a twofold contention:

    (_a_) If the crime of La Guardia ever did take place, then upon
    the evidence itself, it was not ritual murder at all, but a
    case of sorcery in which Christians were concerned as well as
    Jews.

    (_b_) No such crime ever did take place.

He bases his somewhat daring final conclusion upon three premises:

    (_a_) The depositions of the witnesses, obtained under
    torture or the threat of it, are full of contradictions, of
    improbabilities, and of facts materially impossible.

    (_b_) The judges made no inquest to discover the truth.

    (_c_) The Inquisition is unable to fix the date of the crime;
    it did not verify the disappearance or discover the remains of
    any child.

The first of these premises is the most worthy of attention. The other
two appear to us to overlook the fact that our present knowledge is
confined to the record of the trial of one of the accused, and this one
a youth who was guilty of participating in the crime in a comparatively
minor degree.

No one is in a position to say that the judges made no inquest to
discover the truth. All that we know is that it does not transpire
from Yucé’s trial that any such efforts were made. But then such
efforts may not so much concern Yucé’s trial as the trials of some of
the ringleaders, and it is very possible that the records of the latter
may divulge some such inquest. It is more than possible. The compiler
of the résumé of seven of the trials distinctly shows that this was
done.[221] He cites the fact that when Juan Franco had confessed
that he and his brother Alonso buried the boy, the inquisitors took
him to the place where he stated that the body had been inhumed, and
made him point out the exact spot, “and they discovered the truth and
demonstration of all this.”[222]

This, of course, does not mean that the body was found. It simply
means--as we are told--that the place indicated by Juan Franco
presented the appearance of having lately served the purpose of
a grave. The failure to find the body is undoubtedly one of the
unexplained mysteries of this affair. But it does not justify the
statement that no inquest was made--a statement which in itself implies
that the inquisitors knew the whole story to be false, and therefore
deliberately avoided inquiries which should expose that falseness.

The vagueness and confusion that appear to exist on the subject of the
date when the crime was committed certainly call for comment.

The contradictions on this score appear to be flagrant, and it is
impossible to reconcile the date of the crucifixion with that of Benito
Garcia’s arrest in Astorga. It seems to be established by Yucé that the
crucifixion took place at the end of Lent 1488; and he and others tell
us that about six months later they all assembled again to dispatch the
Host to Zamora by the hand of Benito. Yet Benito is arrested in Astorga
in May or June of 1490--more than eighteen months after setting out for
Zamora--and the wafer is still in his possession, undelivered. That is
what _seems_ to be established. But it is possible that a very simple
explanation may dispose of this discrepancy. We are not justified by
our present knowledge in saying that the inquisitors were unable to
dispose of it. We may not assume that there is not, in the records
of the trials of the other accused, matter that will clear up this
question.

The date supplied by the sacristan, for instance, does not seem to be
so very inconsistent with that of the event in the inn at Astorga.
He said, it will be remembered, that he had delivered the wafer to
Benito some five months before the arrest of the Francos. This tends
strongly to confirm the impression we have already formed that the
wafer discovered upon Benito at the time of his arrest was not the one
that he had set out to take to Zamora some two years earlier. The Host,
together with the letter for Abenamias, may very well have reached
its destination. If this is admitted--and there is nothing in the
evidence to forbid its admittance--much that is irreconcilable in the
depositions at once disappears.

M. Loeb, of course, has proceeded upon the assumption that it is
pretended that the Host dispatched from La Guardia in 1488 and the
Host found upon Benito at Astorga in 1490 are one and the same. It may
appear to be the obvious thing to assume. Yet it is a hasty assumption,
which nothing in the evidence before us will justify.

As for the other discrepancies which M. Loeb points out, when all is
said, they refer to matters of detail, upon which mistakes are not
impossible.

Benito states that the child’s hands and feet were nailed to the cross
in addition to being tied, whilst Yucé makes no mention of nails.

According to the statements of Yucé and of Juan Franco, it is the
latter’s brother who opened the veins in the boy’s arms, whereas Ocaña
said that this was done by Yucé. We have already drawn attention
to the circumstances under which Ocaña so accused Yucé, and we have
suggested the vindictiveness that may have inspired him.

Juan Franco confessed that he himself cut open the boy’s side and drew
out the heart, whilst Yucé’s statement was to the effect that Juan had
opened the wound and Garcia Franco had torn out the heart.

Mainly the evidence seems to say that the child bled to death. Yet
Benito states that he was strangled(?), and Yucé in one of his
statements says that they gagged him because he was crying. We have
already suggested that by the expression “_lo ahogaron_” so much as
“strangling” may not necessarily have been meant.

       *       *       *       *       *

These are, after all, the principal discrepancies; and it is to be
remembered that these men were referring to things done at least two
years before; that confusion on the score of particulars is not only
possible but more or less inevitable; and that, despite contradictions
in these details, the main facts stated are always the same in the
depositions of each. M. Loeb more than suggests that this unanimity was
contrived by the inquisitors. He puts it forward as more than probable
that the prisoners were left alone together on the occasions of the
confrontations, to the end that they might agree upon the same tale.

There is not the slightest warrant for such an assumption. In the
records the notary very clearly states that the inquisitors were
present throughout those confrontations, and it is of importance to
remember that these records were not prepared for publication, but were
to be consigned to the secret archives of the Inquisition--so that any
notion of a fraud having been deliberately perpetrated may once for all
be dismissed as entirely idle.

But even were it not the recorded fact that the inquisitors were
present at the confrontations, and that the prisoners were afforded no
opportunity of coming to any understanding, it would still be extremely
difficult to believe that they should have come to an understanding to
get themselves all burnt.

M. Loeb’s attempt to make this appear reasonable is the least
convincing thing in a very able but quite unconvincing article. It
certainly seems to display his own want of confidence in the general
acceptance of such a situation.

“We could understand,” he says, “that guilty men should come to
an understanding to deny the crime committed, or to attenuate the
fault, or to cast it upon others. But what should be the meaning
of an understanding whose object, as would be the case here, is to
make truthful avowals of a real crime? The accused would be taking
unnecessary trouble. But all is explained if, on the contrary, they
prepared confessions of a crime that was never committed.”

M. Loeb has vitiated his argument by the absolute assumption that an
understanding did take place. This we cannot admit upon the evidence
before us. But if we do, is the position materially altered? M. Loeb
says that “all is explained if they prepared confessions of a crime
that was never committed.” To our mind, nothing is explained by such
a procedure. What possible object could have induced them to come
to an understanding to make an uncommitted crime the subject of a
unanimous confession that must infallibly send them to the stake? What
possible advantage could they hope to derive from a falsehood of that
description?

One of the chief obstacles to the rejection of the story as a
fabrication is Yucé’s confession to “the Rabbi Abraham” in the prison
of Segovia. M. Loeb recognizes it, and although he makes a determined
attempt to overcome it, his arguments are too arbitrary and do not
materially affect the point even if they are admitted.

But if M. Loeb is entirely unconvincing in his attempts to prove that
the crucifixion of the boy is a fable, nothing could be more convincing
than his first contention: that even if we account the story true as
contained in Yucé’s _dossier_, the deed is not to be looked upon as
ritual murder, but purely as an operation in magic.

It is a conclusion with which you must come to agree, although at first
glance you may be tempted to form the opinion that the crucifixion of
the child served both purposes. Some such opinion had been formed by
the inquisitors when they asked why the boy had been crucified rather
than put to death in some other fashion, since his heart was all that
was required for the enchantment.

The answer was that crucifixion was chosen in derision and vituperation
of the Passion of Jesus Christ. But this is a very different thing
from ritual murder or “the hanging of Haman.” If we turn to the actual
vituperative phrases employed,[223] we find the expression of a desire
to wound the Redeemer Himself, through that form of magic, common in
all ages, known as _envoûtement_. Instead of the waxen or wooden effigy
usually employed, a living body is used in this case. For the rest the
immolation of a child plays its part in the magic ritual of other than
Jews. We need mention but the notorious instance of the Black Masses
celebrated by the infamous Abbé Gribourg in the eighteenth century.

There seems, indeed, no doubt at all that we are justified in rejecting
the theory that the crucifixion of the Holy Child of La Guardia is
to be accepted as an instance of Jewish ritual murder. So far we can
accompany M. Loeb, but no farther. We cannot say with him that no such
crime was ever committed. To convince us of that it would be necessary
to show that the whole of the _dossier_ we have considered is a forgery
to serve the purposes of Torquemada. And this we have proof that
it is not. Had it been that, had it been manufactured for popular
consumption, it would not have lain concealed for four centuries in the
secret archives of the Inquisition.

That Torquemada exploited the matter and turned it to the fullest
account is admitted. But this merely shows him to be an opportunist; it
is very far from proving him a forger. The very sentence was couched
in terms calculated to excite--as it did--popular indignation against
the Jews. Nor did the publication of the sentence end in La Guardia,
whither copies were sent. We may infer that Torquemada scattered those
copies broadcast through Spain, since we actually find a Catalan
translation which was specially prepared for publication in Barcelona.

       *       *       *       *       *

The cult of the Holy Child of La Guardia sprang up at once, and
developed rapidly. Numerous shrines were set up in his honour, the
first and chief of these being on the site of the house of Juan Franco,
which had been razed to the ground. Here an altar was erected in the
cellar of the house, on the spot where it was believed that the child’s
sufferings had begun; it was surmounted by a figure of a child pinioned
to a column.

Over this subterranean shrine a church sprang rapidly into existence.

Another hermitage was erected near Santa Maria de Pera, on the spot
where the child was alleged to have been buried, and yet another in the
cave where he was believed to have suffered crucifixion. “In all times
since,” says Moreno,[224] “the three sanctuaries have been frequented
by those who come to pray to the Niño as to a saint.”

The first of these sanctuaries was erected by 1501--at which date
records of it are to be found. It was called the Sanctuary of the Holy
Innocent, and Moreno adds that this has always received the approval of
Popes and Bishops, and that plenary and partial indulgences have been
granted to the faithful visiting these shrines.

The people of La Guardia elected him their patron saint, and a fast was
appointed for the eve of his feast-day, which at first was March 25,
but was afterwards changed to September 25. Moreno includes in his book
the prayers prescribed and a litany to the Niño.[225]

But it is not without a certain significance that Rome--ever
cautious, as we have already had occasion to say, in the matter of
canonization--has not yet recognized the Holy Child of La Guardia as
one of the saints of the Church.

Yepes chronicles four miracles performed by the child after his death,
beginning with his mother’s obtaining sight. All these, with other
very interesting and purely romantic details, are to be found in that
piously fraudulent work--the “Life of the Holy Child,” by Martinez
Moreno.




CHAPTER XXV

THE EDICT OF BANISHMENT


It was, as we have already suggested, the very opportuneness with
which the trial and sentence of those concerned in the affair of La
Guardia came to afford Torquemada an additional argument to plead
with the Sovereigns his case against the Jews, which has led so many
historians--prior to M. Fidel Fita’s discovery--to reject the story as
an invention. Another reason to discredit it lay in the circumstance
that it was circulated in Spain together with a number of other stories
that were obviously false and obviously invented expressly for the
purpose of defaming the Jews and exciting popular indignation against
them.

Meanwhile Ferdinand and Isabella pressed triumphantly forward on their
conquering progress through Andalusia. Lucena, Coin, Ronda, and scores
of other Moorish strongholds in the southern hills had fallen before
the irresistible arms of the Christians; and the Sovereigns, aided by
Jewish gold--not merely the gold extorted by confiscations, but moneys
voluntarily contributed by their Hebrew subjects--pushed on to the
reduction of Malaga, as the prelude to the leaguer of Granada itself,
the last bulwark of Islam in Spain. This fell on January 2, 1492, and
with it fell the Moslem dominion, which had endured in the peninsula,
with varying fortunes, for nearly 800 years.

It might well have seemed to the Catholic Sovereigns that the
conquest of Spain and the victory there of Christianity were at last
accomplished, had not Torquemada been at their elbow to point out that
the triumph of the Cross would never be complete in that land as long
as the Jews continued to be numbered among its inhabitants.

He protested that the evils resulting from intercourse between
Christian and Jew were notorious and unconquerable. He declared that
in spite of the Inquisition, and in spite of all other measures that
had been taken to keep Christian and Jew apart, the evil persisted and
was as rampant as ever. He urged that the Jews continued unabatedly
to pervert the Christians, and that they must so continue as long as
they were tolerated to remain in the peninsula. Particularly was this
notorious in the case of the Marranos or New-Christians, to whom the
Israelites gave no peace until--by indoctrination or by the scorn and
abuse they heaped upon them--they had seduced them back into error.

And in proof of what he urged he was able to point to the affair of La
Guardia, to the outrage to the crucifix at Casar de Palomero, and to
other matters of a kindred nature that had lately been brought to light.

He called upon the Sovereigns to redeem the promise they had made to
give consideration to this matter--a consideration which, in answer to
his earlier pleadings, they had postponed until the war against Granada
should have been brought to its conclusion.

In the meantime the Jews themselves had fought strenuously against the
banishment with which they saw themselves threatened. Eloquent had
been their appeals to the Sovereigns. And the Sovereigns could hardly
turn a deaf ear to the intercessions of subjects to whom they owed so
much. For was it not the very Jews who had supplied the Spanish crown
with the sinews for this campaign against the enemies of the Cross? Was
it not owing to wonderful Hebrew administration--an administration
gratefully surrendered to them--that the army of the Cross was
equipped, maintained, and paid out of moneys that the Jews themselves
had provided?

They found means to bring this to the attention of the Sovereigns, as
a proof of the loyalty of their devotion, as a proof of their value
to the Spanish nation. And the Sovereigns had other experiences of
the loyalty and affection which had ever been manifested towards them
by their long-suffering Hebrew subjects. When, for instance, their
son, the Infante Don Juan was proclaimed in Aragon, after the Cortes
of Toledo, the Jews had been foremost in the jubilant and loving
receptions that everywhere met their Highnesses in the course of their
progress through the kingdom of Ferdinand. Whilst the Spaniards were
content to greet their Sovereigns with acclamations, the Jews went to
meet them with valuable gifts.[226] Bernaldez tells us[227] of the
splendid offering made to their Highnesses by the Aljama of Zaragoza.
It consisted of twelve calves, twelve lambs, and a curious and very
beautiful service of silver borne by twelve Jews, a rich silver cup
full of gold castellanos[228] and a jar of silver--“all of which the
Sovereigns received and prized, returning many thanks.”

Loyalty so tangibly manifested, of which this is but an instance, must
have some weight in the scales against fanaticism; further, it seems
impossible that the Sovereigns should have been altogether blind to the
possible jeopardizing of the industrial prosperity of the kingdom if
those chiefly responsible for it were driven out.

So they had put off their decision in the matter, urging that the
present war demanded their full attention. But now that the conquest
of Granada was accomplished, they were forced to look the matter in
the face. For Torquemada was giving them no peace. Hard-driven by his
fanatical hatred of the Israelites, the Grand Inquisitor had resolved
upon his course and was determined that nothing should turn him aside.

Constantly were his arguments--all founded upon the love of
Christ--poured into the ears of the Sovereigns, and to prove the
soundness of these arguments he was able to bring forward concrete
facts--or, at least, matters upon which the courts of the Inquisition
had pronounced--prominent among which would be the affair of La Guardia.

And what Torquemada was doing by the Sovereigns, the brethren of his
order were doing by Spain. Popular indignation against the Jews, so
easy to arouse, already inflamed by the outrage at Casar de Palomero
and the crucifixion at La Guardia, was further and unscrupulously
excited by false stories that were set in circulation. It was even
alleged that the illness of the Prince Don Juan was the result of
Hebrew infamy, and to explain this a foolish, wicked story was
invented, put about and universally accepted.

Llorente quotes this story from the “Anonymo de Zaragoza.”[229] It
is to the effect that the prince coveted a golden pomander-ball worn
by his physician, who was of a Jewish family, and this gewgaw the
physician ended by relinquishing to his patient. One day, moved by
youthful curiosity, the boy wished to see what the pomander contained.
Opening it, he discovered an indecent and blasphemous picture,
insulting to the divinity of Christ. The sight of it inspired the
princeling with such horror and grief that he fell sick. Nor would he
divulge the origin of his illness until the instances of his father
succeeded in drawing the secret from him, whereupon “it was resolved to
take proceedings against the physician and to sentence him to the fire.”

This trivial, scurrilous, and obviously untruthful story would not be
worth repeating did it not serve the purpose of showing the sort of
rumours that were being propagated to the hurt of the Israelites.

Another story that was circulated alleged that in Valencia there had
also been an attempt by a number of Jews to crucify a Christian boy.
This is recorded in that scurrilous, infamous publication, “Centinela
contra Judios,” by Frey Francisco de Torrejoncillo. We have already
referred to it more than once. It was first printed in 1676, and is the
book of a friar of the Order of St. Francis, a disgraceful work which
proves its author to have been as barefaced as he was barefooted. It
is a collection of stupid lies and forgeries, and, it is scarcely an
exaggeration to add, obscenities; it may be another instance of those
frauds termed pious, but it is scarcely to the credit of a Church
exercising, by means of the “Index Expurgatorius,” a censorship of the
press--to have permitted the circulation of a work of this order from
the pen of a churchman.

This, however, is by the way.

The story here to be recorded is taken, Torrejoncillo tells us, from
the “Sermon de la Cruz” by Frey Felipe de Salazar.[230] On a Good
Friday evening a youth who was in a street of Valencia observed
several men entering a house. Considering this to be strange--although
no suspicious circumstance is mentioned--he approached the door and
listened. He heard them say, “There seems to be some one at the door.”
Fearing that a brawl might be the result if he were discovered there
when they opened, he drew his sword and fled. (How the drawing of
his sword was calculated to assist his flight the author does not
think it worth while to inform us.) As he was running he came upon a
patrol, which seized him, demanding to know whither he was hurrying in
this fashion with a naked sword in his hand. He related what he had
witnessed, whereupon the officer, not only for the purpose of testing
the truth of the story but also that he might ascertain to what end so
many men should be assembling, went to the house and knocked.

The door was opened by a Jew, who began to make obvious excuses to him.
Suddenly the officer heard a child’s voice within the house, crying,
“These men want to crucify me.”

The Jews were taken, the house demolished, and on the site of it was
built the Church of Santa Cruz.

In this collection of lies and forgeries are included the “letter
of Christ to Abgarus,” another letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
dilating upon the miracles of the Saviour, and a letter from the Jews
of Constantinople to those of Toledo, which played an important part in
this anti-semitic campaign.

It was the Cardinal-Archbishop Juan Martinez Siliceo who was alleged to
have discovered this letter in Toledo. We are to suppose that he also
found in Toledo the letter to the Jews of Constantinople to which this
is a reply, for the chroniclers are able to supply us with the texts
of both,[231] a circumstance which no one at the time appears to have
considered strange.

The letter to Constantinople ran as follows:


“THE JEWS OF SPAIN _to_ THE JEWS OF CONSTANTINOPLE

“Honoured Jews, health and grace.--Know that the King of Spain compels
us to become Christians, deprives us of property and of life, destroys
our synagogues and otherwise oppresses us, so that we are uncertain
what to do.

“By the Law of Moses we beseech you to assemble, and to send us with
all speed the declaration made in your assembly.

  “CHAMARRO, Prince of the Jews of Spain.”

       *       *       *       *       *

To this the answer received from Constantinople was in the following
terms:


“THE JEWS OF CONSTANTINOPLE _to_ THE JEWS OF SPAIN

“Beloved Brethren in Moses,--We have your letter in which you tell us
of the travail and suffering you are enduring there.... The opinion
of the Rabbis is that since the King of Spain attempts to make you
Christians, you should become Christians; since he deprives you of your
goods and property, you should make your children merchants, that they
may deprive the Christians of theirs; since you say that they deprive
you of your lives, make your sons apothecaries and physicians to
deprive the Christians of theirs; since they destroy your synagogues,
make your sons clerics that they may destroy the Christian temples;
since you say that you suffer other wrongs, make your sons enter public
offices that thus they may render the Christians subject to them.

“Do not depart from these orders, and you will see that from oppressed
you will come to be held of great account.

  “HUSÉE, Prince of the Jews of Constantinople.”

       *       *       *       *       *

The matter of these letters--so very obviously forged--was freely
circulated. Being accepted, public indignation was suddenly increased
by fear. Imaginations were stimulated, and stories based upon these
injunctions of Prince Husée became current, nothing being ever too
flagrant for popular consumption. It was related that a Jewish
physician in Toledo carried poison in one of his finger-nails, and
that with this he touched the tongues of the patients he visited, thus
killing them. Of another physician it was reported that he deliberately
poisoned the wounds he was desired to heal.[232] And that there were
many other such stories current is beyond all doubt.

       *       *       *       *       *

What use, if any, Torquemada made of those forged letters and the
stories that were their offspring, we do not know. But it would be
strange if the circulation and acceptance of such matters displeased
him, since they were plainly calculated to forward his aims and compel
the Sovereigns to lend an ear to his insistent denunciations of the
Jews.

Incessantly he preached the need for religious unity in a united Spain.
Indeed, Spain, he urged, never could be united, never could deserve
the blessing of Heaven, until all men in that land were the children
of God, true believers in the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith. God
had greatly favoured Ferdinand and Isabella, the friar continued. He
had collected the various elements of the peninsula into one mighty
kingdom, which He had subjected to their sceptre. Let them fuse those
elements into a solid whole, rejecting all those who resist this
fusion--and this for the honour and glory of God and of their own
kingdom.

Before this terrific gospel of Religious Unity nothing could stand.
Humanitarian considerations, principles of equity, indebtedness and
gratitude are mere trifles to be swept away by that hurricane of
religious argument.

The Sovereigns found themselves face to face with an issue of such a
magnitude that no temporal considerations could be allowed to weigh.
And to the pressure of Torquemada’s fierce arguments was added now the
pressure of public opinion, cunningly excited by his lieutenants. To
the voice of God from the lips of the Grand Inquisitor was added now
the _vox populi_--the voice of God from the lips of the people.

And so clamorous was this popular voice, so insistent were the
accusations which it levelled against the Israelites, of ritual
infamies and of seducing back to the Law of Moses their apostate
brethren, that the Jews were warned of the storm that was about to
break over their luckless heads.

Torquemada’s demand was that they must receive baptism or go.

The Sovereigns hesitated still. In Isabella perhaps the voice of
humanity was too strong to be entirely stifled by the dictates of
bigotry.

But Torquemada’s strength of purpose was the greater and more
irresistible by virtue of its purity and singleness of aim. Obviously
he was no self-seeker. Obviously he had no worldly ends to serve.
What he demanded, he demanded in the name of the religion which he
served--solely for the greater honour and glory of his God; and to
sovereigns of the temper of Ferdinand and Isabella demands so inspired
are not easily resisted.

And although it was clear that he sought no worldly advantage for
himself, he did not scruple to use the prospect of the Sovereigns’
worldly advantage as a weapon to combat their reluctance; he did
not hesitate to dangle before their eyes temporal advantages that
must result from the banishment of the Israelites. To arguments upon
religious grounds he added arguments of worldly expediency, arguments
which cannot have failed of effect upon the acquisitive nature of the
King.

Never, urged the Grand Inquisitor, would Spain know tranquillity whilst
she harboured Jews. They were predatory; they were untrustworthy; their
sole objective was the satisfaction of their pecuniary interest--the
only interest they knew; and their acquisitiveness would always dispose
them to serve any enemy of the crown so that it should profit them to
do so.[233]

But Torquemada was not the only advocate before the royal court. The
Jews were there, too, pleading on their own behalf, with an eloquence
that seemed for a moment on the point of prevailing--for the seductive
chink of gold was persuasively intermingled with their protestations.

They urged their past services to the crown, and promised even greater
services in the future; they swore that henceforth they would be more
observant of the harsh laws formulated by Alfonso XI--that they would
keep to their ghettos as prescribed, withdrawing to them at nightfall,
and abstaining rigorously from all such intercourse with Christians
as was by law forbidden. Last and most eloquent argument of all, they
offered through Abraham Seneor and Isaac Abarbanel--the two Jews who
had undertaken and so admirably effected the equipment of the Castilian
army for the campaign against Granada--that in addition to giving this
undertaking they would subscribe 30,000 ducats towards the expenses of
the war against the Moslem.

Ferdinand’s hesitation was increased by this offer. Ever in need of
money as the Sovereigns were, the consideration of this gold not only
tempted them, but it would undoubtedly have conquered them had not
Torquemada been at hand. But for his violent intervention it is more
than probable that the cruel edict of banishment would never have been
promulgated.

The Dominican, learning what was afoot, thrust himself into their
Highnesses’ presence to denounce their hesitation, and to put upon it
the name which in his opinion it deserved.

It is not difficult to picture him in that supreme moment. It is one
of those rare occasions on which this being whom we have compared to a
_Deus ex machina_, a cold stern spirit ruling and guiding the terrible
organization of the Inquisition which he has himself established, steps
forth in the flesh, a living, throbbing man.

You behold him pale, a little breathless in the excitement and anger by
which he is possessed. His deep-set eyes glow sombrely with the fever
of fanatical zeal and indignation. He draws his lean old frame erect.
In his shrivelled, sinewy old hands he flaunts aloft a crucifix.

It is an intense moment. Everything contributes to it: the long-drawn
duel between religion and humanity, between clericalism and
Christianity, of which this is at last the climax; and nothing so
much as the figure offered by the Jews. This _thirty_ thousand is
unfortunately reminiscent. It permits the Prior of Holy Cross to draw a
very daring parallel.

“Judas,” he cries, “once sold the Son of God for thirty pieces. Your
Highnesses think to sell Him again for thirty thousand. Here you have
Him. Sell Him, then, but acquit me of all share in the transaction.”

And, crashing the crucifix upon the table before their startled
Highnesses, he abruptly leaves the chamber.[234]

       *       *       *       *       *

Thus Torquemada conquered.

The edict of expulsion was signed at Granada on March 31 of that year
1492--that glorious year in which Spain finally completed the erection
of her monarchy upon the ruins of the old Visigothic kingdom, and in
which the navigator Columbus laid a new world at the foot of the throne
of the Catholic Sovereigns.[235]




CHAPTER XXVI

THE EXODUS FROM SPAIN


It was solemnly declared in the edict of expulsion that this decree
was promulgated solely in obedience to the pressing need to cut off at
the roots, once for all time, the evils arising out of the intercourse
between Christians and Jews, since all other efforts hitherto
undertaken with the same intent had proved fruitless.[236]

By this edict all Jews of any age and either sex who should refuse to
receive baptism must quit Spain within three months, and never return,
under pain of death and the confiscation of their property.

The cruelty of this expatriation calls for little exposition. Spain
was the motherland of these Jews. For centuries it had been the home
of their ancestors, and they held it in the affection implanted in
the heart of each of us for the country which is his own. They must
depart out of it, into exile in some foreign land, and the only terms
upon which they could obtain immunity from that harsh decree was by
the sacrifice of something dearer still, something as dear to them as
honour itself. They must be false to the faith of their fathers and
forswear the God of Israel.

That was the choice forced upon the Children of Judah--the choice which
the arrogant Christian Church had been forcing upon all men from the
moment that she had found herself mistress of the power to do so.

It was decreed that after the expiry of the three months allowed them
in which to settle their affairs and be gone no Christian would be
suffered to befriend or assist them, to give them food or shelter,
under pain of being called to account as an abettor of heretics.

Until their departure the persons and property of the exiled were
nominally under the protection of the Sovereigns. They were permitted
to dispose of what property they possessed, and to take the proceeds
with them in bills of exchange[237] or in merchandise, but not in gold,
which it was forbidden to carry out of the country.

Little greater would have been the injury done them if their property
had been confiscated outright. For being compelled to dispose of it at
such short notice, and the buyers knowing that it must be sold, and
eager to take advantage of these forced sales, what chance had the Jews
of realizing anything that should approach its value? How could they
avoid the pitiless Christian exploitation of their miserable position?

“The Christians obtained,” says Bernaldez, “much property and many
very rich houses and estates for little money; the Jews went about
offering these, and could not find any buyers, so that they were forced
to barter here a house for an ass, there a vineyard for a piece of
cloth.”[238]

From just this passage in the chronicle of an author whose detestation
of the Jews we have earlier considered may be conceived how terrible
was their distress, and how mercilessly was advantage taken of it by
the Christians.

[Illustration:

  _Photo by Donald Macbeth._

SANBENITO OF IMPENITENT.

From Limborch’s “Historia Inquisitionis”]

Amador de los Rios adds that entire ghettos entered into the sacrifice,
and that, the Jews being utterly unable to dispose of such communal
property, they were forced to make gifts of it to the municipalities
that had shown them so little pity.[239]

Torquemada in his great zeal for the Faith was not content to leave
matters there. His chief aim, after all, was not the expulsion of the
Jews, but their conversion and the effacement of their creed. As a
means to that end was it that he had wrung the edict of banishment from
the Sovereigns.

Upon this campaign of conversion he now sent forth his army of
Dominicans. He published an edict, with the royal sanction, in which
he exhorted the Israelites to receive baptism, laying stress upon the
fact that those who should do so before the expiry of the three months
appointed for their emigration would be entitled to remain.

In every city, in every village, in every hamlet, in churches, in
market-places, and at street-corners his black-and-white Dominicans
sought by exhortation and argument to induce the Jews to receive the
waters of baptism, thereby securing their well-being and prosperity
in this world and their eternal salvation in the next. The preachers
penetrated to the very synagogues in their zeal, and exerted themselves
even in the Jewish temples, by the promises they held out of temporal
advantage, to lead the Jews into the fold of Christianity. No place
was sacred from the friars-preachers. In Segovia, when the hour of
departure approached, the Jews spent three days in their cemetery
weeping over the graves of their dead, which they were abandoning. And
there were zealous Dominicans who intruded upon that sorrow, and seized
the opportunity to preach conversion to that piteous assembly.[240]

But the response to all these sermons was only slight. If Torquemada’s
friars were preaching Christianity on the one hand, and attempting by
argument and bribery to induce the Hebrews to embrace it, the Rabbis,
on the other, were no less energetic in their efforts to encourage the
Israelites to stand firm in their fidelity to their God, to resist
the temptations of corruption, and to remember that even as God had
delivered them out of Egypt and led them into the Land of Plenty, so in
leading them out of Spain would He see that His children did not suffer
loss of honour or of worldly goods.

Whether the Israelites believed or not, the great body of them remained
staunch, and sooner than accept ease and advancement at the price of
baptism, they firmly envisaged exile and the loss of their property,
which the royal decree inspired by Torquemada rendered inevitable.

Bernaldez tells us that, notwithstanding the law against taking gold
out of Spain, many of the exiles did take it in large quantities
concealed about them--which is extremely probable. Not quite so
probable is the common rumour which he reports, that they reduced many
gold ducats to pellets with their teeth, and then swallowed them upon
arriving at seaports or other places where they were to be searched,
thus carrying the gold away in their stomachs. The women in particular,
he says, were great offenders in this respect, and--again reporting
the voice of common rumour--he informs us that some women contrived to
swallow as many as thirty ducats each.[241]

The story of this swallowed gold evidently got abroad, to add to their
affliction; and we are told that some who sailed from Cadiz to Fez, and
who fell into the hands of Moors upon landing on the coast of Barbary,
were not only plundered of their belongings, but were in several cases
ripped open by these brigands in their quest for gold.[242]

Within the little period of three months appointed them, the Israelites
sold or bartered what they could, and abandoned that for which they
found no buyers. All boys and girls of the age of twelve or more they
married, so that each nubile female should set out under the protection
of a husband.[243]

The exodus from Spain began in the first week in July of 1492. Those
amongst the exiles who were wealthy supported their poorer brethren,
in pursuance of the custom that had ever prevailed in their ghettos.
Many who had been very wealthy and masters of thriving trades abandoned
their prosperity, and trusting to what Bernaldez terms “the vain hope
of their blindness,” they took the harsh road into banishment.

The parish priest of Palacios has left us a vivid picture of this
emigration.[244] It is a picture over which Christianity must weep in
shame.

On foot, on horseback, on donkeys, in carts, young and old, stalwart
and feeble, healthy and ailing, some dying and some being born, and
many falling by the way, they formed forlorn processions toiling
onwards in the heat and dust of that July. On every road that led out
of the country--on those that went southwards to the sea, or westwards
to Portugal, or eastwards to Navarre--these straggling human droves
were to be met, and they presented a spectacle so desolate that there
was no Christian who did not pity them.

Succour them none dared, by virtue of the decree of the Grand
Inquisitor; but on every hand they were exhorted to accept baptism and
thus set a term upon their tribulations. And some, unable to endure
more in their utter exhaustion and hopelessness, gave way and forswore
the God of Israel.

But these were comparatively few. The Rabbis were at hand to encourage
and stimulate them. The women and the young men were bidden to sing
as they marched, and timbrels were sounded to hearten these wretched
multitudes.

The Andalusians made for Cadiz, where it was their intention to take
ship. Those of Aragon also turned towards the coast, repairing to
Cartagena; whilst many Catalans sailed for Italy, where--singular
anomaly!--a Catalan Pope (Roderigo Borgia) was to afford them shelter
and protection in the very heart of the system that was oppressing and
persecuting them.

Of those who arrived at Cadiz, Bernaldez says that at sight of the sea
there was great clamour amongst them. Their imaginations fired by the
recent sermons of the Rabbis, in which they had been likened to their
forefathers departing out of the Egyptian captivity, they confidently
expected to behold here a repetition of the miracle of the Red Sea, and
that the waters would separate to allow them a dry-shod passage into
Barbary.

Those who went westwards were permitted by King John of Portugal to
enter his kingdom and abide there for six months upon payment of a
small tax of one cruzado each.[245] Of these many settled in Portugal
and engaged there in trade, which they were permitted to do subject to
a tribute of 100 cruzados levied on each family.

It is no part of our present task to follow the Israelites into exile
and observe the miserable fate that overtook so many of them, alike at
the hands of the followers of the gentle Christ and at those of the
Children of the Prophet. Many sages and rabbis were amongst those who
abandoned Spain, and in their number was Isahak Aboab, the last Prince
of the Castilian Jews, and Isaac Abarbanel, the sometime farmer of the
royal taxes.

“The expulsion,” writes this last, “was accompanied by pillage on land
and sea; and amongst those who, stricken and sorrowful, set out for
foreign lands, was I. With great trouble I contrived to reach Naples,
but I was unable to find any repose there in consequence of the French
invasion. The French were masters of the city, the very inhabitants
having abandoned their Government. All rose against our congregation,
expelling rich and poor, men and women, fathers and sons of the
Children of Zion, and reducing them to the greatest ruin and misery.
Several abandoned their religion, fearing lest their blood should be
shed as water, or that they might be sold into slavery; for men and
women, young and old, were being carried off in ships without pity for
their lamentations, compelled to abandon their Law and continue in
captivity.”

France and England received some of the exiles, others went to settle
in the Far East. Most wretched, perhaps, were those who landed on the
coast of Africa and attempted by way of the desert to reach Fez, where
there was a Jewish colony. They were beset by a horde of plundering
tribesmen, who pillaged them of their belongings, treated them with the
utmost cruelty and inhumanity, ravished their women under their very
eyes, and left them stripped and utterly broken. Their sufferings had
reached the limit of their endurance. The survivors sought baptism at
the first Christian settlement they reached, and many of these returned
to their native Spain, having thus qualified themselves for readmission.

There were many otherwise who, similarly unable to endure the hardships
which they met abroad, broke down at last, accepted baptism and
returned, or else returned clamouring for the baptism that should
enable them to dwell in peace in the land of their birth.

For three years, says Bernaldez, there was a constant stream of
returning Jews, who having abandoned all for their faith, had now
abandoned their faith itself, and came back to make a fresh start. They
were baptized in groups, all at once, by the sprinkling of hyssop over
them.[246] Bernaldez himself baptized a hundred of them at Palacios,
and from what he beheld, “I considered fulfilled,” he writes, “the
prophecy of David--‘Covertentur ad vesperam et famen patiuntur ut canes
et circundabunt civitatem.’”

The priest of Palacios estimates at 36,000 the Jewish families that
accepted banishment,[247] which would represent some 200,000 souls.
But Salazar de Mendoza and Zurita set the total exiles at twice that
number,[248] whilst Mariana carries it as high as 800,000.[249] More
reliable perhaps than any of these is the estimate left by the Jewish
writers, who say that in the year 5252 of the Creation 300,000 Jews
left Spain, the land in which their forbears had dwelt for close upon
2,000 years.[250]

These figures bring home to us the gravity of the step taken by the
Sovereigns when they consented to the banishment of the Jews; and
if anything had been wanting to make us appreciate the irresistible
quality of Torquemada and of the fanaticism for which he stood, these
figures would supply it.

The proposed expulsion must fully have been discussed in council before
the edict was promulgated;[251] and it must have been obvious that
Spain could not fail to be left materially the poorer if some 40,000
industrious families were driven out. It is unthinkable that king or
councillor should not have raised the question of the inexpediency,
of the positive danger attaching to such a measure. Yet certain it
is that neither councillor nor king could stand against the stern,
uncompromising friar, in whom they saw the representative of a God that
was not to be trifled with--a God whom their conceptions transformed
into some vindictive pagan deity.

Torquemada’s crucifix so dramatically flung into the scales had
definitely settled the question.

The Sultan Bajazet, who welcomed and sheltered not a few of the
fugitives in Turkey, was overcome with amazement at this blunder of
statecraft, so that he is reported to have asked whether this king
were seriously to be taken for a great statesman who impoverished his
kingdom to enrich another’s.

What the Grand Turk perceived so readily, priest-ridden Ferdinand dared
not perceive.

In banishing Jew and Moslem from her soil--for the Moor was soon to
follow, though temporarily permitted to remain by virtue of the terms
of the capitulation of Granada--Spain banished her merchants and
financiers on the one hand, and her agriculturists and artisans on
the other; in short, she banished her workers, the productive section
of her community. It is accounted by many that she did so with the
fullest consciousness of the consequences--an act of heroic sacrifice
to principle and to religious convictions. And it may be that she
accounted herself God-rewarded by the gift of a new world for this
sacrifice to God.

The arts, the industries, manufactures, agriculture, and commerce
have been bewailing for four hundred years the lack of hands to serve
them. The New World proved but an illusory and transient compensation.
Its gold could not furnish Spain with the workers that she lacked. On
the contrary, it increased that lack. The New World repaid herself
with interest for what she gave. In return for the gifts she poured
into the lap of Spain she took to herself the very children of Spain,
luring them overseas with the fabulous tales of riches easily to
be acquired. Driven by this greed of gold, multitudes of families
emigrated to increase the depopulation of their country. And when, in
the course of time, those children of Spain in the New World had grown
to a sufficient strength to claim their emancipation, they threw off
the yoke of the motherland and distributed among themselves her vast
possessions. They left her bare indeed, who by her own act was without
home-resources, to realize perhaps at last what manner of service had
been rendered her by the Prior of Holy Cross.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Moors of Granada, meanwhile, had obtained from Ferdinand a promise
that the Inquisition should not be set up in Granada within the
following forty years, nor yet any prosecution instituted of Moriscoes
(baptized Moslems) for the observance of Mohammedan customs.

The term, however, set too great a strain upon priestly patience. In
1526--long before the expiry of the period marked--the Holy Office
crept slyly into Granada upon the pretext that it was requisite to
watch the many suspected Marranos who had gone to reside there in the
shelter of the immunity enjoyed by the Moriscoes. That it was the
merest pretext is shown by the circumstance that already, as early
as 1505, the Holy Office of Cordova had been moving in Granada and
instituting there, when occasion arose, proceedings against Judaizers.




CHAPTER XXVII

THE LAST “INSTRUCTIONS” OF TORQUEMADA


The expulsion of the Jews may be considered the supreme and crowning
work of Torquemada’s life. It marks the high meridian of his
achievement. Hereafter his career dwindles gradually in importance in a
measure as it sinks slowly to its setting.

In Rome, meanwhile, in that year 1492, a new Pontiff--Roderigo
Borgia--had ascended the throne of St. Peter under the title of
Alexander VI, and from this Pontiff’s hands Torquemada received
his confirmation in the great office which he held--a confirmation
which, being couched in the otiose terms of affection not uncommon in
papal bulls, seems to have led many to believe that Alexander viewed
Torquemada and the Holy Office of Spain with particular fondness. As
a matter of fact, this Pope’s attempts to curb the excessive rigour
of the Grand Inquisitor were less lethargic--we dare not say more
energetic--than those exerted by Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII; and
it was Alexander VI who, weary of complaints, finally contrived the
retirement of the Prior of Holy Cross.

But that was not yet. Before that came to pass, the scandals of secret
absolutions sold and subsequently rescinded by the Holy See were now
repeated. Vigorous appeals were made to the Holy Father against the
procedure of the Grand Inquisitor, and the Holy Father, acting upon the
advice of the Apostolic Court, dispatched his briefs of absolution.
Torquemada, incensed once more by this fresh interference with his
jurisdiction, made his appeal to the Sovereigns, and jointly with them
laid his protests before the Pope, who complacently cancelled the
briefs that had been paid for--or rather that part of the absolution
which concerned the temporal courts. For the moneys received it could
be shown that full value had been given, since these absolutions still
held good in the tribunal of conscience. We are familiar by this time
with the argument.

       *       *       *       *       *

Torquemada’s enemies in Spain were increasing now at an alarming
rate. But, secure in the royal protection, this old man steadily and
ruthlessly advanced along the path of intolerance, undismayed by
ill-will. Conscious of the hatred he provoked, he may have gloried
in the maledictions hurled against him by the persecuted, conceiving
that the malevolence of the infidel would render his deeds the more
acceptable in the sight of his God. But whatever the equanimity with
which he may have confronted spiritual hostility, he took his measures
to secure himself from its temporal manifestations. That he went in
dread of attack is evinced not only by the fact that he was never seen
abroad without his numerous escort of armed familiars, but further
by the circumstance that he never sat down to dine without a horn of
unicorn upon his table as a charm against poison.[252]

So arbitrarily and arrogantly did he widen the sphere of autocratic
jurisdiction accorded him that soon he was usurping the functions of
the civil courts, thereby provoking a still deeper resentment. He
conducted the business of the Holy Office in such a manner that all
other courts of the kingdom became subservient to it, and where the
magistrates, resenting these encroachments, attempted to withstand
him, or even to question his authority, they were--as had happened
in the case of the Captain-General of Valencia--promptly charged with
lack of zeal and even impeached as hinderers of the Holy Office. They
were compelled to submit to humiliating penances, which in the case of
magistrates entailed a total loss of dignity and prestige. And such was
the ascendancy this man had gained by now that complaints or appeals to
the Sovereigns were useless.

Meanwhile, however, and by his own act, his enemies at home had found
two powerful mediators with the Pope, two powerful advocates to plead
their cause before the Apostolic Court. These were Juan Arias Davila,
Bishop of Segovia, and Pedro de Aranda, Bishop of Calahorra.

Torquemada’s frenzied intolerance of men of Jewish blood was by no
means confined to those who practised the Law of Moses. It extended to
those who had accepted baptism and to their descendants, and it kept
alive his mistrust of them.

Very markedly is this exhibited in the proceedings he instituted
against the two bishops mentioned, notwithstanding the Papal decree
which inhibited inquisitors from proceeding against prelates save by
special pontifical authority.

The Bishop of Segovia--Juan Arias Davila--was the grandson of a Jew
who had received baptism in the reign of Henry IV, and had held an
honourable position at the court of that king by whom he had been
ennobled. Considering the ecclesiastical eminence attained by his
grandson--now a very old man--one would imagine that the latter should
have been secure from inquisitorial attacks on the score of alleged
offences committed by his ancestor against the Faith. But the terrible
Torquemada contrived to rake up some matters against the long-deceased
_converso_, accused him of having re-Judaized before his death, and
instituted proceedings which must have resulted in the destitution,
degradation and infamy of the bishop, his descendant.

“It sufficed,” says Llorente on this subject,[253] “that a deceased Jew
should have been fortunate and wealthy to seek cause of suspicion upon
his faith and religion, such was the ill-will against those of Jewish
blood, such the desire to mortify them, and such the covetousness to
absorb their property.”

To these proceedings Davila set up a stout resistance and made appeal
to the Pope, whereupon Torquemada experienced his first serious check.
The Pope ordered him to stick to the letter of the law, and to lay the
matter before the Apostolic Court, as was due. Thither went the Bishop
also, to defend his grandfather’s bones from the accusation lodged. He
was well received by the Pontiff, who ultimately gave him the victory
over Torquemada, for when the case was tried his father’s memory was
cleared of all guilt.[254]

In the meanwhile, however, Davila had not only received a very kindly
welcome at the Vatican, but, pending his trial, he was given a position
of honour, and he was associated with Cardinal Borgia of Monreale
(Alexander’s nephew) when the latter went as papal legate to Naples, to
crown Alfonso II of Aragon.[255]

Less fortunate was Pedro de Aranda, the other accused Bishop. In his
case, too, the proceedings instituted were based upon the alleged
Judaizing of his deceased father--a Jew who had been baptized in the
time of St. Vincent Ferrer.

His case was tried at Valladolid, but the inquisitors and the diocesan
ordinary disagreed in their findings, and in 1493 the Bishop,
accompanied by his bastard son Alfonso Solares, set out for Rome,
to present in person his appeal to the Pontiff. Him, too, the Pope
received with the utmost kindliness. His Holiness issued a brief
inhibiting the inquisitors, and relegating the case to the Bishop of
Cordova and the Prior of the Benedictines of Valladolid.

The case being tried by them, a verdict entirely favourable to the
Bishop was obtained, and his father’s memory was acquitted of the
charge preferred against it. But the tribulations of the living son
were not permitted to end there. Torquemada would not suffer that his
prey should escape so easily.

Already in 1488 the Bishop had been defamed by a suspicion of
judaizing, and the Grand Inquisitor now pressed that he should be
called to answer to that charge, forwarding the indictment under seal
to Rome.

Pending the solution of the matter by the Apostolic Court, Alexander
not only treated Aranda well, but heaped honours and favours upon him
and his son. The Bishop was sent to Venice as papal legate, he was
appointed Master of the Sacred Palace, whilst upon his offspring was
conferred the position of apostolic prothonotary.[256]

But despite the papal favour which he enjoyed, and notwithstanding the
fact that he called upwards of a hundred witnesses to testify in his
defence, he was found guilty. It is said that his own witnesses helped
to bring about his conviction. The Pontifical Court was obliged to
sentence him to loss of all ecclesiastical dignities and benefices,
to degrade him and reduce him to the lay estate, whereafter he was
imprisoned in Sant’ Angelo, and there he died a few years later.[257]

Notwithstanding the sentence of the Apostolic Court, Llorente finds it
impossible to believe that Aranda was really guilty of Judaizing. “It
seems incredible that it should have been so, considering that he had
preserved the reputation of good Catholic for so long and with such
applause that the Queen Donna Isabella should have named him President
of the Council of Castile. His celebrating the Synodal Council in
his bishopric argues zeal for the purity of religion and its dogmas.
That the witnesses called should have deponed to any words or actions
of his that were contrary to this does not signify as much as may at
first appear, for we know, from a multitude of instances, that to fast
on Sunday, to abstain from work on Saturday, to refuse to eat pork,
to dislike the blood of animals, and other similar matters, sufficed
as grounds upon which to declare a man a Judaizing heretic, and this
notwithstanding that, as any one knows to-day, these are circumstances
not at all at issue with a firm adherence to the Catholic dogmas.”[258]

His sentence, however, was not pronounced until 1498. Until then he
enjoyed, as we have seen, great favour at the Papal Court. Taking
advantage of this, he and the Bishop of Segovia not only acted as
mediators to lay their countrymen’s grievances against Torquemada
before the Pope, but, in their very natural resentment at the injustice
of the prosecutions instituted against themselves, they went so far as
to urge the Pope to depose the Grand Inquisitor from his office. And
Llorente--who states this upon the authority of Lumbreras--adds that
these petitions would, of themselves, have prevailed but for the royal
protection which Torquemada continued to enjoy.[259]

       *       *       *       *       *

But the complaints of the Grand Inquisitor’s abuse of his power
continued to pour into Rome. They multiplied to such an extent,
they were of such a nature, and they were presented by Spaniards of
such eminence at the court of the Spanish Pontiff, that thrice was
Torquemada forced to send an advocate to defend him before the Holy
See.[260] And in the end Alexander considered it necessary to take
measures to circumvent the royal protection which continued to oppose
the deposition of the Prior of Holy Cross.

Since to depose him were too aggressive a course to adopt towards the
Sovereigns, with whom the Pontiff desired to preserve the friendliest
relations, at least Torquemada’s power must be curtailed. And so, by
a brief of June 23, 1494, indited with all the craft and diplomacy of
which Roderigo Borgia was a master, a brief in which he assures the
Grand Inquisitor that “he cherishes him in the very bowels of affection
for his great labours in the exaltation of the Faith,” and charged with
tender solicitude for Torquemada’s failing health, the Pontiff puts
forward these infirmities as a reason for assuming him no longer equal
to discharge single-handed the heavy duties of his office. Therefore
His Holiness considers it desirable to appoint him assistants who will
lighten the labour of his declining years.

The assistants appointed by Alexander were Martin Ponce de Leon, a
Castilian nobleman who was Archbishop of Messina, Don Inigo Manrique,
Bishop of Cordova (nephew of the prelate of the same name who was
Archbishop of Seville), Don Francisco Sanchez de la Fuente, Bishop of
Avila, sometime Dean of Toledo and Councillor of the Suprema, and Don
Alonso Suarez de Fuentelsaz, Bishop of Mondonedo, who had also held the
position of inquisitor.

These assistants were equipped by the Pontiff with the amplest
powers--powers as ample as Torquemada’s own--so that they were in no
sense subservient to the Prior of Holy Cross. The term “assistant” was
a papal euphuism, serving thinly to veil the fact that Torquemada’s
autocratic rule was virtually at an end.

Such was the absolute equality of the authority of each of the five
Grand Inquisitors now in existence, that it was explicitly set forth
that any one of them had power singly to determine any matter, or
singly to conclude any case that might have been initiated by one of
the other four.[261]

But of the four assistants appointed only two accepted office jointly
with Torquemada. These were the Bishop of Avila and the Archbishop of
Messina, who at once took up their duties.

The Pope went a step further on November 4 following, when by a
supplementary brief he appointed Sanchez de la Fuente (Bishop of Avila)
to be Judge of Appeal in cases of the Faith. And from now onwards it is
to Sanchez de la Fuente that the Pope addresses his briefs concerning
the conduct of the affairs of the Holy Office. It was to him personally
that Alexander gave orders that when a bishop was unable or unwilling
to perform upon an offending cleric of his diocese the ceremony of
degradation, this should be undertaken by the Bishop of Avila himself,
or else by a bishop by him appointed.

Thus it would seem that Torquemada had virtually been superseded,
and that Sanchez de la Fuente had been rendered his superior. If so,
that superiority cannot have been more than nominal. In spite of it,
Torquemada remained the guiding spirit of the Holy Office in Spain, the
supreme arbiter and law-giver, as we shall see when we come to consider
his last “Instructions,” published in 1498.

       *       *       *       *       *

In spite of these measures taken by the Pope with a view to softening
inquisitorial severity and bringing it within more reasonable bounds,
complaints to Rome seem to have continued unabatedly.

[Illustration:

  _Photo by Donald Macbeth._

SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.

From Colmenar’s “Délices d’Espagne.”]

Far from restricting inquisitorial jurisdiction--as was intended--the
appointment of these assistant Grand Inquisitors appears to have
widened it. They now went so far as themselves to sell and dispose
of confiscated property--a matter which hitherto had been conducted by
the officers of the royal treasury. And this was more than Ferdinand
could stomach. Where humanitarian considerations, where arguments of
political expediency had failed to curb his bigotry, acquisitiveness
seems easily to have carried the victory. So that at last we see the
King himself turning in appeal to the Pope against this despotism of
a court upon which he had conferred the power to become mightier than
himself in his own kingdom.

The response to his appeal was the bull of February 1495, commanding
the inquisitors under pain of excommunication to desist from their
course, and never to resort to it again save under royal sanction. The
power to proceed against inquisitors in case of fraud or irregularity
in this matter was vested in the famous Francisco Ximenes de
Cisneros.[262]

This man, who has been called the Richelieu of Spain, had risen from
very humble beginnings, as a barefoot friar-mendicant, to the very
splendid eminence of Primate of Spain--in which office he had just
succeeded Cardinal Mendoza, who died in that year (1495).

       *       *       *       *       *

In the following year Torquemada made his exit from the Court, where
for a decade he had been a figure of an importance second only to that
of the Sovereigns themselves.

Crippled by gout, he withdrew to his monastery at Avila.[263] There
he now dwelt in retirement, an emaciated old man in his seventy-sixth
year, debilitated and racked with bodily infirmities, but with all his
vigour and energy of mind unimpaired, his severity as uncompromising as
of old, his conscience entirely at peace in the conviction that he had
given of his best--indeed, his all--to the service of his God.

But even now his retirement can have been little more than physical.
His attention continued focussed upon the Inquisition and engrossed by
it. To the last do we find him actively directing the procedure of that
tribunal of the Faith.

In the spring of 1498 he summoned the principal inquisitors of the
kingdom to the monastery of St. Thomas of Avila, to the end that with
himself they might concert the promulgation of further decrees to check
abuses which had crept into the administration of the justice of the
Holy Office, proving inadequate his enactments of 1484, 1485, and 1488.

These, the fourth “Instructions” of Torquemada, were published on May
25, 1498. They contain a good deal that seems calculated to soften
the rigour of the earlier decrees, yet much of this is more or less
illusory.

Let us very briefly consider the sixteen articles of which they consist.

The first three provide: (I) that of the two inquisitors appointed to
each court one shall be a jurist and the other a theologian, and that
they shall not proceed other than jointly to decree prison, torture, or
publication of witnesses; (II) that the inquisitors shall not permit
their officers to bear weapons in those places where the bearing of
weapons is forbidden; (III) that no one shall be arrested save upon
sufficient proof of his guilt, and that all cases be disposed of
with dispatch and not delayed in the hope of discovering increased
justification to sentence.

This last clause merely repeats an earlier one that we have already
seen, and from this repetition we are led to suppose that the former
expression of the same command had not received proper attention and
obedience. The stipulation that no arrest should be made save where
there was sufficient proof of guilt is not as generous as it sounds.
It is dependent upon what the inquisitors would consider “sufficient
proof”; this is revealed by the jurisprudence of the Holy Office: the
accusation of a spiteful or malevolent person, or a delation wrung
from some wretch under torture, would be accounted “sufficient proof”
to justify the arrest and its sequel. To abolish the inequitable
character of this it would have been necessary to have rescinded the
decree which accounted “semiplenal proof” sufficient ground for taking
action.

Very merciful in its terms is Article IV, which sets forth that in
proceedings against the dead the inquisitors must absolve promptly
where complete proof of crime is not forthcoming, and not delay in the
hope of obtaining further proof, as legal delays are very injurious to
the children, who are unable to contract marriage whilst such matters
are _sub judice_. But it comes a little late in the day. It comes when
the great harvest from the wealthy dead has been safely garnered.
Besides, no conditions imposed could mitigate the horrible rigour
of the enactment to exhume and burn the bones of the dead together
with their effigies, and to reduce the children or grandchildren to
destitution and infamy, even when the person convicted was known to
have died penitent and comforted by the sacraments of the Church--in
consequence of which, by their own Faith, the inquisitors believed him
to be saved.

Article V provides that when the tribunal shall be short of money for
salary, no further pecuniary penances be imposed than would be the case
if the court had funds in hand.

Conceive, if you can, the notions of equity prevailing in a tribunal
which needed to have it decreed that fines were to be governed by the
offence committed, and not by the court’s need of money at the time!

Similarly illumining is Article VI, which sets forth that imprisonment
or other corporal penances must not be commuted to fines, and that only
the inquisitors-general shall have power to dispense an offender from
wearing the _sanbenito_ and to rehabilitate the children of heretics so
that they shall have liberty in the matters of apparel and employment.

As Llorente points out,[264] the very existence of this decree shows
of what abuses of power the inquisitors were guilty for the purpose of
increasing their already considerable profit.

Article VII is thoroughly imbued with the inquisitorial spirit of
mercilessness. It warns inquisitors to be cautious in the matter of
admitting to reconciliation those who confess their fault after arrest,
since, considering how many years have passed since the institution
of the Inquisition, the contumacy of such offenders may be taken as
established.

On the subject of Article VIII, which enjoins inquisitors to punish
false witnesses with public pains, Llorente is particularly interesting
in a commentary:

“Properly to understand this article, it is necessary to realize that
there were two ways of being a false witness: one by calumniating,
another by denying knowledge of heretical words or deeds upon which
a person might be questioned in the course of proceedings against an
accused. I have seen many records of proceedings against those of this
second class, but very rarely (_rarissima vez_) any against those of
the first. Nor could it be easy to prove that a calumniator has borne
false witness, for the unfortunate accused would have to guess his
identity, and though he were to guess correctly the court would not
admit it.”[265]

Article IX provides that in no tribunal shall there be two persons who
are related or one who is the servant of another, even though their
respective offices should be entirely different and separate.

Articles X, XI, and XVI are calculated to increase the secrecy of
inquisitorial proceedings. The first makes provision for the secret
custody of all documents and for punishing any notary who shall betray
his trust; the second enacts that a notary must not receive the
depositions of witnesses save in the presence of the inquisitor; the
last decrees that after the witnesses shall have been sworn by the
inquisitors in the presence of the fiscal, the latter must withdraw so
as not to be present when the delations are made.

The remaining four articles are concerned with such matters as the
setting up of courts of the Inquisition where these have not yet been
established, the submission of difficult questions that may arise to
the Suprema for decision, the provision of separate prisons for women
and for men, and the stipulation that officers of the court shall work
six hours daily.

       *       *       *       *       *

In addition to the foregoing sixteen articles, he promulgated in that
same year special instructions concerning the _personnel_ of the Holy
Office. They speak for themselves, and very vividly suggest the abuses
they were framed to suppress.

For governors of prisons and constables he decreed that they must
permit no one to visit the prisoners with the exception of the persons
appointed to bear them food, and that these must be bound by oath to
preserve the “secrecy” inviolate, and to examine all food to ascertain
that no written matter is concealed in it. Food, it is added, shall be
conveyed to the prisoners by persons specially appointed for that duty,
and never by a constable or gaoler.

All officers are to be sworn to preserve inviolate secrecy upon all
things they may see or hear.

Receivers are commanded that in the event of the acquittal of a person
whose property has been sequestered, they must restore the property
according to the inventory drawn up at the time of effecting the
sequestration--but if there are debts to be satisfied by such a person,
these may be paid by order of the inquisitors without awaiting the
consent of the debtor.

If amongst confiscated property there should be any that is in
litigation, the matter is to be judicially decided; and if it is found
that any property which should have formed part of a confiscation shall
have passed into the hands of third parties, action is to be taken to
recover it.

Confiscated property is to be sold after thirty days, and the receivers
are not to purchase any under pain of greater excommunication and a
fine of 100 ducats. Each receiver is authorized to give vouchers for
property up to the value of 300,000 maravedis.

For the inquisitors themselves it is provided that upon assuming
office they shall be bound by oath to discharge their duties well and
faithfully and to observe the secrecy; that no inquisitor or officer
of the Inquisition shall receive any gift of whatsoever nature from a
prisoner, under pain of loss of office and a fine of twice the value of
the gift plus 100,000 maravedis, whilst any who shall have knowledge of
such matter and fail to divulge it shall be subject to the same penalty.

Inquisitors are to make oath never to be alone with a prisoner, and
neither an inquisitor nor any officer of the court shall hold two
offices or receive two salaries. Lastly, in any district where the
Inquisition’s tribunal is established, the inquisitors must pay for
their own lodgings, and must never receive any hospitality from
_conversos_.[266]

       *       *       *       *       *

We have seen Torquemada’s efforts strained to obtain the fullest
possible control over subjects of inquisitorial jurisdiction in Spain,
and to establish himself the sole arbiter in matters concerning
heresies there committed. And we have seen his frequent conflicts with
Rome in consequence of what he accounted undue interference on the part
of the Holy See in affairs which he considered purely within his own
province. Despite repeated protests which had resulted in the annulment
of absolutions granted by the Apostolic Court, the Holy See had ever
continued to receive those who fled thither from Spain in quest of a
reconciliation that was procurable in Rome upon terms far easier than
were accorded by Torquemada’s delegates.

Never, however, had the fugitives to Rome been so numerous as they
were now in the reign of Alexander VI. Never before had so many
Judaizers--who were liable, if discovered in Spain, to perpetual prison
or the fire--sought at the hands of the Pontiff the absolution which,
subject to penitence and penance, the Holy Father was willing and ready
to accord them.

On July 29, 1498, an Auto de Fé was held in Rome in the vast square
before St. Peter’s, when 180 Spanish Judaizers came to be reconciled to
the Church.[267]

It is worth while to take a glance at this, and to mark the difference
between the Act of Faith in the very heart of Christendom, and the
spectacles provided under the same title by Spanish bigotry and
fanaticism.

There were present the Governor of Rome, Juan de Cartagena, the Spanish
Orator at the Vatican, the Apostolic auditors, and the Master of the
Sacred Palace, whilst the Pope himself surveyed the scene from the
balcony above the steps of St. Peter’s.

The penitents received the _sanbenitos_, which were put on over their
ordinary garments, and arrayed in these they entered St. Peter’s.
There all were assembled and reconciled, whereafter they were taken in
procession to the Church of Santa Maria della Minerva. In this temple
they put off their _sanbenitos_, and each one withdrew to his home
without further bearing the insignia of shame and infamy.[268]

The view taken by Torquemada of a Pope who so little understood what
the former considered to be the duties of Christ’s earthly Vicar is to
be gathered from the attitude of the Sovereigns in the matter of these
reconciliations, and their protests--protests which, beyond doubt,
would be inspired by the Grand Inquisitor.

Alexander advised the Sovereigns in reply--by a brief of October
5--that in according these absolutions one of the pains imposed upon
the penanced was that they must never return to Spain without the
special sanction of the Catholic Sovereigns.[269]

In this manner, clearly, there was no infringement by the Pontiff of
the power relegated to the Spanish inquisitors, since as long as the
penitents remained abroad they were beyond the jurisdiction of the Holy
Office of Spain. As for the prohibition to return being a part of the
penance imposed, it was surely supererogative, for we cannot think that
any of those who had so fortunately obtained absolution would easily
incur the risk of coming within reach of the talons of a court that
would disregard, or else find a way to cancel or circumvent, the Roman
reconciliation.

       *       *       *       *       *

But by the time the brief reached Spain, Frey Tomás de Torquemada,
the arch-enemy of the Jews, had breathed his last in his beautiful
monastery of St. Thomas at Avila.

He passed away in peace, laying down the burden of life and sinking to
sleep with the relief and thankfulness of the husbandman at the end
of a day of diligent, arduous, and conscientious toil. His honesty of
purpose, his integrity, his utter devotion to the task he had taken up
are to be weighed in the balance of historic judgment against the evil
that he wrought so ardently in the unfaltering conviction that his work
was good.

His name has been execrated and revered at once. He has been
vituperated as a fiend of cruelty, and all but worshipped as a
saint; and there is bias in both judgments--both are no better than
gratifications of prejudice.

Perhaps Prescott is nearest the truth when he says that “Torquemada’s
zeal was of so extraordinary a character that it may almost shelter
itself under the name of insanity.”[270]

Garcia Rodrigo speaks of the barbarians of the nineteenth century
who desecrated the monastery of St. Thomas, and whose “revolutionary
hammers” smashed so many of the sepulchral and other marbles. He
turns the medal about for us when he pours his fierce invective upon
anti-religious fanaticism and speaks of these broken marbles as
evidences of “perversity, intolerance, and want of enlightenment.”[271]

The anti-religious fanaticism and intolerance must be admitted. But it
must be admitted that they are the inevitable fruits that fanaticism
and intolerance produce. Men reap as they sow. And what but thistles
shall be yielded by the seed of thistles?

The same author inveighs against the political fanaticism of Spanish
Liberalism, which in the hour of reaction sought fiercely for the
bones of the first Grand Inquisitor. He denounces it indignantly for
disturbing the peace of sepulture. In the main we share his feelings;
and yet can we avoid perceiving here a measure of retributive justice?
Can we fail to see in this fanatical act the vengeance of humanity for
the almost obscene violation of a thousand graves by that same Grand
Inquisitor’s fanaticism?

He was laid to rest in the chapel of his monastery, and his tomb bore
the following simple inscription:

    HIC JACET REVERENDUS P. F. THOMAS DE TURRE-CREMATA
    PRIOR SANCTÆ CRUCIS, INQUISITOR GENERALIS
    HUJUS DOMUS FUNDATOR. OBIIT ANNO DOMINI
    MCDLXLVIII, DIE XVI SEPTEMBRIS.[272]

But his work survived him. His spirit--through his
enactments--continued for three centuries after his death to be the
guiding spirit of the Inquisition, executor of the stern testament he
left inscribed upon the walls of his monastery--


PESTEM FUGAT HÆRETICAM.




BIBLIOGRAPHY


    Ariz, Luys: “Historia de Avila.” Alcalá, 1607.

    Babut, Charles E.: “Priscillian et le Priscilliantisme.” Paris,
    1909.

    Bernaldez, Andrés: “Historia de los Reyes Catolicos.” 1870.

    Bleda, Jaime: “Coronica de los Moros de España.” Valencia, 1618.

    Burchard, Johannes: “Diarium sive Rerum Urbanarum Commentarii”
    (Ed. Thuasne). Paris.

    Castillo, Hernando del: “Historia General de Santo Domingo.”
    Valladolid, 1612.

    Colmenar, Juan Alvarez de: “Delices d’Espagne.” Leyden, 1715

    Colmenares, Diego de: “Historia de Segovia.” Madrid, 1640.

    “Copilacion de las Instrucciones hechas, etc.” Madrid, 1576.

    Didron, A. N.: “Iconographie Chrétienne.” Paris, 1835.

    Douais, C.: “Les Hérétiques du Midi au XIII Siècle.”

    Emeric, David: “Histoire de la Peinture.” Paris, 1842.

    Eymericus, Nicolaus: “Directorium Inquisitorum.” Romæ, 1578-79.

    Fita, Fidel: in “Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia,”
    vols, v., vi., ix., xv., xvi., xvii., and xviii.

    Frazer, Jas. Geo.: “The Golden Bough.” London, 1900.

    Guidonis, Bernardus: “Practica Inquisitionis.” Paris, 1886.

    Lecky, W. E. H.: “Rationalism in Europe.” London, 1865.

    Limborch, Phillippi a: “Historia Inquisitionis.” Amstelodami,
    1692.

    Llorente, Juan Antonio: “Anales de la Inquisicion de España.”
    Madrid, 1812.

    Llorente, Juan Antonio: “Historia Critica de la Inquisicion de
    España.” Madrid, 1822.

    Llorente, Juan Antonio: “Memoria Historica.” Madrid, 1812.

    Loeb, Isidore: in “Revue des Etudes Juives,” vols. xv., xviii.,
    xix., and xx.

    Mariana, Juan de: “Historia General de España.” Madrid, 1849-51.

    Marin, Julio Melgares: “Procedimientos de la Inquisicion.”
    Madrid, 1886.

    Marineo, L.: “Cronica d’Aragon.” Valencia, 1524.

    Mendoza, Salazar de: “Cronica de el Gran Cardinal.” Toledo,
    1625.

    Mendoza, Salazar de: “Monarquia de España.” Madrid, 1770.

    Moreno, Martin Martinez: “Historia del Martirio del Santo Niño
    de La Guardia.” Madrid, 1786.

    Paramo, Ludovicus a: “De Origine et Progressu Sanctæ
    Inquisitionis.” Madrid, 1598.

    Pulgar, Hernando del: “Chronica de los Reyes Catholicos.”
    Valencia, 1780.

    Pulgar, Hernando del: “Claros Varones de Castilla.” Madrid,
    1789.

    Rios, José Amador de los: “Estudios sobre los Judios de
    España.” Madrid, 1848.

    Rios, José Amador de los: “Historia de los Judios de España y
    Portugal.” Madrid, 1875.

    Rodrigo, Francisco Xavier Garcia: “Historia Verdadera de la
    Inquisicion.” Madrid, 1877.

    Rule, W. H.: “History of the Inquisition.” London, 1874.

    St. Hilaire, Rosseuw: “Histoire d’Espagne.” Paris, 1845.

    Torrejoncillo, Francisco de: “Centinela contra Judios.”
    Pamplona, 1720.

    Trasmiera, Diego Garcia de: “Epitome de la Vida de Pedro de
    Arbués.” Madrid, 1664.

    Zuñiga, Diego Ortiz de: “Anales de Sevilla.” Madrid, 1677.

    Zurita, Geronimo: “Anales de la Corona de Aragon.” Madrid, 1852.




INDEX


  ABADIA, JUAN DE--conspires against Inquisition, 218;
    arrested, 221;
    commits suicide, 222

  ABARBANEL, ISAAC--365;
    on sufferings of the Jews, 372

  ABDURRAHMAN THE OMAYYAD--founds Amirate of Cordova, 51

  ABENAMIAS, MOSÉ--in affair of La Gardia, 289;
    consecrated wafer sent to, 312, 325, 338;
    letter to, 340

  ABGARUS OF EDESSA--recipient of portrait of Christ, 21

  ABJURATION--146

  ABOLAFIO, JUAN FERNANDEZ--conspires, 115;
    burnt, 116

  ADRIAN--approves Christianity, 20

  AGUSTIN, ANTONIO--denounces J. P. Sanchez, 226

  AGUSTIN, PEDRO--procures release of Sanchez, 226;
    arrested, 227

  ALARCON, DR. ALONSO DE--sent to Zaragoza, 221

  ALBIGENSES--32

  ALCANTARA, KNIGHTS OF--59

  ALEXANDER SEVERUS--20

  ALEXANDER VI, POPE--confirms Torquemada in office, 377;
    curtails power of Torquemada, 383;
    bull of, 385;
    fugitives to Rome under, 391

  ALFARO, JUAN DE--constable of Holy Office, 240

  ALFONSO I--founds Kingdom of Galicia, 51

  ALFONSO V OF PORTUGAL--invades Spain, 54

  ALFONSO VIII--Jews under, 76

  ALFONSO XI--promulgates “Partidas,” 78

  ALFONSO OF ARAGON--in Zaragoza riots, 220;
    at penance of Infante of Navarre, 224

  ALMORAVIDES--empire of, 52

  ANTONINUS PIUS--tolerates Christians, 20

  ARANDA, PEDRO DE--Bishop of Calahorra, 379;
    prosecuted by Torquemada, 380;
    convicted at Rome, 381

  ARBUÉS DE EPILA, FR. PEDRO--213;
    appointed inquisitor in Zaragoza, 216;
    murdered, 219 et seq.;
    avenged by Inquisition 223;
    miracles and sanctity of, 229;
    canonized, 230

  ARCOS, COUNT OF--New-Christians shelter in dominions of, 112

  ARIAS DAVILA, JUAN (Bishop of Segovia)--inquires into case of ritual
      murder, 79;
    prosecuted by Torquemada, 379;
    protected by Pope, 380

  ARIUS--heresy of, 23

  AUGUSTINE, ST.--Manichæan, 24;
    denounces religious liberty, 25 et seq.

  AURELIAN, 21

  AUTOS DE FÉ--the first in Seville, 116 et seq.;
    the second, _ib._, 126;
    Voltaire on, 201;
    where to be held, 205;
    in Toledo, 244;
    described, 247 et seq.;
    ceremonial with clerics, 252;
    ceremonial with deceased, 254;
    in Rome, 391

  AVILA--Monastery of St. Thomas built by Torquemada, 262;
    Auto de Fé in, 343;
    feeling against Jews, 344

  AVILA, ANTONIO DE--attends Yucé Franco, 286


  BAJAZET, SULTAN--on banishment of Jews from Spain, 375

  BARCELONA--resists Torquemada’s authority, 231

  BARCO, LOPEZ DE--109

  BARROSO, PEDRO (Archbishop of Seville)--suspends Martinez, 83

  BELTRANEJA, LA--bastard daughter of Juana of Portugal, 54

  BERBER TARIK--invades Peninsula, 51

  BERNALDEZ, ANDRÉS--on Isabella’s moral reforms, 65;
    on introduction of Inquisition, 70;
    on Jews, 95;
    on Susan, 116;
    on _Quemadero_, 128;
    on banishment of Jews, 368, 370;
    baptizes Jews, 374

  BERNARDONE, FRANCESCO--goes to Rome, 39

  BOBADILLA, BEATRIZ DE--61;
    escapes from Segovia, 62

  BOBADILLA, PEDRO DE--seized by Maldonado, 61

  BORGIA, RODRIGO--Cardinal of Valencia, 133;
    becomes Pope, 377 (see Alexander VI.)

  BORGIA OF MONREALE--Cardinal, 380


  CABALLERIA, ALONSO DE--in council of Tarragona, 216;
    prosecuted by Inquisition, 224;
    appeals to the Pope, 225

  CABRERA, ANDRÉS DE--Seneschal of Segovia, 60;
    conspired against, 61;
    rescued by Isabella, 63

  CALATRAVA, KNIGHTS OF--59

  CALETRIDO, JUAN--spies upon Jews, 266

  CANONICAL PURGATION--160

  CARILLO, ALONSO--councillor of Suprema, 137;
    in council of Tarragona, 216

  CASAR DE PALOMERO--outrage upon crucifix at, 266

  CATHARS--32

  CEBRIAN, FR. ALONSO DE--appointed inquisitor by Pope, 131;
    “_Centinela contra Judios_”--360

  CHAMARRO, PRINCE--alleged letter of, 361

  CLAUDIUS--expels Nazarenes from Rome, 19

  CLEMENT VI, POPE--excommunicates persecutors of Jews, 81

  COLUMBUS, CHRISTOPHER--discovers New World, 52

  COLVERA, FR. JUAN--sent to Zaragoza, 221

  CONSTANTINE--supported by Christians, 21;
    embraces Christian Faith, 22

  CORDOVA--tribunal established by Torquemada, 136

  _Coroza_--for convicts of heresy, 209

  _CORTES_--consider Jewish question, 208;
    held at Tarragona, 215


  DECEASED--proceedings against, 161

  DECIUS--21

  DIEGO OF ARAGON--defeats Saracens, 52

  DIOCLETIAN--21

  DOMINIC, ST.--see GUZMAN

  DOMITIAN--persecutes Christians, 19


  ECIJA, CANON OF--see MARTINEZ, HERNANDO

  EFFIGIES BURNT--248

  ELI, LEONARDO--arrested, 217

  ENRIQUEZ, FR. ALONSO--sent to Yucé Franco, 286

  ENRIQUEZ, FADRIQUE--his quarrel with Guzman, 57;
    disobeys Isabella, 58;
    banished, 59

  ESPERANDEU, JUAN DE--conspires against Inquisition, 218;
    murders Arbués, 219;
    arrest and execution of, 221, 222

  EYMERIC, NICOLAUS--“Directorium” of, 139;
    quoted, 144 et seq.;
    on abjuration, 148;
    on canonical purgation, 160;
    on children of heretics, 164;
    enjoins guile, 174;
    on torture, 184;
    on _relapsos_, 200


  FAMILIARS OF THE HOLY OFFICE--227

  FERDINAND OF ARAGON--marries Isabella, 52;
    elected Grand-Master of Santiago, 60;
    favours Inquisition, 98, 109;
    attitude examined, 110;
    protests to Pope, 132;
    holds _Cortes_ at Tarragona, 215;
    reluctant to expel Jews, 268;
    in conquest of Granada, 356;
    unable to resist Torquemada, 364;
    rebuked by Torquemada, 367;
    appeals against inquisitorial despotism, 385

  FITA, FIDEL--publishes _dossier_ of Yucé Franco’s trial, 269

  FRANCIS OF ASSISI, ST.--see BERNARDONE

  FRANCO, ALONSO--arrested, 289, 307;
    incriminated by Yucé Franco, 315;
    obtained consecrated wafer, 340;
    confirms confessions made, 341;
    burnt, 344

  FRANCO, ÇA--arrested, 285;
    examined, 313;
    admissions of, 314;
    confrontation of, 328;
    further incriminated by Ocaña, 329;
    tortured, 340;
    burnt, 344

  FRANCO, GARCIA--arrested, 289, 307;
    incriminated by Yucé Franco, 315;
    communicates with Yucé Franco, 323;
    burnt, 344

  FRANCO, JUAN--in Legend of _Santo Niño_, 272;
    arrested, 289, 307;
    incriminated by Yucé Franco, 315;
    tortured, 324;
    confrontation of, 328;
    further admissions of, 328;
    bound on rack, 341;
    admits that he procured boy in Toledo, 342;
    burnt, 344

  FRANCO, LOPE--arrested, 289;
    burnt, 344

  FRANCO, MOSÉ--284;
    deceased, 286, 307, 325

  FRANCO, NICOLAO--Legate _a latere_, 98

  FRANCO, YUCÉ--arrested, 285;
    ill in prison, 286;
    lured to betray himself, 287;
    examined at Segovia, 292;
    at Avila, 293;
    indictment of, 294;
    denies accusations, 296;
    defended, 297;
    unable to prove innocence, 302;
    placed in communication with Benito Garcia, 303;
    learns of his father’s arrest, 304;
    examined in prison, 306;
    confessions of, 308;
    promised pardon, 310;
    admits attending enchantment, 311;
    further examined, 312;
    admits witnessing crucifixion, 314;
    further admissions of, 318;
    explains statement made in Segovia, 322;
    confrontation of, 327;
    further incriminated by Ocaña, 329, 330;
    incriminated by Benito Garcia, 330;
    denies taking part in crucifixion, 332;
    repudiates charges, 333;
    questions asked him, 333;
    impugns witnesses, 334;
    confessions upon the rack, 336;
    ratifies, 340;
    abandoned by his advocate, 341;
    burnt, 344

  FRAZER, DR. J. G.--on ritual murder, 79

  FREDERIC II, EMPEROR--and the friars preachers, 43;
    excommunicated, 44


  GARCIA, BENITO--in Legend of _Santo Niño_, 271 et seq.;
    arrest of, 282;
    tortured, 283;
    confesses to Judaizing, 284;
    placed in communication with Yucé Franco, 303;
    inveighs against Inquisitors, 304;
    incriminated by Yucé Franco, 318;
    tortured, 322;
    confrontation of, 327;
    incriminates Yucé Franco, 330;
    further admissions of, 341;
    burnt, 344

  GRANADA--funds for war against, 150;
    conquered, 356;
    Holy Office established in, 376

  GREGORY IX, POPE--gives stable form to Inquisition, 44 et seq.

  GRIBOURG, ABBÉ--353

  GUEVÁRA, ALONSO DE--accuses Yucé Franco, 294;
    furnished with evidence, 331;
    submits proofs, 332;
    petitions torture of Yucé Franco, 334;
    petitions sentence, 342;
    at Auto de Fé, 343

  GUI, FR. BERNARD--his manual, 139

  GUZMAN, DOMINGO DE (St. Dominic), goes to Rome, 38;
    and the Albigensian heretics, 39;
    founds order of preachers, 40 et seq.;
    first ordained inquisitor, 42;
    penitential garb prescribed by, 206

  GUZMAN, RAMIRO DE--his quarrel with Enriquez, 57;
    offends Isabella, 59


  HENRY II--sells Jews into slavery, 82

  HENRY IV--his character, 53

  HOLY OFFICE--see INQUISITION.

  HONORIUS III, POPE--creates the brotherhoods of St. Dominic and St.
      Francis, 41;
    protects Jews, 75

  HUSSÉE, PRINCE--alleged letter of, 362


  INNOCENT III, POPE--and the Albigensian heretics, 32;
    founds Inquisition, 33 et seq.;
    papal luxury in his day, 37

  INNOCENT VIII, POPE--inhibits proceedings against Caballeria, 225;
    confirms Torquemada in his office, 232;
    cancels briefs of absolution, 258;
    issues bulls of absolution, 259;
    simony of, 259;
    bull of concerning Pico della Mirandola, 264

  INQUISITION--founded, 33;
    not concerned with Jews, 89 et seq.;
    proposed to Isabella, 92;
    established in Spain, 106;
    inaugurated in Seville, 112;
    espionage by, 126;
    confiscations by, 141;
    unstable form of, 135;
    cupidity of, 161;
    methods of procedure, 173 et seq.;
    tortures employed by, 184 et seq.;
    employs secular arm, 194 et seq.;
    not favoured in Castile, 213;
    power of, 214;
    system of police, 227;
    religious and political institution, 232;
    expenses of, 237;
    activity of, _ib._;
    set up in Toledo, 239;
    banner of, 249

  ISABELLA THE CATHOLIC--51;
    marries Ferdinand of Aragon, 52;
    in war with Portugal, 54;
    Pulgar’s portrait of, 54;
    founds _Hermandad_, 56;
    attitude towards the nobles, 57 et seq.;
    banishes Enriquez, 59;
    contrives Ferdinand’s election to Grand-Mastership of Santiago, 60;
    quells riot in Segovia, 62;
    restores order in Seville, 63;
    revokes grants, 64;
    controls mints, _ib._;
    purifies court and convents, 65;
    goes barefoot to thanksgiving-service, 66;
    suppresses clerical usurpations, _ib._;
    urged to deal with Judaizers, 88;
    Inquisition proposed to her, 92;
    rejects proposal, 97;
    seeks conversion of Jews, 99;
    influenced by Torquemada, 106;
    last efforts of to avoid Inquisition, 107;
    her antipathy to the Inquisition, 108;
    her patience exhausted, 109;
    attitude towards Inquisition, 110;
    petitions Pope to establish court of appeal in Spain, 133;
    petitions Pope to give the Inquisition a settled form, 135;
    in conquest of Granada, 356;
    unable to resist Torquemada, 364;
    rebuked by Torquemada, 366

  ISABELLA, THE INFANTA--at Segovia, 60


  JAEN--tribunal established at by
  Torquemada, 136

  JAIME DE NAVARRE--penanced by Inquisition, 224

  JAMES THE APOSTLE, ST.--shrine at Compostella, 59;
    his mission to Iberia, 73

  JESUS CHRIST--iconography of, 20;
    cited as authority for the burning of heretics, 206

  JEWS IN SPAIN--71 et seq.;
    attitude of Christians towards, 73;
    their attitude towards Christians, 74;
    their numbers in thirteenth century, 75;
    control finances, 76;
    their wealth and arrogance, 77;
    accusations against, 78;
    charged with ritual murder, 79;
    massacred, 81;
    sold into slavery 82;
    synagogues demolished, 83;
    massacred throughout Spain, 84;
    driven to accept baptism, 85;
    their privileges forfeited 86;
    laws against them relaxed, 87;
    tolerated in Rome, 91;
    old repressive laws revived, 108;
    when subject to inquisitorial jurisdiction, 141;
    shatter a crucifix, 267;
    popular feeling against, 356;
    finance war of Granada, 356;
    their expulsion urged by Torquemada, 357;
    they plead with the Sovereigns, 358;
    Dominicans preach against them, 359;
    letter of, 361;
    calumniated, 363;
    appeals of, 365;
    banished, 367 et seq.;
    exploited, 368;
    attempts to convert them, 369;
    encouraged by their rabbis, 370;
    exodus from Spain, 371;
    their sufferings, 372;
    apostates, 373

  JUAN, PRINCE--illness of, 359

  JUDAIZERS--93;
    discovered, 101;
    in Seville, 109, 111;
    “edict of grace” to, 120;
    trapped, 121;
    signs by which known, 121 et seq.;
    seek absolution in Rome, 132;
    number convicted in Toledo, 256;
    Auto of in Rome, 391


  LACHAVES, JUAN GUTIERREZ DE--appointed assessor, 136;
    councillor of the Suprema, 137

  LA GARDIA, THE HOLY CHILD OF--crucified, 269;
    legend of, 271 et seq.;
    “Testimonio” quoted, 276;
    paternity of, 329;
    why crucified, 337;
    evidence considered, 346 et seq.;
    discrepancies in evidence, 350 et seq.;
    an operation in magic, 353;
    worship of, 354

  LA GARDIA, SACRISTAN OF--arrested, 346

  LEA, H. C.--on “solicitation,” 172

  LECKY, W. E. H.--on persecution, 9

  LLORENTE, J. A.--sketch of career, 6 et seq.;
    on ritual murder, 78;
    on blood-lust of inquisitors, 117;
    on _Quemadero_, 127;
    on Torquemada, 136;
    on “solicitation,” 171;
    on trials in Zaragoza, 225;
    on case of Aranda, 381;
    on false witnesses, 388

  LOEB, ISIDORE--his theory on the affair of La Gardia, 319, 348


  MALDONADO, ALONSO--conspires against Cabrera, 61

  MANRIQUE, GOMEZ--arrests Toledo conspirators, 241

  MANRIQUE, IÑIGO--appointed to assist Torquemada, 383

  MARINÆUS, LUCIUS--on Isabella’s reforms, 69

  MARTIN, ALONSO, reputed father of “_Santo Niño_,” 329

  MARTINEZ, HERNANDO, Canon of Ecija, denounces Jews, 82;
    defies authority, 83;
    causes massacre in Seville, 84

  MEDINA, JUAN RUIZ DE--109

  MEDINA SIDONIA, DUKE OF--New-Christians shelter in his dominions, 112

  MEDINA, TRISTAN DE--appointed assessor, 136;
    councillor of the Suprema, 137

  MENDOZA, PEDRO GONZALEZ DE--Primate of Spain, 97;
    entrusted with conversion of Jews, 99;
    introduction of Inquisition ascribed to, 100;
    delegated to appoint inquisitors in Castile, 109;
    instrumental in the proclamation of the “edict of grace,” 120

  MENDOZA, SALAZAR DE--on foundation of Kingdom of Spain, 72;
    ascribes introduction of Inquisition to Cardinal Mendoza, 100

  MERLO, DIEGO DE--charged with conversion of Jews, 107

  _MILITIA CHRISTI_--227

  MONTERUBIO, FR. PEDRO DE--sent to Zaragoza, 221

  MONTFORT, SIMON DE--33

  MOORS--see MOSLEM

  MORENO, MARTINEZ--his “_Historia del Santo Niño_,” 269;
    on miracles of “_Niño_,” 355

  MORILLO, FR. MIGUEL--inquisitor in Seville, 109;
    vindictive procedure of, 116;
    his hatred of the Jews, 126;
    Pope protests against his rigour, 128;
    confirmed in office by Torquemada, 136

  MORISCOES--immunity enjoyed by, 376

  MOSLEM--in Peninsula, 89;
    banished, 375;
    in Granada, 376


  _NEGATIVOS_--194;
    deemed impenitent, 197

  NERO--persecutes Christians, 19

  NEW-CHRISTIANS--87;
    objects of malevolence, 93;
    in offices of eminence, 94;
    fly from Seville, 112;
    terrorized, 114;
    their peril, 125;
    seek refuge in Rome, 128;
    complain to Pope, 129;
    in Aragon, 215;
    appeal against tribunal of Zaragoza, 216;
    their despair, 217;
    their panic in Zaragoza, 223;
    seek secret absolutions, 257;
    swindled, 258

  NICÆA--Council of, 23


  OCAÑA, JUAN DE--incriminated by Benito Garcia, 284;
    arrested, 286;
    incriminated by Yucé Franco, 318;
    tortured, 324;
    confrontation of, 327;
    further incriminates Yucé and Ça Franco, 329, 330;
    further admissions of, 341;
    burnt, 344

  OJEDA, FR. ALONSO DE--urges establishment of Inquisition, 93;
    resisted by Isabella, 97;
    renews efforts, 98;
    supplied with fresh argument, 101;
    charged with conversion of Jews, 107;
    at burning of Susan, 117;
    dies of plague, 118

  OPTATUS--urges massacre of the Donatists, 25

  OROZCO, SEBASTIAN DE--239;
    on plot in Toledo, 241;
    on first Auto de Fé in Toledo, 244

  ORTEGA, JUAN--organizes _Hermandad_, 56


  PANTIGOSO, JUAN DE--Yucé Franco’s advocate, 297

  PARAMO, LUDOVICUS Á--on source of Inquisition, 17;
    ascribes to Mendoza introduction of Inquisition to Castile, 100

  PECUNIARY PENANCES, 150

  PEGNA, FRANCESCO, the scholiast, 143;
    on canonical purgation, 160;
    on children of heretics, 164;
    on examination of accused, 173;
    enjoins guile, 174 et seq.;
    his honesty, 180;
    on torture, 185;
    on execution of innocent men, 197;
    on formal intercession, 204;
    on Auto de Fé, 205

  PELAGIUS--heresy of, 24

  PENITENTIARIES--ordered by Torquemada, 237

  PEREJON, DAVID--in affair of La Gardia, 318, 325

  PICO DELLA MIRANDOLA, GIOVANNI--eludes Inquisition, 264

  PIUS IX, POPE--canonizes Arbués, 230

  PRISCILLIAN--burnt, 27

  PULGAR, HERNANDO DEL--on state of Castile, 53;
    on Isabella’s reforms, 69;
    on judaizing, 71;
    a New-Christian, 94;
    on Mendoza’s catechism, 100


  _QUEMADERO_--built, 127;
    demolished by Bonaparte’s soldiers, 128

  QUINTANILLA, ALONSO DE--Isabella’s chancellor, 56


  RAYMOND OF TOULOUSE--33

  _RELAPSOS_--149, 194;
    defined, 198

  RIARIO, RAFFAELE,--67

  RIBERA, HERNANDO DE--in affair of La Gardia, 291, 326;
    convicted, 347

  RIOS, AMADOR DE LOS--on first appearance of Jews in Spain, 73;
    on Jewish community in thirteenth century, 75;
    on ritual murder, 80;
    on Susan’s daughter 115;
    on banishment of Jews, 369

  RITUAL MURDER--charges of, 78 et seq.

  RODRIGO, F. J. GARCIA--8;
    on Susan’s conspiracy, 116;
    on _Quemadero_, 128;
    on torture, 187;
    on prisons, 263;
    on fanaticism, 393

  RULE, DR. W. H.--8, 31;
    on _Quemadero_, 128


  ST. HILAIRE, ROSSEEUW--on Torquemada, 6;
    on Isabella’s reforms, 69

  ST. PETER THE MARTYR--Confraternity of, 117, 227

  _Sanbenito_--revived by Torquemada, 149;
    its origin and history, 206 et seq.;
    considered salutary by Torquemada, 209;
    its various forms, 209;
    preserved after Autos de Fé, 255

  SANÇ--Yucé Franco’s attorney, 297;
    abandons case, 341

  SANCHEZ DE LA FUENTE, FRANCISCO--appointed assistant to
      Torquemada, 383

  SANCHEZ, GUILLERME--procures his brother’s release, 226;
    arrested, 227

  SANCHEZ, JUAN PEDRO--conspires against Inquisition, 217;
    burnt in effigy, 222;
    arrested in Toulouse, 226;
    released, 226;
    his befrienders arrested, 227

  SAN MARTINO, FR. JUAN DE--inquisitor in Seville, 109;
    vindictive procedure of, 116;
    hatred of Jews, 126;
    Pope protests against rigour of, 128;
    confirmed in office by Torquemada, 136

  SANTA CRUZ, GASPAR DE--escapes to Toulouse, 228;
    amends imposed upon his son, 228

  SANTANGEL, LUIS DE--conspires against Inquisition, 217;
    arrested, 221

  SANTIAGO--Knights of, 59;
    Grand-Mastership of, 60

  SANTILLANA, FRANCISCO DE--106

  SANTO DOMINGO, FR. FERNANDO DE--delegated to try affair of La
      Gardia, 289;
    at Auto de Fé, 343

  _SANTO NIÑO_--see La Gardia, Holy Child of

  SAULI, MANUEL--conspires, 115;
    burnt, 116

  SECRET ABSOLUTIONS--257;
    bulls of, 251

  SECULAR ARM--euphemistic expression, 194;
    abandonment to, 204

  SEGOVIA--riots in, 60

  SENEOR, ABRAHAM--365

  SEVILLE--visited by Isabella, 63;
    judaizing in, 109, 111;
    Inquisition established in, 114 et seq.;
    first burnings in, 118;
    numerous arrests in, 119;
    number burnt in, 127;
    permanent tribunal established in by Torquemada, 136

  SILICEO, CARDINAL JUAN MARTINEZ--discovers Jewish letter, 361

  SIXTUS IV, POPE--opposed by Isabella, 67;
    orders Inquisition, 89;
    grants bull for establishment of Inquisition in Castile, 107;
    protests against rigour of Seville inquisitors, 128;
    revokes right of Sovereigns to appoint inquisitors, 129;
    appoints inquisitors, 131;
    letter of to Isabella, 133

  SOLARES, ALFONSO,--380

  “SOLICITATION”--sin of, 169

  SOLIS, ALONSO DE--charged with conversion of Jews, 107

  SUAREZ DE FUENTELSAZ, ALONSO--appointed assistant to Torquemada, 383;
    virtually supersedes Torquemada, 384

  SUPREMA, COUNCIL OF--137

  SUSAN, DIEGO DE--conspiracy of, 114;
    betrayed by his daughter, 115;
    burnt, 116 et seq.


  TABLADA--meadows of, 118;
    permanent burning platform erected there, 127

  TAZARTE, YUCÉ--procures consecrated wafer, 306;
    enchantment performed by, 308;
    his sorceries examined, 320

  TERUEL--in revolt, 231

  TOLEDO--tribunal established in, 136, 239;
    plot against Inquisition in, 240;
    activity of Inquisition in, 243;
    first Auto de Fé in, 244;
    second Auto in 246;
    secular arm, 247;
    burning-place of, 251;
    further Autos in, 252 et seq.;
    Judaizers convicted in, 256

  TORQUEMADA, FR. JUAN DE (Cardinal of San Sisto)--94, 104

  TORQUEMADA, LOPE ALONSO DE--104

  TORQUEMADA, PERO FERNANDEZ DE--105

  TORQUEMADA, FR. TOMÁS DE--advocates Inquisition, 102;
    his name and family, 104;
    Prior of Santa Cruz, 105;
    Isabella’s confessor, 105;
    influence with Isabella, 106;
    asceticism of, 106;
    withdraws to Segovia, 107;
    delegated to appoint inquisitors in Castile, 109;
    appointed inquisitor by Pope, 131;
    created Grand-Inquisitor of Spain, 135;
    reconstitutes the Holy Office, 136;
    president of the Suprema, 137;
    assembles his subaltern inquisitors, 138;
    formulates his code, 142;
    the articles of his first “instructions,” 144 et seq.;
    revives _sanbenito_, 149 and 209;
    decrees “secrecy,” 157;
    on prosecution of the dead, 161;
    seeks to extend inquisitorial jurisdiction, 168;
    on _negativos_, 197;
    on _relapsos_, 200;
    his power, 214;
    stirs Aragonese tribunal into activity, 215;
    convenes council at Tarragona, 216;
    delegates Arbués and Yuglar, 217;
    his action on murder of Arbués, 221;
    orders proclamation of Autos, 222;
    attempts to withstand papal authority, 225;
    resisted in Aragon, 231;
    his decrees of 1485, 233;
    ordered by Pope to re-edit his “code of terror,” 235;
    his decrees of 1488, 236;
    orders building of penitentiaries, 237;
    renders delation compulsory, 242;
    his fanatical hatred of Jews, 243;
    complaints of his rigour, 256;
    resents papal interference, 257;
    protests to Pope, 260;
    his wealth, 260;
    his character, 261;
    treatment of his sister, 261;
    builds Monastery of St. Thomas, 262;
    fanaticism of, 263;
    arrogance of, 264;
    violates equity, 266;
    urges expulsion of Jews, 268;
    accused of inventing affair of La Gardia, 269;
    intends to direct trial of Y. Franco, 288;
    entrusts this to his delegates, 289;
    goes to Andalusia, 292;
    in connection with affair of La Gardia, 353;
    exploits the affair, 354, 356;
    advocates banishment of Jews, 357, 363;
    purity of his aims, 364;
    rebukes Sovereigns, 366;
    desires conversion of Jews, 369;
    irresistible, 374;
    his service to Spain, 376;
    confirmed in office by Alexander VI., 377;
    protests against papal briefs, 378;
    his enemies increasing, _ib._;
    ascendancy of, 379;
    prosecutes bishops, 380;
    appeals to Pope against him, 382;
    his power curtailed, 383;
    virtually superseded, 384;
    crippled by gout, 385;
    last “instructions” of, 386 et seq.;
    his death, 392;
    his epitaph, 394

  TORRALBA, BARTOLOMÉ--conspires, 115;
    burnt, 116

  TORRE, DE LA--conspires, 240;
    arrested, 241

  TORREJONCILLO, FR. FRANCISCO DE--scurrilous publication of, 360

  TORTURE--by inquisitors, 155;
    when employed, 184 et seq.;
    the five degrees of, 188;
    engines employed, 189 et seq.;
    ratification of confession, 192

  TRASMIERA, DIEGO GARCIA DE--in praise of “secrecy,” 157;
    on Mercy and Justice, 211;
    on murder of Arbués, 221;
    on Autos de Fé, 222

  TRIANA, CASTLE OF--prison of the Inquisition, 119

  URANSO, VIDAL DE--conspires against Inquisition, 218;
    murders Arbués, 219;
    put to torture, 221;
    his confession betrays all sympathizers, 222


  VAL, DOMINGO DE--crucified by Jews, 78

  VALENCIA--resists Inquisition, 231;
    attempted crucifixion in, 360

  VALENCIA, PONCIO DE--councillor of Suprema, 137

  VALENCIA, CAPTAIN-GENERAL OF--humiliated, 264

  VALERIAN--21

  VAUDOIS--see WALDENSES

  VAZQUEZ, MARTIN--Yucé Franco’s advocate, 297

  VEGAS, DAMIANO DE--his “Memoria” of the _Santo Niño_, 269

  _VERGUENZA_--244

  VILLADA, DR. PEDRO DE--Provisor of Astorga, 282;
    examines Benito Garcia, 283;
    delegated to try affair of La Gardia, 289;
    visits Yucé Franco in prison, 306;
    enjoins Yucé Franco to make full confession, 316;
    at Auto de Fé, 343

  VILLA REAL--tribunal established in by Torquemada, 136

  VINCENT FERRER, ST.--converts Jews, 85

  VOLTAIRE--on Auto de Fé, 201


  WALDENSES--32

  WENDLAND, P.--on ritual murder, 80


  XIMENES DE CISNEROS, FRANCISCO--385


  YUSUF BEN TECHUFIN--defeats Christians, 52


  _Zamarra_--see _Sanbenito_

  ZARAGOZA--Inquisition established in, 216;
    first Auto held in, 217;
    riot in, 220;
    Autos during 1486 in, 222;
    reign of terror in, 223

  ZOSIMUS, POPE--banishes Pelagius, 24


  _Printed in Great Britain by Hazell, Watson & Vincy, Ld.,
  London and Aylesbury._




FOOTNOTES:

[1] Paramo, “De Origine et Progressu Sanctæ Inquisitionis,” p. 588.

[2] Possibly the images of the Saviour prevalent in the third century
may have contributed to the apparent fitness of this. For at this
epoch--and for some three hundred years after--these images embodied
the Greek ideas of divinity; they represented Christ as a youth of
superb grace and beauty, and they appear largely to have been founded
upon the conceptions of Orpheus. Indeed, in one representation which
has survived, we see Him as a beardless adolescent, seated upon a
mountain, grasping an instrument with whose music he has charmed
the wild beasts assembled below. Another picture in the catacombs
(included in the illustrations of Didron’s “Iconographie Chrétienne”),
representing Him as the Good Shepherd, depicts a vigorous youth,
beardless and with short hair, in a tunic descending to the knees; His
left hand supporting a lamb which is placed across His shoulders, His
right holding a shepherd’s pipe.

That such pictures were not accepted as portraits by the fathers, but
merely as idealistic representations, is clear from the disputes which
arose in the second century (and were still alive in the eighteenth)
on the subject of Christ’s personal appearance. St. Justin argued
that to render His sacrifice more touching He must have put on the
most abject of human shapes; and St. Cyril, also holding this view,
uncompromisingly pronounced Him “the ugliest of the sons of men.” But
others, imbued with the old Greek notions that beauty was in itself a
mark of divinity, protested: “If He is not beautiful, then He is not
God.”

St. Augustine formally states that no knowledge existed in his day (the
fourth century) of the features of either the Saviour or His Mother.
“Nam et ipsius Dominicæ facies carnis, innumerabilium cogitationum
diversitate variatur et fingitur, quæ tamen una erat, quæcumque
erat.... Neque enim novimus faciem Virginis Mariæ. Nec novimus omnino,
nec credimus” (“De Trinitate,” lib. viii. cap. 4).

It is clear, therefore, that the two miraculous portraits were not
known in St. Augustine’s time--_i.e._ the Veronica, or the Holy Face
(which is preserved at St. Peter’s, Rome), and another portrait of
similar origin, which it was alleged Christ had, Himself, impressed
upon a cloth and sent to Abgarus, Prince of Edessa (as related by St.
John of Damascus, in the eighth century). To preserve it, Abgarus
glued the cloth upon wood, and thus it came later to Constantinople
and thence to Rome, where it is still believed to be treasured in the
Church of St. Sylvester in Capite.

These portraits, and still more a letter purporting to have been
written to the Roman Senate by Lentulus (who was pro-consul in Judea
before Herod) and believed to have been forged to combat the generally
repugnant theory that Christ was ugly and deformed (“sine decore et
specie”), supply the materials for the representations with which we
are to-day familiar. That letter contained the following description:

“At this time there appeared a man who is still living and who is
gifted with great power. His name is Jesus Christ. His disciples call
him the Son of God; others consider him a mighty prophet.... He is tall
of stature and his countenance is severe and full of power, so that
to look upon him is to love and to fear him. The hair of his head is
of the colour of wine; as far as the roots of the ears it is dull and
straight, but from the ears to the shoulders it is curled and glossy;
from the shoulders it falls over the back, divided into two parts,
after the manner of the Nazarenes. His brow is pure and level; his
countenance is without blemish and delicately tinted; his expression
is gentle and gracious; his nose and mouth are of perfect beauty; his
beard is copious, of the colour of his hair, and forked. His eyes are
blue and extremely bright. His face is of marvellous grace and majesty.
None has ever seen him laugh, but rather weeping. Erect of body, he
has long, straight hands and beautiful arms. In speech he is grave and
weighty, and sparing of words. He is the most beautiful of the sons of
men (Pulcherrimus vultu inter homines satos).”

It is clear, however, that there was no knowledge either of this
description or of the miraculous portraits mentioned as late as the
fourth and fifth centuries, during which Christ continued to be
represented as the lithe, beardless adolescent. And it is no doubt by
these representations that Michelangelo was inspired to present Christ
in “The Last Judgment” in a manner so unusual and startling to modern
eyes.

Similarly there were no portraits of the Virgin Mary, and it is fairly
established that none came into existence until after the Council of
Ephesus, and that some seven pictures attributed to St. Luke--four
of which are in Rome--are the work of an eleventh-century Florentine
painter named Luca.

Whilst on the subject it may be added that the crucifix, as the emblem
of Christianity, was not introduced until the seventh century, when it
was established by the Quinisexte Council at Constantinople. Its nature
rendered its earlier adoption dangerous, if not impossible; since--as
the familiar Roman gallows--it was liable to provoke the scorn and
derision of the people.

For further information on this subject see Emeric-David, “Histoire de
la Peinture,” A. N. Didron, “Iconographie Chrétienne,” and Marangoni,
“Istoria della Capella di Sancta Sanctorum.”

[3] IX. of the Theodosian Code.

[4] Epist. clxvi.

[5] “History of Rationalism in Europe,” vol. ii. p. 8.

[6] The decretal of Siricius, five years after the execution of
Priscillian, strictly enjoined celibacy on all in holy orders above
the rank of a sub-deacon, and dissolved all marriages of the clergy
existing at the time. Leo the Great, in the middle of the fifth
century, further extended the rule so as to include the sub-deacons
hitherto excepted. This was largely the cause of the split that
occurred between the Greek and Latin Churches.

[7] See E. C. H. Babut, “Priscillian et le Priscilliantisme.”

[8] “History of the Inquisition,” vol. i. p. 14.

[9] And yet Dr. Rule’s statement is perilously akin to a truth untruly
told, for the persecuting spirit, which is the impugnable quality
of the Holy Office, has been present in other churches than that of
Rome--_vide_ the Elizabethan persecution of all who were not members of
the Anglican Church.

[10] See C. Douais, “Les Hérétiques du Midi au XIII^e Siècle.”

[11] Eymericus, “Directorium Inquisitorum,” p. 58.

[12] Concilium Avenionense, A.D. 1209.

[13] Eymericus, “Directorium Inquisitorum,” p. 60.

[14] “Concilium Lateranense IV,” A.D. 1215.

[15] See Cæsar, “De Bello Gallico,” p 13., libca vi.

[16] “Paradiso,” C. xi. v. 37-39.

[17]

    “Ma il suo peculio di nuova vivanda
     E’ fatto ghiotto si, ch’ esser non puote
     Che per diversi salti non si spanda;

    “E quanto le sue pecore remote
     E vagabonde più da esso vanno,
     Più tornano all’ ovil di latte vote.”

    DANTE, “Paradiso,” C. xi. v. 124-9.


[18] Limborch, “Historia Inquisitionis,” lib. i. cap. 12.

[19] Limborch, “Historia Inquisitionis,” lib. i. cap. 12.

[20] 1231, N. 14, 16-17.

[21] Or, say, 1½ ft. by 1, ft.

[22] Llorente, “Historia Critica,” i. p. 135. Raynaldus 1233.

[23] Pulgar, “Chronica,” Part II. cap. li.

[24] Pulgar, “Cronica,” II. capzz. iv.

[25] Pulgar, “Cronica,” II. cap c.

[26] The Jesuit Mariana is among those who doubt the story of St.
James’s visit to Spain and the presence of his body at Compostella, but
he considers that “it is not desirable to disturb with such disputes
the devotion of the people.”--“Hist. General de España.”

[27] Colmenares, “Historia de Segovia,” cap. xxxiv, §§ xii and xiii;
Pulgar, “Cronica,” II. cap. lix.

[28] Cap. cc. Bernaldez was the parish priest of Palacios at the time
of the Queen’s death. He has left us a rather intimate history of the
Catholic Sovereigns, fairly rich in vivid detail.

[29] “Hizo corrigir y castigar la gran disolucion y dishonestidad
que habian en sus reinos cuando comenzó de reinar entre los frailes
y monjas de todas las ordenes, y fizo encerrar las monjas de muchos
monasterios que vivian muy dishonestas, asi en Castilla como en los
reynos de Aragon y Cataluña.”--BERNALDEZ, “Historia de los Reyes
Catolicos,” cap. cc.

[30] St. Helena’s memory was prominently before the public attention
just then, owing to the discovery in Rome of a silver box containing
what was alleged to be the label that had been hung upon the Cross. Its
recovery from the Holy Land was, of course, attributed to St. Helena,
and it was supposed that it had been brought by her to Rome.

[31] The ducat was worth 7_s._ 6_d._ of our present money, with fully
five times the purchasing power of that sum; so that, roughly, this
would be equivalent to-day to £200,000.

[32] Salazar de Mendoza, “Cronica del Gran Cardenal,” I. cap. lii.

[33] “Histoire d’Espagne,” tom. v. p. 432.

[34] “Historia General de España,” lib. xxiv. cap. xvii.

[35] “Chronica de los Reyes Catholicos,” Pt. II. cap. lxxvi.

[36] To Judaize (_Judaizar_) was to embrace the Mosaic law, and the
term was applied particularly to the relapse of those who had been
converted to Christianity.

[37] Toledo, Mendoza tells us, was founded by Hercules, who sailed to
Spain in the ship _Argo_.

[38] Tomás Tamayo de Vargas maintains that the Jews in Toledo at the
time of the Crucifixion sent a letter of warning and disapproval
to their brethren in Jerusalem. This letter--which it is alleged
was translated into Castilian when Toledo fell into the hands of
Alfonso VI--the historian quotes. Amador de los Rios, in his able and
exhaustive history of the Jews in Spain, pronounces the document to
have been manufactured to impose upon the credulity of the ignorant,
since to any one acquainted with the growth and development of the
Castilian language a glance is sufficient to prove its apocryphal
character.

It is in this letter that the legend of the Jewish incursion into
Spain after the fall of Babylon has its roots. It concludes with the
following statement: “... You know that it is certain your temple must
soon be destroyed, for which reason our forefathers, upon issuing from
the Babylonian captivity, would not return to Jerusalem, but with
Pyrrhus for their captain--sent by Cyrus, who gave them many riches
taken from Babylon in the year 69 of the captivity--they came to Toledo
and built here a great aljama.”

[39] “Historia de los Judios en España,” vol. i. pp. 28, 29.

[40] A case is at present before the Russian law courts, arising out of
a charge of this nature urged by an officer of police.

[41] Rios, “Hist. de los Judios,” i. cap. x.

[42] See also Torrejoncillo’s “Centinela contra Judios.”

[43] This engrossing subject is exhaustively treated with great force
and suggestiveness by J. G. Frazer in “The Golden Bough,” bk. iii. cap.
iii., and also by P. Wendland in “Jesus als Saturnalien-König.”

[44] The decree is quoted by Amador de los Rios in “Historia de los
Judios de España y Portugal,” vol. ii. p. 571.

[45] See Ortiz de Zuñiga, “Anales de Sevilla,” under _año_ 1391.

[46] See Rosseeuw St. Hilaire, “Hist. d’Espagne,” liv. xix. chap. I.

[47] “Chronica,” II. cap. lxxvi.

[48] See Gregorovius, “Geschichte der Stadt Rom,” bk. ix. cap. ii.

[49] Pulgar, “Chronica,” II. cap. lxxvi.

[50] In “Claros Varones de España,” Pulgar says that even in the
veins of her sometime confessor, Frey Juan de Torquemada, Cardinal
of San Sisto, there was a strain of Jewish blood. But the authority
is insufficient, and Pulgar, himself a New-Christian, is perhaps
anxious to include as many illustrious men of his day as possible in
the New-Christian ranks. Zurita, on the other hand, says that the
Cardinal’s nephew, Fr. Thomas de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor, was
of “clean blood”--de limpia linaje (lib. xx. cap. xlix.). The term
“clean” in this connection arose out of the popular conception that the
blood of a Jew was a dark-hued fluid, distinguishable from the bright
red blood of the Christian.

[51] Bernaldez, “Historia de los Reyes Catholicos,” cap. xliii: “Modo
de vivir de los Judios.”

[52] “Anales,” lib. xii. año 1478.

[53] “Chronica,” II. cap. lxxvii.

[54] “De Origine et Progressu Sanctæ Inquisitionis,” lib. ii. tit. ii.
cap. iii.

[55] The “relapsos”--of whom we shall hear more presently--were those
who, having been converted to Christianity, were guilty of relapsing
into Judaism.

[56] Paramo, “De Origine,” lib. ii. tit. ii. cap. iii.; Zuniga,
“Anales,” 1477.

[57] “Anales,” cap. ii. 10.

[58] “Historia Verdadera de la Inquisicion,” by D. F. J. G. Rodrigo,
vol. ii. p. 111. This history is to be read with the greatest caution.
It is an attempt to justify the Inquisition and to combat Llorente’s
writings; in his endeavours to achieve this object the author is a
little reckless and negligent of exactitude.

[59] Paramo, p. 157, and Hernando de Castillo in “Historia de Santo
Domingo y de su Orden,” part iii. cap. lxxiv.

[60] “Coronica de los Moros de España,” p. 879.

[61] Llorente, “Anales,” cap. ii. § 14.

[62] “Historic Verdadera,” ii. p. 71.

[63] Mendoza, “Monarquia de España,” iii. p. 336. Bleda says that there
were 100,000 apostates in that diocese (“Coronica de los Moros,” p.
880).

[64] Zuñiga, “Anales,” lib. xii. año 1480.

[65] Bernaldez, cap. xliv.; Garcia Rodrigo, i. cap. xx.; Amador de los
Rios, “Historia de los Judios,” lib. iii. cap. v.

Amador de los Rios adds in a foot-note, on the score of this girl: “Don
Reginaldo Rubino, Bishop of Tiberiades, informed of the delation and of
the state of la Fermosa Fembra, contrived that she should enter one of
the convents of the city to take the veil. But dominated by her sensual
passions, she quitted the convent without professing, and bore several
children. Her beauty having been dissipated by age, want overtook the
unnatural daughter of the millionaire Diego de Susan, and in the end
she died under the protection of a grocer. In her will she disposed
that her skull should be placed over the doorway of the house in which
she had pursued her evil life as an example and in punishment of her
sins. This house is situated in the Calle de Ataúd, opposite to its
entrance from the direction of the Alcazar, and there the skull of la
Fermosa Fembra has continued until our own times.”

[66] Llorente says “January 6,” an obvious mistake considering that the
inquisitors published their first edict on the 2nd of that month, and
that Susan’s offence was subsequent to that publication.

[67] See Garcia Rodrigo, vol. i. cap. xx.

[68] Bernaldez tells us (cap. xliv.) that in the town of Aracena alone,
where the Inquisitors sought refuge from the pestilence, they set up a
tribunal and burnt twenty-three persons alive in addition to the number
of bodies they exhumed for the purpose.

[69] Bernaldez, cap. xliv.; Zuñiga, “Anales,” lib. xii. año 1481.

[70] “Historia de los Reyes Catolicos,” cap. xliv.

[71] See Llorente, “Historia Critica,” tom. i. p. 256 _et seq._

[72] Fidel Fita in “Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia,” xxiii.
p. 370.

[73] “Chronica,” part ii. cap. lxxvii.

[74] This, however, is a statement in which a misconception seems
obvious. If the statues were of plaster (and it is Llorente himself
who says so) they would not have stood the heat of furnaces placed
beneath them. Moreover, since death in such ovens would have been more
lingering and painful than at the stake, it is difficult to think
upon what possible grounds, where all were equally guilty, any of
the condemned should have been relegated to this further degree of
torment, or--conversely--those who died at the stake should have been
spared it. Besides, it is to be remembered that it was desired, and
held desirable, that the victims should suffer in full view of the
faithful. But the mistake which has crept in can be indicated. What
Bernaldez actually says is: “Ficieron facer aquel quemadero en Tablado
con aquellos quatro profetas de yeso en que los quemaban.” The “en
que” may refer either to the Quemadero generally or to the statues
in particular. But there can be little doubt that it refers to the
Quemadero, and that Llorente was mistaken in assuming it to refer to
the statues.

A curious instance of adapting the shape of a fact so that it will fit
the idea to be conveyed is afforded in this connection by Dr. Rule,
who calmly alters the substance of the statues, translating _yeso_ as
“limestone.” “Hist. of the Inquisition,” vol. i. p. 134.

[75] Garcia Rodrigo tells us that the architect of this elaborate
altar of intolerance was a New-Christian of such zeal that he found
employment in the Holy Office as one of its receivers, but that being
discovered in Judaizing practices he was himself burnt on the Quemadero
he had erected. No authority is furnished for the story, nor does
Llorante mention it, and one is inclined to place it in the category of
fables such as that which relates how the first head to be shorn off by
the guillotine was that of its inventor, Dr. Guillotin.

[76] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 133. Llorente quotes this brief from
Lumbreras, adding that the original is in the royal library. See his
“Memoria Historica,” p. 260.

[77] “... e fueron aplicados todos sus bienes para la Camara del Rey y
de la Reyna, los cuales fueron en gran cantidad.”--Pulgar, “Cronica,”
cap. xcv.

[78] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 136.

[79] See letter quoted in Appendix to Llorente’s “Memoria Historica.”

[80] The bull of nomination is quoted in full by Paramo, “De Origine,”
p. 137.

[81] “Hist. Critica,” tom. i. art. i. §. 2.

[82] Afterwards Ciudad Real.

[83] “Copilacion de las Instrucciones hechas, etc.” Press-mark C. 61.
e. 6.

[84] Eymeric, “Directorium,” pars iii. Quæst. xli. _et seq._

[85] The compendious tome including these very ample annotations and
commentaries was published first in Rome, 1585.

[86] Tennyson’s “Queen Mary,” Act V. sc. i.

[87] See Eymeric, “Directorium,” pars iii. p. 315 _et seq._

[88] See Fidel Fita in “Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia,”
vol. xi. p. 296.

[89] “Vida de Arbués,” p. 56.

It is interesting to turn to modern writers who defend this
secrecy--such, for instance, as the Rev. Sidney Smith, S.J., whose good
faith there is no cause to doubt. He writes as follows: “To pass over
the question of injury often done to the reputation of third parties,
it has occasionally been forced on public attention that crimes cannot
be put down because witnesses know that by giving evidence they expose
themselves to great risks, the accused having powerful friends to
execute vengeance in their behalf. This was exactly the case with
the Inquisition. The Marranos had great power through their wealth,
position, and secret bonds of alliance with the unconverted Jews.
These would certainly have endeavoured to neutralize the efforts of
the Holy Office had the trials been open. Torquemada, in his statutes
of 1484, gives expressly this defence of secrecy, etc.”--“The Spanish
Inquisition,” p 17, in “Historical Papers.”

The argument is specious, and it is fundamentally true. But when it is
considered that the delator, so carefully screened from all danger,
was protected entirely at the expense of the accused, it becomes clear
that such a procedure must argue a reckless eagerness to accumulate
convictions. It suffices to reflect that, whilst all the arguments
advanced to justify this secrecy could with equal justice have been
urged by the contemporary civil courts of Europe, it is impossible to
point to a single one that had recourse to so inequitable a measure.
The inquisitorial point of view may be appreciated, even with a certain
sympathy, by the extremely tolerant. It cannot be justified.

[90] “Directorium,” pars iii. p. 312.

[91] “Historia Critica,” vol. ii. p. 15.

[92] Pars iii. quæst. cxiv. and cxv.

[93] See “Directorium,” pars iii. p. 387.

[94] See Llorente’s “Historia Critica,” I. cap. xxviii.

[95] “Las delaciones sobre solicitacion en el confessionario se deben
recibir con gran cuidado, haciendo que la denunciante declare todas las
circunstancias siguientes:

“En que dia, hora y en que confessionario, si fué antes de la
confession ó despues, ó ella mediante; si estaba de rodillas y se
avia ya persignado, ó si simulaba confession, que palabras la dijo el
confessor, ó que acciones ejecutó, poniendo las palabras como ellas se
dixeron; quantas veces sucedió, y si despues la absolvió, si alguna
persona lo pude oir ó entender, ó si ella se lo ha dicho a alguien, y
si sabe que el dicho confessor ó otro aya solicitado a otras, ó si ella
ha sido solicitada por otro. Y declare la edad y señas personales del
dicho confessor, y tambien en caso de aver pasado tiempo del delito,
porque no lo ha delatado antes al Santo Oficio, y si sabe la residencia
del dicho confessor.”

“Orden de Procesar,” compiled by Fr. P. Garcia, published by the Press
of the Holy Office, Valencia, 1736.

[96] “Historia Critica,” I. cap. xxviii.

[97] “History of the Spanish Inquisition,” vol. iv. p. 135.

[98] “Historia Critica,” I. cap. xxviii.

[99] Eymeric, pars iii. p. 286--“Modus interrogandi reum accustum.”

[100] “Directorum,” pars. iii. Schol. xix.

[101] Schol. xxvii (pars iii.).

[102] “Directorium,” iii. p. 293.

[103] Schol. xxix. (lib. iii.).

[104] See “Directorium,” iii. Schol. xxix.

[105] “Directorium,” iii. Schol. xxvi.

[106] Schol. xxvi. lib. iii.

[107] Pars iii. quæst. lxi.

[108] Schol. cxviii.; lib. iii.

[109] “Directorium,” pars iii. p. 313 _et seq._

[110] Schol. cxviii.; lib. iii.

[111] “Historia Inquisitionis,” p. 332.

[112] See, _inter alia_, Melgares Marin, “Procedimientos de la
Inquisicion,” i. p. 253. This author says that sometimes the patient
would be left hanging for as long as three hours.

[113] See Melgares Marin, “Procedimientos,” i. p. 256.

[114] Schol. cxviii. lib. iii.

[115] “Directorium,” pars iii. quæst. lxxiii

[116] “Directorium,” pars ii. quæst. xxxiv.

[117] “Directorium,” iii. p. 338.

[118] “Sed si fortassis per iniquos testis est convictus, ferat id æquo
animo ac lætatur quod pro veritatem patiatur.” “Directorium,” pars iii.
Schol. lxvi.

[119] Schol. lxviii. pars iii.

[120] Eymeric, lib. ii.; quæst. lviii. and Pegna, lib. ii.; Schol. lxiv.

[121] Lib. iii. p. 331.

[122] Lib. ii. Schol. lxiv.

[123] Eymeric, lib. iii. p. 331.

[124] See “Essai sur les Mœurs.”

[125] “Rogamus tamen et efficaciter dictam curiam sæcularem quod, circa
te, citra sanguinis effusionem et mortis periculum sententiam suam
moderetur.”--“Directorium,” pars iii.--“Forma Ferendi Sententiam,” p.
549.

[126] “Vida de Arbués,” p. 57.

[127] Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. 116.

[128] Zurita, “Anales,” lib. xx. cap. lxv.; Amador de los Rios,
“Historia Social,” lib. iii. p. 262; Garcia de Trasmiera, “Vida de
Pedro Arbués.”

[129] Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. 181.

[130] “Vida de Arbués,” p. 82.

[131] Llorente, “Memoria Historica,” p. 112, and “Historia Critica,”
vol. i. p. 205.

[132] “Historia Critica,” vol. ii. cap. vi.

[133] “Historia Critica,” vol. ii. cap. vi.

[134] Another advantage was that any member of this confraternity was
entitled to plead benefit of clergy, so that no civil court could take
proceedings against him.

[135] See “Instrucciones hechas en 1485, etc.,” in the “Copilacion de
las Instrucciones.”

[136] “Historia Verdadera,” vol. iii. p. 165.

[137] “Historia de los Judios,” vol. iii. p. 272.

[138] See “Instrucciones hechas en 1488, etc.,” in “Copilacion de las
Instrucciones.”

[139] “Boletin de la Real Academia,” xi p. 296 _et seq._, which see,
and also Llorente, “Anales,” ii. 110 _et seq._

[140] “Quia si in virido ligno hæc faciunt, in arido quid fiet?” (Luke
xxiii. 31). See Garcia Rodrigo, “Hist. Verdadera,” i. p. 373.

[141] Later on a cage was substituted for the stool.

[142] See “Boletin,” xi. p. 310 _et seq._

[143] See “Anales” under the dates given.

[144] “Boletin de la Academia, etc.,” vol. xi. p. 296 _et seq._

[145] Lumbreras, quoted by Llorente, “Anales,” i. p. 132. The bull is
quoted in full by M. Fidel Fita, “Boletin,” xvi. p. 315.

[146] Llorente, “Historia Critica,” tom. ii. p. 118.

[147] Lumbreras, quoted by Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. III.

[148] Lumbreras, quoted by Llorente in “Anales,” vol. i. p. 138.

[149] “De Origine,” p. 276.

[150] “Historia Critica,” tom. ii. p. 146.

[151] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 157.

[152] See H. del Castillo, “Historia General de Santo Domingo.”

[153] “Boletin de la Academia,” vol. xxiii. p. 413.

[154] Castillo, “Historia de Sto. Domingo,” pt. i. p. 486.

[155] Ariz, “Historia de Avila,” vol. i. p. 46.

[156] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 158.

[157] “Historia Verdadera,” vol. ii. p. 115.

[158] The case of the “Santo Niño of La Guardia.”

[159] Fidel Fita in “Boletin,” vol. xvi. p. 315.

[160] Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. 168, and Torrejoncillo, “Centinela
contra Judios.”

[161] Fidel Fita in “Boletin,” vol. xi. p. 160.

[162] “Historia del Santo Niño,” p. 40.

[163] “Rummage” is the only word that does justice to the original:
“El judio andaba buscando el corazon, revolviendo las entrañas con su
mano carniciera, y no lo hallando, le preguntó: ‘Que buscas, Judio? Si
buscas el corazon yerras buscandolo en esa parte, buscalo al otro lado
y lo incontrarás.’”--“Historia del Santo Niño,” p. 50.

[164] “Historia del Santo Niño,” p. 95.

[165] “Historia del Santo Niño,” p. 98 _et seq._

[166] There is a great deal more of this, but the alleged insults
become too obscene for translation.

[167] But they did not find the body--a circumstance which appears to
be here slurred over.

[168] Fidel Fita in “Boletin de la Real Academia,” vol. xi. p. 35. “Mas
de lo que sabia” is the actual and rather ambiguous phrase. It may mean
either that he had related more than was known to him at the time of
the torture--_i.e._ more than was actually true; or that he had said
more than he knew--_i.e._ more than he could recall--now, at the time
of his conversation with Yucé Franco.

[169] See this upon his own word, as related in Yucé Franco’s
depositions (“Boletin,” xi. p. 35 _et seq._) and admitted by himself.

[170] “Boletin,” xi. p. 60.

[171] “... estava alli sobre una MITA de NAHAR que avido sido como de
la manera de OTOHAYS.”

[172] See Loeb in “Revue des Etudes Juives,” vol. xv. p. 218.

[173] This is not only in the depositions of Frey Alfonso Enriquez and
the physician Avila (“Boletin,” xi. pp. 56 and 57), but it is also
admitted and corroborated in detail by Yucé Franco himself in his
examination of September 16, 1491 (_ibid._ p. 58).

[174] “Boletin,” vol. xxiii. p. 413.

[175] “Boletin,” xi. p. 9.

[176] “Boletin,” xi. p. 29.

[177] By Eymeric in the “Directorium.”

[178] “Boletin,” vol. xi. p. 13.

[179] Such is the consistent but obviously inaccurate spelling of the
name.

[180] “Boletin,” xi. p. 16.

[181] “Boletin,” xi. p. 21.

[182] “Boletin,” xi. p. 32.

[183] _Ibid._ p. 46.

[184] “Boletin,” xi. p. 32 _et seq._

[185] “Boletin,” xi. p. 46.

[186] _Ibid._ p. 32.

[187] _Ibid._ p. 46.

[188] “Boletin,” xi. pp. 30-38.

[189] _Ibid._

[190] _Ibid._ p. 31.

[191] “Boletin,” xi. p. 39.

[192] “E que lo diesen palabra e seguro de perdón e seguridad de todos
sus errores e de su persona e de su padre.”

[193] “Que les plasia con tanto que en todo dixiese enteramente la
verdad, porque ellos bien conoscerian poco más ó menos si la diria.”

[194] “Boletin,” xi. p. 26.

[195] “Revue des Etudes Juives,” vol. xv. p. 232.

[196] “Boletin,” xi. 52.

[197] “Boletin,” xi. p. 55.

[198] _Ibid._ p. 50.

[199] “Boletin,” xi. p. 52.

[200] _Ibid._

[201] Which was framed upon the sentence ultimately passed.

[202] All this is contradicted by Juan Franco’s later confession that
he himself procured the child from Toledo, and brought him to the cave.
The name of the child’s father is as much a fiction as the rest of this
vindictive deposition.

[203] “Boletin,” xi. p. 24.

[204] “Boletin,” xi. p. 26.

[205] “Boletin,” xi. p. 72.

[206] _Ibid._ p. 78.

[207] _Ibid._ p. 80.

[208] “Boletin,” xi. p. 80.

[209] _Ibid._ p. 87.

[210] “Boletin,” xi. p. 91.

[211] _Ibid._ p. 90.

[212] _Ibid._ p. 91.

[213] _Ibid._ p. 89.

[214] “Boletin,” xi. p. 97.

[215] “Boletin,” xi. p. 94.

[216] _Ibid._ p. 421.

[217] “Boletin,” xi. p. 113.

[218] “Boletin,” xi. p. 421.

[219] “Boletin,” xii. p. 169.

[220] “Revue des Etudes Juives,” vol. xv. p. 232.

[221] See “Boletin,” xiii. p. 113.

[222] “Y se halló la verdad y demonstracion de todo ello.”

[223] See the phrases quoted in the “Testimonio.”

[224] “Historia del Martirio,” p. 83.

[225] “Historia,” p. 146.

[226] Amador de los Rios, “Historia de los Judios,” vol. iii. p. 292.

[227] “Cronica,” cap. xlvi.

[228] The castellano was worth 480 maravedis.

[229] “Anales,” vol. i. p. 199.

[230] See “Centinela,” p. 153.

[231] See Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. 196, and “Centinela,” p. 86.

[232] See “Centinela,” p. 152.

[233] Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. 182.

[234] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 143; Llorente, “Historia Critica,” ii.
p. 114.

[235] The edict is quoted in full in Appendix IV. of Amador de los
Rios’ “Historia de los Judios.”

[236] See the text of the edict in Rios’ “Historia de los Judios,”
Appendix IV.

[237] Amador de los Rios (iii. p. 310) very reasonably questions their
being permitted to take money in bills of exchange, although the
statement is contained in Bernaldez’ “Chronicle,” and is mentioned by
other contemporaries.

[238] “Historia,” tom. i. cap. cx.

[239] “Historia de los Judios,” vol. iii. p. 311.

[240] Colmenares, “Hist. Segovia,” cap. xxxv. § ix.

[241] “Historia,” tom. i. cap. cx.

[242] Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. 190.

[243] Bernaldez, “Historia,” tom. i. p. 339.

[244] “Historia,” tom. i. cap. cx.

[245] The cruzado is of the value of a florin, but with the purchasing
power then of at least five times that sum.

[246] “Historia,” tom. i. p. 344.

[247] _Ibid._ p. 338.

[248] Zurita, “Anales,” lib. i. cap. iv.; Salazar de Mendoza,
“Monarquia de España,” iii. p. 338.

[249] “Historia,” lib. xxvi. cap. i.

[250] See Amador de los Rios, “Historia de los Judios,” vol. iii. p.
316.

[251] Paramo states that it was. See “De Origine,” p. 143, and also
Salazar de Mendoza, “Monarquia de España,” iii. p. 337.

[252] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 156.

[253] “Historia Critica,” tom. ii. p. 125.

[254] Colmenares, “Hist. Segovia,” cap. xxxv., and Paramo, “De
Origine,” lib. ii. cap. iv. Paramo says that the Bishop had “causa
propria” as well as the defence of his grandfather’s bones to take him
to Rome.

[255] Burchard, “Diarium” (Thuasne Ed.), ii. p. 163.

[256] Burchard, “Diarium” (Thuasne Ed.), ii. pp. 409 and 494.

[257] Limborch, lib. xiv. cap. 41; Llorente, “Historia Critica,” tom.
ii. p. 126; Burchard, “Diarium,” ii. 494, iii. 13--.

[258] Llorente, “Hist. Critica,” ii. p. 126. It was alleged against
Aranda that in the course of his Judaizing, when praying he would
always say “Gloria Patri” purposely omitting the “Filio et Spiritu
Sancto,” that he took food before celebrating Mass, that he ate meat on
Good Fridays and other days of abstinence, that he denied the efficacy
of indulgences, and did not believe in Hell or Purgatory, and much
else. See Burchard, “Diarium,” iii. p. 14.

[259] “Anales,” tom. i. p. 214.

[260] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 156.

[261] Lumbreras, quoted by Llorente, “Anales,” tom. i. p. 215.

[262] Llorente, “Anales,” tom. i. p. 222.

[263] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 159.

[264] “Historia Critica,” tom. ii. p. 77.

[265] _Ibid._ ii. p. 78.

[266] See “Copilacion de las Instrucciones,” under date.

[267] This is the figure given by Burchard, and is the most
authoritative (“Diarium,” ii. 492). Llorente says “250,” and Sanuto
(“Diario,” i. col. 1029) “zercha 300 marrani.”

[268] Llorente, “Anales,” tom. i. p. 238; Burchard, “Diarium,” ii. pp.
491-2. Sanuto the Venetian diarist reports the matter from letters
received from Rome with a sarcasm entirely characteristic: “The Pontiff
sent some 300 _marranos_ in penitence to the Minerva, dressed in
yellow, candle in hand: this was their public penance; the secret one
would be of their money....” (“Diario,” i. col. 1029).

[269] Lumbreras, quoted by Llorente, “Anales,” tom. i. p. 238.

[270] “History of Ferdinand and Isabella,” vol. i. p. 286.

Llorente estimates the number of Torquemada’s victims at 8,800 burnt,
6,500 burnt in effigy, and 90,000 penanced in various degrees. These
figures, however, are unreliable and undoubtedly exaggerated, although
they are in themselves a correction of his earlier estimate, which
fixes the number of burnt at upwards of 10,000--an estimate flagrantly
preferred by Dr. Rule and other partisan writers on the subject.

[271] “Hist. Verdadera,” vol. ii, p. 113.

[272] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 159.


[Transcriber’s Note:

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]