The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies Henry Charles Lea 1817 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The inquisition in the Spanish
dependencies
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies

Author: Henry Charles Lea

Release date: August 14, 2022 [eBook #68744]
Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Original publication: United States: The Macmillan company, 1908

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/68744

Credits: Richard Tonsing, Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
INQUISITION IN THE SPANISH DEPENDENCIES ***

Contents
Index
Footnotes
Every attempt has been made to
replicate the original book as
printed. Some typographical errors
have been corrected. A list follows
the text. No attempt has been made
to correct or normalize Spanish
words/accent marks.
(etext transcriber’s note)

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

A HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION OF SPAIN. In four
volumes, octavo. (Now Complete.)
A HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION OF THE MIDDLE AGES.
In three volumes, octavo.
A HISTORY OF AURICULAR CONFESSION AND
INDULGENCES IN THE LATIN CHURCH. In three volumes,
octavo.
HISTORY OF SACERDOTAL CELIBACY IN THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH. Third edition. In two volumes, octavo. (Now
Ready.)
A FORMULARY OF THE PAPAL PENITENTIARY IN THE
THIRTEENTH CENTURY. One volume, octavo. (Out of print.)

SUPERSTITION AND FORCE. Essays on The Wager of Law,
The Wager of Battle, The Ordeal, Torture. Fourth edition,
revised. In one volume, 12mo.
STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY. The Rise of the Temporal
Power, Benefit of Clergy, Excommunication, The Early
Church and Slavery. Second edition. In one volume, 12mo.
CHAPTERS FROM THE RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF SPAIN,
CONNECTED WITH THE INQUISITION. Censorship of the
Press, Mystics and Illuminati, Endemoniadas, El Santo Niño
de la Guardia, Brianda de Bardaxí. In one volume, 12mo.
THE MORISCOS OF SPAIN, THEIR CONVERSION AND
EXPULSION. In one volume, 12mo.

THE

INQUISITION

IN THE

Spanish Dependencies
—————
SICILY—NAPLES—SARDINIA—MILAN—THE CANARIES—
MEXICO—PERU—NEW
GRANADA
—————

BY

HENRY CHARLES LEA, LL.D., S.T.D.

New York
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., Ltd.
1908
All rights reserved

Copyright, 1908
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

Set up and electrotyped. Published January, 1908

PREFACE.
The scope of my History of the Spanish Inquisition precluded a detailed
investigation into the careers of individual tribunals. Such an investigation,
however, is not without interest, especially with respect to the outlying
ones, which were subjected to varying influences and reacted in varying
ways on the peoples among whom they were established. Moreover, in
some cases, this affords us an inside view of inquisitorial life, of the
characters of those to whom were confided the awful irresponsible powers
of the Holy Office and of the abuse of those powers by officials whom
distance removed from the immediate supervision of the central authority,
suggesting a capacity for evil even greater than that manifested in the
Peninsula.
This is especially the case with the tribunals of the American Colonies,
of which, thanks to the unwearied researches of Don José Toribio Medina,
of Santiago de Chile, a fairly complete and minute account can be given,
based on the confidential correspondence of the local officials with the
Supreme Council and the reports of the visitadores or inspectors, who were
occasionally sent in the vain expectation of reducing them to order. While
thus in the colonial tribunals we see the Inquisition at its worst, as a portion
of the governmental system, we can realize how potent was its influence in
contributing to the failure of Spanish colonial policy, by preventing orderly
and settled administration and by exciting disaffection which the Council of
Indies more than once warned the crown would lead to the loss of its
transatlantic empire. It is perhaps not too much to say that these revelations
moreover go far to explain the influences which so long retarded the
political and industrial development of the emancipated colonies, for it was
an evil inheritance weighing heavily on successive generations.
I have not attempted to include the fateful career of the Inquisition in the
Netherlands, for this cannot be written until the completion of Professor
Paul Fredericq’s monumental “Corpus Documentorum Inquisitionis
hæreticæ pravitatis Neerlandicæ,” the earlier volumes of which have thrown
so much light on the repression of heresy in the Low Countries up to the
dawn of the Reformation.

It is scarce necessary for me to make special acknowledgement to Señor
Medina in all that relates to the American tribunals, for this is sufficiently
attested by the constant reference to his works. With regard to Mexico I am
under particular obligation to David Fergusson Esq. for the use of
collections made by him during long residence in that Republic and also to
the late General Don Vicente Riva Palacio for the communication of a
number of interesting documents. To the late Doctor Paz Soldan of Lima
my thanks are also due for copies made in the archives of Peru prior to their
dispersion in 1881.
Philadelphia, October, 1907.

CONTENTS.
———
Chapter I—Sicily.
PAGE
The Old Inquisition in Sicily 1
The Spanish Inquisition introduced in 1487 2
Expulsion of Jews in 1492 3
Tardy Organization of the Tribunal 5
It gradually becomes efficient 7
Financial Mismanagement 9
Popular Disaffection 10
Increasing Activity 12
Complaints of Sicilian Parliament 13
Death of King Ferdinand—Tumult of 1516 14
Re-establishment in 1519 17
Efforts to reform Abuses 18
Renewed Complaints of the Parliament 21
Charles V suspends the Temporal Jurisdiction in 1535 22
Dread of Protestantism—Jurisdiction restored in 1546 24
Official-Immunity—Case of the Duke of Terranova 25
Renewed Activity—Popular Hostility 26
Enormous Increase in Number of Familiars 27
Abuse of official Immunity 28
Attempt at Reform in the Concordia of 1595 31
Increased Aggressiveness of the Tribunal 33
Collisions with the Secular Authority 34
Quarrels with the Bishops 35
Continued Strife—Concordia of 1635 37
Activity during the Seventeenth Century 38

The Inquisition under Austrian Rule—Auto de Fe of 1724—
Pragmatic Sanction of 1732 40
Reconquest of Sicily by Spain in 1734—The Inquisition placed under
the Holy See—Its Exuberance repressed by Carlos III 42
Suppressed by Ferdinando III in 1782 43
Malta.
A Dependency of the Sicilian Tribunal 44
Charles V in 1530 grants the Island to the Knights of St. John 45
Episcopal Inquisition under Bishop Cubelles 45
The Tribunal passes under Papal Control 46
———
Chapter II—Naples.
The Old Inquisition in Naples—The Jews 49
Refugees from Spain 50
Spanish Conquest in 1503—Capitulation excludes the Spanish
Inquisition 52
Julius II revives the Papal Inquisition 53
Ferdinand proposes to introduce the Spanish Inquisition in 1504 53
Neapolitan Organization—the Piazze or Seggi 54
Activity of the Papal Inquisition—Its Subordination to the Royal
Power 55
Ferdinand, in 1509, arranges to introduce the Spanish Inquisition 56
Popular Opposition becomes uncontrollable 58
Ferdinand abandons the Attempt 62
His fruitless efforts to stimulate Persecution 63
Inertness of the Papal Inquisition 65
Banishment of Jews in 1540 66
Protestantism in Naples—Juan de Valdés—Bernardino Ochino 67
Organization of Roman Inquisition in 1542—Charles V orders its
Introduction in Naples 70
Tentative Efforts create popular Excitement 71

The Tumult of 1547—its Suppression 73
Punishment of the Leaders 76
Recrudescence of Persecution—The Roman Inquisition tacitly
introduced 78
The Calabrian Waldenses—Their Extermination 79
The Apulian Waldenses 85
Intermingling of Jurisdictions 86
Philip II promises the Via Ordinaria 87
The Roman Inquisition under Cover of the Episcopal 87
The Accused sent to Rome for Trial and Punishment 88
The Exequatur of the Viceroy is a Condition precedent 89
Gradual Encroachment—A Commissioner of the Roman Inquisition
established in Naples 92
He assumes to be an Inquisitor—Rome in 1628 denies the Necessity
of the Viceregal Exequatur—Quarrels over it 94
The Roman Inquisition virtually established in Naples 96
Popular dissatisfaction—Demand for the Via Ordinaria 96
Commissioner Piazza banished in 1671 99
Outbreak in 1691—Commissioner Giberti ejected 99
Carlos II prohibits the residence of Commissioners—Permanent
Deputation to oppose the Inquisition 100
The Roman Inquisition in 1695 publishes an Edict of Denunciation 101
The Episcopal Inquisition disregards the Via Ordinaria—Struggles
under the Austrian Domination 102
Accession of Charles of Spain—Atto di fede of 1746 104
Episcopal Inquisition suppressed—Archbishop Spinelli forced to
resign 105
Continued Vigilance of the Deputati until 1764 107
———
Chapter III—Sardinia.
The Spanish Inquisition introduced in 1492 109
Conflicts with the Authorities 110

Productive Confiscations 112
Decadent condition of the tribunal 114
Charles V endeavors to reanimate it—Its chronic Poverty 115
Interference of the Bishops 117
Multiplication of Officials 117
Quarrels with the Secular Authorities 118
The Inquisition disappears under the House of Savoy 119
Chapter IV—Milan.
The Old and the reorganized Roman Inquisition 121
Energy of Fra Michele Ghislieri (Pius V) 122
Inefficiency of the Inquisition 123
Cardinal Borromeo’s persecuting Zeal 124
Philip II proposes to introduce the Spanish Inquisition 125
Popular Resistance—General Opposition of Italian Bishops 126
Philip II abandons the Project 128
Political and Commercial Questions affecting Lombardy—Intercourse
with Heretics 129
Cardinal Borromeo stimulates Persecution 131
His Mission to Mantua 133
The Roman Inquisition perfected—Its Struggle to exclude Swiss
Heresy 135
It is suppressed by Maria Theresa in 1775 137
———
Chapter V—The Canaries.
Importance of the Islands as a Commercial Centre 139
Episcopal Inquisition by Bishop Muros, in 1499 140
Tribunal established in 1505—It is dependent on Seville 140
Its Activity until 1534 141
It becomes dormant and is suspended 144
It is reorganized in 1567 and rendered independent of Seville 145
Activity of Inquisitor Diego Ortiz de Fúnez 147

Visitation of Doctor Bravo de Zayas in 1570 148
Visitation of Claudio de la Cueva in 1590—Abuses 150
Prosecution of escaped Negro and Moorish Slaves 152
Prosecution of English and Dutch Sailors 153
Number of Relaxations 155
Finances—Early Poverty—Wealth from Confiscations 156
Prosecution of Judaizers 158
Moorish and Negro Slaves—Renegades 159
Trivial Cases 161
Mysticism—Beatas revelanderas 162
Solicitation in the Confessional 163
Sorcery and Superstitions 165
Foreign Heretics—Sailors and Merchants 167
Treaties with England in 1604 and with Holland in 1609 171
Precarious Position of Foreign Merchants 173
Censorship 176
Examination of Houses of Foreign Residents 177
Irreverent religious Objects 178
Visitas de Navíos 179
Quarrels with the Authorities, secular and ecclesiastical 180
Popular hostility—Opposition to Sanbenitos in Churches 188
Suppression in 1813 189
Final Extinction in 1820 190
———
Chapter VI—Mexico.
Propagation of the Faith the Object of the Conquest 191
Organization of the Colonial Church 192
Attempts to exclude New Christians 193
Episcopal Inquisition 195
Establishment of a Tribunal proposed—Dread of Protestantism 199
Inquisitors sent out in 1570 200

Tribunal installed, November 4, 1571 202
Distance renders it partially Independent 203
Commencement of Activity—The first auto de fe, February 28, 1574 204
Autos of 1575, 1576, 1577, 1578, 1579, 1590, 1596, and 1601 207
Persecution of Judaizers 208
Indians not subject to Inquisition 209
Finances—Temporary royal Subvention—The Tribunal expected to
be self-supporting 212
Its early Poverty 213
It claims Indian Repartimientos 215
It refuses to render Account of its Receipts 216
It obtains a Grant of Canonries in 1627 216
Fruitless Efforts to make it account for the Confiscations 217
Large Remittances made to the Suprema from the Autos of 1646,
1648 and 1649 219
Efforts to make it forego and refund the royal Subvention 219
Misrepresentations of the Confiscations and Remittances 223
Comparative Inaction in the first Half of the Seventeenth Century 226
Efficacy of the Edict of Faith 227
Growth of Judaism—Active Persecution commences in 1642 229
Autos de Fe of 1646, 1648 and 1649 230
Auto de Fe of 1659 234
Cases of William Lampor and Joseph Bruñon de Vertiz 236
Inertia during the Rest of the Century 240
Solicitation in the Confessional 241
Temporal Jurisdiction—Immunity of Officials entitled to the Fuero 245
Familiars—Commissioners—Abuse of their Privileges 247
Concordia of 1610 251
Competencias 252
Concordia of 1633 254
Abusive Use of Power by Commissioners 256
Quarrels with Bishops—Case of Bishop Palafox 257

Case of Doctor Juan de la Camara 259
Exemption from Military Service 263
Censorship—Irreverent Use of Sacred Symbols—Visitas de Navíos 264
Repression under the Bourbon Dynasty 267
Decadence of the Tribunal 269
Political Activity caused by the Revolution—Censorship 272
Prosecution of Miguel Hidalgo 276
Suppression in 1813 288
Re-establishment in 1815 290
Prosecution of José María Morelos 292
Extinction in 1820 297
Persistent Intolerance 298
The Philippines.
Included in the District of the Mexican Tribunal 299
A Commissioner established there—His Powers 300
Solicitation—Military Deserters 302
Trivial Results 304
Censorship 306
Conflicts with the Authorities 308
Audacity of the Commissioners 310
Commissioner Paternina imprisons Governor Salcedo and rules the
Colony 311
Records burnt in 1763 317
Episcopal Inquisition in China 317
———
Chapter VII—Peru.
Deplorable Condition of the Colony 319
Episcopal Inquisition—Its Activity 321
Case of Francisco de Aguirre 322
The Bishops seek to maintain their Jurisdiction 325
The Tribunal established January 29, 1570 326

The first Auto de Fe, November 15, 1573 328
Organization and Powers—Exemption of Indians 329
Supervision over Foreigners 332
Extent of Territory—Commissioners and their Abuses 333
New Granada detached in 1611—Other Divisions proposed 337
Finances—Initial Poverty—Speedy Growth of Confiscations 342
Fruitless Efforts to withdraw the Royal Subvention 344
Suppression of Prebends for the Benefit of the Tribunal 346
Enormous Confiscations in the Auto de Fe of 1639 347
Other Sources of Income 349
Increased Expenses exceed the Revenues 350
Malversations and Embezzlements in the Eighteenth Century 351
Financial Condition at Suppression in 1813 354
Abusive use of arbitrary Power 355
Scandalous conduct of Inquisitor Ulloa 355
Visitation of Juan Ruiz de Prado 357
His charges against Cerezuela and Ulloa 358
Ulloa’s Visitation of the District 360
Abusive use of arbitrary Power:
Inquisitor Ordoñez y Flores 362
Inquisitors Gaitan and Mañozca 363
Inquisitors Calderon and Unda 366
Visitation of Antonio de Arenaza 367
Paralysis of the Tribunal—Purchase of Offices 372
Quarrels with the Viceroys 373
Humiliation of Viceroy del Villar 374
Complaints of succeeding Viceroys 380
Conflicts of Jurisdictions 382
Limitation of the Temporal Jurisdiction by Fernando VI 386
Quarrels of Inquisitor Amusquíbar with Archbishop Barroeta 389
Activity of the Tribunal—Bigamy, Blasphemy, Sorcery 390
Propositions 392

Solicitation in the Confessional 393
Mystic Impostors—Maria Pizarro 396
Angela Carranza 400
Quietism—The Jesuit Ulloa and his Disciples 406
Protestantism—English Prisoners of War 412
Judaism 419
Portuguese Immigration through Brazil and Buenos Ayres 421
Case of Francisco Maldonado de Silva 423
The Complicidad Grande—Auto de Fe of 1639 425
Decline of Judaism—Case of Doña Ana de Castro 433
Punishments 437
Arbitrary Inconsistency—Case of François Moyen 439
Censorship 444
Morals and Politics 446
Decadence and Suppression 447
Re-establishment and Extinction 449
Work accomplished 451
———
Chapter VIII—New Granada.
Settlement of New Granada 453
Commissioners appointed by Tribunal of Lima 454
Demand for an Independent Tribunal 455
Extent of District—Attempt to include Florida 457
Tribunal established in 1610 at Cartagena 460
Early Operations 461
Sorcery and Witchcraft—Blasphemy 462
Judaism 466
Inertia—Sack of Cartagena in 1697 467
Decadence 468
Censorship—The Copernican System 470
Quarrels with the Authorities 473

Arbitrary Control exercised by Inquisitor Mañozca 473
Incessant Broils—Inquisitor Vélez de Asas y Argos—Fiscal Juan
Ortiz 476
Visitation of Dr. Martin Real in 1643—Its Failure 480
Internal Dissensions and external Quarrels 483
Visitation of Pedro Medina Rico in 1648—Death of Inquisitor Pereira
and Secretary Uriarte 485
Internal and external Quarrels continue 488
Degradation of the Tribunal 489
Quarrel with Bishop Benavides y Piedrola—Inquisitor Valera 491
Humiliation of Governor Ceballos 498
Decadence after the Sack of 1697 499
Finances—The Royal Subvention 500
Wealth accruing from Confiscations 501
Quarrels over the Subvention 502
Asserted Distress of the Tribunal 505
The Revolutionary Junta banishes the Tribunal in 1810 506
It takes Refuge in Santa Marta and Puertobelo 508
It returns to Cartagena in 1815 508
It is extinguished by the United States of Colombia in 1821 510
Influence of the Inquisition on the Spanish Colonies 511
———
Appendix of Documents 517
Index

THE INQUISITION

IN THE SPANISH DEPENDENCIES.

CHAPTER I.

SICILY.

The island of Sicily, in the fifteenth century, was a portion of the
dominions of Aragon. Like the rest of the possessions of that crown, it had
enjoyed the benefits of the old papal Inquisition under the conduct of the
Dominicans, but, as elsewhere, towards the close of the Middle Ages, the
institution had become nearly dormant, and at most was employed
occasionally to wring money from the Jews. An effort to galvanize it,
however, was made, in 1451, by the Inquisitor Fra Enrico Lugardi, who
produced a fictitious decree, purporting to have been issued in 1224, by the
Emperor Frederic II, granting to the inquisitors a third of the confiscations,
together with yearly contributions from Jews and infidels; this was
confirmed by King Alfonso of Naples, and again, in 1477, by Ferdinand and
Isabella.[1] When, in 1484, the Spanish Inquisition was extended to Aragon,
Ferdinand did not at first seek to carry its blessings to his insular
possessions. February 12, 1481, he had appointed Filippo de’Barbari, one
of his confessors, as inquisitor of Sicily, Malta, Gozo and Pantelaria, who
apparently did nothing to further the cause of the faith, for Sixtus IV, in
letters of February 23, 1483, to Isabella, complained of the prevalence in
the island of the same heresies that pervaded Spain; to repress these he had
issued sundry bulls, which had proved inoperative in consequence of the
opposition of the royal officials, to his no little grief. Seeing the zeal
displayed in Spain, he prayed and exhorted that it should be extended to
Sicily and that the necessary royal favor be exhibited to the measures which
he had taken and might take in the future.[2] There is no evidence that this
produced any effect, and the institution seems to have remained inert until,
about 1487, Torquemada, as Inquisitor-general of Aragon, appointed Fray
Antonio de la Peña as inquisitor who, on August 18th of that year,
celebrated the first auto de fe, in which Eulalia Tamarit, apparently a
refugee from Saragossa, was burnt. It seems that a Dominican, named
Giacomo Roda, had been exercising the functions under a commission from
the General of his Order, who subsequently instructed the provincial,
Giacomo Manso, to dismiss him. In 1488 la Peña left Sicily, appointing
Manso to act during his absence, when Roda reasserted himself and it

required a brief from Innocent VIII, February 7, 1489, to make him desist.
In fact, at this time there seems to have been some confusion between the
claims of the papal and Spanish Inquisitions, for we hear of another
Dominican inquisitor, Pietro Ranzano, Bishop of Lucera, to whom the
senate of Palermo, on January 19, 1488, took the customary oath of
obedience.[3]
In Sicily, as in Spain, the objects of the principal labors of the Holy
Office were the converts from Judaism. The Jews were numerous and rich
and, although popular hatred was perhaps not so active as in Spain, it was
sufficiently vigorous, in 1474, to bring about a massacre, under the pretext
that they were endeavoring to undermine the Catholic faith by argument.
The viceroy, Lope Ximenes de Urrea, hanged six of the leaders of the
movement, in the hope of suppressing it but, undeterred by this, the
populace, in many places, sacked the Juderías and put the inmates to the
sword; five hundred thus were slain in Noto, six hundred in Modica and, for
several years, the Jews were in constant fear of massacre, in spite of royal
and vice-regal edicts.[4] The number of victims in these troubles indicates
how considerable was the Jewish population; indeed, in 1450, they
petitioned that, in the assessment of a donation to King Alfonso of 10,000
florins they might be reckoned as a tenth of the population, a favor which
was refused and, when in 1491, the Jews were banished from Provence, a
large portion of them flocked to Sicily, attracted by the favorable conditions
which had long been accorded there to the race.[5]
The edict of expulsion from Spain, in 1492, was operative in Sicily,
under conditions even more repulsively cruel. It was published June 18th,
and the day of departure was fixed at September 18th, under pain of death
and confiscation. At once all their valuables were seized, in a house to
house investigation, and inventories were made of their other possessions.
They were required, within the three months, not only to collect what was
due to them and to pay their debts, but also to indemnify the king for their
special tributes by capitalizing the annual aggregate, on a basis of four per
cent. interest. On August 13th an order was issued to license each to take a
suit of common clothes, a mattress, a pair of worn sheets, a coverlet, three
tari in money (equivalent to half a florin), and a few provisions for the
journey. Reduced to despair, the Jews of Palermo petitioned to be allowed
to retain money enough to pay their passages; that the rich could leave their
property on deposit, and that poor debtors might be discharged from prison

a month in advance. This drew from the viceroy an edict allowing the rich
to take twice as much as the poor, except in the matter of clothes. Not only
their mattresses were to be searched for money and jewels, but even the
cavities of their bodies, for which examiners of both sexes were appointed.
A payment of fifty thousand florins to the king procured a postponement of
three months, until December 18th, and during the interval the composition
for their tributes was agreed upon, at a hundred thousand more, on payment
of which they were to be allowed to take what was left of their inventoried
goods, but all precious metals and jewels were required to be turned into
merchandise. There was delay in collecting these sums, causing a further
postponement of departure until January 12, 1493.[6] As the object of the
measure was the salvation of souls, the alternative of conversion was
offered, to which the Jews were urged by a proclamation of Torquemada
and by promises from the bishops and the viceroy. Ferdinand, however, was
not disposed thus to forego the opportunity of despoiling his Jewish
subjects, and issued an order requiring them to purchase the privilege of
baptism with the surrender of forty-five per cent. of their property, which
must have brought him in a considerable sum for, in spite of it, the rigorous
terms imposed upon the exiles drove many into the Christian fold.[7]
These compulsory Christians, always suspected, and generally with
reason, of secretly cherishing their ancient faith, furnished a larger and
more lucrative field for inquisitorial operations, but there seems to have
been no immediate haste to cultivate it, and there is no trace of increased
inquisitorial activity during the remaining years of the century. In
December, 1497, Micer Sancho Marin, inquisitor of Sardinia, was ordered
to transfer himself to Sicily; he was in no haste to obey and, on March 11,
1498, Ferdinand wrote to him angrily that he was doing no good where he
was and was much wanted in his new post, wherefore he was commanded
summarily to go there and leave all the effects of the Sardinian tribunal for
his successor. Short as was his career in Sicily, he managed to disorganize
the Inquisition and to incur general detestation. Before the year was out,
Ferdinand ordered him home and, on January 20, 1499, he sent for all the
other officials to return. To get back, Marin borrowed three hundred ounces,
[8] without making provision for repayment; to settle this and other debts
and to pay for the homeward voyage of the officials, Ferdinand ordered his
viceroy to give to the receiver of confiscations, who was practically the
treasurer, eight hundred ducats, with a significant order to see that the

parties were not maltreated, which indicates the feelings popularly
entertained for them. The eight hundred ducats apparently were not easily
raised, for correspondence continued during the rest of the year as to the
payment of debts and salaries; Pedro de Urrea, the receiver, fell into
disgrace and Ferdinand, in August, sent the notary, Ximeno Mayoral, to
make copies of all the papers in the tribunal, in order to be able to straighten
out matters.[9] Apparently the officials had been intent solely upon their
own gains, allowing the affairs of the tribunal to fall into complete
confusion, and had confined their operations to selling pardons and
exemptions for, when the auditor examining Urrea’s accounts asked for
certificates of all who were condemned or penanced during his tenure of
office, Ferdinand epigrammatically replied that, as there were none
condemned or penanced, no certificates were required. It is true that there is
mention of a certain Iñigo de Medina as having died in prison, but he had
not been arrested as a heretic and his sequestrated property was ordered to
be returned to his widow.[10]
Evidently the Sicilian Inquisition thus far had been a failure and
thorough reorganization was necessary. It was for this that Ferdinand had
recalled the officials and, after an interval of some months, he proceeded to
replace them. A letter of July 27, 1500, to Montoro, Bishop of Cefalù,
announced his appointment as inquisitor, together with that of the bearer,
Doctor Giovanni Sgalambro as his colleague, with whom were sent Diego
de Obregon as receiver, and Martin de Vallejo as alguazil, the rest of the
officials being left for his selection. At the same time the viceroy was
instructed to show them all favor, to lodge them in some suitable building
and to advance to Obregon 780 gold ducats for salaries, the sum to be
repaid out of the expected confiscations.[11] The Sicilian tribunal, however,
was doomed to be unlucky. Ferdinand speedily discovered that Sgalambro
was utterly unfit for the position and, on November 6th, we find him
writing in hot haste to Inquisitor-general Deza that, after it had had so
unfortunate a beginning, Sgalambro’s incumbency would destroy it; he had
sent to Valencia to stop his departure, but too late, and now he instructs
Deza to select some good jurist for the place, as soon as possible, and
before some evil is wrought in Sicily.[12] This eagerness, however, speedily
subsided and Sgalambro was allowed to retain his office for a year. On
November 8th, Montoro and he issued an edict requiring the surrender of all
official papers by those formerly connected with the tribunal; also one

prohibiting all Conversos, or baptized Jews, from leaving the island without
special licence, under pain of excommunication, confiscation and arbitrary
penalties, and offering to informers ten per cent. of the confiscations. In
December, the viceroy and all public officials took the customary oath of
obedience and the inquisitors issued an Edict of Grace, promising relief
from death and confiscation to all heretics who would, within fifteen days,
come forward and confess fully as to themselves and their associates. This
was accompanied with an Edict of Faith, ordering all cognizant of heresy to
denounce it within fifteen days, threatening those who omitted to do so with
prosecution for fautorship of heresy and promising secrecy for informers.
This latter edict apparently brought in few denunciations, for it was
repeated on January 14, 1501, and, at the same time, was published a decree
of the inquisitor-general, announcing the disabilities of the descendants of
those convicted of heresy. That these proceedings were as yet a novelty in
Sicily is apparent from a monition issued by the inquisitors to the president
of the states of the Camera reginale not to impede in those districts the
publication of the edicts.[13]
Evidently the Inquisition was rapidly becoming organized for work, but
it still lacked a fixed habitation for, on August 22d, Ferdinand wrote to his
viceroy that a house was necessary for it and, as the one occupied by Mosen
Johan Chilestro, the royal carver, was suitable, it was to be taken for the
purpose; he had no recollection that it had been given to the latter except for
life but, if the heirs could prove a gift in perpetuity, they should be paid a
suitable rent. Apparently the labors of the tribunal were beginning to
promise results in the long-expected confiscations, for a letter of September
4th empowers the receiver Obregon to compound a suit against Johan de
San Martin, for property derived through his brother and father, for five
thousand florins and more if it could be obtained. It would seem, however,
that as yet the status and privileges of the officials were not clearly
recognized in Sicily, for a letter of September 10th to the viceroy urges him
to see that the inquisitors enjoy the immunities and exemptions conceded to
them by the Holy See and that the officials are as well treated as in the rest
of the Spanish dominions.[14]
At length a successor was found for Sgalambro in the person of Pedro de
Belorado, an old Spanish inquisitor, now Archbishop-elect of Messina, to
whom Obregon was ordered, September 30th, to pay the same salary.[15]
The people had not even yet become accustomed to the arbitrary methods

of the Holy Office, for the earliest act by which Belorado makes himself
known to us is his excommunication of the magistrates and judges of the
town of Catania as impeders of the Inquisition, because they had prevented
the alguazil Martin de Vallejo from removing from their city certain New
Christians whom he had arrested. Vallejo had vindicated his office by
imposing on the spot a fine of a thousand ducats on the offenders, and this
Belorado confirmed. In 1502 we find him issuing fresh Edicts of Grace and
of Faith and, in 1503, Deza empowered him and Montoro to act either
independently or conjointly.[16] It would seem that the governor of the
districts of the Camera reginale was still recalcitrant, for a letter from
Ferdinand, August 13, 1504, orders him to favor the operations of the
tribunal, “for our officials have naught to do but what we ourself do, which
is to obey the Holy Office.”[17]
There is not much evidence of activity at this period, but an auto de fe
was celebrated, August 11, 1506, in which was burnt Olivieri de Mauro, a
renegade Christian.[18] Probably this was followed by others, of which the
records have not reached us, but the troubles of the tribunal were not yet
over and, in 1509, it was practically suspended for awhile, for the Bishop of
Cefalù was transferred to Naples, as we shall see hereafter; Belorado died,
the receiver Obregon was in Spain, and the other officials apparently
dispersed, as there was no money to pay their salaries. At length a successor
was found in Doctor Alonso Bernal, whose appointment Ferdinand
announced to the viceroy, January 19, 1510, but he was in no haste to
assume the duties for, on April 2d Ferdinand was obliged to furnish him
with sixty ducats to expedite his departure from Valencia. Obregon
accompanied him and, as the whole staff of the tribunal had disappeared, he
was empowered to fill their places and regulate their salaries, which were to
be paid out of three hundred ducats to be advanced by the royal treasurer
and to be repaid out of the first proceeds of the expected confiscations.[19]
The need of money was doubtless an incentive to active work. Bernal lost
no time in getting the tribunal into shape and, by August 27th, we hear of
his having many prisoners, for whose safe-keeping he had spent fifty ducats
in arranging a gaol.[20] The result of this industry manifested itself in an
auto de fe, celebrated June 6, 1511, in which eight persons were burnt.[21]
He was speedily furnished with a colleague, for royal letters of June 18th
and 24th inform us of the appointment of a second inquisitor, in the person
of Doctor Diego de Bonilla, promoted from the position of fiscal, to whom

Obregon was ordered to pay a salary of 6000 sueldos, while the new fiscal,
Leonardo Vázquez de Cepeda was to receive 2000 and the notary, Pedro de
Barahona the same. It was one thing, however, to grant salaries and quite
another to get them paid, in the habitual mismanagement of inquisitorial
business. From a letter of September 17th we learn that Obregon had left
Sicily in the fleet, placing as his substitute his son, a boy of 15 or 16. The
salaries had fallen greatly in arrears and the boy declared that he had no
funds save twenty ounces, while Inquisitor Bernal asserted that he had
imposed fines and pecuniary penances to the amount of thirteen hundred
ducats, besides considerable confiscations, which should be ample to meet
all salaries and expenses, whereupon Ferdinand ordered the viceroy to
investigate the accounts and discover where the money had gone.[22]
These were not the only difficulties which the tribunal had to encounter.
Accustomed as the people had been for centuries to the existence of the
Inquisition, the Spanish institution was a very different affair, not only as to
activity and severity but still more from the privileges and immunities
claimed and enforced by its officials and their servants and familiars,
especially their exemption from taxes and import dues and their fuero or
right to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition, whether as plaintiffs or
defendants, giving rise to perpetual irritation through the oppression and
injustice thus rendered possible. These innovations were not admitted
without resistance, which Ferdinand sought to repress by a letter of
September 10, 1508, ordering Belorado to see that his officials were as well
treated in these respects as elsewhere in the Spanish dominions. This
received scant obedience for, on November 14, 1509, he wrote to the
stratico of Palermo expressing extreme displeasure on learning that he had
arrested a scrivener of the tribunal and had deprived other officials of their
arms; in future he must maintain their privileges and exemptions and show
them every favor and protection.[23] Yet Ferdinand knew that the troubles
arose from the over-weening pretensions of the tribunal and its officials for,
in a letter of July 30, 1510, to Bernal he attributed them to the exorbitant
invasions of the royal jurisdiction by the inquisitors and their appointment
of men of evil life who caused scandal and infamy. Bernal must bear in
mind that, in Sicily, the prerogatives of the crown were greater than
elsewhere; whenever he had to take action in matters unconnected with
heresy he must consult the viceroy or advocate fiscal, so as to avoid
prejudice to the royal pre-eminence; he must also furnish to the viceroy a

list of officials, servants and familiars, the latter not to exceed ten in
number.[24]
Inquisitors, especially of distant tribunals, were not accustomed to pay
much heed to instructions inculcating moderation in the exercise of their
powers and the Sicilians were indisposed to submission. We learn from a
royal letter of December 25, 1510, that the jurats objected to taking the
customary oath of obedience to inquisitors and that the local authorities
persisted in levying taxes on the officials.[25] Relations were strained and
disaffection grew until there was an explosion on St. Bernard’s day, August
20, 1511, when the people rose with demands that the privileges of the
officials should be curtailed—a rising which cost, it is said, the lives of a
thousand Spanish soldiers.[26] Neither this warning nor Ferdinand’s
exhortations abated the pretensions of the Holy Office. A letter of the
viceroy, Hugo de Moncada, September 6, 1512, relates that when some
troops pursued a band of robbers and arrested them in the country-house of
an inquisitor, where they had sought refuge, the latter threatened the captain
and his men with excommunication if the prisoners were not released and
then claimed jurisdiction to try them, on the ground of the place of their
capture.[27] This was by no means an isolated case for soon afterwards two
other flagrant examples of similar character evoked from Ferdinand,
October 25th, an order to rescind their action, coupled with an expression of
extreme displeasure at their thus affording protection to malefactors on one
pretext or another. Their behavior in the custom-house to evade the payment
of duties was a further subject of animadversion and he warned them
sternly to avoid in future creating such scandals.[28]
This somewhat exuberant zeal in asserting their privileges was
accompanied with corresponding activity in the performance of their
regular duties. In 1513 there were three autos de fe celebrated, in which the
burnings aggregated thirty-nine, a large portion being of those who had
been previously reconciled and had relapsed, thus indicating the increased
vigilance of the tribunal.[29] A further evidence of this was the arrival, in
September, 1513, at Naples, of four hundred fugitives, including a number
of priests and friars, to escape the rigor of the inquisitors, who they said
were endeavoring to force confessors to reveal the confessions of their
penitents.[30] One gratifying result of this activity was the financial ease
afforded by the resultant large confiscations. A letter of Ferdinand’s to
Obregon, June 27, 1513, calls his attention to them and to those anticipated

from the number of prisoners on trial, requiring greater care than had
hitherto been devoted to the management; the officials were now receiving
their salaries and doing their duty. In spite of this warning we find, a year
later, that Obregon had abruptly quitted Palermo, leaving the affairs of the
office in confusion, rendering necessary the appointment, June 15, 1514, of
a successor, Garcí Cid, who was instructed to reduce it to order and to
invest in ground-rents twelve hundred ounces which Obregon had deposited
in a bank.[31] That the profits of persecution continued is evidenced by a gift
made, March 30, 1515, by Ferdinand, to his wife, Queen Germaine, of all
the confiscations of that year, in the city of Syracuse and district of the
Camera reginale, up to the sum of ten thousand florins—a gift which Garcí
Cid was ordered to keep secret until after he should have rendered a
statement of all that was on hand and was expected.[32]
It is perhaps not surprising that this increased effectiveness of the
tribunal stimulated popular discontent, which found expression in a petition
from the Sicilian Parliament asking Ferdinand that the Inquisition be
required to observe the ancient canons and methods of procedure, for many
of those burnt in the autos asserted their innocence, declaring that their
confessions had been extorted by torture and dying with every sign of being
good Christians. It was further asked that some limit be put to the issue of
licences to bear arms and as to the kind of persons licensed; that the judge
of confiscations should have a fixed salary and should not exact fees and
that there should be an appeal from him to the viceroy; also that those who
in good faith entered into contracts with persons reputed to be good
Christians should be able to collect their debts, in place of having them
included in the confiscation, the contrary practice being destructive to trade
and commerce.[33] There was also a special embassy from Palermo,
complaining that the inquisitors required the city authorities to renew every
year the oath of obedience and that they issued licences to bear arms to men
of evil life who caused much disorder and scandal.[34] Ferdinand promised
relief of these grievances and, in due course, a fresh series of instructions
was issued, in 1515, by Bishop Martin de Aspeitia and the Aragonese
Supreme Council, or Suprema. It limited the number of familiars to thirty
for Palermo, to twenty for Messina and Catania, to fifteen for Syracuse and
Trapani and to not over ten in other places; they were to be men of
approved character and were to carry certificates identifying them, in the
absence of which they could be disarmed by the secular authorities. If

officials were accused of serious crime, the evidence was to be sent to the
inquisitor-general when, if the proof was sufficient, the offender would be
dismissed and the inquisitor who had tolerated it would be punished.
Officials were deprived of the voz activa or right as plaintiffs to the
jurisdiction of the tribunal, although Dr. Martin Real assures us that
experience had already shown that they could not exist without it, so
universally were they detested. Their buying up of claims and matters in
litigation, in which they had the benefit of the tribunal as a court, was
prohibited. The dowries of wives were protected from confiscation when
husbands were convicted and dealings with those in good repute as
Christians were held good, in case of confiscation, so that the claims of
creditors were allowed and, if the fisc desired to seize alienated real estate,
it was required to refund the purchase-money to the buyer.[35] There were
various other reforms embodied in the instructions, all indicating a desire to
avoid injustice to innocent third parties, but the whole is interesting rather
as an exposure of customary abuses than as effecting their removal,
although when, towards the close of 1514 a new inquisitor, Miguel Cervera
by name, was sent to Sicily, he was ordered to obey to the letter the
instructions of Torquemada and his successors and not to increase the
number of officials without permission.[36]
However praiseworthy may have been the intentions at headquarters, it
was impossible to control the tribunal or to allay popular hostility, which
found opportunity for expression after the death of Ferdinand, February 23,
1516. Hugo de Moncada had held the office of viceroy for six years and had
earned universal hatred by his cruelty, greed and lust. Among other devices,
he had monopolized the corn-trade and, by his exportations, had reduced
the island almost to starvation, though its fertility rendered it the granary of
the Mediterranean, while the poverty of the people was aggravated by an
adulterated currency.[37] He concealed the news of Ferdinand’s death, in
hopes of reappointment by Charles V, but it became known and the people,
led by some powerful nobles, claimed that his commission had expired.
While the popular mind was thus excited, Fra Hieronimo da Verona, in his
lenten sermons in Palermo, denounced as sacrilegious the wearing of red
crosses on the green penitential sanbenitos of the reconciled heretics, who
were very numerous, and he urged the people to tear off the symbol of
Christ from the heretical penitents. His advice was followed and the aspect
of the mob grew more and more threatening. Moncada attempted to quiet

matters by proclaiming Charles and Juana, abolishing an obnoxious corn-
tax and exhibiting letters from Charles confirming him in office. These
were denounced as forgeries; a man who demanded to see them was
arrested by the prefect and rescued by the people, while the prefect was
obliged to fly for his life. That night, March 7, 1516, an immense crowd,
with artillery taken from the arsenal, besieged the vice-regal palace;
Moncada, disguised as a serving-man, escaped by a postern to the house of
a friend, whence he took refuge on a ship in the harbor and sailed for
Messina, which consented to receive him. After sacking the palace, the mob
turned its attention to the Inquisition. Cervera saved his life by taking a
consecrated host in a monstrance, under protection of which he gained the
harbor, amid the jeers and insults of the people, who cried that he was an
inquisitor and hunter of money, not of heretics. He took ship for Spain,
while the mob released the prisoners, destroyed the records and pillaged the
property of the Inquisition. The Palermitans followed this with an embassy
to Charles, complaining of the evil doings of Moncada and the disorders
caused by the Inquisition which had well-nigh destroyed their city. The sole
object of its officials they said was to accumulate money and they would
lay down their lives rather than see it restored, except under the ancient
form as carried on by the bishops and Dominicans. Cervera betook himself
to Flanders to solicit his restoration, but the island held out and, for three
years, there was no Inquisition in Sicily, except in Messina and its territory.
[38]

Enlightened by the insurrection and the Palermitan complaints, the
Suprema or supreme council of Aragon, on August 29, 1516, sent to
Centelles, Bishop of Syracuse, a commission to investigate the tribunal,
with a list of interrogatories from which it appears that Cervera had filled
the office with his kindred and servants, while every kind of pillage and
oppression is suggested, even to the rifling of the treasure-chest by the
officials on the day of the tumult. Bishop Centelles, however, had died on
August 22d; of course no investigation was made and the Suprema
contented itself with expressing, on October 27th, to Charles its
gratification at his determination to restore with the greatest honor the
tribunal which had been expelled with such disgrace.[39] This, however, was
not so readily accomplished. Some seven months later, on June 15, 1517,
Charles wrote to the Sicilian viceroy ordering Cervera to be received back
and obeyed under penalty of the royal wrath and three thousand crowns but,

for a time, this was a dead letter. Cervera returned to Spain when Charles
went there, in 1517, and it was not until 1519 that Sicily was sufficiently
pacified to render it expedient to send him back. A royal cédula of May 29,
1519, announces this and orders Garcí Cid, the receiver, to pay him 343
ducats for his accrued salary without deduction for absence, and, when the
cédula of June 15, 1517, was published at last on July 6, 1519, it was not in
Palermo but in Messina, where the Marquis of Monteleone, the new
viceroy, was still residing. Meanwhile a certain Giovanni Martino da
Aquino had been enjoying the title of inquisitor there, but he was removed,
May 20, 1519, in favor of Cervera. A second inquisitor, Tristan Calvete had
been appointed in 1517 and had been welcomed in Messina.[40]
Calvete’s first act was to issue an edict, May 16, 1518, requiring, under
pain of excommunication, all papers and property of the Inquisition to be
returned within fifteen days and the anathema duly followed on June 6th.[41]
Presumably this produced little result; Palermo, the seat of the tribunal and
scene of insurrection, had not yet returned to obedience; the records had
been destroyed and their lack long remained a source of embarrassment.
The tribunal however, in 1519, was re-established and fully manned; it
celebrated an auto de fe, June 11, 1519 and, for five or six years, there
seems to have been one nearly every year, but the number of executions
was not large.[42] Popular antagonism was by no means disarmed, for we
find Calvete issuing, September 29, 1525, two edicts, one commanding
everyone to aid and favor the Inquisition and not to defend heretics, and the
other summoning all cognizant of the numerous penitenciados and their
descendants, who disregarded the disabilities imposed on them, to denounce
them.[43]
There was ample cause for disaffection, arising, not from sympathy with
heresy, but from the arbitrary proceedings of those who regarded
persecution primarily as a source of enrichment. Instructions given, July 31,
1517, by Cardinal Adrian to Calvete, commence with the remark that all
inquisitors thus far sent to Sicily had disregarded the rules of the Holy
Office, both as to civil and criminal procedure, as to confiscations and as to
familiars. It was therefore ordered that all officials, under pain of
excommunication, should inviolably observe the instructions, including
those given to Melchor Cervera; the whole body of these rules was ordered
to be read in presence of all the officials assembled for the purpose, a
notarial act being taken to attest the fact. Moreover, in addition to

excommunication for violations of the rules, the special penalties provided
were to be irrevocably enforced. Following this were particular instructions
for the correction of abuses which indicate how completely the interests of
the fisc and the rights of the people were subordinated to official cupidity.
One of the practices prohibited shows how repulsive the religion of Christ,
in such hands, was rendered to converts. The inquisitors, it appears, were in
the habit of making reconciled penitents and baptized neophytes labor on
the fortifications of the castle; when they did not appear at the appointed
hour they were fined and these fines, which were collected by Zamporron,
the messenger of the tribunal, amounted to a considerable sum, of which no
account was rendered.[44] In this, as in all similar denunciations of
malversations and abuses, a noteworthy feature is that punishment is always
threatened for the future and none is inflicted for the past; no one is
dismissed and the thieving and corrupt officials are allowed unmolested to
continue their career of plunder and oppression.
Apparently Cardinal Adrian was advised that his instructions were not
obeyed and he sent Master Benito Mercader as “visitor” or inspector to
report on the condition of the tribunal. Before this report was received,
Adrian had passed through the papacy to the tomb, and it was acted upon by
his successor, Manrique, Archbishop of Seville, who issued, January 31,
1525, a fresh set of instructions, based on its revelations. From this it would
appear that there was little in which the inquisitors and their officials did
not violate the rules, both in the conduct of trials and management of the
finances. There seems, in fact, to have been a Saturnalia of peculation.
Collections were made by both authorized and unauthorized persons, of
which no accounts were kept. The fines and pecuniary penances, which
formed so lucrative a source of income, were kept from the knowledge of
the notary of sequestrations so that he could make no charge of them to the
receiver. Officials claimed and received twenty or twenty-five per cent. for
discovering hidden confiscated property, their knowledge of which was
acquired officially. The Christian slaves of condemned heretics were sold in
place of being set free, according to law. Inquisitors and their subordinates
received “presents,” or rather bribes, from penitents and litigants, which
perhaps explains the complaint that sentences to the galleys and other
penalties were not executed and that the disabilities and sanbenitos of those
reconciled were not enforced. There is significance in the instructions for
the collection of the two hundred gold ducats, which the late inquisitor,

Melchor Cervera, had bequeathed to the Inquisition for the discharge of his
conscience—probably but a small portion of the irregular gains for which
he had had ample opportunity. As a whole, this inside picture of the Holy
Office shows us how completely it was converted into an engine for
oppression and peculation and how little there was of genuine fanaticism to
serve as an excuse for its existence, but, as usual, there are no dismissals or
punishments inflicted and the only remedy proposed is the formal semi-
annual reading of the instructions to the officials. That they should continue
to be the objects of popular detestation was inevitable, and the complaint is
made that their maltreatment and the resistance offered to them remain
unpunished.[45]
This was the only point on which reformation was attempted. Charles V,
in a letter to his viceroy, October 22, 1525, says that he understands that the
royal courts take cognizance of the cases of the officials of the tribunal,
which displeases him greatly; it is his will that the Holy Office shall be
cherished and favored and that in all cases, civil and criminal, its officials
are to enjoy the immunities and privileges to which they are entitled; they
are to exercise their functions with all freedom, under the royal protection,
guarded by the penalties expressed in the royal concessions. This was
supplemented by another cédula of August 25, 1526, taking the inquisitors
and their officials under the royal safeguard and ordering that they should
have all aid and support and protection from the secular authorities.[46]
As for the wrongs committed by the inquisitors, their continuance is
shown by repeated petitions from the Sicilian Parliament, which indicate
how completely the instructions of 1515 and 1517 were ignored, while
Charles’s replies—probably drawn up for him by the Suprema—prove how
little hope there was of redress through an appeal to the throne. The
Parliament represented that the Conversos who remained were few and
poor, the rest having fled or been condemned, wherefore the inquisitors
despoiled the native Christians of their property, to remedy which it asked
as before that in future the Inquisition should be conducted by the bishops
and Dominicans as of old. To this the answer was that he would consult the
pope. It was also asked that Christians who had, in good faith, made
contracts with reputed Catholics and thus were their creditors, should have
their claims recognized and satisfied out of the confiscated property of a
condemned debtor. This shows that the instructions of 1515 to this effect
had been disregarded and there was little hope of improvement in Charles’s

assent with the nullifying proviso that there must be a prescription of thirty
years’ possession, concerning which he would write to the pope. A further
request was that the dowries of orthodox wives should not be subject to
confiscation and that children’s portions should be exempted, to which the
reply was “agreed as to dowries received before the commission of heresy;
for the rest, the pope will be consulted.” Another point was that, in case of
denial of justice or evident scandal, the viceroy could appoint some prelate
who, with the Gran Corte or the doctors, could decide the matter. This was
rejected with the declaration that all appeals must be to the inquisitor-
general. It was further asked that each inquisitor when he came should file
his commission in the ordinary public registers, so that every one could
learn what was his authority, for the inquisitors often exceeded their lawful
powers. Complaint was also made that the officials abused their immunities
and privileges by engaging in trade and it was asked that in suits thence
arising they should be subjected to the vice-regal or episcopal courts, to
which Charles replied that he had given orders to the inquisitor-general to
see to this.[47]
Thus supported, the Inquisition pursued its course and held one or more
autos de fe every year, until 1534, though the number of burnings was not
excessive, the summary for the nine years showing only thirty-nine victims
relaxed to the secular arm, the most of whom suffered for relapse after
previous conviction and reconciliation.[48] While thus performing its full
duties to the faith, the consciousness of imperial support had not led it to
mend its ways or to reform abuses, and popular opposition was
undiminished, for Charles found it necessary to issue another rescript,
January 18, 1535, addressed to Viceroy Monteleone, confirming at much
length the privileges and exemptions of the officials from secular
jurisdiction and their right to bear arms.[49] When, however, in the
following September, Charles visited Palermo, on his return from his
crusade to Tunis, and listened to the earnest representations of the
Parliament, his convictions changed—a change possibly facilitated by a
subsidy granted to him of two hundred and fifty thousand ducats over and
above the ordinary revenue.[50] He suspended, for a period of five years, the
jurisdiction of the Inquisition in all cases involving the death-penalty and
not connected with matters of faith, and, when this term had elapsed, he
prolonged the suspension for five years more.[51] The historians of the
Inquisition tell us that this resulted in the unchecked multiplication of

heretics among the noblest families, while the hatred of the people for its
representatives manifested itself without fear of punishment. There can, in
fact, be little doubt that its operations were crippled on this account, for its
officials were no longer shielded from popular anger as soon as offences
committed against them became cognizable by the secular courts in
sympathy with the offenders. Thus when the Inquisitor Bartolomé Sebastian
made a visitation of the town of Jaca, with his officials and servants, and
published the Edict of Faith, the inhabitants piled up wood around the house
in which they were lodged and would have burnt them all had not the
Baroness de la Florida assembled her kinsmen and retainers, raised the
siege and enabled them to escape. Soon afterwards, when the alguazil and
his assistants went to San Marcos to arrest some heretics, they were set
upon by Matteo Garruba and his accomplices; he was left for dead and
some of his people were slain.[52] Apparently the danger, of which these are
examples, caused the inquisitors to confine their labors to the larger cities
for, in January, 1543, Inquisitor-general Tavera ordered a general visitation
of the island, which he says had not been performed for a long while. In
June a new inquisitor, the Licentiate Gongora, was sent with special
instructions to carry out this visitation and peremptory orders were issued
by Prince Philip that he and his officials should be efficiently protected.[53]
Another manifestation of popular repugnance was the resistance offered to
the invariable custom in Spain of hanging in the churches the sanbenitos of
the condemned, or linens with inscriptions of their names, heresies and
punishment, thus perpetuating their infamy, which was one of the severest
features of the penalty of heresy. Páramo explains that this was not
observed in Sicily for when, in 1543, Inquisitor Cervera endeavored to
introduce it, by hanging them in the church of St. Dominic, there arose so
great a tumult that he was obliged to abandon the attempt and it had never
since then been possible to effect it, up to his time (1598).[54] To add to the
embarrassment of the tribunal, it was or professed to be impoverished.
When its alguazil Marcos Calderon died, there was owing to him for arrears
of salary 155 ounces, 24 tarines and 9 granos, and in February, 1543, the
receiver Francisco Cid declared his inability to pay this to the heirs. To
relieve him the Suprema agreed to place half the burden of this on the
tribunal of Granada and, by letter of May 30, 1544, ordered Cid to pay the
other half.[55]

In spite of popular disaffection and curtailment of temporal jurisdiction,
the Inquisition continued its deadly work. On May 30, 1541, there was
celebrated at Palermo an auto in which twenty-two culprits appeared,
nineteen of them for Judaizing and three for Lutheranism—among the latter
Fra Perruccio Campagna, a tertiary of San Francisco de Paola, who courted
martyrdom and was burnt as an obstinate impenitent heretic.[56] By this
time Lutheranism was much more dreaded than Judaism. In view of its
threatening spread and of the occasional outbursts of popular detestation,
there was probably little difficulty in convincing Charles that he had made a
mistake in limiting the exemptions of the officials; he announced in
advance his intention of not prolonging the limitation and, by letters of
February 27, 1543, he ordered his Sicilian officials, after the expiration of
the term, to give the Inquisition full liberty of action and not to interfere
with it in any way under a penalty of two thousand ounces. When the term
expired, Prince Philip, as regent of the Spanish dominions, by a decree of
June 18, 1546, published the letters of 1543 and ordered their strict
observance.[57]
It would seem that even before the expiration of the term the tribunal
arrogantly and successfully asserted the immunity of its officials from
secular law. Juan de Aragon, Duke of Terranova, was Constable and
Admiral of Naples, a Spanish grandee of the first class and kinsman of
Charles V, acting as President or Governor of Sicily, in the absence of the
viceroy. In this capacity he had occasion to torture and condemn to the
galleys Maestro Antonio Bertin, a familiar, and to imprison some other
familiars. The inquisitors took up the matter and sentenced him to perform
public penance, to release Bertin and to pay him a solatium of two hundred
ducats. The case was of course carried to Spain, where both sides were
heard and as usual the decision was against the crown and in favor of the
Inquisition. Prince Philip conveyed this to Terranova by letter of December
16, 1543, exhorting him to submit to it willingly and not to wait to be
compelled by excommunication. Terranova recalcitrated against the public
humiliation and finally a letter of Philip, April 24, 1544, remitted the
penance, when the duke released and compensated the criminal.[58]
Such an occurrence does not justify the assertion made by Prince Philip,
June 15, 1546, when a new inquisitor, Bartolomé Sebastian, was sent to
Palermo, that the officials of the Sicilian Holy Office were held in such
contempt and were so impeded in their functions that they could scarce

discharge their duties, wherefore special injunctions were laid on him to
exact from all authorities the oath of obedience, while every assistance was
emphatically ordered to be rendered to him.[59] In fact, almost
simultaneously with these utterances, an auto de fe, held June 6, 1546,
showed that there was no impediment to the discharge of the proper
functions of the inquisition. In this auto there were no living bodies
delivered to the stake, but the effigies of four fugitives answered the
purpose of demonstrating that the authority of the tribunal was
undiminished. Sebastian indicated how far that authority extended when, in
1547, he repeated the prohibition of Conversos expatriating themselves and
their families under pain of confiscation, while a fine of two hundred
ounces was decreed against shipmasters transporting such persons without
special licence. This recrudescence of inquisitorial activity aroused the
Parliament, which petitioned Charles V that the accused should have copies
of the evidence against them, with the names of the witnesses, so that his
faithful subjects should not perish undefended, through false testimony
suborned by enmity, but the emperor turned this off with a vague promise
that Sicilians should not be unduly molested. This did not soothe popular
hostility, for a letter of the Regent Juana to the Viceroy Juan de Vega,
September 29, 1549, thanks him for the solicitude which he has shown in
protecting the rights and immunities of the Inquisition, seeing that recently
some of its officials have been wounded and slain while discharging their
duties. Possibly this may refer to the case of Giacomo Achiti, who was
relaxed to the secular arm, May 19, 1549, for having with others resisted
and slain Giovanni de Landeras, a minister of the Inquisition. Yet whatever
may have been the good will of Vega, it was impossible for a viceroy to
perform his duties and remain on good terms with the Holy Office. In this
same year, 1549, a certain D. Pietro di Gregorio had torture administered to
a familiar, for which Alberto Albertini, Bishop of Patti and inquisitor, threw
him in prison, when Vega liberated him by force and was duly reproved
therefore by Charles.[60]
In the numerous autos de fe which are recorded during the following
years, it is interesting to observe that Judaism sinks into the background and
that the predominant heresies punished are Protestant. The Inquisition was
aroused to renewed activity and its victims, whether burnt or penanced,
were numbered by scores.[61] It is probable that peculation and waste
continued for a letter of the inquisitors, April 2, 1560, to Philip II

congratulates him on the prospect of some large confiscations impending;
these, they say, will relieve the tribunal, which is deeply in debt and it is
suggested to the king that if he will invest the proceeds in ground-rents, the
income will go far to pay the salaries and perpetuate the institution.
Apparently the suggestion was unheeded for the complaints of poverty and
indebtedness continue; the convicts are mostly poor people, whose property
barely meets their prison expenses, and some rich abbey is asked for, of
which the revenues may be devoted to this holy cause.[62]
Whether the complaint of poverty be true or not, the inquisitors had
ample opportunity of irregular gains. The privileges and immunities of its
officials rendered the position of familiar eagerly sought for and, in an age
of corruption, we may reasonably assume that it was liberally paid for. In
addition to this, the exclusive jurisdiction over them, in both civil and
criminal matters, was very lucrative, not only from the fees exacted for
every transaction in suits and trials, but from the custom of punishment by
fines for all delinquencies. It is noteworthy that in the discussions which
arose, it was assumed on all sides that the fuero of the tribunal was
equivalent to immunity for crime, and so it was as far as corporal penalties
were concerned, but pecuniary ones were a profitable substitute, which
enured exclusively to the tribunal. I have not met with any trials of Sicilian
officials, but this was the custom in the Peninsula and it is an unavoidable
assumption that the example was followed in the island. In addition to this
was the influence derivable from thus enrolling an army under the
inquisitorial banner, and thus there were ample motives for disregarding the
limitations placed by the instructions on the number of appointments. The
viceroy, Marc’ Antonio Colonna, in a letter of November 3, 1577, states that
there were twenty-five thousand familiars and that the inquisitors proposed
to increase them to thirty thousand; they included, he says, all the nobles,
the rich men and the criminals.[63] It was practically an alliance between the
tribunal on one side and the influential and the dangerous classes on the
other, against the vice-regal government and the courts, rendering
impossible the orderly administration of justice and the maintenance of
public peace. The viceroys were involved in perpetual struggles with the
Holy Office and were constantly remonstrating with the home government,
but to little effect. An attempt was made to amend the situation by an
agreement, known as the Concordia of Badajoz, July 4, 1580, which was, in
reality, a surrender of the secular authorities to the Inquisition. In Castile, a

number of the more serious crimes were excepted from the exemption of
familiars, but in Sicily they were entitled to the jurisdiction of the tribunal
for all offences, however atrocious. This was continued by the Concordia,
which provided that, whenever a case involving an official or familiar
should come before the viceroy, he should promptly hand it over to the
tribunal. The inquisitors were empowered to excommunicate judges who
interfered with their jurisdiction and the judge so excommunicated was
required to present himself before them, to beg for absolution and to
promise obedience. Provision however was made for competencias, or
conferences between judges and inquisitors on disputed questions when, if
they could not agree, the matter was referred to the king for final decision—
a process which usually prolonged it indefinitely.[64]
The secular authorities were naturally restive under this and quarrels
continued. In 1589 there was an outbreak, when the Gran Corte undertook
to try a familiar named Antonio Ferrante. The Inquisition claimed him; the
viceroy, the Count of Alva, was less enduring than some of his
predecessors; he caused the sentence of hanging to be executed and, in the
ensuing recriminations, he imprisoned the consultors of the Inquisition and
its judge of confiscations. Both parties appealed to Philip II who, after
examining all the documents, wrote to Alba, March 29, 1590, strongly
reproving him for bringing such scandal and discredit on an institution so
necessary for the peace and quiet of the land. In future he must strictly
observe the Concordia and the judges of the Gran Corte must present
themselves individually before the inquisitors and obey their commands.
Alba apparently had argued that the consultors were not formally officials,
for in 1591 Philip decided that they were so and were entitled to all the
privileges of that position.[65]
Philip was firmly convinced that the Inquisition was essential to keep
Sicily in subjection, which accounts for his upholding it against his own
representatives, but his eyes were somewhat opened by another case which
was in progress at the same time. Count Mussumelli, a familiar, was
charged with the murder of Giuseppe Bajola, fiscal of the Gran Corte; he
was claimed by the Inquisition and took refuge in its prison. From this the
Count of Alva took him forcibly, whereupon the inquisitors
excommunicated the subordinates concerned in the act and, finding this
ineffective, on April 6, 1590, they not only laid an interdict on the whole
city, but stretched their jurisdiction by prohibiting all vessels from leaving

the port. This brought Alba to terms; Mussumelli was restored to the
inquisitorial prison and the interdict was lifted.[66] The case was necessarily
carried up to the king and, as usual, was referred to a junta consisting of
two members each of the Suprema and of the Council of Italy. To the
consulta which they in due course presented, Philip replied, expressing his
grief at the atrocious crimes of recent occurrence in Sicily. That of the
Count Mussumelli was so aggravated that its impunity would render
difficult the enforcement of justice and he must therefore be remitted to the
viceroy and judges of the Gran Corte. As for the Count of Rocalmuto and
the Marquis of la Rochela, they were to be left to the Inquisition, in full
confidence that their punishment would correspond to the enormity of their
offences, for which he charged the inquisitor-general and Suprema.
Moreover, to prevent such occurrences for the future, he decreed that the
crime of assassination should be excepted from the immunity enjoyed by
familiars and should not be made the subject of competencias. In addition to
this, he proceeded to state that experience had shown the great troubles and
scandals arising from nobles being officials and familiars—positions which
they sought, not to discharge their duties but to commit crimes under the
protection of the Inquisition, thus creating many quarrels between the
jurisdictions to the discredit of both, to scandal of the people and hindrance
of justice. It would therefore be well for the inquisitor-general and Suprema
to order that Sicilian nobles be no longer appointed as officials and
familiars and that existing appointments be called in and revoked, for he
had resolved to order the viceroys and judges to hold that they are not
entitled to the fuero of the Inquisition. It was unreasonable that so holy a
business should serve as a cover for delinquents and evil-doers and there
was ample experience that this was their sole object in seeking these
positions, so that he greatly wondered that the Inquisition should persist in a
course so damaging to its reputation and so foreign to the object of its
foundation.[67]
Such rebuke and such action could only have been elicited from a
monarch like Philip II by a profound conviction of the unbearable abuses of
inquisitorial jurisdiction. He would more wisely have followed the example
of his father in suspending wholly that jurisdiction, for the tribunal
continued to exercise it in a manner provocative of continual disturbance.
At length, in 1595, a junta or conference was formed, consisting of two
members of the Suprema, Doctors Juan de Zuñiga and Caldas, and two

regents of the Gran Corte, Bruñol and Escudero, to reach, if possible, an
agreement that should lead to peace. There were many discussions and
tentative attempts which finally resulted in a consulta presented to Philip as
a compromise acceptable to both sides. This commences by stating that the
special cases in dispute had been settled or laid aside, awaiting further
documents, and that for the future it had been agreed that the Concordia of
1580 should be observed with certain amendments. The Inquisition was not
to protect officials or familiars guilty of treason against the viceroy or his
counsellors, of assassination, of shooting from ambush, of insulting,
wounding or killing any one in presence of judges of the Gran Corte or Real
Patrimonio. It was the same with familiars who were notaries and
committed frauds in that capacity, or were warehousemen and adulterated
commodities stored with them, or dealers in provisions who used false
weights, or bankers or other debtors delinquent to the Real Patrimonio, or
delinquent taxpayers in general. Widows of officials were to enjoy the fuero
only so long as they remained unmarried, and servants were only to be
entitled to it when they were really part of the household and not merely
serving for food and wages, concerning which inquisitors were strictly
enjoined not to commit frauds. In Palermo and its suburbs the number of
familiars was limited to one hundred; in towns of sixty hearths, to one; in
other places the Suprema was to decide; they were to be prohibited from
carrying guns in the country and fire-arms of any kind in the cities. If a
judge arrested a familiar or official, he was at once to send the papers in the
case to the inquisitors that they might see whether it was excepted or
whether there should be a competencia and, in the latter case, the judges
were to be invited courteously to meet them and not be summoned as
inferiors. The judges, when excommunicated, were to apply for absolution
and not refuse as heretofore to do so, thus discrediting inquisitorial
censures, but the viceroy was not to be excommunicated without the assent
of the inquisitor-general. The Regent Bruñol argued earnestly in favor of
including rape among the excepted crimes, pointing out how provocative it
was of assassination, when the husband of a woman thus injured saw the
culprit walking the streets unpunished, and he seems to have succeeded in
getting it added to the scanty list of those which the Inquisition would
permit to be dealt with in the secular courts.[68]
Thus far the conferees agreed, but they differed on the exclusion of
nobles from official position. The members of the Suprema represented to

the king that, since he had ordered their removal, the Inquisition had fallen
greatly in public estimation and found much difficulty in making arrests;
therefore they asked that there might be thirty, who would always be
selected from the most quiet and peaceable; otherwise the tribunal would be
confined to men of low extraction, who could not make arrests. To this the
regents replied that the maintenance of the royal order was the only means
of keeping the nobles and barons obedient to the viceroy; in Sicily more
than elsewhere this was necessary and without it matters would be worse
than before, when the tribunal excommunicated the viceroy in the affair of
Count Mussumelli; heresy was unknown, the nobles and barons had never
made an arrest and they obtained the positions solely to gain the privileges.
[69] These arguments were unanswerable and the prohibition was
maintained. With the accession of Philip III an attempt was again made to
have it repealed; Inquisitor Páramo, in a letter of March 8, 1600, to the new
king described the condition of the tribunal as most deplorable in
consequence of it, but the appeal was unsuccessful. Philip contented
himself with secret instructions to the viceroy to enforce the cédula of
January 18, 1535, and the Concordia and to endeavor to come to some
understanding with the inquisitors.[70]
So far, indeed, was the Inquisition from being oppressed, that it was
seeking to assert exclusive claim to the obedience of its “subjects,” as
though they were released in all things from the control of the civil
authorities. Thus, in 1591, the tribunal issued an edict condemning all its
“subjects” who had not revealed the amount of corn possessed by them or
had sold it at unlawful prices—evidently referring to certain measures taken
by the government, as was frequently done in times of scarcity. The Viceroy
Alba was quick to recognize this attempt to supplant the civil power and he
stopped the publication of the edict. He was soon afterwards succeeded by
Count Olivares, whose temper Inquisitor Páramo, with characteristic
pertinacity, proceeded to test with a proclamation of April 23, 1592,
published throughout the island to sound of trumpet, reciting the
disturbance of public order by bands of robbers, against whom and all
harboring or favoring them the viceroy had issued edicts, wherefore he
summoned all those subject to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition to abstain
from sheltering the said bandits, under the penalties provided by the laws
and of a thousand ounces applicable to the Holy Office. Olivares was no
more disposed than his predecessor to admit that his actions required

inquisitorial confirmation and, on May 30th, he issued an edict prohibiting,
under heavy penalties, the publication of the proclamation; if, in any place,
it had been entered on the records of the magistrates, the entry was to be
erased and no similar orders of the Inquisition were to be received in future.
He moreover told the inquisitors that it was none of their business to issue
decrees on this or any other matter of general policy, but simply to obey the
laws; that it had been done merely to enlarge their jurisdiction illegally and
that the government could not be divided into two heads with one body.[71]
Between conflicting pretensions such as these, harmony was impossible
and the conclusions of the junta of 1595 did not restore it. Collisions were
frequent and the extremes to which they were sometimes carried are seen in
one occurring in 1602, when the Gran Corte prosecuted Mariano Agliata, a
familiar, for the murder of Don Diego de Zúñiga and Don Diego Sandoval,
a captain and a sergeant of the royal troops. The inquisitors arrested him
and claimed jurisdiction and, when the Gran Corte refused to abandon the
prosecution, they excommunicated the judges. Excommunication by an
inquisitor could be removed only by the power which fulminated it or by
the pope, but the viceroy, the Duke of Feria, persuaded the archbishop,
Diego de Haëdo, to absolve the judges, whereupon the inquisitors
interdicted him from performing any functions until he should admit that
his absolutions were invalid. At this the viceroy lost his temper and
despatched, August 7th, two companies of soldiers to the Inquisition, with a
gallows and the executioner. They remained in front of the building until
two o’clock in the morning and returned on the 8th in greater force, erected
six gallows, each with its hangman, and stood with lighted matchlocks
pointed at the windows. The inquisitors were not daunted by this impotent
display of force; they barred the doors, hoisted the standard of the
Inquisition, with a papal flag and a crucifix, and flung out of the windows
among the troops notices of excommunication. Undeterred by this, the
Spaniards broke their way in and, after some parley, the inquisitors
promised to absolve them. Feria had gone as far as he dared without result
and the victory remained with the inquisitors, for the case of Agliata was
surrendered to them, on their removing the interdict on the archbishop and
the excommunication of the judges.[72] To emphasize Feria’s defeat, Philip
III, in 1603, issued a general letter to all of his viceroys, lauding the
services of the Inquisition and ordering them to give it all the favor and
assistance it might ask for, and to maintain intact the privileges, exemptions

and liberties, assured to its ministers and familiars, by law, by the
concordias, by the royal cédulas, by use and custom and by any other
source.[73]

As though these sempiternal conflicts with the civil authorities were not
sufficiently disturbing to the public peace, the Inquisition was involved in a
similar series with the bishops, in which it did not fare so well, entrenched
as they were behind the canon law, which the monarchs could not set aside.
A portion of the officials of the Holy Office were clerics, of whose
immunity from the secular courts there could be no question, but the
bishops claimed, under divine and canon law, an imprescriptible right of
cognizance of their offences, when these did not concern the faith or their
official functions. The inquisitors held that they possessed exclusive
jurisdiction over their subordinates and the conflict was waged with
abundant lack of Christian charity, causing great popular scandal until, as
we are told, the people were in the habit of asking where was the God of the
clergy. The contest raged chiefly over the commissioners appointed
everywhere throughout the island, whose duty it was to investigate cases of
heresy in their districts and report or, if necessary, make arrests and send the
culprits to Palermo for trial. In 1625 the Suprema endeavored to effect a
compromise, by designating what offences were cognizable by the bishops
exclusively, what by the inquisitors and what cumulatively by either
jurisdiction, for that of the bishops could not be denied and the Inquisition
had no papal letters to show in support of its claims. This seems only to
have emboldened the bishops and the quarrels continued. In 1630 Philip IV
and the inquisitor-general wrote to the viceroy and the inquisitors, enquiring
what was the established custom in such cases, but apparently the two
ecclesiastical camps could not agree on terms of peace and nothing was
done. In 1642 the inquisitor, Gonsalvo Bravo Grosero submitted to the
Suprema a long and learned paper in which he describes the condition of
the Sicilian Inquisition as most deplorable, in consequence of the
implacable hostility of the bishops. It could not possibly do without
commissioners, for the inquisitors could not travel around to visit the
provinces; the roads were too bad and their salaries too meagre to bear the
expense, as they could not venture into the country without a guard of at
least forty men, in view of the robbers and bandits. There was not money to
pay the commissioners a salary and their only inducement to accept the

office was to gain immunity from episcopal jurisdiction. As this was
virtually denied to them, it became impossible to find fitting clerics to
undertake the duties, so there were many vacancies that could not be filled.
Grosero evidently did not pause to consider the reflection cast on the
character of the clerics thus anxious to find refuge in the Inquisition from
the courts of their bishops, but the cases which he mentions, if not
exaggerated, testify amply to the virulence of episcopal vindictiveness.
Recently, he says, the tribunal became involved in a quarrel with the Bishop
of Syracuse over the case of a familiar. Indignant at its methods, the bishop
indulged in reprisals on the unlucky commissioner of Lentini, on a charge
of incontinence; he was seized by a band of armed clerics, stripped and
carried on a mule to prison as a malefactor and cast into a dungeon where
he lay, deprived of all communication with his friends, until the Bishop of
Cefalù, then governor of the island, procured his release, but his persecution
continued for two years. So the Bishop of Girgenti seized the commissioner
of Caltanexeda because he had, under orders from the tribunal, stopped the
prosecution of a familiar. He was confined in a damp, underground cell for
forty days, until the viceroy procured his release, and his unwholesome
confinement nearly cost him his life. The impelling cause of Grosero’s
memorial was a pending case, which scarcely evokes sympathy with his
complaints. Alessandro Turano, commissioner of Burgio, had given refuge
in his house to a kinsman, a monk guilty of murder, and had refused
admission to the officers who came to arrest the criminal. For this the
Bishop of Girgenti was prosecuting him, and Grosero appeals to the
Suprema to intervene and put an end to such violations of the immunity
necessary to enable the Inquisition to perform its pious work.[74] It is not
likely that the Suprema succeeded in establishing concord between the
irreconcilable pretensions of the two ecclesiastical bodies, but the struggle
is worth passing attention as affording a glimpse into the social conditions
of the period under such institutions.

Meanwhile the incessant bickering with the civil authorities continued as
active and as bitter as ever. No attention was paid to the limitations
prescribed in the Concordias, or to the protests of the viceroys until, in
1635, an attempt was made, in a new Concordia, to remedy some of the
more crying evils by empowering the viceroy, in cases of exceptional
gravity, to banish criminal officials, after notice to the senior inquisitor, so

that he might appeal to Madrid, and in these cases the inquisitors were
forbidden to excommunicate the officers of justice.[75] Slender as was this
concession, the inquisitors, in a letter of April 26, 1652, to the Suprema, did
not hesitate to assert that the exemptions of the officials were reduced to
those of the vilest plebeians and that their revenue suffered heavily through
the limitation of their jurisdiction and the great reduction in the number of
those who applied for appointments.[76] On the other hand, if we may
believe the Consulta Magna, drawn up, in 1696, by a special junta
composed of representatives of all the royal councils except the Suprema,
the Sicilian tribunal paid no respect whatever to the Concordias, held itself
as wholly independent of all rules and enforced its arbitrary acts by the
constant abuse of excommunication, which rendered the condition of the
island most deplorable. The inquisitors refused to meet the judges in
competencias on disputed cases and though, by the Concordia of 1635, such
refusal incurred a fine of five hundred ducats for a first offence and
dismissal for a second, yet as the enforcement of this required the issue by
the Suprema of a commission to the Council of Italy, it was easily eluded.
As a matter of course the suggestion of the junta was ineffective that those
oppressed by the abuse of spiritual censures should have the right of appeal
to the royal judges.[77]

These quarrels and the exercise of its widely extended temporal
jurisdiction by no means distracted wholly the tribunal from its legitimate
functions of preserving the purity of the faith. In 1640 it held a notable auto
de fe in which one case is worth alluding to as an illustration of inquisitorial
dealings with the insane. Carlo Tabaloro of Calabria was an Augustinian
lay-brother, who had conceived the idea that he was the Son of God and the
Messiah, Christ having been merely the Redeemer. He had written a gospel
about himself and framed a series of novel religious observances. Arrested
by the Palermo tribunal, in 1635, he had imagined it to be for the purpose of
enabling him to convert the inquisitors and through them the people. For
five years the theologians labored to disabuse him, but to no purpose; he
was condemned as an obstinate and pertinacious heretic and was led forth
in the auto of 1640 to be burnt alive. On his way to the stake he still
expected that torrents of rain would extinguish the fires, but finding himself
disappointed and shrinking from the awful death, at the last moment he
professed conversion and was mercifully strangled before the pile was

lighted.[78] At another auto, June 2, 1647, there were thirty-four penitents
and six months later another, January 12, 1648, with thirty-seven, followed,
December 13th of the same year, by one with forty-three. January 22, 1651,
there was another with thirty-nine, honored moreover with the presence of
Don John of Austria, fresh from the triumph of suppressing the Neapolitan
revolt of Masaniello. In fact, in a letter of April 26, 1652, the inquisitors
boasted that they had punished two hundred and seven culprits in public
autos, besides nearly as many who had been despatched privately in the
audience chamber. This would show an average of about eighty cases a
year, greatly more than at this time was customary in Spain. The offences
were mostly blasphemy, bigamy and sorcery, with an occasional Protestant
or Alumbrado, the Judaizers by this time having almost disappeared.[79] The
position of inquisitor was not wholly without danger, for Juan López de
Cisneros died of a wound in the forehead inflicted by Fray Diego la
Mattina, a prisoner whom he was visiting in his cell and who was burnt
alive in the auto of March 17, 1658.[80] The activity of the tribunal must at
times have brought in considerable profits for, in 1640, we happen to learn
that it was contributing yearly twenty-four thousand reales in silver to the
Suprema and not long afterwards it was called upon to send five hundred
ducats, plata doble, to that of Majorca, which had been impoverished by a
pestilence. Still these gains were fluctuating and the demands on the
tribunal seem to have brought it into financial straits, from which the
Suprema sought to relieve it by an appeal, August 6, 1652, to Philip IV, to
grant it benefices to the amount of twenty-five hundred ducats a year.[81]
The treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, gave Sicily to Savoy, but the Inquisition
remained Spanish and nominally subject to the Suprema. There was,
however, an immediate change of personnel, for we find the inquisitor, José
de la Rosa Cozio, early in 1714, taking refuge in Spain and billeted upon
the tribunal of Valencia.[82] When, in 1718, Savoy exchanged Sicily with
Austria for Sardinia, the Emperor Charles VI would not endure this
dependence of the tribunal upon a foreign power and procured, in 1720,
from Clement XI a brief transferring the supremacy to Vienna. In
accordance, however, with the persistent Hapsburg claims on the crown of
Spain, the Inquisition remained Spanish. A supreme council for it was
created in Vienna, with Juan Navarro, Bishop of Albarracin as chief who,
although resident there gratified himself with the title of Inquisidor-general
de España, but in 1723 he was succeeded by Cardinal Emeric, Archbishop

of Kolocz. Apparently it was deemed necessary to justify this elaborate
machinery with a demonstration and, on April 6, 1724, an auto de fe was
celebrated at Palermo with great splendor, the expenses being defrayed by
the emperor. Twenty-six delinquents were penanced, consisting as usual
mostly of cases of blasphemy, bigamy and sorcery, but the spectacle would
have been incomplete without concremation and two unfortunates, who had
languished in prison since 1699, were brought out for that purpose. They
were Geltruda, a beguine, and Fra Romualdo, a friar, accused of Quietism
and Molinism, with the accompanying heresies of illuminism and
impeccability. Their long imprisonment, with torture and ill-usage, seems to
have turned their brains, and they had been condemned to relaxation as
impenitent in 1705 and 1709, but the sentences had never been carried out
and they were now brought from their dungeons and burnt alive.[83] Less
notable was an auto de fe of March 22, 1732, in which Antonio Canzoneri
was burnt alive as a contumacious and relapsed heretic.[84]
Although the zeal of Charles VI led to increased activity of the tribunal
in matters of faith, he was little disposed to tolerate its abuse of its temporal
jurisdiction, which had led to so many fruitless remonstrances under
Spanish domination. In letters of January 26, 1729, to his viceroy the Count
of Sástago, he recites the complaints made to him, by the English factory,
that foreign merchants were exposed to constant frauds by bankruptcies of
debtors who claimed the forum of the Inquisition or of the Santa Cruzada,
where creditors could get no justice or even ascertain whether the
bankruptcies were fictitious or not. The emperor therefore orders that in
future the Concordias shall be strictly construed and rigidly adhered to; that
if the inquisitors proceed by excommunication they shall experience the
effect of “los remedios económicos” (presumably the suspension of their
emoluments) and that in future all mercantile cases, whether civil or
criminal, shall not be entitled to the forum of the Inquisition—all of which
was duly proclaimed by the viceroy in an edict of March 17th. At the same
time the legal functionaries were required to investigate the whole subject
and report what further measures might be essential to prevent interference
with the course of justice. The result of their labors is embodied in a
Pragmatic Sanction of May 12, 1732, consisting of eleven articles, whereby
it was ordered that the inquisitorial forum should not include exemption
from military service and taxes; that widows of stipendiary officials should
enjoy the forum only during widowhood; that the privilege of bearing arms

should be exercised only when in actual service of the Inquisition; that
commissions as messengers should not be given to shipmasters; nobles
holding fiefs were not to be enrolled as familiars; the forum was not to
exempt from serving in onerous public office and the use of
excommunication in cases of impeding jurisdiction was allowed under
certain limitations. This latter is explained by a decision of March 6, 1734,
on cases in which the inquisitors had excommunicated D. Antonio
Crimibela, a judge of the Gran Corte and D. Felipe Venuto, capitan de
justicia of Paternò, when it was ordered that excommunications could only
be employed in matters of faith and in cases where the secular tribunals had
refused the conference preliminary to forming a competencia to decide as to
the jurisdiction.[85]
The conquest of the Two Sicilies by Charles III, in 1734, led the
inquisitors to imagine that, under a Spanish dynasty, they could reassert
their superiority over the law, but they were promptly undeceived. D. Sisto
Poidimani, when on trial, recused them for enmity as judges in his case and
the Giunta of Presidents recognized his reasons as sufficient, whereupon
Viceroy de Castro ordered them, October 2, 1735, to take no further action
except to appoint some one to act in their place. To this they demurred and
de Castro repeated the order, January 24, 1736, and again on February 19th.
Finally, on April 21st he told them that they were actuated, not by reason
but by disobedience, and that, if the order was not promptly obeyed, the
senior inquisitor must sail, within forty-eight hours, for Naples to render to
the king an account of his actions.[86]
The various changes that had occurred rendered the position of the
Sicilian tribunal somewhat anomalous and to remedy this the king obtained,
in 1738, from Clement XIII the appointment of Pietro Galletti, Bishop of
Catania, as inquisitor-general of Sicily, with power to deputize
subordinates, who was followed, in 1742, by Giacomo Bonanno, Bishop of
Patti, appointed by Benedict XIV.[87] Thus the severance from Spain was
perpetuated and it was rendered independent. This seems to have revived its
aggressiveness and it assumed that the limitations imposed by the Emperor
Charles VI had become obsolete with the change of sovereigns for, in 1739,
it endeavored to intervene in the bankruptcy case of Giuseppe Maria
Gerardi, who was entitled to its forum, but the attempt was promptly
annulled by the Viceroy Corsini. A further blow was inflicted by a decree of
July 12, 1746, suppressing the system of competencias, for the settlement of

conflicting cases of jurisdiction, and substituting, in all cases not of faith,
the decision of the viceroy, who could, in matters of grave importance, refer
them to the king.[88] Thus gradually the secular business of the Holy Office
was circumscribed; in its spiritual field of activity there were no more
burnings, though it occasionally held autos de fe, in which figured mostly
women accused of the vulgar arts of sorcery, and in addition it interfered
with scholars in its capacity of censor.
The enlightened views of Charles III were not abandoned, when he was
summoned to the throne of Spain in 1759, and left that of Naples to his
young son, Ferdinando IV, then a child eight years of age. Public opinion in
Italy was rapidly rendering the Holy Office an anachronism and Ferdinando
only expressed the general sentiment when, by a decree of March 16, 1782,
he pronounced its suppression. He gave as a reason that all attempts had
failed to make it alter its vicious system, which deprived the accused of
legitimate means of defence; he restored to the bishops their original
jurisdiction in all matters of faith, but required them to observe the same
procedure as the secular courts of justice and to submit to the viceroy for
approval all citations to appear, all orders for arrest and all sentences
proposed; moreover, he appropriated the property of the Inquisition to
continuing for life the salaries of the officials, with a provision that, as these
pensions should fall in, the money should be used for the public benefit.
The revenues, in fact, amounted to ten thousand crowns a year and
eventually they served to found chairs in mathematics and experimental
physics and to build an observatory. When the royal officials took
possession of the Inquisition, they found only three prisoners to liberate—
women accused of witchcraft. A few more had previously been discharged,
in anticipation of the suppression, by the inquisitor-general, Salvatore
Ventimiglia, Archbishop of Nicodemia.[89]
In its career, since 1487, Franchina, writing in 1744, boasts that the Holy
Office had handed over to the secular arm for burning two hundred and one
living heretics and apostates and two hundred and seventy-nine effigies of
the dead or fugitives.[90] It illustrates forcibly the changed spirit of the age
that Viceroy Caraccioli, in writing to D’Alembert an account of the
abolition, says that he shed tears of joy in proceeding to the Inquisition with
the great dignitaries of State and Church, when he caused the royal rescript
to be read to the inquisitor and the arms of the Holy Office to be erased
from the portal amid the rejoicing of the assembled people.[91]

MALTA.
Malta, if we may believe Salelles, enjoyed the honor of having St. Paul
as the founder of its Inquisition, when he was cast ashore there on his
voyage to Rome.[92] In the sixteenth century, however, as a dependency of
Sicily, it was under the Sicilian tribunal, which maintained an organization
there, under a commissioner.[93] When, in 1530, Charles V gave the island
to the Knights of St. John, the Sicilian jurisdiction lapsed but, even without
the Holy Office, the Church had efficient machinery for the suppression of
heresy. In 1546 a Frenchman named Gesuald was found to have been for
ten years infecting the islanders with Calvinist opinions, and the Aragonese
Domingo Cubelles, the Bishop of Malta, was at no loss in exercising his
episcopal jurisdiction. Gesuald was obstinate in his faith and was duly burnt
alive; on his way to the stake he called out “Why do priests hesitate to take
wives, since it is lawful?” whereupon Cubelles ordered him to be gagged
and he perished in silence. His converts lacked his stubborn convictions and
were reconciled—among them two priests who had secretly married their
concubines, for which they were condemned to wear the sanbenito. In 1553,
the Grand Master, Juan de Omedes, constituted three of the knights and a
chaplain as an Inquisition, but there is no trace of their labors and Cubelles
continued to exercise his episcopal jurisdiction in several cases during the
following years. In 1560, however, when a Maltese, named Doctor Pietro
Combo, fell under suspicion, Cubelles seems to have felt uncertain what to
do with him and sent him in chains to the Roman Inquisition, where he was
acquitted. Cubelles informed the cardinals that the Lutheran heresy was
spreading in the island and this probably explains why, by letters of October
21, 1561, the Roman Inquisition, while recognizing the episcopal
jurisdiction of Cubelles, enlarged it to that of an inquisitor-general,
empowering him to appoint deputies and to proceed against all persons,
whether clerics or laymen, to try them, torture them, relax them or reconcile
them with appropriate penance.[94]
In his zeal for the effective discharge of his duties, Cubelles sent to
Palermo for detailed information as to the conduct of the Inquisition and
was furnished with copies of the Spanish instructions and forms. This seems
to have provoked the Roman Congregation of the Holy Office, between

which and the Spanish there was perpetual jealousy, and it sent to Malta a
Dominican to act as his assistant and to direct him. He was succeeded, both
as bishop and inquisitor, by Martin Rojas de Portorubio, to whom in 1573
Gregory XIII sent a commission. Apparently it was impossible for the
Inquisition to maintain harmonious relations with the temporal power and,
already in 1574, he complained to Rome that his officials were beaten and
that the Grand Master, Jean l’Evesque de la Cassière, threatened to throw
him out of the window if he came to the palace. This created considerable
scandal, but Rome, unlike Spain, was not accustomed to support inquisitors
through thick and thin, and the result was that, by brief of July 3, 1574,
Gregory revoked his commission and sent Dr. Pietro Duzzina as apostolic
vicar to conduct the Inquisition. In thus separating it from the episcopate no
provision was made for its expenses, but soon after this the confiscated
property of Mathieu Faison, a rich heretic burnt in effigy, yielded a revenue
of three hundred crowns and, when Bishop Rojas died, March 19, 1577,
opportunity was taken to burden the see with a pension of six hundred more
for its benefit.[95] It was thus rendered permanent, but a protracted struggle
with successive grandmasters was necessary to secure for its officials the
privileges of the forum and the immunities and exemptions which they
claimed.[96]
Yet the Spanish Inquisition was not satisfied to be thus completely
superseded by that of Rome, even in so remote and inconspicuous a spot as
Malta. In 1575 Duzzina arrested a man as a heretic; it was known that
testimony against him had been taken in Sicily and application for it was
made to the inquisitors of Palermo. They applied for instructions to the
Suprema, which ordered them not to give it but to claim the prisoner. The
result was that the Maltese tribunal tried him on what had occurred on the
island and discharged him.[97] This emphasized its absolute separation from
the Spanish Holy Office and its history need not be further followed here,
except to allude to the most celebrated case in its annals, when the two
Quakeresses, Katharine Evans and Sarah Cheevers, moved by the Spirit,
went to Malta on a mission of conversion and suffered an imprisonment of
four years.[98]

CHAPTER II.

NAPLES.

In Naples the Inquisition had been introduced by Charles of Anjou after
the battle of Benevento had acquired for him the succession to the
unfortunate Manfred. The house of Aragon, which followed that of Anjou,
had permitted its existence, but under conditions of such subjection to the
crown that it was for the most part inert. Yet Naples offered an abundant
harvest for the zealous laborer. The Waldenses from Savoy, who had settled
and multiplied in Calabria and Apulia, had obtained, in 1497, from King
Frederic, a confirmation of their agreements with their immediate suzerains,
the nobles, and felt secure from persecution.[99] Still more inviting were the
banished Jews and fugitive New Christians from Spain, who found there a
tolerably safe refuge. There was also a considerable number of indigenous
Jews. In the twelfth century Benjamin of Tudela describes flourishing
synagogues in Capua, Naples, Salerno, Amalfi, Benevento, Melfi, Ascoli-
Satriano, Tarento, Bernaldo and Otranto, and these doubtless were
representatives of others existing outside of the line of his wanderings.[100]
They had probably gone on increasing, although, in 1427, Joanna II called
in the ruthless St. Giovanni da Capistrano to suppress their usury and, in
1447, Nicholas V appointed him conservator to enforce the disabilities and
humiliations prescribed in a cruel bull which he had just issued.[101]
Possibly, under this rigorous treatment, some of them may have sought
baptism for, in 1449, we find Nicholas despatching to Naples Fra Matteo da
Reggio as inquisitor to exterminate the apostate Judaizers, who were said to
be numerous.[102] If we may believe Zurita, when Charles VIII of France
made his transitory conquest of Naples, in 1495, the Jews were all
compulsorily baptized, with the usual result that their Christianity was only
nominal.[103] Such unwilling converts of course called for inquisitorial
solicitude but, when Ferdinand of Spain obtained possession of the land, it
was the fugitives from the Spanish Inquisition that rendered him especially
desirous of extending its jurisdiction over his dominions on the Italian
mainland.

A single example will illustrate this and also throw light on the
resistance which, as we shall see, the Neapolitans offered to the
introduction of the Holy Office after the Spanish pattern. In the inquisitorial
documents of the period, no name occurs more frequently than that of
Manuel Esparza de Pantolosa, who was condemned in absentia as a heretic,
in Tarragona. He had evidently sought safety in flight, abandoning his
property which was confiscated and sold, June 4, 1493, for 9000 libras to
his brother, Micer Luis Esparza, a jurist of Valencia, whose final payment
for it is dated February 2, 1499, when the inquisitor, Juan de Monasterio,
was authorized to retain a hundred ducats in reward for his labors.
Meanwhile Pantolosa had prospered in Naples as a banker and had
become one of the farmers of the revenue. As a condemned heretic,
however, all dealings with him were unlawful to Spaniards. It was difficult
to avoid these in transactions between Spain and Naples and, in February,
1499, the inquisitors of Barcelona created much scandal by arresting a
number of merchants for maintaining business relations with him, an excess
of zeal for which Ferdinand scolded them, while ordering the release of the
prisoners. Pantolosa seems to have held out some hopes of returning and
standing trial, for a safe-conduct was issued to him, October 4, 1499, good
for twelve months, during which he and his property were to be exempt
from seizure, dealings with him were permitted and ship-masters were
authorized to transport him and, on the plea that he had been impeded, the
safe-conduct was extended, August 22, 1500, for two years. There was
manifest policy in suspending the customary disabilities for a personage of
such importance, as appears from one or two instances. When, in the
autumn of 1499, Ferdinand’s sister, Juana, Queen of Naples, and her
stepson, the Cardinal of Aragon, came to Spain, they provided themselves
with bills of exchange drawn by the farmers of revenue—Pantolosa, Gaspar
de Caballería and others—on Luis de Santangel, Ferdinand’s escribano de
racion, or privy purse. They could not anticipate any trouble in a transaction
between officials of Spain and Naples, but Santangel, also a Converso, had
reason to be cautious as to his relations with the Inquisition and he refused
to honor the bills, because the drawers were fugitive condemned heretics,
with whom he could have no dealings. Ferdinand was obliged to confer
with the inquisitors-general, after which he authorized Santangel to supply
the necessities of the royal visitors. Possibly in this case the association
with Caballería neutralized Pantolosa’s safe-conduct, but this disturbing

element was absent from a flagrant exhibition of inquisitorial audacity
when, in 1500, Ferdinand sent the Archbishop of Tarragona to Naples on
business connected with his sister, the queen. Requiring money while there
the archbishop sold bills of exchange to Pantolosa and, when they were
presented in Tarragona, the inquisitors, apparently regarding them as a debt
due to a condemned heretic, forbade their payment and sequestrated the
archiepiscopal revenues to collect the amount. The bills were returned and
were sent back with a fresh demand for payment, when Ferdinand
intervened and, by letters of July 3d, ordered the inquisitors to remove the
sequestration so that they could be paid and the archbishop’s credit be
preserved.[104] It is easy to understand how Ferdinand felt towards the
Neapolitan asylum for condemned Spanish heretics and banished Jews and
how Naples regarded the arbitrary processes of the Spanish Holy Office.
When, in 1500, Ferdinand had seized Calabria and Apulia, in fulfilment
of the robber bargain between him and Louis XII, he lost little time in
turning to account his new acquisition for the benefit of the Sicilian Holy
Office. A letter of August 7, 1501, to his representatives recites that the
inquisitors of Sicily say that they will be aided in their work by the
testimony of the New Christians of Calabria, wherefore all whom they may
designate are to be compelled to give the evidence required.[105] When, in
1503, Ferdinand obtained the whole kingdom by ousting his accomplice
Louis, Gonsalvo de Córdova, to facilitate the surrender of Naples, made an
engagement that the Spanish Inquisition should not be introduced, for its
evil reputation rendered it a universal object of dread, to which the
numerous Spanish refugees had doubtless largely contributed.[106] The
Neapolitans also desired to destroy the principal incentive of the existing
Inquisition by a condition that confiscation should be restricted to cases of
high treason, but this they were unable to secure and the final articles
allowed its use in heresy and treason.[107] Ferdinand’s order of August,
1501, as to obtaining evidence for Sicily, seems to have met with slack
obedience, for there is a letter of November 16, 1504, from Gonsalvo to the
royal officials in general, reciting that Archbishop Belorado, as Inquisitor of
Sicily, had sent to Reggio, to obtain certain necessary depositions, but that
the officials had prevented it, wherefore he reminds them of the royal
commands and imposes a penalty of a thousand ducats for all future cases
of disobedience.[108]

No sooner was the conquest of Naples assured than Ferdinand proceeded
to clear the land of Judaism by ordering Gonsalvo to banish all the Jews.
The persecution at the time of Charles VIII had left few of them de señal—
those who openly avowed their faith by wearing the prescribed letter Tau—
and Gonsalvo seems to have reported that prosecution of the secret
apostates was the only method practicable. Julius II opportunely set the
example by instituting a severe inquisition, under the Dominican
organization at Benevento.[109] Ferdinand regarded with extreme jealousy
all exercise of papal jurisdiction within his dominions and to prevent the
extension of this he naturally had recourse to the commission of his
inquisitor-general which covered all the territories of the Spanish crown. A
secret letter was drawn up, June 30, 1504, by Ferdinand and Isabella, in
conjunction with the Suprema, or Supreme Council of the Inquisition,
addressed to all the royal officials in Naples, reciting that as numerous
heretics duly burnt in effigy in Spain had found refuge there, the Inquisitor-
general Deza had resolved to extend over the kingdom the jurisdiction of
Archbishop Belorado, Inquisitor of Sicily, and had asked the sovereigns to
support him in his labors of arresting and punishing heretics and
confiscating their property. All officials were therefore ordered, under pain
of ten thousand ounces, to protect him and his subordinates and to do their
bidding as to arresting, transporting and punishing the guilty, all oaths and
compacts to the contrary notwithstanding. At the same time a personal letter
to Gonsalvo expressed the determination of the sovereigns to introduce the
Inquisition, their founding of which they believed to be the cause why God
had favored them with victories and benefits. Gonsalvo was warned not to
allow the suspect to leave the kingdom while, to avoid arousing suspicion,
Belorado would come to Naples as though on his way to Rome and
Gonsalvo was to guard all ports and passes through which the heretics
could escape. To prepare for the expected confiscations, the commission of
Diego de Obregon, receiver of Sicily, was extended over Naples and
Francisco de Rojas, then ambassador at Rome, was instructed to obtain
from the pope whatever was necessary to perfect the functions of the
Neapolitan Holy Office.[110]
Everything thus was prepared for the organization of the Spanish
Inquisition in Naples, but even Ferdinand’s resolute will was forced to
abandon for the time the projected enterprise with its prospective profits.
What occurred we do not know; the historian, to whom we are indebted for

the documents in the matter, merely says that Ferdinand, in spite of his
efforts, was prevented from carrying out his plans by difficulties which
arose.[111] We can conjecture however that Gonsalvo convinced him of the
impolicy of provoking a revolt in his newly acquired and as yet unstable
dominions. The Neapolitans were somewhat noted for turbulence and had
an organization which afforded a means of expressing and executing the
popular will. From of old the citizens were divided into six associations,
known as Piazze or Seggi, in which they met to discuss public affairs. Of
these five, designated as Capuana, Nido, Porta, Porta nueva and Montagna,
were formed of the nobles and the sixth was the Seggio del Popolo, divided
into twenty-nine districts, called Ottine. Each piazza elected a chief, known
as the Eletto, and these six, when assembled together, formed the Tribunale
di San Lorenzo, which thus represented the whole population. There were
Piazze in other cities but when, under Charles V, the national Parliament
was discontinued, the Piazze of Naples arrogated to themselves its powers
and framed legislation for the whole kingdom. A Spanish writer, in 1691,
informs us that no viceroy could govern successfully who had not dexterity
to secure the favor of a majority of the Piazze, for the people were obstinate
and tempestuous, easy to excite and difficult to pacify, and, if the nobles
and people were united, God alone could find a remedy to quiet them.[112]
In the unsettled condition of Italian affairs, to provoke revolt in such a
community was evidently most unwise; there is no appearance that
Belorado made his threatened visit, and when Ferdinand himself came to
Naples, in 1506 and 1507, he seems to have tacitly acquiesced in the
postponement of his purpose.
The popular repugnance was wholly directed to the Spanish Inquisition
and there was no objection to the papal institution, which had long been a
matter accepted. In 1505 a letter of Gonsalvo directs the arrest in
Manfredonia of three fugitives from Benevento, who are seeking to escape
to Turkey; he does this, he says, at the request of the inquisitor and of the
Bishop of Bertinoro papal commissioner.[113] Evidently there must have
been active persecution on foot in Benevento and, though the inquisitor is
not named, he was probably the Dominican Barnaba Capograsso, whom we
find, in 1506, styled “generale inquisitore de la fede” when, in conjunction
with the vicar-general of the archbishop and the judges of the vicariate, he
burned three women for witchcraft.[114] Yet anxious as was Ferdinand for
the extirpation of heresy, he would not abate a jot of the royal supremacy

and would allow no one to exercise inquisitorial functions without his
licence. The correspondence of the Count of Ribagorza, who succeeded
Gonsalvo as lieutenant-general and viceroy during the years 1507, 1508,
and 1509, shows that Fra Barnaba held a commission directly from the
king. When a certain Fra Vincenzo da Fernandina endeavored in Barletta to
conduct an inquisition, Ribagorza expressed surprise at his audacity in
doing so without exhibiting his commission; he was summoned to come
forthwith and submit it so that due action could be taken without exposing
him to ignominy. So minute was this supervision that, when Fra Barnaba
reported that a colleague had received a papal brief respecting a certain
Lorenzo da Scala, addressed to the two inquisitors and the Bishop of Scala,
Ribagorza ordered it to be surrendered unopened to the regent of the royal
chancery and that all three addressees should come to Naples when, in their
presence and his, it should be opened and the necessary action be ordered.
From a letter of February 24, 1508, it appears that the old Neapolitan rule
was maintained and that inquisitors had no power to order arrests, but had
to report to Ribagorza, who issued the necessary instructions to the
officials; indeed, a commission of January 14, 1509, indicates that heretics
were seized and brought to Naples before the viceroy, without the
intervention of the Holy Office. At the same time, when inquisitors were
duly commissioned and recognized, the authorities were required to render
them all needful assistance and any impediment thrown in their way was
severely reproved, with threats of condign punishment.[115]
Thus quietly and by degrees the old papal Inquisition was roused into
activity and was moulded into an instrument controlled by the royal power
even more directly than in Spain. Yet this did not satisfy Ferdinand, who
had never abandoned his intention of introducing the Spanish Inquisition,
and apparently he thought, in 1509, that the Neapolitans had become
sufficiently accustomed to his rule to endure the innovation. Rumors of his
purpose spread, causing popular agitation, and Julius II, who wanted his aid
against the French in Northern Italy, earnestly deprecated action which
might necessitate the recall of his troops to put down insurrection. To the
Spanish ambassador the pope represented the danger of exciting the
turbulent population; the time would come when the Spanish Inquisition
might safely be imposed on Naples, but so long as the French were in
possession of Genoa, the king must be cautious.[116]

Ferdinand was not to be diverted from his course by such considerations
and, on August 31, 1509, a series of letters was addressed to Naples
showing that the organization had been fully and elaborately prepared.
Montoro, Bishop of Cefalù, whose acquaintance we have made in Sicily,
and Doctor Andrés de Palacios, a layman and experienced inquisitor, were
appointed to conduct the office, with a full complement of subordinates,
whose liberal salaries were to be paid out of the confiscations, showing that
a plentiful harvest was expected.[117] Viceroy Ribagorza and all royal
officials and ecclesiastics were instructed to give them all necessary support
and assistance under penalty of ten thousand ounces and punishment at the
royal pleasure, notwithstanding any previous compacts or conventions, for
agreements contrary to the faith were not to be observed by Catholics. On
arrival they were to be established in the Incoronata or, if they preferred
other quarters, the occupants were to be summarily ejected and a proper
rent be paid. The Cardinal-archbishop of Naples was ordered to give them
powers to act as his ordinaries and vicars; a pragmatic sanction was drawn
up for publication, forbidding, under heavy penalties, the use of any papal
letters of absolution until they should have received the royal assent. The
local officials were also written to, ordering them to aid the inquisitors in
every way and a circular to the same effect was sent to all the barons of the
kingdom. As it was expected that, as soon as the letters were published, the
heretics would endeavor to escape, the viceroy was ordered to take
measures that none should be allowed to embark, or to send away property
or merchandise, and all who should attempt it were to be delivered
forthwith to the inquisitors.[118] Evidently the matter had been thoroughly
worked out in detail and Ferdinand was resolved to enforce his will. Then
followed, however, an unexpected delay. Ribagorza left Naples, October
8th, probably resigning or being removed owing to his conviction of the
difficulty of the task imposed on him, and his successor, Ramon de
Cardona, did not arrive until October 23d, showing that the change was
sudden and unexpected. The Bishop of Cefalù, also, did not reach Naples
until October 18th and, although officially received, he exhibited no
commission as inquisitor and took no action, awaiting his colleague
Palacios, whose coming was delayed until December 29th.
Meanwhile rumors of what was proposed had been spreading, popular
excitement had been growing and it now became uncontrollable. It was
openly declared by all classes that the Inquisition would not be tolerated

and, when it was reported that, on a certain Sunday, the inquisitor would
preach the customary sermon in the cathedral, an unanimous resolution was
adopted, January 4, 1510, that such an attempt would be resisted, if
necessary by force of arms. A delegation, selected as usual by all the Piazze,
was sent to the viceroy and overwhelmed him with fierce denunciations of
the detested institution as developed in Spain—the tortures and the burnings
inflicted for the most trivial causes, the sentences against the dead and the
burning of bones, the execution of pregnant women, the disinheriting of
children, the scourging of naked virgins through the streets and the seizure
of their dowries, the innocent impelled to flight by terror and consequently
condemned in order to confiscate their property, while their servants were
tortured to find out whether anything was concealed, and the stories of
sacrilege invented in order to gratify rapacity. Although most of this was the
ordinary inquisitorial practice, it was sufficiently embellished to show that
the refugee New Christians had been busy in fanning the excitement which
now burst upon the viceroy. Every delegate sought to outdo his colleagues
in vociferously enumerating the horrors which justified the evil reputation
of the dreaded institution, and the viceroy was told that they never would
allow themselves to be subjected to the accusations of informers, whose
names were concealed and whose perjuries were stimulated by a share in
the spoils; the whole business was not to protect religion but to get money
and they would not be dishonored and put to death and despoiled as infidels
under such pretexts. If he valued the peace of the realm, he would prohibit
the sermon. Cardona listened to the storm of objurgation and, when it had
exhausted itself, he replied that he had the king’s orders to receive the
inquisitors and would obey them. This aroused a greater uproar than before
and he weakened under it. He retired to consult the council and on his
return he told the deputies that they might send envoys to the king to
expound their views and learn his decision; meanwhile he would prevent
the inquisitors from acting and they must preserve the peace.
The agitation continued; daily assemblies were held in the Seggi and, on
January 9th and 10th, a formal agreement was drawn up and executed
between the nobles and the people, in which they bound themselves to
sacrifice life and property sooner than to permit the introduction of the
Inquisition and, at the same time, they elected Francesco Filomarino as
envoy to Ferdinand. The next day a trivial occurrence nearly produced a
serious outbreak, showing how dangerous was the tension of popular

feeling. Luca Russo, who was one of the most active agitators, had an old
quarrel, arising from a lawsuit, with Roberto Bonifacio, the justiciary of the
city; he chanced to meet Colantonio Sanguigno, a retainer of Bonifacio;
words passed between them and Sanguigno made a hostile demonstration,
which started a rumor that Russo was slain. The shops forthwith were
closed, the populace rushed to arms, shouting ferro, ferro! serra, serra! and
the house of the justiciary was besieged by an enormous mob thirsting for
his blood, but on the production of the supposed victim they quietly
dispersed. During all this we hear nothing of the Bishop of Cefalù, but his
colleague, Andrés Palacios, was expelled from one domicile after another;
he was a dangerous inmate and finally found refuge in the palace of the
Admiral of Naples, Villamari, Count of Capaccio, where he lay in
retirement for some months.
Filomarino, the envoy to Ferdinand, did not start for Spain until April
and the reports received from him during the summer were such that the
people lost hope of a peaceful solution. Yet during the whole of this anxious
time, although the kingdom everywhere was united in support of the capital,
though all the troops in the land had been sent to the wars in Northern Italy
and there was not a man-at-arms left, factions were hushed; Angevines and
Aragonese and even Spaniards unanimously agreed that they would endure
the greatest sufferings rather than consent to the Inquisition and perfect
internal peace and quiet were everywhere preserved. This did not indicate
that agitation had subsided, for peace was seriously imperilled on
September 24th, when a rumor spread that royal letters had been received
ordering the Inquisition to be set to work. Meetings of the Seggi were held
and it was proposed to close the shops and ring the bells to call the people
to arms, but moderate counsels prevailed and a deputation was sent to the
viceroy to assure him that they were ready to suffer all things in preference
to the Inquisition. He expressed his surprise; he had no letters from the
king, to whom he would write earnestly begging him to desist, and
meanwhile he exhorted them to abstain from violence. Another month
passed, in alternations of hope and despair; the nobles and people made a
closer union, in which they pledged their lives and property for mutual
defence and this was solemnized, October 28th, with a great procession of
both orders, seven thousand in number, each man bearing a lighted torch.
How little Ferdinand at first thought of yielding is seen in a letter of
March 18th to the inquisitors, acknowledging receipt of reports from them

and the viceroy; he was awaiting the envoy and meanwhile counselled
patience and moderation; they must persuade the people that matters of
faith alone were concerned and when this was understood the opposition
would subside. He had ordered the payment of four months’ salaries and
they could rely on his providing everything. Then, a few days later, he
announced that the vacant place of gaoler had been filled by the
appointment of the bearer, Francisco Velázquez, to whom salary was to be
paid from the date of his departure. If Ferdinand had had only the
Neapolitans to reckon with he would undoubtedly have imposed on them
the Inquisition at the cost of a revolt, but there were larger questions
involved which counselled prudence. In preparation for trouble in Naples,
he began to withdraw his troops from Verona. Julius II took the alarm at this
interference with his plans and urged that the Neapolitans be pacified. At
the same time, with an eye to the possible revendication of the old papal
claims on Naples, he sought popular favor by promises to the archbishop to
revoke the commissions of the inquisitors and inhibit the Inquisition, thus
creating a wholly unforeseen factor in the situation. The viceroy clearly
comprehended the danger of the position, when a revolution could so
readily be brought about and the people would gladly transfer their
allegiance to the pope or to France, thus costing a new conquest to regain
the kingdom. It is doubtful whether he acted under positive orders from
Ferdinand, or whether he assumed a certain measure of responsibility,
stimulated by a fresh excitement arising from a rumor that the Inquisition
had commenced operations at Monopoli. However this may have been, on
November 19th he sent word to the popular chiefs, inviting them to the
Castello Nuovo to hear a letter from the king. Five nobles from each Seggio
were deputed for the purpose, who were followed by a crowd numbering
three thousand. The viceroy read to them two pragmáticas, by which all
Jews and Conversos of Apulia and Calabria, including those who had fled
from Spain after condemnation by the Inquisition, were ordered, under pain
of forfeiture of person and property, to leave the country by the first of
March, taking with them their belongings, except gold and silver, the export
of which was forbidden by the laws. From this the corollary followed, that
as the land would thus be purged of heresy, there would be no necessity for
the Inquisition. Thus the unfortunate Hebrews and New Christians were
offered up as a sacrifice to enable the government to retreat from an
untenable position.

The news at first was received with general rejoicings and some quarters
of the town were illuminated, but the people had not been taught to trust
their rulers; doubts speedily arose that it was intended to introduce the
Inquisition by stealth and, when on November 22d the heralds came forth to
proclaim the new laws, they were mobbed and driven back before they
could perform the duty. The next day a delegation waited on the viceroy and
asked him to postpone the proclamation for two days, during which they
could examine the pragmáticas. This was an assumption of supervision over
the legislative function which the viceroy naturally denounced as
presumptuous, but the necessity of satisfying the people was supreme and,
on the next day, the Eletti by further insistence secured a preamble to the
first pragmática, in which the king was made to declare formally that, in
view of the ancient religion and Catholic faith of the city and kingdom, he
ordered the Inquisition to be removed, for the benefit of all. In this shape
the proclamation was made on November 24th, and on it was founded the
claim which, for more than two centuries, Naples persistently made that
exemption from the Inquisition was one of its special privileges. Andrés
Palacios departed on December 3d and thus the victory was won without
bloodshed, after a struggle lasting for a year.[119]
Even the pragmáticas ordering the expulsion of Jews and Conversos
were not obeyed and the situation was rendered more aggravating by the
facilities of escape from the Sicilian Inquisition afforded by the proximity
of the Neapolitan territories. In June of 1513 Ferdinand wrote to the viceroy
concerning this ever-present grievance and ordered him to hunt up all
refugees and send them back with their property, while at the same time a
royal letter to the alcaide of Reggio rebuked him for permitting their transit
and threatened him with condign punishment for continued negligence.[120]
That it continued is shown by the escape, from Sicily to Naples, in the
following September, of some four hundred of these unfortunates (see p.
12) and they doubtless carried with them funds sufficient to close the eyes
of those whose duty it was to turn them back. There does not seem to have
been in Italy the popular abhorrence felt in Spain for the Hebrew race or
any desire for active persecution, but at the same time there was no
opposition to the existence of the Inquisition, provided always that it was
not of the dreaded Spanish type. In December of the same year, 1513, the
Dominican Barnaba, now styling himself papal Inquisitor of Naples,
applied to Ferdinand, stating that in Calabria and Apulia the New Christians

lived as Jews and held their synagogues publicly; he evidently could have
had no support from the local authorities, for he solicited the aid of the
king. Ferdinand promptly replied, December 31st, ordering him to
investigate secretly and, if he could catch the culprits in the act he was, with
the assistance of the Bishop of Isola, to arrest and punish them and the
viceroy and governor of the province were instructed to lend whatever aid
was necessary. At the same time Ferdinand sought to make this an entering
wedge for the Spanish Inquisition, for Barnaba was told to obey the
instructions of Bishop Mercader, Inquisitor-general of Aragon, with whom
he was put into communication and to whom he reported. He evidently did
what he could, in the absence of secular support, for a letter of June 14,
1514, to a bishop instructs him to assist Barnaba and the Bishop of Isola
who are about to visit his diocese to punish some descendants of Jews who
are living under the Mosaic Law, but his efforts were fruitless. When he
applied to the viceroy and to the Governors of Calabria and Apulia for aid
in making arrests, they replied that they would have to consult the king.
Moreover the viceroy reported that the pragmáticas of 1511 were not
enforced because they were construed as applicable only to natives and not
to foreigners such as Spaniards and Sicilians. All this stirred Ferdinand’s
indignation, which found expression in a letter of June 15, 1514, to the
viceroy, accusing him and the regents and governors of sheltering the
refugees, characterizing as absurd the construction put on the pragmáticas
and ordering anew that every assistance should be given to Barnaba and the
Bishop of Isola. In spite of all this there was a deplorable slackness on the
part of the secular authorities—the spirit of persecution seemed unable to
cross the Faro. The Neapolitan officials would not arrest the Sicilian
refugees without formal requisitions from the Sicilian inquisitors, brought
by a duly accredited official. From what we have seen of the
disorganization of the Sicilian tribunal we can readily believe their assertion
that they had applied to both Alonso Bernal and Melchor Cervera, but that
neither had given the matter attention. Ferdinand thereupon wrote to
Cervera expressing his surprise at this neglect, especially as it was
understood that the refugees had large amounts of property concealed. This
seems to have produced little effect for when, six months later, Ferdinand
scolded Don Francisco Dalagon, Alcaide of Reggio, about the refuge
granted to the Sicilian fugitives, the alcaide replied that, if he had proper
authorization he would seize them all, whereupon Ferdinand wrote,

September 7th, to Cervera, ordering him to send to Dalagon a list of the
fugitives, with a commission for their arrest—an order which seems to have
been as resultless as its predecessors.[121]
When Ferdinand’s restless energy exhausted itself ineffectually on the
inertia or corruptibility of the Neapolitan authorities, there was little chance
that, after his death, in February, 1516, the business of persecution would be
more successfully prosecuted. There was no inherent objection to it and the
old Dominican Inquisition with its limitations continued to exist but, in the
absence of the secular support so essentially necessary to its success, its
operations were spasmodic and it affords but an occasional manifestation of
activity, of which few records have reached us. The only instances, during
the next twenty years, which the industry of Signor Amabile has discovered,
are those of Angelo Squazzi, in 1521 and of Pirro Loyse Carafa, in 1536.
[122] It was a remarkable development from the events of 1510 that the
secular courts came to assume jurisdiction over heresy and claimed that the
pragmática of Ferdinand deprived the bishops of cognizance of such cases.
That an assumption so subversive of the recognized principles of canon law
should call for protest was inevitable and, in the general Parliament of
1536, the ninth article set forth the grievance that a lay judge had gone to
Manfredonia and thrown in prison several heretics. Complaint was made to
the viceroy, Pedro of Toledo, of this invasion of episcopal rights, when he
ordered the cases to be referred to the Bishop of Biscaglie but, in spite of
this, the prisoners were not surrendered and remained for two years, some
in the Castello Nuovo of Naples and some in the castle of Manfredonia and,
although an appeal was made to the pope and briefs were obtained from
him, these were not allowed to reach the bishop, wherefore the barons
supplicated the emperor to order the cases to be remitted to the bishop and
to forbid the intrusion of the secular courts.[123] The affair is significant of
the contempt into which the Inquisition, both episcopal and Dominican, had
fallen. Charles was in Naples in 1536, when a letter from the Suprema to
Secretary Urries alludes to a previous one of February 8th, urging upon the
emperor his duty to revive the institution on the Spanish model and the
secretary is exhorted to lose no opportunity of advancing the matter, but
policy prevailed and nothing was done.[124]
Still, there came a sudden resolve to enforce the pragmática of 1510,
which seems to have been completely ignored hitherto and, in 1540, the
Jews were banished, after vainly pleading with Charles V at Ratisbon. Most

of them went to Turkey, and the expulsion was attended with the
misfortunes inseparable from such compulsory and wholesale expatriation.
Many were drowned and some were captured at sea and carried to
Marseilles, where Francis I generously set them free without ransom and
sent them to the Levant. Their absence speedily made itself felt through the
deprivation of facilities for borrowing money and, to supply the vacancy,
the viceroy founded the Sagro Monte della Pietà, or public pawnbroking
establishment.[125] This expulsion, however, does not seem to indicate a
recrudescence of intolerance and, if there were apostate Conversos and
Judaizing Christians, the authorities did not trouble themselves about them.
Yet the time was at hand when a more threatening heresy would arouse
afresh the persecuting spirit and lead the Church to bare its sharpest
weapons.
Lutheranism had not penetrated as far south as Naples, but the spirit of
inquiry and unrest was in the air and a local centre of revolt developed there
independently. A gifted Spanish youth, Juan de Valdés, brought up in the
court of Charles V and a favorite of his sovereign, attracted the attention of
the Inquisition and, to avoid unpleasant consequences, abandoned his native
land in 1529. After some years of wandering he settled in Naples, in 1534,
where he drew around him the choicest spirits of the time, until his death
about 1540.[126] Among those whom he deeply influenced may be
mentioned Pietro Martire Vermigli, Bernardino Ochino, Marcantonio
Flaminio, Pietro Carnesecchi, Vittoria Colonna, Isabella Manrique, Giulia
Gonzaga and Costanza d’Avalos—names which reveal to us how Naples
became a centre from which radiated throughout Italy the reformatory
influences of the age.[127] Valdés was not a follower of Luther or of
Zwingli; rather was he a disciple of Erasmus, whose teachings he developed
to their logical results with a hardihood from which the scholar of
Rotterdam shrank, after the fierce passions aroused by the Lutheran
movement had taught him caution. Though not driven like Luther, by
disputation and persecution to deny the authority of the Holy See, there is
an infinite potentiality of rebellion against the whole ecclesiastical system
in Valdés’s description of the false conception which men are taught to
entertain of God, as a being sensitive of offence and vindictive in
punishment, who is to be placated by self-inflicted austerities and by gifts
of gold and silver and worldly wealth.[128] He was also largely tinged with
mysticism, even to the point of dejamiento or Quietism, the result possibly

of his intercourse with Pedro Luis de Alcaraz, in 1524, when they were
together in the household of the Marquis of Villena at Escalona—Alcaraz
being the leader of a knot of Alumbrados, who was severely handled by the
Inquisition.[129] This is manifested in Valdés’s conception of the kingdom of
God, in which man renounces the use of reason and abandons himself to
divine inspiration.[130] In his little catechism, moreover, there is a strong
Lutheran tendency in the doctrine that man is saved by faith; there is no
intercessor but Christ and the whole sacramental system, save baptism, is
condemned by being significantly passed over in silence.[131] Still more
significant is his classification, in the Suma de la predicazion Cristiana, of
those who rely on vain ceremonial observances, with the worldly and
wicked, as fit only to be ejected from the Church of Christ.[132]
All these were dangerous doctrines, even when merely discussed in the
little circle of bright intelligences which Vaidés drew around him. They did
not, moreover, lack public exposition in a guarded way. Bernardino Ochino,
the General Minister of the Capuchins, was reckoned the most eloquent
preacher in Italy. In 1536 he visited Naples, where he came in contact with
Valdés and preached the Lenten sermons with such success that he emptied
all the other churches. On February 4th of the same year Charles V, then at
Naples, issued an edict forbidding, under pain of death and confiscation,
any one from holding intercourse with Lutherans and, on his departure, he
impressed on Pedro de Toledo, the viceroy, the supreme importance of
preventing the introduction of heresy. Envious friars accused Ochino of
disseminating errors in his sermons and Toledo ordered him to cease
preaching until he should express himself clearly in the pulpit as to the
errors imputed to him, but he defended himself so skilfully that he was
allowed to continue and, on his departure, he left numerous disciples. Three
years later he returned and made a similar impression, veiling his heretical
tendencies with such dexterity that they passed without reprehension. Yet
the seed had been sown; it was a time when theological questions were
matters of universal interest and soon the city was full of men of all ranks
who were discussing the Pauline Epistles and debating over difficult texts.
No good could come of such inquiries by the unlearned and the viceroy felt
that some action was necessary.[133] With the year 1542 came a sort of crisis
in the religious movement, not only of Naples but of Italy. The Archbishops
of Naples, who were customarily cardinals residing in Rome, had long
neglected the moral and spiritual condition of their see but, in that year, the

archbishop-cardinal, Francesco Carafa, conducted a visitation there—the
first for many years—and doubtless found much cause for disquietude.[134]
In that same year also, by the bull Licet ab initio, July 21st, Paul III
reorganized the papal Inquisition, placed it under the conduct of a
congregation of six cardinals, and gave it the form of which the terrible
efficiency was so thoroughly demonstrated during the second half of the
century.[135] In September of that year, moreover, Ochino and Vermigli
threw off all disguise and openly embraced Protestantism. This naturally
cast suspicion on their admirers and the viceroy commenced a persecution;
preachers were set to work to controvert the heretical doctrines; an edict
was issued requiring the surrender of heretical books, of which large
numbers were collected and solemnly burnt, and a pragmática of October
15, 1544, established a censorship of the press. Finally, Toledo wrote to the
emperor that sterner measures were necessary to check the evil and Charles
ordered him to introduce the Inquisition as cautiously as possible.[136]
It seems to have been recognized as useless to endeavor to establish the
Spanish Inquisition and Charles was not as firmly attached to that
institution as his grandfather Ferdinand had been, but it was hoped that, by
dexterous management, the way might be opened to bring in the papal Holy
Office.[137] Towards the end of 1546 Toledo wrote to his brother, the
Cardinal of San Sisto, who was one of the six members of the
Congregation, expressing his desire to introduce the Inquisition and his
dread of the consequences, for the very name was an abomination to all,
from the highest to the lowest, and he feared that it might lead to a
successful revolution. To encompass the object, it was finally resolved to
procure from the pope a commission for an inquisitor against heresy which
was prevalent among the clergy, both regular and secular. The required
commission was issued, in February, 1547, to the prior and the lector of the
Dominican convent of Santa Caterina; Toledo did not personally grant the
exequatur for it but caused this to be done by the regents of the Consiglio
Collaterale, but this precaution and the profound secrecy observed were
useless. Rumors spread among the people that orders had been received
from the cardinals to proceed against regular and secular clerks; the old
animosity against anything but the episcopal Inquisition at once flamed up
and deputies were sent to the viceroy to beg him not to grant the exequatur.
He assured them that he wondered himself at the fact; he had written to the
pope that it was not Charles’s will or intention that the Inquisition should be

introduced and that meanwhile he had not granted the exequatur. Little faith
was placed in his statements and the general belief was that Paul III was
eager to create strife in Naples in order to give the emperor occupation there
and check his growing ascendency. It is said that he actually sent two
inquisitors but, if so, they never dared to show themselves, for there is no
allusion to them in the detailed accounts of the ensuing troubles.
To carry out the plot, action was commenced in a tentative way by the
archiepiscopal vicar affixing at the door of his palace an edict forbidding
the discussion of religion by laymen and announcing that he would proceed
by inquisition to examine into the beliefs held by the clergy. The very word
inquisition was sufficient to inflame the people; cries of serra, serra! were
heard and the aspect of affairs was so alarming that the vicar went into
hiding and the edict was removed. The Piazze of the nobles were assembled
and elected deputies charged with enforcing the observance of the capitoli,
or liberties of the city. The Piazza del Popolo was crippled, for the viceroy
some months previously, in preparation for the struggle, had dismissed the
Eletto and replaced him with Domenico Terracina, a creature of his own,
who did not assemble his Piazza but appointed the deputies himself. Then,
on Palm Sunday (April 3d), Toledo sent for Terracina and the heads of the
Ottine and charged them to see that those guilty of the agitation were
punished but, in place of doing this the Piazze assembled and sent to him
deputies who boldly represented the universal abhorrence felt for the
Inquisition which gave such facilities for false witness that it would ruin the
city and kingdom, and they expressed the universal suspicion felt that the
edict portended its introduction. The viceroy soothed them with the
assurance that the emperor had no such intention; as for himself, if the
emperor should attempt it, he would tire him out with supplications to desist
and, if unsuccessful, would resign his post and leave the city. But, as there
were people who talked about religion without understanding, it was
necessary that they should be punished according to the canons by the
ordinary jurisdiction. This answer satisfied the majority, but still there were
some who regarded with anxiety the implied threat conveyed in the last
phrase.
Then, on May 11th, the patience of the people was further tested by
another edict affixed on the archiepiscopal doors, which hinted more clearly
at the Inquisition. At once the city rose, with cries of armi, armi! serra,
serra! The edict was torn down; Terracina was compelled against his will to

convene the Piazza del Popolo, where he and his subordinates were
promptly dismissed from office and replaced with men who could be relied
upon. The ejected officials could scarce show themselves in the streets and
three of them were only saved from popular vengeance by taking sanctuary.
The viceroy came from his winter residence at Pozzuoli breathing
vengeance. He garrisoned the Castello Nuovo with three thousand Spanish
troops and ordered the popular leaders to be prosecuted. By a curious
coincidence, one of these was Tommaso Aniello, whose homonym, a
century later, led the revolt of 1647. He it was who had torn down the edict
and forced Terracina to assemble the Piazza. He was summoned to appear
in court, but he came accompanied with so great a crowd, under the
command of Cesare Mormile, that the judges were afraid to proceed and
when the people seized Terracina’s children as hostages, Aniello was
discharged. Then Mormile was cited and went accompanied by forty men,
armed under their garments and carrying papers like pleaders; the presiding
judge was informed of this and dismissed the case.
Finding legal measures useless the viceroy adopted severer methods. On
May 16th the garrison made a sortie as far as the Rua Castillana, firing
houses and slaying without distinction of age or sex. The bells of San
Lorenzo tolled to arms; shops were closed and the people rushed to the
castle, where they found the Spaniards drawn up in battle array. Blinded
with rage, they flung themselves on the troops and lost some two hundred
and fifty men uselessly, while the cannon from the castle bombarded the
city. Angry recrimination and threats followed; the citizens determined to
arm the city, not for rebellion, as they asserted, but to preserve it for the
emperor. Throughout the whole of this unhappy business, they were
strenuously eager to demonstrate their loyalty and, when the news came of
Charles’s victory over the German Protestants at Muhlberg, April 24th, the
city manifested its rejoicing by an illumination for three nights. So when,
on May 22d, the viceroy ordered another sortie, in which there was
considerable slaughter, the citizens hoisted on San Lorenzo a banner with
the imperial arms and their war-cry was “Imperio e Spagna.” They raised
some troops and placed them under the command of Gianfrancesco and
Pasquale Caracciolo and Cesare Mormile, but it was difficult to form a
standing army, owing to the question of pay, as the money had to be raised
by voluntary subscription.

Bad as was the situation, it was embittered when some catch-poles of the
Vicariat arrested a man for debt. On the way to prison he resisted and called
for aid; three young nobles stopped to enquire the cause and, during the
parley, the prisoner escaped. This enraged Toledo, who had the youths
arrested at night and condemned with scarce a pretext of trial. On May 24th
they were brought out on the bridge in front of the Castello Nuovo, where
their throats were cut by a slave and the corpses were left in blood and mud,
with a placard prohibiting their removal. This gratuitous cruelty inflamed
the people almost to madness; houses and shops were closed, arms were
seized and crowds rushed through the streets, threatening they scarce knew
what. To manifest his contempt for the populace, Toledo rode quietly
through the town, where he would infallibly have been shot had not Cesare
Mormile, the Prior of Bari and others of the popular leaders earnestly
dissuaded reprisals. Meetings were held in which the nobles and people
formally united for the common defence, which was always regarded as a
most threatening portent for the sovereign, and they resolved to send
envoys to the emperor, for which office they selected the Prince of Salerno,
the greatest noble of the land, and Placido di Sangro, a gentleman of high
quality. Toledo summoned the envoys and told them that, if their mission
concerned the Inquisition, it was superfluous, for he would pledge himself
within two months to have a letter from the emperor declaring that nothing
more should be done about it; if it was about the Capitoli, he could assure
them that any infraction of the city’s privileges would be duly punished; if it
was to complain of him, they were welcome to go. The envoys were too
well pleased with their appointment to accept his offer and wait two months
for its fulfilment; the people suspected the viceroy of trickery and the
envoys set out. Six days later they were followed by the Marquis della
Valle, sent by the viceroy to counteract their mission; the prince dallied in
Rome with the cardinals, so that della Valle reached the court before him
and gained the ear of the emperor.
Meanwhile crowds of exiles and adventurers, under chosen leaders,
came flocking into the city and a guerrilla warfare was organized against
the Spaniards, who had advanced from house to house up to the Cancellaria
vecchia, making loop-holes in the walls and shooting everyone within
range. With the aid of these reinforcements the Spaniards were gradually
driven back to the Incoronata. On the other hand Antonio Doria came with
his galleys, bringing a large force of Spanish troops. Of course the courts

were closed and a state of virtual anarchy might be expected, yet the
chronicler tells us that four things were remarkable. First, there were no
homicides, assaults, or other crimes. Second, although there was no
government of the city, yet food and wine were abundant and cheap and no
fraud or violence was committed on those who came with provisions. Third,
although there were great numbers of exiles or bandits, with their chiefs,
some of them bitterly hostile towards each other, there was no quarrelling or
treachery; on one occasion two mortal enemies met, each at the head of his
band and a fight was expected, but one said “Camillo, this is not the time to
settle our affair,” to which the other replied “Certainly; let us fight the
common enemy; there will be ample time afterwards for our matter.”
Fourth, the prison of the Vicaria was full of prisoners, some condemned to
death and others held for debt, but no attempt was made to rescue them and
food was sent to them as usual by women and children. Evidently the
people felt that they were fighting for their liberties and would not allow
their cause to be compromised by common lawlessness.
At length Toledo’s preparations for a decisive stroke were completed
and, on July 22d, a sortie was made in force, while the guns of the
fortresses and galleys bombarded the city. There was much slaughter and
some four hundred houses were burnt, whose ruins blockaded the streets.
Desultory fighting continued for some days and then a truce was agreed
upon until the envoys should return. On August 7th came Placido di Sangro,
the bearer of a simple order, signed by Secretary Vargas, to the effect that
the Prince of Salerno should remain in the court, while he should return and
tell the people of Naples to lay down their arms and obey the viceroy. This
cruel disappointment came near producing a violent outbreak, but the Prior
of Bari succeeded in quieting the people and persuading them to obey the
emperor. The next day, by order of the Eletti, a huge collection of arms was
made, loaded on wagons and carried to the viceroy. Then the tribunals were
opened and every one returned to his private business. On August 12th the
viceroy summoned the Eletti and read to them a royal indult, which
purported to be granted at his request, pardoning the people for their revolt,
except those already condemned and seventeen other specified persons.
Most of those deeply compromised had, however, already sought safety in
flight.

This doubtful mercy did not amount to much. A bishop came,
commissioned by the emperor, to try the city for its misdeeds when, as we
are told, through the procurement of the viceroy, witnesses were found to
swear that the cry of Francia, Francia! was often raised. Whether this was
true or not, the letters of Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, imperial ambassador
at Rome, show that active negotiations had been carried on with both
France and the pope, and the sovereignty of Naples had even been offered
to Cardinal Farnese, the grandson of the latter. Mendoza evidently regarded
Paul III as ready to take advantage of the situation if occasion offered and,
when the revolt was suppressed, he mentions that the fugitives received a
warm welcome in Rome. It is not surprising therefore that the decision of
the episcopal commissioner was adverse to the city, containing, among
other things, a fine of a hundred thousand ducats for ringing the bells as a
call to arms.
The viceroy, moreover, by no means confined himself to the persons
excepted from pardon, but threw into prison all the leaders whom he could
seize. He had already published a considerable list of those excluded and
the seventeen also grew to fifty-six, of whom twenty-six were condemned
to death, although it does not appear that any were actually executed, and
the prisoners were gradually liberated, twenty-four at one time, four at
another and all the rest in 1553. Among them was Placido di Sangro, whose
friends could not learn the cause of his confinement and sent Luigi di
Sangro to the emperor to find out. Charles said that Placido was buon
cavaliero, but that he was a great talker and that orders had already been
sent to the viceroy about him. The incident which left on the emperor the
impression of Placido’s loquacity is too characteristic of the former’s good-
nature to be omitted. Once, as he left his chamber, Placido followed him,
pleading for the city; he appeared not to listen and Placido had the audacity
to pluck his mantle and ask his attention. Charles turned smilingly and said
“Go on Placido, I am listening.” The Duke of Alva was close behind and
Placido said “Signore, I cannot talk, for the Duke of Alva hears all I say,” to
which Charles replied, laughing, “Tell him not to hear it” and then
obligingly drew Placido to one side and let him say all that he wanted. The
conclusion of the whole business was that their arms were returned to the
citizens and the emperor contented himself with the fine, but the hated
viceroy kept his post until his death in 1553, and no assurance against the
Inquisition was obtained.[138]

Yet the stubborn endurance of the Neapolitans had won a temporary
victory. Although they gained no formal condition of exemption from the
papal Inquisition, the attempt to introduce it was, for the moment,
abandoned. For awhile even the episcopal jurisdiction over heresy appears
to have been inert, as it has left no traces during the next few years. This
respite, however, was brief, for the tide of persecution was arising in Italy.
In March, 1551, Julius III issued a savage bull, pronouncing by the
authority of God eternal malediction on all who should interfere with
bishop or inquisitor in their prosecution of heretics.[139] Paul III, in 1549, on
the resignation of Cardinal Farnese, had appointed, as archbishop of Naples,
Cardinal Carafa, who was unsparing in the extirpation of heresy and had
been the leader in promoting the reorganization of the papal Inquisition in
1542, of which he was made the head. Charles V had refused to grant his
exequatur to Carafa, but yielded, in July, 1551, to the urgency of Julius, and
Carafa lost no time in appointing Scipione Rebiba as his vicar-general,
through whom the papal Inquisition was introduced into Naples.[140] It was
at first confined to his archiepiscopate, for various letters to bishops, in
1552, from the viceroy Toledo show them to be busy in the prosecution of
heretics.[141] Toledo died, February 12, 1553 and was succeeded by
Cardinal Pacheco, who did not reach Naples until June. The interval, under
Toledo’s son Luis, seems to have been thought opportune for extending the
jurisdiction of the papal Inquisition for, by a decree of the Congregation,
May 30, 1553, Rebiba was created its delegate and subsequently styled
himself “Vicar of Naples and Commissioner of the Holy Inquisition of
Rome.”[142]
In 1555 the episcopal jurisdiction was completely subordinated to the
papal, for we find several instances in which prisoners of bishops were
demanded by the Roman Inquisition, when Mendoza, the lieutenant of the
Viceroy Pacheco, orders them sent under good guard to Naples, in order to
be transmitted to Rome and, in 1556, it would even seem that bishops were
required to obtain Roman commissions, for a letter of Mendoza to the
Bishop of Reggio reproves him for publishing his commission before it had
received the vice-regal exequatur.[143] It was probably to reconcile the
Neapolitans to this intrusion of the authority of the abhorred institution that,
by a brief of April 7, 1554, Julius III abolished the penalty of confiscation,
but this grace was illusory, for it required the assent of the sovereign which
was withheld and the brief itself was revoked by Paul IV in 1556.[144]

It was not long after this that occasion offered to extend still more
directly the authority of Rome. Early in the fourteenth century, bands of
Waldenses, from the Alpine valleys, flying from persecution, had settled in
the mountains of Calabria and Apulia. Their example was followed by
others; they increased and multiplied in peace, under covenants from the
crown and from the nobles, on whose lands they settled and made
productive, until it was estimated that they numbered ten thousand souls. As
a matter of self-protection they strictly prohibited marriage with the natives,
they used only their own language and their faith was kept pure by biennial
visits from the barbes or travelling pastors of their sect, but it was under a
prudent reserve, for they occasionally went to mass, they allowed their
children to be baptized and they were punctual in the payment of tithes,
which secured for them the benevolent indifference of the local priesthood.
[145] More than two centuries of this undisturbed existence seemed to
promise perpetual immunity, but the passions aroused on both sides by the
Lutheran revolt were too violent to admit of toleration earned by
dissimulation. The heretical movement in Naples seems to have aroused
more watchful scrutiny for, in January, 1551, the Spanish Holy Office had
information, through its Sicilian tribunal, about the Waldenses, whom it
styled Lutherans, and it wrote to Charles V urging him to adopt measures
for their eradication.[146] Nothing came of this, however, and the peaceful
sectaries might possibly have remained in obscurity had they not
commenced to feel dissatisfied with their ancestral teachings and sent to
Geneva for more modern instructors. Religious zeal in Geneva was at a
white heat and the missionaries despatched—Giovan Liugi Pascale and
Giacomo Bonelli—were not men to make compromises with Satan. They
made no secret of their beliefs and they paid the penalty, the one being
strangled and burnt in Rome, September 15, 1560, and the other in Palermo.
[147] Pascale had been arrested, about May 1, 1559, by Salvatore Spinello,
lord of La Guardia, apparently to preserve his vassals from persecution for,
since the coming of the ardent missionaries, they had ceased to attend mass.
[148] With his companions he was carried to Cosenza and delivered to the
archiepiscopal authorities. Then the viceroy, the Duke of Alcalá, intervened
in a manner to show how uncertain as yet was the inquisitorial jurisdiction,
for in letters of February 9, 1560, he urged the episcopal Ordinary to try the
prisoners for heresy and, to prevent errors, he was to call for advice and
assistance on a lay judge, Maestro Bernardino Santacroce, to whom powers

and instructions were duly sent, thus constituting a mixed tribunal under
royal authority.[149] Eventually however the papal Inquisition claimed and
took Pascale, who was carried to Rome and executed.
Its attention was thus called to the Calabrian heretics, but it was not until
November 13, 1560, that the Dominican Valerio Malvicino da Piacenza
presented himself at Cosenza as inquisitor commissioned by Rome to take
the affair in charge. He wandered around among the Waldensian villages of
Montalto, San Sisto and La Guardia, distinguishing himself, we are told, as
a glutton and drunkard, and investigating the beliefs of the people. Then at
San Sisto he ordered them all to abjure their errors and wear the “habitello”
or sanbenito. This they refused, nor had he more success at Montalto,
though at La Guardia many abjured on his telling them that their brethren at
San Sisto had done so. Castañeto, the Spanish Governor of Montalto,
prepared to arrest the principal inhabitants of San Sisto, when the whole
population took to the woods, and Fra Valerio returned to Cosenza to seek
aid from the Marquis of Bucchianico, Governor of Calabria, who chanced
to be there. He ordered the people to lay down their arms and return to San
Sisto, which they obediently did, on May 8, 1561, but they took flight again
on being commanded to present themselves in Cosenza with their wives and
children. Castañeto then raised a force to reduce them; he allowed them to
send the women and children back to San Sisto, before attacking them, but
when he did so he fell with fifty of his men. This victory availed little to the
victors. San Sisto was burnt; the women and children, subjected to every
species of outrage, scattered through the mountains, where most of them
were captured and sent to Cosenza; hunger forced the men to disband and
nearly all of them fell into the hands of Bucchianico.
San Sisto being thus settled, Bucchianico proceeded to La Guardia with
Fra Valerio and a commissioner named Pansa appointed by the viceroy to
execute justice. Many of the inhabitants fled, but returned under promise of
pardon—their flight being subsequently held as relapse into the errors
which they had previously abjured. These numbered 300 men and 100
women, the latter of whom were sent to Cosenza, while the former, together
with the captives of San Sisto, were carried to Montalto, where a sort of
inquisitorial tribunal was formed, consisting of Fra Valerio, Pansa, and two
auditors, Barone and Cove. These divided the prisoners between them and
each proceeded to employ torture indiscriminately to force them to confess
the foul practices ascribed to them and to profess conversion. Those who

were condemned were confined in a warehouse and their sentence was read
in presence of a crowd gathered from all the neighboring towns. The auto
de fe which followed, June 11, 1561, is described in a letter written the
same day from Montalto by a Catholic who cannot conceal his profound
horror at the scene. From their place of confinement the executioner led his
victims one by one, bandaging their eyes with the bloody rag which had
served for their predecessors. Like sheep to the slaughter they were thus
taken to the public square where he cut their throats; they were then
quartered and the fragments were distributed on poles along the roads from
one end of Calabria to the other—a spectacle which another pious
contemporary describes as fearful to the heretic while confirming the true
believer in the faith. The number thus butchered on that day amounted to
eighty-eight, while in addition there were seven who had triumphed over
the torture and refused to recant their heresies, and these were to be burnt
alive as impenitents. Sentence of death was also pronounced against a
hundred of the older women; the whole number of captives was reckoned at
1600, all of whom were condemned. The writer adds that unless the Holy
See and the viceroy interfere, Bucchianico will not hold his hand until he
has destroyed them all.[150]
He doubtless continued his cruel work with the rest of his prisoners, but
details are lacking for our next source of information is a letter of June 27th,
written from Montalto by Luigi d’Appiano (apparently an official of the
Archbishop of Reggio) to the Abate Parpaglia. Rome had taken alarm at the
butchery of June 11th and had commissioned the archbishop, then returning
to Naples, to take charge of the affair and conduct it in more regular
fashion. D’Appiano explains that the prisoners from La Guardia were
regarded as relapsed (and consequently to be abandoned to the secular arm),
because they had abjured, while those from San Sisto, who had not, were
simple heretics, whom the Church would receive back on their submission.
He tells us that Bucchianico, with the commissioner and the archiepiscopal
vicar of Cosenza, had concluded to impose a salutary penance on the least
guilty; those more obstinate were to be sent to the galleys, and the ministers
and leaders to the stake; of these five had already been sent to Cosenza to
be burnt alive, after smearing them with pitch so as to prolong their
sufferings and serve as a terrifying example. A reward of ten crowns a head
had been offered for the capture of fugitives and they were being daily
brought in. Many women prisoners, who were instruments of the devil,

were to be burnt and of these five, who had confessed to the nocturnal
orgies attributed to the heretics, would be executed at Cosenza the next day.
[151] All children under fifteen years of age were scattered among Catholic
families, at a distance of at least eight miles from the Waldensian
settlements and were forbidden to intermarry.[152] How long the persecution
lasted does not appear, but a letter of December 12, 1561, from the viceroy,
alludes to prisoners whose trials he ordered to be expedited.[153]
That the persecution was religious and not political is seen in the fact
that the people of San Sisto, who had risen in arms and had defended
themselves, were treated with much less harshness than those of La Guardia
whose offence was technically construed as relapse into heresy. The
conditions imposed on those who were spared the galleys or the stake
confirm this. The Roman Inquisition prescribed that all should wear the
yellow habitello with the red cross; that all should hear mass every day,
before going to labor, under heavy fines; that confession and communion
should be observed on the prescribed feast-days by all of proper age; that
for twenty-five years there should be no intermarriage between them; that
all communication with Piedmont and Geneva should cease, together with
various other prescriptions looking to the training of the children in the faith
and the instruction of the elders. To these Fra Valerio added that not more
than six persons should assemble together and that their native tongue,
which they had sedulously preserved, should be abandoned for Italian.[154]
In the exigencies of the moment the papal Inquisition had thus obtained
a recognition in Neapolitan territory for which it had hitherto been vainly
struggling, but it was intermingled with the episcopal and royal jurisdictions
in a manner indicating how little organization there was for action in an
emergency. The royal jurisdiction, moreover, asserted itself still further
when, November 13, 1561, the viceroy issued a commission to Fra Valerio
as inspector of heretical books throughout the kingdom, authorizing him to
go to the points of importation and empowering him to summon to his aid
the secular magistrates—a commission which was renewed May 8, 1562.
[155] The viceroy also enforced one of the provisions of the Spanish
Inquisition, for he laid claim to the confiscations and, on September 17,
1561, he commissioned Dr. Antonio Moles to proceed to the spot and take
possession of all the property of those convicted, including the debts due to
them. Apparently there had been general plunder, for he was empowered to
enforce the surrender of what had been taken. Dr. Moles seems to have had

much trouble with clerics, who had been active in the spoiling and had
committed many enormous offences; as clerics they were beyond his
jurisdiction, but the vicar of Cosenza sent him an assistant to exercise the
necessary spiritual jurisdiction.[156] As La Guardia and San Sisto had both
been burnt and the country laid waste, there cannot have been much left to
confiscate, but Dr. Moles seems to have conscientiously stripped the land
bare, for when the results were sent to Naples and sold at auction they
produced a handsome amount of money.[157] This evidently represents only
the movable property; the real-estate seems to have been granted by Philip
II to the Confraternity for the redemption of captives; it was valued at 5000
ducats and was sold for 2500 by the Confraternity to Salvatore Spinello. He
had been created Marquis of Fuscaldo in recompense for the zeal with
which he had aided the Inquisition in destroying his vassals, and he finally
sold the lands to the communities for an annual revenue of 180 ducats.[158]
Strenuous as were the methods of the Inquisition, however, deeply rooted
faiths have power of protracted resistance, and some correspondence of the
Roman Congregation with the Duchess of Montesalto, in 1599 and 1600,
would indicate that there were still remnants of these heretics in Calabria
and that there was talk of establishing a school for their conversion.[159]
The Waldenses of Apulia had a milder fate. The ruin and butchery in
Calabria was a warning to all parties. Their lords were powerful nobles—
the Prince of Molfetta, the Duke of Airola, the Count of Biccari and others
—who did not wish to see their lands laid waste and depopulated. Fra
Valerio was not called in, but a papal commission was procured for
Ferdinando Anna, Bishop of Bovino, in whose diocese most of the infected
district lay; less inhuman measures were employed and doubtless the
savage work in Calabria led the heretics to be accommodating. Only a few
of the more zealous were prosecuted; the mass of the population submitted
and seem to have been taken to the bosom of Mother Church without severe
penalties.[160]
Possibly Fra Valerio may have been engaged in more congenial
occupation in the province of Reggio, where at this time there were
discovered some survivors of those who had embraced the doctrines taught
by Juan de Valdés. The viceroy sent thither the Commissioner Panza, fresh
from his labors at Montalto. He must have had inquisitorial assistance and
though, in the fragmentary records, Fra Valerio’s name does not appear, he
was the most probable collaborator in the active work which ensued. Four

citizens of Reggio and eleven of San Lorenzo were burnt, while a number
abjured and escaped with imposition of the habitello.[161]

In all these proceedings there is an incongruous intermingling of
jurisdictions—papal, episcopal and secular—which shows how well the
people had thus far succeeded in preventing the establishment of an
organized Inquisition. They looked with complacency on the sufferings of
the heretics and offered no opposition to the measures adopted, satisfied
with the participation of the civil and episcopal powers. They had, however,
lost none of their horror of the Spanish institution and, when Philip II
endeavored to force it upon Milan, their fears were aroused that it might be
imposed upon Naples. In 1564 there was much popular excitement; the
Piazze assembled and adopted strong declarations; Pius IV, who did not
wish to see the Spanish Inquisition in Italy, seconded these efforts and
peremptorily ordered the Theatin Paolo d’Arezzo—subsequently cardinal
and archbishop of Naples—to accept the mission with which the city
charged him to Philip, to remonstrate against the threatened introduction of
the Inquisition and also to ask for the revival of the brief of Julius III
abolishing confiscations. The latter request Philip refused but, in letters of
March 10, 1565, he assured his subjects that he had no intention of
introducing the Spanish Inquisition and that trials for heresy should be
conducted in the ordinary way as heretofore.[162]
The “via ordinaria” meant episcopal jurisdiction exercised in accordance
with the practice of the spiritual courts in other criminal trials as
distinguished from the secret procedure of the Inquisition, which denied to
the accused almost every means of defence. This in the subsequent
struggles was constantly cited by the Neapolitans as their protection, but it
was easily evaded. The Roman Inquisition, it is true, was not allowed to
organize a tribunal with an inquisitor at its head and commissioners in all
the cities, as was the case in the northern provinces of Italy, and to exhibit
its power with the spectacle of autos de fe, but it had its agents more or less
openly and its victims were transmitted to Rome for trial and execution.
Alongside of this, for a time at least, the episcopal jurisdiction over heresy
was fully recognized and a number of vice-regal letters of the period show
that it was vigorously exercised by some of the prelates, though whether by
the via ordinaria or not does not appear.[163] This gratified the Neapolitans
who, in 1571, sent a deputation to Archbishop Carafa to congratulate him

on his holy labors against the heretics and Jews and to ask him to express to
the pope their satisfaction that these people should be punished and
extirpated by the episcopal Ordinaries, according to the canons and without
the interposition of the secular court.[164] This is a scarcely veiled hint of
the popular detestation of the Inquisition, whether Spanish or papal, and
that this continued unabated is manifested by the Venetian envoy, Girolamo
Lippomani who, in his relation of 1575, describes the Neapolitans as most
religious and filled with zeal for the love of God, but nevertheless they will
not endure the very name of the Inquisition and would be ready to rise
against it as they have done in the past.[165]
The occasion of this address to the archbishop presumably was a lively
persecution of Judaizers then on foot. There had been many abjurations,
some burnings, and the archbishop was preparing to build cells attached to
the walls of his palace to provide for the confinement of those sentenced to
perpetual prison. There was considerable popular excitement because an
inquisitorial deputy, with the title of vicar, had been sent from Rome, and
there was faction among the citizens, for the number of accused was large,
with kinships ramifying throughout the community. Cardinal Granvelle,
then recently appointed viceroy, in a letter of July 31, 1571, to the Cardinal
of Pisa, head of the Roman Inquisition, expressed his fears of a tumult; he
had asked the archbishop to suspend the prosecutions and postpone building
the cells; it would be better to send, as the pope desired, the accused to
Rome, where they would be vigorously punished. In effect, towards the end
of December, four women and three men were sent as Judaizers to Rome,
where they were duly strangled and burnt on February 9, 1572.[166]
This sending of the accused to the Roman Inquisition, whether for trial
or execution, gradually became the accepted custom, as a sort of
compromise between the pretensions of the Holy Office and the settled
repugnance of the people. It was not, however, without some complications.
Of old, no arrests by the Inquisition were permitted without the royal assent
in each case, but in the absence of an organized Inquisition this salutary rule
seems to have been forgotten and it evidently was not observed in the
Calabrian persecutions. When, however, in 1568, the authorities of Reggio
were ordered by the Sicilian tribunal to arrest and forward two individuals
charged with heresy, obedience was refused and the Duke of Alcalá, still
viceroy, was notified. He approved the position taken but instructed the
officials to arrest the parties and hold them until the Sicilian tribunal should

report whether the alleged offences were committed in Sicily or in Naples;
in the former case he was to forward them; in the latter to hold them until it
should be determined whether they were justiciable by the Ordinary or by
the Roman Holy Office, and such was to be the rule hereafter. The Sicilian
tribunal did not relish this interference with its arbitrary methods and the
next month there came news that two of its emissaries had landed at
Reggio, gone inland and carried off to Messina a friar from an Augustinian
convent; moreover they were now endeavoring to do the same with another
of the brethren. Thereupon the viceroy ordered the utmost watchfulness to
be observed and, if any attempt of the kind were made, the inquisitorial
agents were to be thrown in prison and held for his instructions.[167]
If this caution was necessary in dealing with a province under the same
crown, much more was it applicable to the Roman Congregation of the
Inquisition. No independent state could permit its citizens to be abducted,
without the knowledge of the authorities, at the bidding of a foreign prince
whose policy at any moment might be hostile. To submit to such a claim
was an abdication of sovereignty.[168] Moreover, nearly all Catholic
kingdoms had been forced, by the perpetual meddling of the papacy with
their internal affairs, to adopt the rule that no papal rescript of any kind
should be enforced without first submitting it to the government for its
exequatur. Naples, as especially exposed to papal encroachments, was
particularly careful as to this, and no brief, however trivial, was allowed to
take effect without being submitted to the authorities for approval.[169] In
1567 we find Pius V exhaling his indignation to Philip II at the violation of
the rights of the Holy See because a bishop, whom he had sent to Naples as
visitor to report on the condition of the clergy, was not allowed to exercise
his functions without the exequatur.[170]
This necessarily applied to the citations and orders of arrest with which
the Roman Inquisition was endeavoring to extend its jurisdiction over
Naples. In April, 1564, Hieronimo de Monte, Apostolic Commissioner in
Benevento (a papal enclave in Neapolitan territory), in the case of the
Marquis of Vico, was taking testimony to the effect that no one would dare
to serve a summons from Rome on him without the vice-regal exequatur, as
he would thus expose himself to punishment, including perhaps the galleys.
[171] Rome endeavored to evade this limitation on its jurisdiction and was
met with consistent firmness. In 1568 Alcalá was informed that, under
orders from the Inquisition, the bishop had arrested a citizen named Martino

Bagnato and was holding him for transmission to Rome. The bishop was at
once notified that he must surrender the prisoner to the captain of the city,
to be held subject to prosecution in the via ordinaria by his competent
judge, and the captain was ordered, in case of refusal, to take him by force.
This did not avail Bagnato much, for the Roman Inquisition then wrote to
the viceroy, asking to have the prisoner forwarded, which presumably was
done.[172]
There was in this merely an assertion of sovereignty and no desire to
shield the heretic, for when the Inquisition accepted the inevitable and made
application to the viceroy, it was granted almost as a matter of course. The
formality was simple. The application was referred to the chief chaplain,
who made a show of consulting with the judges of the Audiencia and
reported that it was in due form, when the exequatur was granted.
Occasionally, however, some question might be raised when the process
called attention to some abusive extension of inquisitorial jurisdiction. Thus
in 1610 a certain Fabio Orzolino asked for the exequatur on a citation which
he had obtained directed to the Abate Angelo and Carlo della Rocca of
Traetto (Gaeta). On this the chief chaplain reported that the parties owed to
Orzolino 88 ducats, for non-payment of which they had been publicly
excommunicated. Under this excommunication they had lain for a year,
which, according to the canon law, rendered them suspect of heresy and
thus, by a strained construction, subjected them to inquisitorial action. It is
not easy to understand the decision of the chaplain that the exequatur
should be granted as to the abate and not as to the layman.[173] A more
wholesome case was one in 1574, shown in the application of Giovanni
Tomase, Modesto Abate and Sebastiano Luca for an exequatur to the order
of the Roman Inquisition to sell the property of Nicola Pegna and Giovanni
Mateo of Tagio, to reimburse the applicants for expenses amounting to 338
crowns arising from false accusations of heresy brought against them by
Pegna and Mateo, who had been condemned for false-witness to scourging
in Rome, with the addition of the galleys for Mateo.[174]
Under this system the Roman Inquisition had a tolerably free hand in
Naples and its arrests were sufficiently numerous for it to establish a regular
service of vessels to carry its prisoners, transportation by sea being much
more economical than by land. The latter was expensive, as we chance to
learn from a letter of March 8, 1586, ordering Captain Amoroso to be
forwarded by land because the tempestuous weather prevented vessels from

putting to sea. He was to have a guard of six soldiers who were to bring
back a certificate of his delivery to the Inquisition, and the expenses of the
journey were to be defrayed from the property of the prisoner.[175] The sea
service, however, was not without its risks. When, in 1593, Fray Gerónimo
Gracian, the disciple of Santa Teresa, left Naples for Rome, it was on a
fragata de la Inquisicion, which is described as well provided with chains
and shackles for securing prisoners. It chanced to be captured by the Moors
and Gracian narrowly escaped burning, as he was supposed to be an
inquisitor.[176]
Still Rome was not satisfied with this and it found Viceroy Osuna (1582-
86) obsequious to its exigencies. About 1585 he allowed Sixtus V to
establish in Naples a regular Commissioner of the Inquisition, with
jurisdiction practically superseding that of the archbishop. By this time the
spirit of the Neapolitans had been effectually broken. Already, in 1580, the
Venetian envoy Alvise Lando, in describing how they had been subdued by
the universal misery attendant on the Spanish domination, especially under
the vice-royalty of the Marquis of Mondéjar (1575-79), adds that it is the
opinion of many that if the king chose to establish the Inquisition, so greatly
abhorred, there would be little opposition.[177] How speedily under these
circumstances the episcopal functions became atrophied is illustrated by a
case occurring in 1592. In 1590 a French youth named Jacques Girard was
captured by a Barbary corsair, circumcised and forced to embrace Islam. In
1592 he was sent on shore in Calabria with a boat’s crew to procure water,
when he escaped and, being taken for a Moor, was thrown in prison at
Cosenza. He applied to the archbishop for reconciliation to the Church; the
prelate felt unable to act, even in so simple a matter, and wrote to the
Roman Inquisition for instructions. Before these came, Jacques had been
transferred to Naples; a second application was made to Rome and the
necessary powers were sent to the Archbishop of Naples, with orders to
report the result.[178] So, in the trial for heresy of the celebrated Fra
Tommaso Campanella, in 1600, Clement VIII designated as a court his
nuncio at Naples, the archiepiscopal vicar and the Bishop of Termoli, and
they were to transmit to Rome a summary of the case, with their opinions,
before rendering sentence.[179]
Under such a viceroy as Osuna, the inquisitorial commissioner was
superfluous, for all the powers of the state were put at the disposition of the
papal representatives. As early as 1582 we find the nuncio assuming

jurisdiction and requesting Osuna to execute a sentence of scourging which
he had passed on the Venetian Giulio Secamonte for suspicion of heresy, a
request which was promptly granted. The Roman Inquisition had only to
ask for the arrest of any one throughout the kingdom, when immediately
orders were given to the local authorities to seize him and send him to
Naples for transmission to Rome, and if necessary to take possession of and
forward all his books and papers. From this the highest in the land were not
secure. In 1583 Cardinal Savelli, then secretary of the Inquisition, wrote
that the person of Prince Gianbattista Spinello was wanted in Rome to
answer for matters of faith, when immediately Osuna issued orders to seize
him wherever he might be found and bring him to the Royal Audiencia,
where he was to give security in 25,000 ducats to present himself within a
month to the Holy Office and not to leave Rome without its permission.[180]
Osuna’s successor, Juan de Zuñiga, Count of Miranda, was equally
subservient, but he insisted on the observance of the formalities when Rome
sought to act independently without vice-regal intervention. In 1587, at the
order of Cardinal Savelli, the Apostolic Vicar of Lecce induced the
Audiencia of the Terra d’Otranto to arrest Giantonio Stomeo. This was
overslaughing the viceroy who rebuked the Audiencia, telling it that it
should have referred the matter to him and awaited his instructions,
meanwhile assuring itself of the person of the individual. It was purely a
matter of etiquette for, in the end, after some further correspondence,
Miranda ordered Stomeo to be forwarded to Naples by the first chain (of
galley slaves), giving advices so that arrangements could be made for his
transmission to Rome. There seems to have been some doubt as to the
correctness of the stand taken by Miranda for subsequently Annibale Moles,
Regent of the Vicaria, was called upon for a consulta in which he stated the
rule to be that arrests for the Inquisition must always pass through the hands
of the viceroy, who always ordered their execution.[181]
Rome was not satisfied with this and continued its encroachments,
taking advantage of any weakness of the civil power to establish precedents
and claim them as rights. In 1628 we find it represented by the Dominican
Fra Giacinto Petronio, Bishop of Molfetta, who styled himself inquisitor
and was especially audacious in extending his powers. He arrested Dr.
Tomas Calendrino, a Sicilian, because he assisted in the escape from
Benevento of a contumacious person. He was carried to the Archbishop of
Naples and placed on the papal galleys for transmission to Rome, but the

Neapolitan spirit was rising again and the Collaterale and Junta de
Jurisdicion called on Viceroy Alba to demand his surrender under threat of
not allowing the galleys to depart and of banishing Fra Petronio within 24
hours. Alba however conferred with the nuncio and archbishop, who
assured him that it was customary to arrest and send people to Rome
without notice to him. In this perplexity Alba referred the matter to his
master Philip IV, who warmly praised his prudence in so doing. The papal
nuncio at Madrid, he said, had received orders from Rome to protest against
the attempted innovation of requiring notice to the viceroy and he therefore
ordered Alba, as the matter was of the highest importance, to investigate
precedents of persons arrested with or without notice, and not to introduce
any novelty. What was the ultimate result as respects Calendrino does not
appear, but this nerveless way of treating the matter was not calculated to
check the insolence of Fra Petronio who, in the course of the affair,
excommunicated the judges Calefano and Osorio, summoned the auditor
Figueroa to present himself to the Roman Inquisition and finally arrested
him with his own armed sbirri. This was no novelty, for he had no scruple
in imprisoning and maltreating royal officials for executing orders of the
government.[182]
Philip was accustomed to allow his own officials to be thus abused by
the Spanish Inquisition, but the Neapolitan temper was stubborn and, in
1630, the Collaterale reminded Fra Petronio that all commissions to arrest
required the exequatur; it ordered him to present within three days all that
he had received from Rome, and moreover forbade him to keep armed
retainers. It made complaints to the king and to the Spanish ambassador at
Rome, while Urban VIII issued briefs defending him, under which
encouragement he continued his arbitrary methods. At length Philip, by a
letter of March 18, 1631, ordered that no papal brief should be executed
without the exequatur; a new viceroy, the Count of Monterey, was prompted
to defend the royal jurisdiction and Fra Petronio complained to Rome that
the aid of the secular arm was withheld unless he would state the names of
those whom he desired to imprison. The pope appealed to Philip IV, who
apparently had forgotten about the matter and, in a letter of November 27,
1632, asked for explanations. Then Fra Petronio commenced taking
evidence against the auditor Brandolino, but when the Collaterale
deliberated, January 31, 1633, on a proposition to banish him, he yielded.
Monterey negotiated with Rome to have him replaced with some one less

objectionable and also that the new incumbent should not hold a tribunal
but should only report to the Congregation the cases occurring. Urban VIII
offered to appoint any one whom they might select, and when the name was
presented of Antonio Ricciullo, Bishop of Belcastro, then their ambassador
at Rome, he was duly commissioned.[183]
There was nothing gained by the change. Ricciullo styled himself
inquisitor-general; he held a tribunal and in his time condemned four clerics
for functioning without priest’s orders—three strangled and burnt in public,
and one strangled privately. The pope ordered that the Dominican convent
should serve as an inquisitorial prison and its prior should be a consultor,
and thus after a struggle of nearly a century the papal Inquisition was fairly
established in Naples.[184]
Ricciullo died, May 17, 1642, and was succeeded by Felice Tamburello,
Bishop of Sora. He died in 1656 and was replaced temporarily by the
nuncio Giulio Spinola, who served until 1659, when Camillo Piazza,
Bishop of Dragona was appointed. That Naples should be impatient at
finding itself thus gradually and imperceptibly brought under the yoke of
the papal Inquisition was natural. The turbulent city had gallantly resisted,
at no little cost to itself, the imposition of the Spanish Holy Office, through
times in which unity of faith was seriously threatened by successive
heresies. Now all such danger was past. There were no Cathari or
Waldenses or Protestants to rend in Italy the seamless garment of the
Church and the period was one of spiritual apathy, wholly averse to
proselytism. Only the unappeasable longing of Rome to make its power
manifest everywhere could explain its persistence in thus insinuating the
abhorred jurisdiction in a city which prided itself on its piety, on the number
of churches and convents which impoverished it, on the obedience of the
people to the priesthood and on the strictness of its religious observance.
The only field of inquisitorial activity lay in reckless speeches which might
savor of irreligion, in the blasphemy through which anger or despair found
expression, in the superstitious arts of wise-women, in burning clerics who
administered sacraments without having received the requisite orders and in
such offences as bigamy and seduction in the confessional, all of which
could only by a strained construction be deemed as savoring of heresy, and
could readily be disposed of by the ordinary spiritual or secular courts. The
Holy Office was a manifest superfluity and its imposition was all the more
galling.

Nor was there any alleviation in the fact that the tribunal was papal and
not Spanish, for there was nothing to choose between them, in spite of
frequent appeals to the pledge of Philip II that the via ordinaria alone
should be observed. There were the same confiscation and impoverishment
of families. There were the same travesty of justice and denial of rightful
defence to the accused. There were the same secrecy of procedure and
withholding from the prisoner the names of his accuser and of the
witnesses. There was the same readiness to accept the denunciations and
testimony of the vilest, who could be heard in no other court, but who, in
the Inquisition, could gratify malignity, secure that they would remain
unknown. There was even greater freedom in the use of torture, as the
habitual solvent of all doubts, whether as to fact or intention. There were
the same prolonged and heartbreaking delays during which the accused was
secluded from all communication with the outside world. A careless speech
overheard and distorted by an enemy—or perhaps invented by him—
sufficed to cast a man into the secret prison, where he might lie for four or
five years, while his trial proceeded leisurely and his family might starve. It
would probably end in his torture, to make him confess if he denied the
utterance, or to ascertain his intention if he admitted and sought to explain
it. If he succumbed in the torture he was subjected to a humiliating penance,
to wearing the habitello and to infamy—probably also to confiscation. If his
endurance in the torture-chamber enabled him to “purge the evidence,” as
the legists phrased it, he was discharged with a verdict of not proven, with
nothing to make amends for his sufferings and wasted years. Such was the
fate which hung over every citizen and it was felt acutely.[185] How little
was required to arouse inquisitorial vigilance was shown in 1683, when
Agostino Mazza, a priest employed in teaching philosophy, was thrown in
prison by the Commissioner of the Inquisition and humiliated by having to
abjure in public two abstract propositions which to the ordinary mind have
the least possible bearing on the faith—“The definition of man is not that he
is a reasoning animal” and “Brutes have a kind of imperfect reason.”[186]
The human intellect evidently had small chance of development under such
conditions.
It is easy therefore to understand the growing uneasiness of the people
when they saw the commissioner, Monsignor Piazza, appointed in 1659,
gradually erect a formal inquisitorial tribunal, with a fiscal and other
customary officials and a corps of armed familiars, recruited, as we are told,

from the lowest class of the population. His activity was such that he
constructed eight prisons in as many convents, where even women were
confined, without respect to rank or condition, under the guardianship of the
frati. He celebrated atti di fede in public, where abjurations were
administered, followed by scourgings through the streets, and he levied on
the resources of the Regular Orders to defray the expenses of his court.
Indignation gathered and, on April 2, 1661, the Piazze ordered their
representative body, the Capitolo di San Lorenzo, to consider the
innovations of the commissioner. The aspect of the people grew threatening
and Count Peñaranda, the viceroy, ordered Monsignor Piazza to leave the
kingdom, which he did on April 10th, under escort of a troop of horse to
assure his safety. This did not appease the deputies who, on May 18th,
presented a memorial to the viceroy, in which they further drew attention to
the subject of confiscation and asked that the prohibitory bull of Julius III,
in 1554, should be enforced. Consultations and negotiations were long
continued during which discussion became so hot that Peñaranda threw
some of the deputies in prison, but, on October 24th, he announced that
Philip IV had decided that the grant of Philip II must be maintained and the
via ordinaria alone must be followed. Nothing was said as to the
abandonment of confiscation and efforts to procure it were protracted, but
without success.[187]
If the Neapolitans flattered themselves that they had obtained release
from the odious institution, they were mistaken. Rome continued to send
commissioners and they continued to disregard the privileges of the
kingdom. Another outbreak occurred in 1691 when, under orders from the
Roman Congregation, its commissioner—Giovanni Giberti, Bishop of Cava
—seized several persons without obtaining the exequatur of the viceroy.
The Collaterale, or Council, notified him that there was no Inquisition in
Naples and that the prisoners must be transferred to the archiepiscopal
prison, under pain of legal proceedings against him. He treated with
contempt the notary who bore this message and threatened him with the
savage penalties provided for impeding the Inquisition, in response to
which the Collaterale hustled him out of the kingdom, barely allowing him
time to perform quarantine at Gaeta. Innocent XII felt this keenly, for he
was a Neapolitan and had been Archbishop of Naples, and a warm
correspondence ensued with the Spanish court. It was claimed by the curia
that the pope was omnipotent in matters of faith; that he could abrogate

local laws and enact new ones at his pleasure, while the papal nuncio at
Madrid warned the king that Naples would be given over to atheism
without the Inquisition and the whole vast monarchy of Spain might be
destroyed. The city of Naples was equally vigorous in asserting its rights
and complained of the numerous officials of the commissioner, exempted
from secular jurisdiction and committing scandals with impunity. The pope
threatened an interdict and the Piazze threatened to rise; the latter danger
was to Carlos II the most imminent and, in 1692, he prohibited all further
residence in Naples of papal delegates or commissioners. To render secure
the fruits of this victory, the Piazze took the decided step of appointing a
permanent deputation whose duty it was to guard the city from further
dangers of the same nature.[188]
If again the good people of Naples imagined that they had at last shaken
off the dreaded Holy Office they underrated the persistence of Rome. Trials
for heresy continued in the archiepiscopal court, conducted in inquisitorial
fashion and not by the via ordinaria. This caused renewed dissatisfaction
and, in hopes of reaching some terms of accommodation, envoys were sent
to Rome in 1693 to ask that the procedure should be open, the names of the
witnesses and the testimony being communicated to the accused; that no
one should be imprisoned without competent proof against him; that the
city should be allowed to supply an advocate for the poor and that two lay
assistants should be appointed to see that these provisions were enforced.
Prolonged discussions followed, the cardinals entrusted with the matter
seeking to gain readmission for the commissioner and arguing that the
bishops were mostly unfit to exercise the jurisdiction.[189] There was little
prospect of reaching an agreement when Naples was startled with a wholly
novel aggression. February 1, 1695, there was published in Rome by the
Inquisition an Edict of Denunciation which, under its orders, was similarly
published in at least one of the Neapolitan dioceses. Such edicts were issued
annually in Spain, but in Naples they were unknown and the present one
was evidently intended for that kingdom, for it included the episcopal
ordinaries as well as inquisitors, as the parties to whom every one was
required, under pain of excommunication latæ sententiæ, removable only
by the Inquisition, and other penalties, to denounce whatever cases might
come in any way to his cognizance, of a list of offences ranging from
apostasy to bigamy, blasphemy and sorcery. The Deputati took the matter
up in a long memorial addressed to the Collaterale, pointing out the

invasion of the prerogative in publishing the edict without the necessary
exequatur and the evils to be expected from converting the population into
spies and creating a universal feeling of insecurity. There was also the fact
that the edict assumed the jurisdiction of the Inquisition over Naples, that it
made the bishops its agents, authorized as its deputies to employ the
inquisitorial process, and that it comprised not only offences which the
Neapolitans contended to belong to the secular courts but a general clause,
vaguely embracing whatever else might be claimed as subject to the
jurisdiction of the Holy Office.[190]
This shrewd device of the Roman Inquisition was successful. The
bishops to a considerable extent exercised the powers delegated to them and
the Deputati found constant occupation in endeavoring to protect those
whom they imprisoned and tried by inquisitorial methods. Then came the
troublous times of the War of Succession which followed the death of
Carlos II in 1700. After a fruitless struggle Philip V was obliged to abandon
Naples in 1707 to his rival, Charles of Austria, and during the interval the
Inquisition succeeded in re-introducing a commissioner, who made free use
of his powers. The new monarch sought to secure the loyalty of his subjects
and from Barcelona sent orders to his viceroy, Cardinal Grimani to support
the Deputati in their efforts to uphold the privileges of the kingdom. In spite
of this the Deputati were obliged to appeal to him, in a petition of July 31,
1709, representing that, after the publication of his despatch to Grimani, the
ecclesiastics proceeded to the greatest imaginable oppressions and violence,
so that their condition was worse than ever, wherefore they prayed for relief
at his hands, so that trials should be conducted in the via ordinaria. To this
Charles replied, September 15th, to Grimani, commanding that matters of
faith should be confined strictly to the bishops, to be handled by the via
ordinaria; any departure from this was to be severely punished and the
authorities were to use the whole royal power, through whatever means
were necessary, for the enforcement of his orders.[191]
This won as little obedience as the previous royal utterance and the
Deputati were kept busy in attending to the cases of those who suffered
from the persistent employment of inquisitorial methods—efforts which
were sometimes successful but more frequently in vain. It was probably
some special outrage that induced the Deputati, in 1711, to employ Nicolò
Capasso to draw up a report on inquisitorial methods. The work is a
storehouse of inquisitorial principles as set forth by accredited inquisitorial

authorities—papal decretals and manuals of practice such as those of
Eymerich, Peña, Simancas, Albertino, Rojas, the Sacro Arsenale etc.,
admirably calculated to excite abhorrence by laying bare the complete
denial of justice in every step of procedure, the pitiless cruelty of the system
and the manner in which the lives, the fortunes and the honor of every
citizen were at the mercy of the malignant and of the temper of the tribunal.
Yet so far from being an advocate of toleration, Capasso commences by
arguing against it at much length. Religion, he says, is the foundation of
social order and the principle of toleration infers toleration of irreligion.
Protestants are intolerant between themselves and the Catholic system
cannot endure toleration. That which is taught by the philosophers is
chimerical, and a community to be stable must be united in faith, but the
enforcement of this unity is a matter for the secular power. Punishment
must be corporal and the Church has authority over the spirit alone, not
over the body. An allusion to the gravissime agitazioni of the people would
indicate that his labors were called forth by some action which had aroused
especial resentment.[192]
It was all in vain. By the death of his brother Joseph I, Charles VI
succeeded to the empire in 1711. Wars and other interests diverted his
attention from Naples and, though he consistently resisted the pressure from
Rome to give the Inquisition recognition, the bishops continued to exercise
inquisitorial jurisdiction in inquisitorial fashion. The Deputati did what they
could, but the success of their efforts depended upon the uncertain temper
of the successive imperial viceroys, who, though they might sometimes
manifest a spasmodic readiness to enforce the royal decrees, did not
countervail the persistent ecclesiastical determination to wield the power
afforded by inquisitorial methods.[193]
A change was at hand when, in 1734, Carlo VII (better known as Carlos
III of Spain) drove the Austrians out of Naples and assumed the throne. The
kingdom, after two centuries of viceroyalties, at last had a resident monarch
of its own, anxious to win the affection of his new subjects and inclined, as
his subsequent career showed, to curb exorbitant ecclesiastical pretensions.
His royal oath included a pledge to observe the privileges of the land,
including those concerning the Inquisition granted by his predecessor.
Apparently for some years there was hesitation in testing the quality of the
new régime, but in 1738 and 1739, as though by concerted action under
orders from Rome, Cardinal Spinelli, the Archbishop of Naples, and various

bishops throughout the kingdom, undertook prosecutions in the prohibited
fashion. Complaints reached the Deputati, who appealed to the king. He
reproached them for negligence, ordered the proceedings stopped and the
processes to be sent to Naples, and gave to Spinelli a warning that such
irregularities would not be permitted. Undeterred by this, the episcopal
Inquisition continued at work and in 1743 three bishops, of Nusco, Ortono
and Cassano, were called to account; the papers of trials held by them were
examined and pronounced irregular; in one case the Bishop of Nusco had
cruelly tortured a parish priest named Gaetano de Arco, after holding him in
prison for eight months.[194]
It seems incredible that under such circumstances ecclesiastical
persistence should defiantly call public attention to its disregard of the laws,
yet on September 26, 1746, the octave of San Gennaro—a time when the
popular afflux to the churches was greatest—an atto di fede, conducted
according to inquisitorial practice, was celebrated in the archiepiscopal
church, where a Sicilian priest named Antonio Nava abjured certain errors
and was condemned to perpetual irremissible prison. Popular indignation
was aroused, the cry arose that Spinelli was endeavoring to introduce the
Inquisition and he was insulted in his carriage by crowds as he drove
through the streets. The Deputati represented to the king that they had been
appealed to by three prisoners whose trials were not conducted by the via
ordinaria, showing that the ecclesiastics were seeking to impose the
abhorred Inquisition on the kingdom. Spinelli protested that the trials were
open and according to the via ordinaria and that he was ready to obey
whatever commands he might receive from the king. Carlos sent all the
papers to his council, known as the Camera di Santa Chiara, with orders to
investigate and report.
The Camera made a thorough examination and reported, December 19th,
that Nava had lain in prison since April, 1741; another prisoner, a layman
named Trascogna, had been incarcerated for three years and his trial was yet
unfinished; the third, a deacon named Angelo Petriello, was accused of
celebrating mass on July 24th last and was about to put in his defence. The
archbishop argued that, unlike his predecessors, he did not conceal the
witnesses’ names and therefore the process was the ordinary one, but
investigation showed that in other respects inquisitorial practice was
followed and inquisitorial authorities were cited; during the trial the
prisoner was kept incomunicado in his cell and debarred from all

communication with the outside world. In the papers the expression
“Tribunale della Santa Fede” was constantly used; in the marble lintel of the
door leading to the rooms occupied by it the words “Sanctum Officium”
were cut and the part of the prison used by it was called “del Sant’ Officio.”
It had a full corps of special officials and in a passage-way there had been
for five or six years a tablet bearing their names and positions, with the
inscription “Inquisitori del Tribunale del S. Uffizio.” It also had a seal
different from that of the court of the Ordinary, bearing for device two
hands, one of St. Peter with the key, the other of St. Paul with a naked
sword and the legend “Sanctum Officium Archiep. Neap.” The Camera
thence concluded that it was the old Inquisition under various devices and
only awaiting an opportunity to establish itself openly, as was shown by the
occurrences in 1691, 1711 and 1739 and, as it was impossible to place
reliance on the promises of ecclesiastics, so often made and broken, it
advised that all the officials of the pretended Tribunal of Faith should be
banished as disturbers of the public peace; the three processes should be
sealed and filed away in the public archives, the accused should be restored
to their original position and be tried again by the via ordinaria. Everything
connected with the Tribunal should be abolished—officials, prison, seal and
inscription—and notice be given that any one in future assuming such
offices would incur the royal indignation. All spiritual courts should be
notified that, in actions of the faith against either clerics or laymen, before
arrest the informations must be laid before the king for his assent and before
sentence the whole process, so as to make sure that there were no
irregularities. The accused while in prison must have full liberty of writing
and talking to whom he pleased and be furnished with an advocate chosen
by the Deputati or the Camera. To protect the laity against prosecutions for
simple sorcery or blasphemy or other matters not subject to spiritual
jurisdiction, the nature of the alleged crime must be clearly expressed when
applying for licence to arrest.[195]
These suggestions were promptly adopted and were embodied in a royal
decree of December 29th, by which two of the officials were banished
within eight days and similar punishment was threatened for any future
attempt to exercise such functions. By January 5, 1747, the Marchese
Brancone, under royal order, was able to report to the Deputati that the seal
and commissions had been surrendered, the inscription over the door had
been changed to “Archivium” and the name of the prison altered to prisons

of S. Francesco and S. Paolo. Archbishop Spinelli was compelled to resign
and, when Benedict XIV sent Cardinal Landi to Naples to seek some
method of re-establishing the tribunal, he was in danger of being mobbed
and was obliged to return without having secured an official audience. Thus
the Inquisition ceased to have a recognized existence in Naples; the
rejoicing was general and, as an expression of its gratitude, the city made a
voluntary offering to Carlos of three hundred thousand ducats. Yet the
Deputati did not disband; taught by past experience they kept vigilant watch
to see that the detested institution or its methods were not smuggled in and
that the ecclesiastical courts observed the new rules. Carlos was called to
the throne of Spain in 1759, by the death of his half-brother Fernando VI,
leaving Naples to his young son, Ferdinando IV. Possibly it may have been
thought that during a minority there was an opportunity to revive the
institution for, in 1761, the Deputati made an appeal to the king. The Regent
Tanucci was not a man to relinquish the advantage gained. The decree of
1746 was again sent to all prelates with commands that it be strictly obeyed
and the royal thanks were conveyed to the Deputati for their vigilance,
which they were ordered not to relax.[196]
They heeded the injunction and, in 1764, they addressed to the king a
memorial on the case of Padre Leopoldo di S. Pasquale, a Bare-footed
Augustinian, who had been tried by his brethren on charges of financial
irregularities and unchastity. Inquisitorial procedure had been employed, no
opportunity for defence had been allowed and, for seven years, the
unfortunate friar had been subjected by his superiors to a series of inhuman
cruelties.[197] What was the result I have no means of ascertaining, but this
prolonged vigilance indicates the profound and enduring impression
entertained of the Inquisition by the Neapolitans.

CHAPTER III.

SARDINIA.

As the island of Sardinia was a possession of the crown of Aragon, it
was not neglected in organizing the Inquisition. There were Conversos there
and doubtless in the earliest period it served as a refuge for some of those
who fled from Spain. The introduction of the Holy Office is probably to be
attributed to the year 1492, when Micer Sancho Maria was appointed
inquisitor.[198] He served until 1497, for a letter of December 15th of that
year, from Ferdinand to Miguel Fonte, receiver of Sardinia, recites that the
inquisitors-general have appointed Maestre Gabriel Cardona, rector of
Peñiscola, as inquisitor in place of Sancho Marin, transferred to Sicily, and
it proceeds to give instructions as to salaries, from which we learn that the
organization was on a most economical scale. There was, as yet, no settled
habitation for it, as a letter of March 11, 1498, to Don Pero Mata requests
him to let Cardona continue in occupation of his house, as Marin had been,
and one of September 24, 1500, orders that quarters be rented in Cagliari
where all the officials can lodge together. There was but one inquisitor, with
an assessor, no fiscal, one alguazil, a single notary to serve both in the
tribunal and for the confiscations, and a receiver, with salaries too modest to
offer much temptation to serve in an inhospitable land, where the principal
occupation seems to be quarrelling with all the other authorities.[199] In fact
the Inquisition was as unpopular in Sardinia as elsewhere, for Ferdinand, in
announcing to his lieutenant-general the appointment of Cardona, feels it
necessary to order that he and his subordinates shall receive more favor
than their predecessors, so that they may freely exercise their functions;
they are not to be ill-treated by any one, nor be impeded in the performance
of their duties. Ferdinand had heard how his lieutenant-general took certain
wheat out of the hands of the receiver, resulting in the loss of a hundred and
sixty libras, wherefore he is ordered in future to abstain from interference in
such matters, as otherwise due provision will be made to prevent him.[200]
Notwithstanding these royal injunctions, Cardona was not long in
becoming involved in a bitter quarrel with both the secular and
ecclesiastical authorities. It appears from a series of Ferdinand’s letters,

September 18, 1498, that a certain Domingo de Santa Cruz—who ten years
before had been the cause of similar trouble in Valencia—was imprisoned
by the inquisitor and forcibly released by the lieutenant-general and the
Archbishop of Cagliari, who claimed that, in furtherance of the king’s
interests, they had given him a safe-conduct. The archbishop, moreover, had
withdrawn from Cardona a commission enabling him to exercise the
episcopal jurisdiction, the coöperation of which was requisite in all
judgements. Ferdinand writes in great wrath; he instructs the inquisitor to
reclaim Domingo at once, to throw him in chains and hold him until the
royal pleasure is known; if the lieutenant-general and archbishop resist, he
is to proceed against them with excommunication; the latter are roundly
scolded and ordered to surrender the prisoner and hereafter to support the
inquisitor and the archbishop is told to renew the episcopal commission.
Not content with this, the king orders the viguier of Cagliari, under pain of
dismissal from office, to obey the commands of the inquisitor and similar
instructions are sent to the town-council.[201] The inquisitor thus was made
the virtual autocrat of the island, but his triumph was evanescent, for on
November 15, 1499, we find him in Ferdinand’s court at Avila and his
salary ceases on that day. He evidently left Sardinia in undignified haste and
involved in trouble, for a royal cédula of November 18th commands the
governor and other officials, under penalty of the royal wrath and of a
thousand florins, to allow the furniture, books, bedding and personal effects
of the late inquisitor Cardona to be freely shipped to him.[202] Nine months
elapsed before the vacancy was filled by the commission of the Bishop of
Bonavalle, August 18, 1500, to whom was granted the power of appointing
and dismissing his assessor and notary—the two officials on whom, as
Ferdinand tells him, the success or failure of the Inquisition chiefly
depends.[203]
It is quite possible that Cardona’s precipitate departure may have been
motived by terror for, about that time, the receiver, Miguel Fonte, was
assassinated in Cagliari, as we may assume, by some of those whom he had
reduced to poverty. He was not killed on the spot; from letters of February
13, 1500, we learn that he had been carried to Barcelona, in hopes of cure,
and died there. Ferdinand ordered that his widow should be treated with all
consideration and that the lieutenant-general should pursue and punish the
assassins. Sympathy seems rather to have been with the criminals and the
royal commands were disregarded, under the frivolous pretext that it was

the business of the Inquisition—a palpable falsehood, seeing that the
tribunal was vacant—for which Ferdinand took his representative severely
to task on August 18th. The receivership had also remained unoccupied,
‘for it was not until August 4th that a fit person could be found,
venturesome enough to tempt its dangers, in the person of Juan López, a
merchant of Játiva.[204]
It may well be that there was wide-spread hatred felt for the receiver of
confiscations, for the correspondence of the period shows that persecution
had been fairly productive, considering the poverty of the island. August 29,
1497, there is an order to pay the royal secretary Calcena, out of the
property of Antoni Cones, a debt claimed by him of a hundred ducats,
before any other creditors are paid. Then, on January 21, 1498, a servant of
the royal household, Mosen Gaspar Gilaberte, receives a gratuity of twenty
thousand sueldos (833⅓ ducats) out of the confiscation of Juan Soller of
Cagliari. On March 11th we hear of a composition, made by request of the
Archbishop and Syndic of Cagliari, whereby the representatives of certain
deceased persons, condemned by Micer Morin, compounded for the
confiscation of their property—an agreement subsequently violated by
Morin, whereupon the Dean of Cagliari and other prominent persons
appealed to Ferdinand. Then, October 14th, there is an ayuda de costa to the
notary Bernat Ros to refund his expenses on a journey to the court and
back. Then, October 12, 1499, there is a gratuity of two hundred and fifty
ducats to Alonso Castillo, servant of Don Enrique Enriquez, royal
mayordomo mayor. Soon after this Cardona, in hurrying to the court from
Sardinia, brings five hundred ducats to the royal treasury. During 1500 the
disorganization of the tribunal cut off receipts but, in June, 1501, we hear of
six hundred and fifty ducats given to the nuns of Santa Engracia of
Saragossa. In 1502 there were found some pearls among the effects of
Micer Rejadel, condemned for heresy, and these Ferdinand ordered to be
sent to him, covered by insurance and, in due time, on July 17th, he
acknowledged their receipt, fifty-five in number, weighing’ one ounce and
one eighth and nine grains, after which they doubtless graced the toilet of
Queen Isabella. At the same time he warned Juan López, the receiver, to be
careful, for there were many complaints coming in as to his methods of
procedure. Some months before this, in February, Ferdinand had
complimented the inquisitor on the increased activity of his tribunal and had
urged him to be especially watchful as to the confiscations, so that nothing

might be lost through official negligence. To assist in the enlarged business
thus expected, he promised to appoint a juez de los bienes, or judge of
confiscations.[205]
Amid this eagerness to profit by the misery which he was creating it is
pleasant to find instances of Ferdinand’s kindliness in special cases. Thus,
January 12, 1498, in the matter of the confiscated estate of Joan Andrés of
Cagliari, he releases to Beatriz de Torrellas, sister and heir of Don Francisco
Torrellas, because she is noble and poor and her brother had served him, a
debt of 59⅔ ducats due by Don Francisco to Andrés, which of course
Beatriz would have had to pay. A few weeks later, on February 4th, he
alleges clemency and charity as his motive for foregoing the confiscation of
certain houses in Cagliari, belonging to Belenguer Oluja and his wife, both
penanced for heresy. October 14th of the same year he takes pity on Na
Thomasa, the wife of Joan Andrés, who had been penanced when her
husband was condemned; as she is reduced to beggary and has an old
mother to support and two young girls of her dead sister, he orders the
receiver to give her fifty ducats in charity. This same estate of Joan Andrés
gave occasion to another act of liberality, February 8, 1502, in releasing to
the Hospital of San Antonio a censal of sixty libras principal, due by it to
the estate.[206] Trivial as are these cases, they are worth recording, if only
for the insight which they afford on the ramifications through which
confiscation spread misery throughout the land.
The season of prosperous confiscations seems to have speedily passed
away and the Sardinian tribunal proved to be a source of more trouble than
profit. It is true that, in 1512, Ferdinand derived a momentary satisfaction
from it, when he learned that a certain Miguel Sánchez del Romero, who
had been condemned and burnt in effigy in Saragossa, had escaped to the
island, where the lieutenant-general had taken him into favor and made him
viguier of Sassari. He promptly ordered the inquisitor to seize him secretly
at once and send him, under charge of his alguazil, to Saragossa, by the first
vessel and, at the same time, he notified the lieutenant-general that any
impediment offered would be punished with deprivation of office,
confiscation of property and excommunication by the inquisitor.[207] This
exhibition of vigor, however, did not serve to put the tribunal on an efficient
basis; Ferdinand was becoming thoroughly dissatisfied and, in August,
1514, he tried the expedient of appointing as inquisitor Juan de Loaysa,
Bishop of Alghero, at the other end of the island from Cagliari, without

removing the existing inquisitor, Canon Aragall, but rendering him
subordinate to the bishop, whose place of residence was to be the seat of the
tribunal. It is significant of the decadent condition of affairs that Bernat
Ros, who had become the receiver of confiscations, sent in his resignation,
on the plea of ill-health, and that Ferdinand refused to accept it unless he
would find some one to take his place. Presumably the trouble was that the
harvest of confiscations had been gathered and spent, without making
investments that would give the tribunal an assured income, and that the
financial prospects were gloomy. Ferdinand realized this and his zeal for the
faith was insufficient to lead him to assume the responsibility. He made out
a new schedule of salaries on an absurdly low basis, amounting, for the
whole tribunal, to only three hundred and thirty libras, telling the receiver
that, if the receipts were insufficient, the salaries must be cut down to a
sueldo in the libra for he did not propose to be in any way responsible.[208]
The institution was to be self-supporting, which was perhaps the best way
to stimulate its activity but, if this were the object, it was scarce successful
for, in January, 1515, Ferdinand writes that the baile of the island, in whose
house the Inquisition was quartered, is about to return home and wants the
house; as there is so little business and so few prisoners, it can get
accommodation in the Dominican convent, which will serve the purpose.
Loaysa’s term of office was short, for he was sent to Rome as agent of the
Spanish Inquisition, and the Bishop of Ales and Torrealba was appointed in
his place. In announcing this to him, August 28, 1515, Ferdinand
significantly warns him not to meddle in matters disconnected with the
Holy Office.[209]
Notwithstanding this palpable decadence, the Sardinian Inquisition
continued to exist. It was in vain that, after Ferdinand’s death in January,
1516, followed by that of Bishop Mercader, the Inquisitor-general of
Aragon, the people rejoiced in the expectation of its abandonment, for the
representatives of Charles V, by a circular letter of August 30th to the
lieutenant-general and the municipal authorities, assured them that it would
be continued and ordered them to take measures for its increased activity,
while the inquisitor was informed that, although Sardinia was under the
crown of Aragon, it was not to enjoy the provisions of the Concordias to
which Ferdinand had been obliged to assent at home.[210] Possibly the
tribunal may have become more active but it was not more productive for,
in 1522, the home tribunals were assessed for its support, Majorca being

called upon for two hundred ducats and Barcelona and Saragossa for a
hundred each.[211] About 1540, however, it seems to have discovered some
well-to-do heretics, for we hear of its having three thousand ducats to invest
in censos.[212] This accession of wealth, however, does not argue that its
financial management was better than was customary in the Inquisition for,
in 1544, a commission was sent to the Bishop of Alghero, the inquisitor,
clothing him with full power to require from the receiver, Peroche de
Salazar, a detailed account of his expenditures and his receipts from fines,
penances, commutations and rehabilitations, and to investigate all frauds,
collusions and concealments, the terms of the commission indicating that
there had long been no check on embezzlements.[213]
Such prosperity as the tribunal enjoyed was spasmodic and it soon
relapsed into indigence. In 1577 we find the tribunal of Murcia ordered to
pay two hundred ducats, arrearages of salary due to Martínez Villar, who
had been promoted, in 1569, from the inquisitorship to the archbishopric of
Sassari[214] and, in 1588, Seville and Llerena were each called upon for
119,000 maravedís to repair an injustice committed by the Sardinia tribunal
on María Malla—apparently it had spent the ill-gotten money and was
unable to make restitution.[215] In hopes of relieving this poverty-stricken
condition, Philip II, in 1580, appealed to Gregory XIII stating that it could
not sustain itself and asking for assistance, which of course meant that
canonries or other benefices should be assigned to its support.[216] This
appeal was unavailing for, in 1618, the Suprema represented to Philip III
the deplorable condition of the tribunal, unable to defray the salaries of a
single inquisitor, a fiscal, two secretaries and the minor officials; it urged
him to obtain from the pope the suppression of canonries and meanwhile to
meet its necessities by the grant of some licences to export wheat and
horses, which the pious monarch hastened to do.[217] This did not relieve
the chronic poverty and, in 1658, Gregorio Cid, transferred to Cuenca after
six years and a half of service in Sardinia, represented to the inquisitor-
general that the tribunal ought to have two inquisitors and a fiscal and that it
was difficult to find any one to serve as a notary, for the salary was small
and expenses were great; besides, the climate was so unhealthy that the
tribunal often had to be closed in consequence of the sickness of the
officials.[218]
The tribunal was evidently a superfluity, in so far as its legitimate
functions were concerned, and we may assume that it was maintained not so

much to deal with existing heretics as to prevent the island from becoming
an asylum for heresy. This could have been accomplished by strengthening
and stimulating the episcopal jurisdiction, but the Inquisition had
monopolized this and was jealous of all interference. In 1538 Paul III
addressed to the bishops and inquisitor of the island a brief in which he
recapitulated the provisions of the Council of Vienne requiring them to
coöperate and work in harmony; he urged the bishops to be so active in
repressing heresy that they should need no outside aid but, if such should be
necessary, the mandates of the council were to be observed. The bishops
apparently were not remiss in taking advantage of this to revendicate the
jurisdiction of which they had practically been stripped and the Inquisition
resented the intrusion; Charles V must speedily have made the pope
sensible of his mistake for, in 1540, he addressed to the judges of the island
another brief revoking the previous one and reciting that the episcopal
Ordinaries were interfering with the functions of the inquisitors and must be
restrained from impeding or molesting them in any way by the liberal use of
censures and the invocation, if necessary, of the secular arm. This was not
allowed to be a dead letter for, when in 1555 Salvator, Archbishop of
Sassari, under the brief of 1538, undertook to interfere with the tribunal,
Paul IV, at the request of the emperor, promptly ordered the Bishops of
Alghero, Suelli and Bosa to intervene and granted them the necessary
faculties to coerce him.[219]
The tribunal had little to show as the result of the jurisdiction so eagerly
monopolized. In fact, its chief industry consisted in multiplying its nominal
officials and familiars—positions sought for in consequence of their
privileges and immunities and doubtless liberally paid for. As early as 1552,
Inquisitor-general Valdés rebuked Andreas Sanna, Bishop of Ales and
inquisitor, for the inordinate number of familiars and commissioners who
obtained appointments for the purpose of enjoying the exemptions, and he
ordered them reduced to the absolute needs of the Holy Office.[220] This
command was unheeded, the industry flourished and the principal activity
of the tribunal lay in the resultant disputes with the secular courts. So
recklessly did it distribute its favors that, on one occasion, an enumeration
in three villages of Gallura disclosed no less than five hundred persons
entitled to the privileges of the Holy Office. The consequences of this
widely distributed impunity were of course deplorable on both the peace
and the morals of the island.[221]

Under such circumstances quarrels with the secular authorities were
perpetual and inevitable and were conducted on both sides with a violence
attributable to the remoteness of the island and the little respect felt by
either party for the other. A specimen of the spirit developed in these
conflicts is afforded in a brief of Paul V, March 22, 1617, to Inquisitor-
general Sandoval y Rojas, complaining bitterly of a recent outbreak in
which the inquisitor excommunicated two officials and the royal court
ordered him to absolve them. On his refusal, the court cited him to appear
and sentenced him to exile—a decree which was published in Cagliari and
elsewhere to sound of drum and trumpet. Then the governor intervened in
support of the court, treating the inquisitor, if we may believe the ex parte
statement, with unprecedented harshness. He broke into the Inquisition with
an armed force and ordered the inquisitor either to grant the absolutions or
to go on board of a vessel about to sail for Flanders and, on his refusal, he
was so maltreated as to be left almost lifeless on the floor. On a second
intrusion he was found in bed with a fever; he still refused to embark and
was left under guard, but he succeeded in escaping by a rope from a
window and took asylum in the Dominican church, whither the governor
followed him and seized him while celebrating mass, with the sacrament in
his hands. This time he was kept in secure custody until he gave bonds to
sail, after which, in fear of the voyage, he submitted and absolved the
excommunicates. Paul summoned the governor and his accomplices to
appear in Rome and undergo the penalty of their offences, but it may be
doubted whether they were obliged to obey, for Spanish jealousy of the
curia was quite as acute as indignation caused by invasion of inquisitorial
inviolability and appeals to Rome were absolutely forbidden to all parties.
[222] It was impossible to devise any permanent basis of pacification
between the conflicting jurisdictions and, up to 1630, there were
enumerated no less than seven Concordias, or agreements to settle their
respective pretensions, in spite of which the disturbances continued as
actively as ever.[223]

During the War of the Spanish Succession, Sardinia was captured by the
Allies in 1708 and, in 1718, it passed into possession of the House of
Savoy. As soon as the Spanish domination ceased the Inquisition
disappeared and the bishops revendicated their jurisdiction over heresy,
each one organizing an Inquisition of his own, not so much, we are told,

with the object of eradicating heresy as to enable them to exempt retainers
from public burdens, by appointing them to useless offices.[224] Jealousy of
the Inquisition had been the traditional policy of the Dukes of Savoy[225]
and, as the support of the secular arm was essential to the activity of the
institution, we may presume that even these episcopal substitutes faded
away in silence. In 1775 a survey of the ecclesiastical and religious
condition of the island makes no allusion to prosecutions for heresy
although it records a tradition that, towards the end of the seventeenth
century, certain Quietists and followers of Molinos had found refuge in the
mountain caves.[226]

CHAPTER IV.

MILAN.

By the treaty of Cambrai, in 1529, Francis I abandoned the Milanese to
Charles V and it thenceforth formed part of the Italian possessions of Spain.
In the eleventh and twelfth centuries it had been the hot-bed of heresy and it
was, in the thirteenth, one of the earliest scenes of inquisitorial activity. It
was there that Pietro di Verona sealed his devotion with his blood and
became the patron saint of the Holy Office. With the gradual extermination
of heresy, the Inquisition there as elsewhere grew inert and, even after the
new and threatening development of the Reformation, when Paul III, in
1536, was alarmed by reports of the proselyting zeal and success of Fra
Battista da Crema, he had no tribunal on which he could rely to suppress the
heretic. In default of this he commissioned Giovanni, Bishop of Modena,
who was then in Milan, together with the Dominican Provincial, to preach
against the heretics and to punish according to law those whom they might
find guilty, at the same time significantly forbidding the inquisitor and the
episcopal Ordinary to interfere.[227]
Even when the Inquisition was reorganized by Paul III, in 1542, it was
for some time inefficiently administered and lacked the secular support
requisite to its usefulness. This was especially felt in the Milanese which,
from its neighborhood to Switzerland and the Waldensian Valleys, was
peculiarly exposed to infection. The adventure which brought the
Dominican Fra Michele Ghislieri into notice and opened for him the path to
the papacy, shows the danger and difficulty of the situation. Heresy was
creeping through the Grisons, the Valtelline and the Val di Chiavenna,
forming part of the diocese of Como when, in 1550, Fra Michele was sent
thither as inquisitor to arrest its progress. He found a dozen bales of heretic
books consigned to a merchant in Como, to be distributed throughout Italy
where, in all the cities, there were said to be agencies for the purpose. He
seized the books in the custom-house, whereupon the merchant complained
to the episcopal vicar, who took possession of them. Ghislieri wrote to the
Roman Holy Office which cited the vicar and the canons to appear; in place
of obeying, they appealed to Ferrando Gonzaga, Governor of Milan, and

raised such a storm among the people that Ghislieri’s life was in danger.
Gonzaga summoned him to come to him the next day; he started at night on
foot and it was only the accident of his taking the longer road that led him
to escape an ambush where he would have shared the fate of St. Peter
Martyr. Gonzaga threatened him with imprisonment, but finally allowed
him to depart, when he went to Rome and so impressed the cardinals of the
Holy Office that he was marked for promotion. It was not much better in
1561 when, after being created Bishop of Mondovi, he visited his diocese
and returned dissatisfied, for he had been unable to secure the support of the
secular arm for the suppression of heresy.[228]
In Milan, we are told, there were many heretics, not only among the laity
but among the clergy, both regular and secular, some of whom seem to have
been publicly known and to have enjoyed the protection of the authorities.
In 1554 Archbishop Arcimboldo and Inquisitor Castiglione united in issuing
an Edict of Faith, comprehensive in its character, promising for spontaneous
confession and denunciation of accomplices the reward of a fourth part of
the fines and confiscations that might ensue. Denunciation of heretics was
also commanded, with assurance of secrecy for the informer. This Edict is
moreover of especial interest as comprehending what is perhaps the earliest
organization of censorship, for it required the denunciation of all prohibited
books and the presentation by booksellers of inventories of their stocks,
with heavy penalties for omissions or for dealing in the prohibited wares.
[229] This zeal seems not to have aroused the secular authorities to a fitting
sense of their duties, for a brief of Paul IV, May 20, 1556, to Cardinal
Mandrusio, lieutenant of Philip II, recites how that son of iniquity, the
apostate Augustinian Claudio de Pralboino, had been condemned by the
inquisitor and handed over to the secular arm; how, while awaiting his fate
in the public prison, a forged order, purporting to be signed by the
inquisitor, had been fabricated by some lawyers, on the strength of which he
escaped and, in view of all this, the cardinal is urged to see to the
punishment of those concerned in the fraud, to lend all aid and assistance to
the inquisitor and to be watchful against the heresies creeping in from the
Grisons. It was doubtless with the hope of securing greater efficiency that,
in 1558, the Inquisition was taken from the friars of San Eustorgio and
confided to those of Santa Maria delle Grazie and the Dominican
Gianbattista da Cremona was appointed inquisitor-general.[230]

In 1560, Cardinal Carlo Borromeo, in his twenty-second year, was,
through the nepotism of his uncle Pius IV, appointed to the great
archiepiscopate of Milan, which extended over all Lombardy. Sincere as
was his piety, he accepted an office which he did not fill, for he remained in
Rome until the severe virtue of Pius V, in 1566, required him to reside in his
see. His ceaseless labors to reform his people, both clergy and laity, his self-
devotion, his charity, earned for him the honors of canonization and the
admiration even of Jansenists, but the zeal displayed in the enforcement of
discipline upon unwilling ecclesiastics found equal expression in the
persecution of heretics. He was, in fact, the incarnation of the Counter-
Reformation, in combating heresy by force as well as by depriving it, as far
as possible, of its raison d’être. In the early years of his archiepiscopate,
during his attendance on the papal court, the business of the Inquisition in
Milan was carried on in most slovenly fashion. This was not for lack of any
sensitiveness as to heresy for, when in July, 1561, the Franciscan Guardian
of Marignano, being delayed in making a sacramental confession,
exclaimed, in a fit of impatience, that confession to God sufficed, he was
arrested for such heretical speech and sent for trial to Milan, under a guard
of soldiers. They arrived at night and carried their prisoner to the
archiepiscopal palace, where they were told to take him to the prison, but
misunderstanding, as was said, their instructions, they marched him to one
of the city gates and let him go, whereupon he naturally disappeared.[231] In
that same month of July, Carlo’s uncle, Giulio Cesare Borromeo, writes to
him that the inquisitor has allowed to escape a certain chief of the
Lutherans, whom he had had infinite trouble to seize; he would give a
thousand ducats that the culprit had not been brought to Milan for, as a
relapsed, he was already convicted. He shrewdly suspects complicity, but
there is no remedy and great scandal is to be expected.[232] Matters probably
did not improve when, in the Spring of 1563, the inquisitor Fra Angelo da
Cremona involved himself in a bitter quarrel with Andrea Ruberto, the
archbishop’s vicar, over a printer named Moscheno, whom he had cast into
prison and whose wife and work-people he threatened to arrest. It was a
conflict of jurisdiction, the vicar claiming concurrent action and the
inquisitor that his cognizance of the case was exclusive. The vicar appealed
to the archbishop and represented the inquisitor in no flattering terms. The
inquisitor wrote to the Roman Congregation that the vicar was a man
without fear of God and was interfering to protect a heretic who was

disseminating his heresies throughout the land; he had refused the vicar’s
request to communicate the proceedings, as he desired to preserve the
privileges of the Holy Office. Carlo counselled moderation to his vicar and,
as the latter was replaced the next year by Nicolò Ormanetto, he was
evidently worsted in the encounter.[233]
It is not surprising that this imperfect working of the machinery of
persecution should prove wholly unsatisfactory to Philip II. Twenty years
had elapsed since the reconstruction of the papal Inquisition, yet in the
Lombard province where, if anywhere, it should be active and unsparing
and where he had ordered his representatives to give it all favor and
assistance, it was proving manifestly unequal to its duties. The natural
remedy lay in taking it out of hands that proved incompetent and in
remodelling it after the Spanish fashion and this he resolved to do. He
applied to Pius IV for the necessary briefs, but met with some delay. This
was inevitable. The Roman Congregation had already ample experience of
the unyielding independence of the Spanish Suprema and it could only look
with disfavor on having to surrender to its rival so important a portion of its
own territory, with the inevitable result of an endless series of broils in
which it would probably often be worsted. At that time however Philip’s
request was equivalent to a command; it was difficult to frame a plausible
reason for refusal and Pius gave his assent.[234] It was Philip’s intention that
the Milanese Inquisition should be organized on an imposing scale and he
had a commission as inquisitor issued to Gaspar Cervantes, an experienced
Spanish inquisitor, then Archbishop of Messina and recently elected to the
see of Salerno, but Pius delayed the confirmation for months. Cervantes
was at the council of Trent when he received the commission; he replied
that, as the decree requiring episcopal residence had been adopted, he could
not be absent from his see more than three months at a time, but that, if the
king considered his services at Milan essential, he would resign the
archbishopric. Archbishop Calini, who reports this from Trent, August 23,
1563, adds that two ambassadors from Milan had just arrived there to plead
with the papal legates against the introduction of the Spanish Inquisition in
their city.[235]
In fact, as soon as the rumor spread of the impending change, there arose
an agitation which speedily grew to serious proportions and threatened a
repetition of the experiences of Naples. The people declared that they would
not submit peaceably. The municipal Council of Sixty at once arranged to

send envoys to Philip, to the pope, and to the legates at Trent. The latter
reached there, as we have seen, on August 22d and their instructions
doubtless were the same as those prepared for the envoys to the pope,
representing that the existing Inquisition was thoroughly manned and active
and had the earnest support of the secular authorities, while the mere
prospect of introducing the Spanish institution had so alarmed the people
that many were already leaving the city, threatening its depopulation if the
project were persisted in and the transfer of its commerce and industries to
rival communities. The envoys to the pope were also told to invoke the
good offices of Cardinal Borromeo and to point out that, as he was
responsible for the Inquisition and for the defence of the faith in Milan, the
necessity for a new organization would infer neglect of duty on the part of
his representatives.[236]
A Milanese agent of the Cardinal-Archbishop confirmed this in a letter
to him of August 25th, describing the great popular perturbation, arising not
from a consciousness of the existence of heresy but from the disgrace of the
imputation and the dread of the facilities offered for the gratification of
malignity, coupled with the destruction of the families of the accused. It
were to be wished that the virtue of the people was equal to their devotion,
for the ardor of their faith was seen in the frequentation of the sacraments,
the great demand for indulgences and the performance of other pious
works.[237] Further news was sent to him, September 1st, by his confidential
agent, Tullio Albonesi, who reported that the governor, the Duke of Sessa,
has not wished the city to send envoys to Philip II, for he had already taken
measures to prevent the introduction of the dreaded tribunal. Still it was
desirable that the cardinal, on his part, should see that this turned out to be
successful, for the popular mind was so inflamed that great disorder would
be inevitable and it would be well for him to let it be clearly seen that he
had opposed the project so as to disabuse those who asserted the contrary.
[238] The municipal authorities trusted the governor and promptly
abandoned their purpose of sending envoys to the king and to the pope.
These had already been chosen and had arranged for the journey, incurring
expenses which had to be defrayed. Accordingly, at a meeting of the
Council of Sixty, held September 24th, it was resolved that, as the governor
had stopped them and taken upon himself to deal with the king and the
pope, the envoys should be repaid the fifteen hundred ducats expended in
preparations, on their surrendering the articles purchased for the purpose,

which were then to be publicly sold at sound of trumpet in the Plaza delli
Mercanti, as was customary in such cases. Besides this there had already
been spent a hundred and ten ducats in twice sending letters to the pope and
cardinals.[239]
The mission to Trent had proved conspicuously serviceable, for the
popular resistance was efficiently seconded by the bishops assembled there.
Those of Lombardy dreaded to be exposed to the experience endured by
their Spanish brethren, humiliated in their dioceses by the unrestrained
autocracy of the inquisitors. Those of Naples argued that, if the Spanish
Inquisition were once installed in Milan, it would surely be extended to
Naples, with similar results to them. Those of the rest of Italy felt that it
could not then be refused to the princes of the other states, while the papal
legates recognized that in such case the authority of the Holy See would be
seriously crippled, for the allegiance of the bishops would be transferred to
their secular rulers who could control them through the inquisitors and, in
the event of another general council, it would be the princes and not the
pope that would predominate in its deliberations. Earnest representations to
this effect were promptly sent to Rome and great was the relief in Trent
when word came that the pope was of the same opinion and would not
assent to the execution of the project.[240]
Even Philip’s fixity of purpose gave way before these obstacles, but he
delayed long before yielding. More than two months of anxiety followed,
until at length, on November 8th, he wrote to the Duke of Sessa that his
report as to the condition of Milan had been confirmed by letters furnished
by the Bishop of Cuenca. His dextrous management in preventing the
envoys from coming was praised and, in conformity with his judgement, the
Bishop-elect of Salerno was ordered not to leave Trent and the efforts to
obtain faculties for him from the pope were to be abandoned. The duke was
ordered to tell the people, as plausibly as he could, that Philip had never had
the intention of introducing any innovation in the procedure of the
Inquisition but only to appoint an inquisitor of more authority and with
larger revenue, who could do what was necessary for the service of God in
that infected time and dangerous neighborhood. They could rely that there
would be no change and the king was confident that so Catholic and zealous
a community would do its duty as heretofore.[241] The whole letter shows
how unwillingly he withdrew from a position that had become untenable
and how hard he strove to obtain a capitulation with the honors of war.

Philip’s failure left the Milanese Inquisition in its unsatisfactory
condition. There was one burning question especially which refused to be
settled. Political considerations of the greatest moment required the
maintenance of friendly relations with the Catholic Cantons of Switzerland,
but the Catholic Cantons were deeply infected with heresy. Moreover the
financial interests of the Milanese called for free commercial intercourse
with their northern neighbors while, at the same time, the rules of the
Inquisition forbade the residence of heretics and dealings with them. It was
impossible to reconcile the irreconcileable—to erect a Chinese wall
between Lombardy and Switzerland, as the Roman Holy Office desired, and
at the same time to retain the friendship of the Swiss and maintain
contentment among the Lombards. Intolerance had to yield to politics and
commerce, but not without perpetual protest. Tullio Albonesi writes, April
12, 1564, to Cardinal Borromeo that he had presented to the Duke of Sessa
the letter asking him to cease employing those heretic Grisons, the Capitano
Hercole Salice and his sons and had remonstrated with him in accordance
with the information received from the inquisitor. The duke was to depart
for Spain the next day, but took time to explain that the pope was
misinformed as to his wishing to bring heretics to reside in the Milanese; he
had arranged to pay them in their own country for the king’s service and
had given them greater privileges of trade than were accorded to the
Grisons in general under the capitulations and, if this did not please his
Holiness, he must treat with the king about it. Albonesi adds that he
reported this to the inquisitor who concluded that the only way to stop the
trade of these heretics with the Milanese was for the pope to appeal to
Philip.[242] The next year we find the Bishop of Brescia, in a letter to
Borromeo, alluding to two persons in his diocese suspected of heresy
because they caused scandal by dealing with the Grisons.[243]
How delicate were these international relations and how little the
Inquisition was disposed to respect them are manifest in an occurrence
some years later, after Cardinal Borromeo had come to reside in his see. In
visiting some Swiss districts of his province he promulgated some
regulations displeasing to the people, who sent an ambassador to complain
to the Governor of Milan. He took lodgings with a merchant and, as soon as
the inquisitor heard of his arrival, he arrested and threw him in prison. This
arrogant violation of the law of nations was a peculiarly dangerous blunder
and, as soon as news of it reached the governor he released the envoy from

prison and made him a fitting apology, but word had already been carried to
the Swiss, who made prompt arrangements to seize the cardinal. Borromeo
escaped by a few hours, and his obnoxious regulations were never obeyed.
[244] How completely, in his eyes, all material interests were to be
disregarded, in comparison with the danger of infection from heresy, is to
be seen in a pastoral letter addressed, in 1580, to all parish priests—a letter
which is moreover instructive as to the extent to which the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction trespassed on the secular. He recites the danger to the faith
arising from those who, under pretext of business or other pretence, visit
heretical lands, where they may be perverted, and on their return spread the
infection, wherefore he orders that no one shall make such journeys or visits
without first obtaining a licence from him or from his vicar-general or from
the inquisitor. All who disobey this are to be prosecuted by the Inquisition
as suspect of heresy and are to be penanced at discretion. This letter is to be
read from the altar on three feast-days and subsequently several times a
year, while the priests are further ordered to investigate and report within a
month all who are absent, the cause of their going and the length of their
stay.[245] The question was one which refused to be settled and was the
subject of repeated decrees by the Roman Congregation, which serve to
explain why the nations subjected to the Inquisition fell behind their more
liberal rivals in the race for prosperity.[246]
With the failure to introduce the Spanish Inquisition, Cardinal Borromeo
seems to have felt increased responsibility for the suppression of heresy,
prompting him to efforts to render the Milanese tribunal more efficient. In
his correspondence of 1564 and 1565, we find him paying the salary of the
inquisitor, enlarging the archiepiscopal prison with the proceeds of
confiscations and discussing the transfer of the Inquisition from the
monastery of le Grazie to the archiepiscopal palace, where it would be more
conveniently and honorably established. He is also recognized as its head,
for Fra Felice da Colorno, the inquisitor of Como, asks his instructions
about a box of books addressed to the impious Vergerio, which he has found
among those hidden by the Rev. Don Hippolito Chizzuola.[247] In fact, the
Inquisition of the period seems to be a curious combination of the
inquisitorial and episcopal jurisdictions. As early as 1549 we find the
Roman Congregation giving to Antonio Bishop of Trieste a commission as
its commissioner as though the ordinary jurisdiction were insufficient.[248]
In 1564 Gasparo Bishop of Asti boasts to Cardinal Borromeo of his earnest

labors in keeping his diocese free of heresy, although the neighboring ones
were infected; in 1565 Costaciario Bishop of Acqui excuses himself for
delay in obeying the summons to the first provincial council (October 15th)
because he was engaged on an important trial of a heretic whom he had
imprisoned; in November of the same year Bollani Bishop of Brescia writes
in considerable dread of the Signory of Venice because he had forced the
podestà to abjure for some impudent and reckless speeches; he throws the
responsibility on the cardinal and begs that his letter may be burnt. A few
days later he seems much relieved, for the podestà has apologized and he
describes a curious assembly “la solita nostra congrega della Santa
Inquisizione,” which he was accustomed to hold weekly in his palace,
consisting of the inquisitor, the podestà, the rettori (or Venetian governors)
and some others, when the inquisitor rejoiced them by reporting that there
were but two heretics in the city, one of whom was mentecaptus.[249]
Evidently Cardinal Borromeo was stimulating his suffragans to increased
zeal and activity and when, in 1566, he came to reside in Milan, his ardor
for the extermination of heresy grew apace, whether through his own
convictions or through the impetuous urgency of the new Inquisitor-Pope,
St. Pius V, whose aim was to subject the whole Christian world to the Holy
Office.[250] There is a curious memorandum drawn up by Borromeo,
detailing the matters to be enquired into in episcopal visitations, which
shows that the persecution of heresy, the efficiency of the Inquisition, the
avoidance of communication with heretics and the observances of the faith
were regarded by him as the points of first importance.[251] In 1568 he was
suddenly summoned to Mantua as the most fitting person to put the
Inquisition there into working order. The duke, Guillelmo Gonzaga, was
liberally inclined and had long given trouble to the Holy Office. Pius V,
soon after his accession, in 1566, had been moved to pious wrath by his
refusal to send to Rome two heretics for trial. A threat to bring him to terms
by open war failed and Pius would have proceeded to extremities, had he
not been dissuaded by the other Italian princes.[252] He contented himself
with sending orders to the inquisitor there, Fra Ambrogio Aldegato, to clear
the city of heretics, who were numerous, but the frate was old; he shrank
from the struggle and, pleading age and infirmity, he asked to be relieved.
Pius gave him the bishopric of Casale and extended over Mantua the
jurisdiction of Fra Camillo Campeggio, styled Inquisitor-general of Ferrara,
who had doubtless been selected as a man of vigor for that post, in view of

the encouragement to the reform given not long before by Renée de France,
the Duchess of Ferrara. The new inquisitor was not favorably regarded by
Gonzaga, who interfered with the public penances and abjurations imposed
by him, who was slack in obeying his commands to make arrests and who
even allowed suspected heretics to escape. Campeggio was more earnest
than respectful in his remonstrances and mutual ill-will increased until, on
Christmas night of 1567, some sons of Belial slew two Dominicans who
had doubtless been overzealous in aiding the inquisitor. No active efforts
were made to detect the assassins; some higher authority was evidently
needed and Pius V, by a brief of February 12, 1568, ordered Cardinal
Borromeo to go there with all speed, to bring the duke to obedience and to
sit with the inquisitor in the trial of cases. Borromeo lost no time in obeying
the mandate and, on his arrival he gave the duke to understand that the
pope’s determination was unalterable; he would rather see all Dominicans
cut to pieces, and all Dominican convents burnt, than that heresy should go
unpunished in Mantua. It required resolute action for there were heretics
high-placed in both Church and State; a company of sbirri had to be
borrowed from Bologna, but Borromeo succeeded in breaking down all
opposition. Already, by May 16th, he was able to report that his mission
was accomplished and that his presence was no longer needed. On May
21st he writes that the duke has come humbly to the inquisitor to beg for
release from prison and sanbenito of two penitents, which was granted,
seeing that they had already been compelled to abjure publicly. As the pope
had rewarded Campeggio with the bishopric of Sutri and Nepi, the duke had
at once begged that the place might be filled by Fra Angelo, the vicar of the
Inquisition, to all of which the cardinal points triumphantly as showing how
the ducal temper had changed. Possibly some explanation of this may be
sought in a request from the duke that the confiscations should be made
over to him, which Borromeo was willing to meet in so far as to suggest
that he be allowed one half. Another reason may perhaps be discerned in his
apprehension of an attack by the Duke of Savoy, for, on June 4th, Borromeo
writes that he had asked for the support of the papacy in such contingency.
Be this as it may, Borromeo was able in June to return to Milan, leaving the
Inquisition firmly established in Mantua.[253]
It is an indication of his predominating zeal for the extirpation of heresy
that when, on May 16th, he begged permission to return to Milan, the
reason he assigned was that he was wanted there for the long-protracted

trial of Nicholas Cid. This was a case which had for years been occupying
the Milanese Inquisition. The accused was treasurer-general of the Spanish
forces, in whose favor Cesare Gonzaga wrote, November 2, 1565, to the
cardinal, repeating what he had frequently stated before, that it was a
persecution arising from malignity.[254] This ardor for the purity of the faith
did not diminish with time. In his second provincial council, held in 1569,
the first decree requires the bishops to promulgate an edict to be read in all
the parish churches, on the first Sundays in Lent and Advent, calling upon
all persons, under pain of excommunication, to denounce within ten days,
to the bishop or inquisitor, any case of heresy or of reading forbidden books
that may come to their knowledge. His own formula for this, in 1572, is
very stringent, insisting on the denunciation of every heretic act or
suspicious word.[255]
It is evident that thus far the episcopal jurisdiction over heresy was not
superseded by the inquisitorial, but that both worked in harmony and,
between the two, it may be questioned whether the Milanese gained much
in escaping the Spanish Inquisition. As the Roman organization perfected
itself throughout Northern Italy, Milan naturally was a centre of activity, as
a sort of bulwark against the influence of Switzerland. The troubles arising
from the inevitable commercial intercourse with the heretics, and the
capitulations which provided for the residence of traders on each side,
continued to be a source of perpetual anxiety and vigilance. Then the transit
of merchandise had to be watched; everything destined for Milan had to be
opened and searched for heretic literature, but packages in transmission
were allowed to pass through, relying upon examination at the points of
destination. Correspondence by mail was also the subject of much
solicitude. In 1588 the Congregation of the Inquisition was excited by the
news that the heretic Cantons proposed to establish in the Valtelline a
school for instruction in their doctrines, whereupon it wrote urgent letters
and threatened to cut off all intercourse if the project was not abandoned. In
the same year it wrote to the Milanese inquisitor favoring warmly the plan
of rewarding those who would capture and deliver to the tribunal heretic
preachers and promising to pay for “this holy and pious work” according to
the importance of the victims kidnapped, but it uttered a warning that this
had better not be attempted in the Grisons, for fear of reprisals that would
ruin the Catholic churches and monasteries there. In 1593 the tribunal was
reminded that, while the capitulations permitted the residence of heretic

merchants from the Grisons and Switzerland, the privilege was confined to
them and all others must be prosecuted and punished. As for Milanese who
desire to go to Switzerland, returning home several times a year, they are to
be watched, and licences are not to be given to reside in places where they
cannot have access to Catholic priests. Then, in 1597, there was fresh
excitement over an edict of the Three Leagues, prohibiting the residence in
the Valtelline of foreign priests and friars. In 1599 the zeal of the Milanese
tribunal seems to have provoked reclamations on the part of the Swiss, for
the inquisitor was ordered not to molest the heretic merchants but to
observe the capitulations strictly. This was doubtless part of an outburst of
persecution for, in 1600, orders were given to seize and retain the children
of the heretics who had fled to Switzerland.[256]
It is evident that the Milanese tribunal had ample work in protecting the
faith from hostile invasion. Its activity continued under the Spanish
Hapsburgs until, in 1707, the genius of Prince Eugene won Lombardy for
Austria, as an incident in the War of the Spanish Succession. It still existed
on sufferance until the eighteenth century was well advanced. In 1771
Maria Theresa foreshadowed the end by ordering that no future vacancies
should be filled and by suppressing the affiliated Order of the Crocesignati,
whose property was assigned to the support of orphanages. This was
followed by a decree of March 9, 1775, declaring that the existence of such
an independent jurisdiction was incompatible with the supremacy and good
order of the State, wherefore it was abolished and, as the inquisitors and
their vicars should die, their salaries should be applied to the orphanages.
[257] Thus passed away the oldest surviving Inquisition, which may be said
to date from 1232, when we find Fra Alberico commissioned as Inquisitor
of Lombardy.

CHAPTER V.

THE CANARIES.[258]
In 1402 Jean de Bethencourt, an adventurer from Normandy, discovered
or rediscovered the Canaries and made himself master of the islands of
Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gomera and Hierro. After various changes of
ownership, they fell to the crown of Castile, and Isabella undertook the
conquest of the remainder of the group, the Grand Canary, Tenerife and la
Palma. The sturdy resistance of the native Guanches rendered the enterprise
an arduous one, consuming eighteen years, and it was not until 1496 that it
was finally accomplished. That Columbus, on his first voyage, took his
departure from Gomera indicates the importance assumed by the Canaries
in the development of trade with the New World and this, conjoined with
their productiveness, as they became settled and cultivated, rendered them a
centre of commerce frequented by the ships of all maritime nations, as well
as an object of buccaneering raids, in an age when trade and piracy were
sometimes indistinguishable. Their proximity to Morocco and the Guinea
coast moreover exposed them to attacks from the Moors and gave them an
opportunity of accumulating Moorish and negro slaves, whom the piety of
the age sought to convert into Christians by the water of baptism. In various
ways, therefore, there came to be abundant material for inquisitorial
activity, although the Judaizing New Christians, who furnished the Spanish
tribunals with their principal business, appear to have been singularly few.
There was no haste in extending the Spanish Inquisition to the Canaries.
As early as 1406 a bishopric had been founded in Lanzarote, subsequently
transferred to Las Palmas in the Grand Canary, which was regarded as the
capital of the group. If the successive bishops, who, with more or less
regularity, filled the see, exercised their episcopal jurisdiction over heresy,
their labors have left no trace. It is not until the time of Diego de Muros,
who was consecrated in 1496, that we have any evidence of such action.
That stirring prelate, who held a diocesan synod in 1497, announced, April
25, 1499, that, as inquisitor by his ordinary authority, he would have inquest
made in some of the islands into heresy and Judaism and other crimes
against the faith. What was the result, we have no means of knowing except

a confession made, on May 22d, by Isabel Ramírez, of having taught a
superstitious prayer which was regarded as sorcery. It is probable that
Bishop Muros was warned that he was invading the jurisdiction of the Holy
Office, for he sent the papers in the case to the tribunal of Seville.[259] It is
noteworthy that, after the establishment of the Canary tribunal, the bishops
and their provisors long continued to use the title of “ordinary” inquisitor,
to which no exception seems to have been taken, although elsewhere it was
contested and forbidden. The latest occasion of its employment with which
I have met occurs in 1672.[260]
It was not until 1505 that the Suprema bethought itself of establishing a
tribunal in the Canaries, when Inquisitor-general Deza appointed as
inquisitor Bartolomé López Tribaldos. The first entry in his register is dated
Tuesday, October 28, 1505, and the earliest record that we have of his
activity is in 1507, when there were two reconciliations, one of Juan de Ler,
a Portuguese, for Judaism, and the other of Ana Rodríguez, a native, for
sorceries, whose sanbenitos were duly hung in the cathedral.[261] What were
the exact powers conferred on Tribaldos we have no means of knowing, but
they must have been exceedingly limited, and for a long time the tribunal
continued to be in close dependence on that of Seville. When, about 1520,
Martin Ximenes, fiscal of the Seville tribunal, came to Las Palmas in the
combined capacity of precentor of the Cathedral, provisor and inquisitor, he
left as his deputy fiscal in Seville Doctor Fernando de Zamora, thus not
abandoning that office. Even as late as 1548 we chance to have the record
of a consulta de fe held by the Seville tribunal, January 13th, to decide on
certain informations and cases sent to it by the Canary inquisitor Padilla. In
the affair of Juan Alonso, a Morisco, it was ordered that he should be
arrested and tried, when the result was to be reported for action. In that of
Juan Fernández, he was to be summoned and examined as to his blasphemy
and then be penanced at the discretion of Padilla and the Ordinary. Leonor
de Lera was to be arrested and tried and the result be submitted. The case of
Diego Martínez had apparently been concluded under Padilla, for the
Seville consulta sentenced him to twelve years of galley service.[262] Thus
every act, from the preliminary arrest to the final decision, was regulated
from Seville. To render the position still more anomalous we hear of an
inquisidor ordinario, Alonso Vivas, Prior of the cathedral, commissioned, in
October, 1523, to try cases of faith throughout the Grand Canary as he had
already done in Telde and Agüimes.[263]

Irregular and imperfect as may have been the organization of the
tribunal, it yet managed to accomplish some convictions. In 1510 there was
held an auto de fe in which there were three reconciliations for Judaism and
one, of a Moorish slave, for reincidence in Mahometan error, while a fifth
culprit was penanced for Judaism.[264] Then in 1513 occurred the first
relaxation, that of Alonso Fátima, a native Morisco, who had fled to
Barbary. This was always deemed sufficient evidence of relapse to former
errors, and he was duly burned in effigy. It was probably also to 1516 that
may be attributed the first relaxation in person—that of Juan de Xeres of
Seville, for Judaism. It shows that the tribunal was indifferently equipped
that, when he was sentenced to torture, the physician whose presence was
obligatory on such occasions, Doctor Juan Meneses de Gallegas, was
required personally to administer it. It was exceedingly severe, extending to
eleven jars of water; the accused was unable to endure it; he confessed his
faith, was sentenced to relaxation as a relapsed and for fictitious confession,
and was executed on Wednesday, June 4th.[265]
Martin Ximenes seems to have performed his duties with commendable
energy. He commenced by making an alphabetical register of all the parties
denounced under his predecessor, comprising 139 individuals, besides
various groups, such as “the Confesos and Moriscos of Lanzarote,” “other
Confesos, their kindred,” “certain persons of Hierro” etc., which indicate
how slovenly had been the procedure.[266] He made a visitation of Tenerife
and la Palma, from which he returned with ample store of fresh
denunciations.[267] May 29, 1524, all the dignitaries, civil and ecclesiastical,
and all the people were assembled in the church of Santa Ana, where an
edict was read commanding them to render aid and favor to the Inquisition,
and an oath to that effect was administered. There was also an Edict of
Grace, promising relief from confiscation to all who would come forward
and confess as to themselves and others; also an Edict of Faith requiring
denunciation of errors and specifying the various kinds of blasphemies and
sorceries and the distinctive Jewish and Moorish rites; and finally an edict
reciting that the Conversos were emigrating and forbidding their leaving the
islands and all ship-masters from carrying away suspected persons without
licence from him, under the penalties of fautorship and of forfeiting their
vessels.[268]
The terror inspired by the activity of Ximenes may be estimated from a
single instance. On May 21st, Ynes de Tarifa came before him to confess

that when, a couple of months before, she had heard of the burning in
Seville of her son-in-law Alonso Hernández and of his brother Francisco,
she recalled that after meals Alonso used to read to Francisco out of a book
in an unknown tongue and, if she had erred in not denouncing this to the
Seville tribunal, she begged to be treated mercifully.[269] The publication of
the edicts throughout the islands brought in an abundant store of
denunciations, the record for eight months, from September 13, 1524, to
May 15, 1526, amounting to 167. They were nearly all of petty sorceries by
women, in sickness or love affairs, but with an occasional blasphemy or
suspicion of Judaism, and persons of station were not exempted, for the list
comprises the Adelantado Don Pedro de Lugo and his wife Elvira Diaz, the
Dean Juan de Alarcon, the Prior Alonso Bivas and others of position. The
adelantado, in fact, was dead, but the accusation against his memory is
sufficiently significant of the prevailing temper to be worth relating. The
Bachiller Diego de Funes came forward, by command of his confessor, to
state that when Diego de San Martin was holding for ransom a Judío de
señal (one obliged to wear a distinctive mark) who had been caught on his
way to Portugal, the captive was starving to death because he could not eat
meat slaughtered by Christians: de Lugo charitably gave him a sheep to kill
according to his rites and even himself ate some of the mutton. These petty
cases kept Ximenes busy and he despatched them with promptness; the
punishments as a rule were not severe—in one or two cases scourging or
vergüenza, but mostly small fines, exile and occasionally spiritual penances.
[270]

There were, however, cases in which the faith demanded more
exemplary vindication. The island of Grand Canary, from 1523 to 1532,
was ravaged with pestilence creating great misery. Among other causes of
divine wrath the people included the secret apostasy of the Portuguese New
Christians and of the Moorish slaves, and demanded severe measures for its
repression. It may have been with an idea of placating God that Ximenes,
on February 24, 1526, celebrated the first auto publico general de fe with
great solemnity, in which all the nobles of the island assisted as familiars.
The occasion was impressive, for there were seven Judaizers relaxed in
person and burnt, there were ten reconciliations, of which five were of
Moorish baptized slaves, four were for Judaism and one of a Genoese
heretic, in addition to which there were two blasphemers penanced.[271]

This is the last that we hear of Ximenes, whose place, in 1527, was filled
by Luis de Padilla, treasurer of the cathedral. For awhile he imitated his
predecessor’s activity and, on June 4, 1530, another oblation was offered to
God, in an auto celebrated with the same ostentation as the previous one.
This time there were no relaxations in person, but there were six effigies
burnt of as many Moorish slaves, who had escaped and were drowned in
their infidelity while on their way to Africa and liberty. There were also the
effigy and bones of Juan de Tarifa, the husband of the Ynes de Tarifa who
had denounced herself in 1524; he was of Converso descent and had
committed suicide in prison, which was equivalent to self-condemnation.
There were three reconciliations, of which two were for Judaism and one
for Islam and five penitents for minor offences.[272] The next auto was held
on May 23, 1534, in which there were two relaxations of effigies for
Judaism and twenty-five reconciliations—twenty-four of Moriscos and one
of a Judaizer. One of the relaxations carries with it a warning, for it was of
Costanza Garza, who had died in 1533 during her trial. When too late her
innocence was discovered and the Suprema humanely rehabilitated her
memory and her children, and ordered the restoration of her confiscated
estate.[273]
Whether this aggressive vindication of the faith put an end to heresy or
whether Padilla had exhausted his energies, it would be impossible now to
say, but after this auto the tribunal sank into lethargy so complete that on
February 8, 1538, the chapter notified Padilla and the secretary, Canon
Alonso de San Juan, that the revenues of their prebends were stopped, for
they did not assist in the choir and it was notorious that the Holy Office had
nothing to do.[274] Possibly this may have stimulated action, but we have
seen that in 1548 the tribunal was merely collecting evidence and obeying
the instructions of the Seville Inquisition. Under this there was an
accumulation of culprits for an auto held in 1557, where there were
seventeen effigies burnt of fugitives—all Moriscos, except a Fleming,
Julian Cornelis Vandyk. There were also four Moriscos reconciled, one of
them, curiously enough, for so-called Calvinism.[275] This seems to have
exhausted whatever remains of energy Padilla possessed for we hear of no
further action by him, except a quarrel with the royal Audiencia in 1562, but
nevertheless the tribunal shared in the suppression of prebends, and a papal
brief assigning one to it was presented to the chapter, August 27, 1563, thus
adding another efficient cause of dissension between them.[276] Soon after

this the tribunal virtually ceased to exist. In 1565 there was a curious case,
of which more hereafter, of John Sanders, an English sailor. It was carried
on wholly by the episcopal provisor, during the absence of the bishop Diego
Deza. There were arrest, sequestration and the collection of voluminous
testimony, which was carefully sealed and despatched to Bishop Deza, to be
handed to the Seville tribunal. Throughout it all, there is no trace of
participation by the local Inquisition, which, in the consuming jealousy of
episcopal encroachments, could not possibly have been the case had there
been a tribunal in the Canaries.[277]
The policy followed thus far had evidently proved a failure, and
Inquisitor-general Espinosa resolved to reorganize the tribunal and render it
independent of Seville. The fiscal of Toledo, Diego Ortiz de Fúnez, was
selected and was sent out as a full inquisitor, with the unusual powers of
selecting and removing his subordinates, while subjected only to the
requirement of reporting his acts to the Suprema. The royal letters
commanding obedience to him are dated October 10, 1567, and he left
Madrid in the Spring of 1568, landing at Las Isletas on April 17th. Four
days later he started for Las Palmas, accompanied in procession by all the
dignitaries, secular and ecclesiastical, of the island. On May 1st all the
population was summoned, under pain of fine and excommunication, to
assemble the next day in the cathedral, at the reading of the Edict of Faith
and to take the oath to obey and favor the Holy Office, all of which was
performed with due solemnity.[278]
Fúnez carried instructions to appoint twenty familiars and no more in
Las Palmas, and such as were found necessary in the other cities and
islands. This was his first care, and he soon had a formidable body,
recruited from the old nobility, to support his authority. Thus far the
Inquisition had had no special habitation, not even a prison, and those under
trial on the most serious charges were confined in their own houses or in the
public gaol, where there was no provision for their segregation. Fúnez
demanded a competent building, with the necessary conveniences, a
demand not easily complied with in so small a place, and he finally was
installed in the episcopal palace, then vacant through the absence of the
bishop.[279] This of course could be but temporary and some other provision
must have been made, for we are told that, when the Dutch under Pieter
Vandervoez, in 1599, took possession of Las Palmas, they burnt both the
episcopal palace and the building of the Inquisition. The former was not

rebuilt until thirty years later by Bishop Murga and the latter, as we shall
see, was reconstructed in due time on a large scale by the tribunal.[280]
A matter not easily understood is the bestowal, May 25, 1568, on Fúnez,
by the dean and chapter, sede vacante, of cognizance of superstitions and
sorcery, because these crimes should not remain unpunished and his powers
as inquisitor were deficient in this respect.[281] These offences in Spain were
recognized as subject to inquisitorial jurisdiction when savoring, as they
always were assumed to do, of heresy and pact with the demon; they
formed by far the larger part of the cases coming before the Canary tribunal
and the previous inquisitors had not hesitated to deal with them. They
formed however a kind of debatable ground, claimed by both the secular
and spiritual as well as the inquisitorial jurisdiction and Fúnez may have
taken advantage of the impression produced by his reception to obtain from
the chapter, in the absence of a bishop, a transfer of its powers.
Fúnez was zealous and energetic in restoring the tribunal to usefulness
and, in about eighteen months, he had accumulated material for an auto de
fe, celebrated November 5, 1569. For this he sent out his proclamation
through all the islands so that, as he boasted to the Suprema, although the
Grand Canary had only fifteen hundred inhabitants, there were fully three
thousand spectators assembled. The new bishop, Juan de Azólares, took so
warm an interest in the affairs of the Inquisition that he voted personally in
all the cases, he walked in the procession and he preached the sermon.
There were twenty-seven penitents for minor offences, involving fines,
scourging, galleys and other penalties, and there were three effigies of
Moriscos relaxed. One of these represented Juan Felipe, a rich merchant of
Lanzarote who, on learning that a warrant had been issued for his arrest,
chartered a vessel under pretext of going to Tenerife, on which he embarked
with his wife and children and some thirty of his compatriots, finding a safe
refuge in Morocco and furnishing material for heightening the interest of
several more autos.[282]
The activity of Fúnez was not confined to the Gran Canaria for he made
repeated visitations to the several islands, gathering in denunciations from
all quarters, so that, between May 2, 1568, and January 4, 1571, the list of
accused amounts to 544 besides a number of collective entries, such as
“bruxas,” “the Frenchmen who took the caravel of the Espinosas,”
“renegades,” “Moriscos of Lanzarote,” “fugitive negroes” etc. The names of
Englishmen and of an occasional Fleming also begin to appear. Yet the

denunciations consist largely of the veriest trifles of careless speech,
indicating how acute was the watchfulness excited to observe and report
whatever might seem to savor of heresy. There was no safety in lapse of
time, for matters were treasured up to be brought out long afterwards, when
there was no possibility of disproving them. In Gomera, October 23, 1570,
María Machin denounced Catalina Rodríguez for telling her of a love-
charm some thirty years before; in Garachico, December 21, 1570, Marina
Ferrera informs on Vicente Martin, a cleric who had gone to the Indies, who
told her more than twenty-seven years before of an unnamed woman who
had tried on him a conjuration to stop nose-bleeding. More serious was the
accusation brought in Laguna, January 14, 1571, by Barbolagusta, wife of
the Regidor Francisco de Coronado, against the physician Reynaldos,
because, twelve or thirteen years before, when the husband of a patient told
her to seek the intercession of the saints, he said that God alone was to be
prayed to and there was no need of saints.[283]
Complaints of Fúnez must have reached the Suprema for, after a short
interval, probably in 1570, Doctor Bravo de Zayas was sent out as visitador
or inspector. He seems to have associated himself companionably with
Fúnez as a colleague and, in August, 1571, he made a visitation of the
islands, bringing back an abundant store of denunciations. The two held
together an auto on December 12, 1574, in which there was but one
relaxation—the effigy of a fugitive Morisco. Four slaves were reconciled,
including a case which is suggestive—that of a negro of whom it is
recorded that he was tortured for an hour, when the infliction was stopped
because he was so ignorant and stupid. Pious zeal for the salvation of these
poor savages led to their baptism after capture; they could not be intelligent
converts or throw off their native superstitions, and no one seemed able to
realize the grim absurdity of adding the terrors of the Inquisition to the
horrors of their enslaved existence. When a negro slave-girl was bemoaning
her condition, she was kindly consoled with the assurance that baptism
preserved her and her children from hell, to which she innocently replied
that doing evil and not lack of baptism led to hell. This was heresy, for
which she was duly prosecuted.[284]
Under the inquisitorial code the attempt to escape from slavery thus was
apostasy, punishable as such if unsuccessful, and expiated if successful by
concremation in effigy. This is illustrated in an auto, held by Zayas and
Fúnez, June 24, 1576, in which among sixteen effigies of absentees were

those of eight slaves, seven negroes and one Moor. They had undergone
baptism, had been bought by Doña Catalina de la Cuevas and were worked
on her sugar plantation. They seized a boat at Orotava and escaped to
Morocco, for which they were duly prosecuted as apostates and their
effigies were delivered to the flames—a ghastly mockery which does not
seem to have produced the desired impression in preventing other
misguided beings from flying from their salvation.[285]
While Zayas thus coöperated with Fúnez, he did not neglect the special
mission entrusted to him. Charges piled up against Fúnez, which he
condensed into a series of thirty articles, embracing all manner of misdeeds
—favoritism, injustice, improper financial transactions, illicit trading with
the Moors of Barbary, ill-treatment of prisoners, lack of discipline in the
tribunal, etc. Zayas and Fúnez seem to have returned to Spain towards the
close of 1576, for the latter’s defence against the charges is dated at Madrid,
February 12, 1577. In this he answered all the points in full detail, with
citation of documents; the people of the islands, he asserts, are given to
perjury and, when offended, bring false accusations to revenge themselves
—a habit which, it may be hoped, he bore in mind when sitting as a judge.
Doubtless he had given them provocation enough to induce them to
exercise their talents in this line against him and the numerous charges
indicate a wide-spread feeling of hostility towards the tribunal. His defence
was skilfully drawn and, on its face, seems to be sufficient.[286]
The Canary tribunal was thus placed upon the same footing as those of
Spain, though perhaps it was subjected to a somewhat closer supervision by
the Suprema than was as yet exercised at home, for we happen to have a
letter of October 11, 1572, ordering that Antonio Lorenzo be released from
the secret prison and be given his house as a prison. Perhaps it felt that
assertion of its authority was necessary, in view of the delay and uncertainty
of communication, for commercial intercourse was not frequent; as Fúnez
says, about this time, it was notorious that there were no vessels sailing for
two or three or even more months.[287] Be this as it may, there was another
visitor sent to the Canaries in 1582, and a third about 1590. The latter was
Claudio de la Cueva, whose visitation lasted until 1597 and was useful in
exposing the iniquities of Joseph de Armas, who had served as fiscal for
more than twenty years. A quarrel between him and the secretary, Francisco
Ibañez, led to mutual accusations and the unveiling of secrets which show
how the terror inspired by the Inquisition and the immunity of its officials

enabled them to abuse their positions. There was a rich and respected
Fleming named Jan Aventrot, married to a native widow, who was accused
by a stepdaughter of eating meat on Fridays and saying that meat left no
stain on the soul; also of eating meat in Lent and speaking Flemish.
Aventrot was secretly a Protestant, which could readily have been
developed by the ordinary inquisitorial methods, but he escaped with a
reprimand and a fine of 200 ducats.[288] How this happened finds its
explanation in the fact that, while he was in prison, Armas obtained from
him, without payment, a bill of exchange on Seville.[289] He also defrauded
the revenue by receiving goods imported by an Englishman named John
Gache (Gatchell?) and selling them through his brother Baltasar. Hernan
Peraza, alguazil of the tribunal, complained that Armas would not pay his
debts and so did Daniel Vandama, a Flemish merchant. A harder case was
that of a chaplaincy in the Inquisition founded by Andrés de Moron for the
benefit of Juan de Cervantes, son of Gaspar Fullana, auditor of accounts in
the cathedral. Armas induced Inquisitor Francisco Madaleno to take the
chaplaincy from Cervantes and give it to him. When Claudio de la Cueva
came, Fullana complained to him and he ordered the chaplaincy restored
and the income accrued during four years, amounting to 190 doblas, to be
refunded. Armas delayed payment for some months and then insisted on
compromising it for 120 doblas, which Fullana agreed to, fearing that
Armas, who was a canon, would induce the chapter to deprive him of his
auditorship, but in place of getting money he received orders on parties at a
distance. In stating this under examination by la Cueva, May 4, 1596,
Fullana begged him not to insist on the restitution of the remaining 70
doblas, for Armas was a dangerous man.[290]
He proved so to the convent of la Concepcion, founded by Doña Isabel
de Garfias, a Cistercian nun, whom Cardinal Rodrigo de Castro, Archbishop
of Seville, had sent to Las Palmas for the purpose. Armas persuaded the
bishop, Fernando de Figueroa, to appoint him as visitor of the convent and
used his authority to cultivate a suspicious intimacy with some of the
younger inmates, to the destruction of discipline and rules of the Order.
When the abbess endeavored to enforce them, he deposed her and replaced
her with Francisca Ramírez, a Dominican, who had accompanied her from
Spain, and who was of near kin to Doña Laura Ramírez, his mistress, by
whom he was said to have a child. The abbess appealed to the archbishop,
who addressed, December 19, 1595, a forcible letter to the bishop,

recapitulating the misdeeds of Armas and ordering him to investigate and
apply the appropriate remedies, but to no purpose, and the abbess turned to
la Cueva, February 28, 1596, with an earnest memorial, imploring his
interposition. Armas, she said, desired her death, for when she was sick he
would not allow the physician to visit her, so that she nearly died.[291] A
more prominent ecclesiastic who experienced the risk of provoking him
was the prior of the cathedral, Doctor Luis Rúiz de Salazar, who was also a
consultor of the tribunal. They had a quarrel in the chapter; Salazar called
him the son of a clockmaker and, when Armas gave him the lie, Salazar
seized his cap and beat him with it. Inquisitor Madaleno promptly threw
Salazar into prison and prosecuted him, but, as the affair concerned a
church dignitary, he was obliged to submit the papers to the Suprema for
the sentence. With unexpected moderation the latter replied, April 2, 1591
that, as the affair took place in the chapter and in the capacity of canons, the
tribunal must abandon the case and allow it to be decided by whatever
judges had jurisdiction—but it did not prescribe any satisfaction to Salazar
for the infamy inflicted by his imprisonment.[292]
Meanwhile the tribunal had been actively performing such duties as
came in its way, strengthened by the addition of another inquisitor, for, in
1581, we find Fúnez replaced with Diego Osorio de Seijas and Juan
Lorenzo, who celebrated a public auto on March 12th of that year. It will be
remembered that, in the auto of 1569, there appeared the effigy of Juan
Felipe, who had escaped from Lanzarote, carrying with him some thirty
other fugitives. The tribunal had not forgotten them and now, after duly
trying them it burnt their effigies, to the number of thirty-one, including
Felipe’s wife and sister and three children, fifteen slaves, mostly negroes
and a miscellaneous group of others. In addition there were fifteen
reconciled penitents, with the usual penalties.[293]
Six years elapsed before there was another auto, celebrated July 22,
1587, in which there were burnt three effigies of a remnant of the Lanzarote
fugitives. There was also the more impressive relaxation of a living man—
the first since that of the Judaizers in 1526. This was an Englishman named
George Gaspar who, in the royal prison of Tenerife, had been seen praying
with his back to a crucifix and, on being questioned, had said that prayer
was to be addressed to God and not to images. He was transferred to the
tribunal, where he freely confessed to having been brought up as a
Protestant. Torture did not shake his faith and he was condemned, a

confessor as usual being sent to his cell the night before the auto to effect
his conversion. He asked to be alone for awhile and the confessor, on his
return, found him lying on the floor, having thrust into his stomach a knife
which he had picked up in the prison and concealed for the purpose. The
official account piously tells us that it pleased God that the wound was not
immediately mortal and that he survived until evening, so that the sentence
could be executed; the dying man was carted to the quemadero and ended
his misery in the flames. Another Englishman was Edward Francis, who
had been found wounded and abandoned on the shore of Tenerife. He saved
his life, while under torture, by professing himself a fervent Catholic, who
had been obliged to dissemble his religion, a fault which he expiated with
two hundred lashes and six years of galley service. Still another Englishman
was John Reman (Raymond?) a sailor of the ship Falcon; he had asked for
penance and, as there was nothing on which to support him in the prison, he
was transferred to the public gaol. The governor released him and, in
wandering around he fell into conversation with some women, in which he
expressed Protestant opinions. A second trial ensued in which, under
torture, he professed contrition and begged for mercy, which he obtained in
the disguise of two hundred lashes and ten years of galleys. In addition
there were the crew of the bark Prima Rosa, twelve in number, all English
but one Fleming. One of them, John Smith, had died in prison, and was
reconciled in effigy; the rest, with or without torture, had professed
conversion and were sent to the galleys, some of them with a hundred
lashes in addition. Besides these, this notable auto presented twenty-two
penitents, penanced or reconciled, for the ordinary offences and with the
usual penalties.[294]
Another auto was celebrated December 21, 1597, with a large number of
penitents, but no relaxations either in person or in effigy. It was the last of
these solemnities held in public, for the next one, December 20, 1608, was
an auto particular, in the cathedral, when three effigies were relaxed.[295] In
fact, while the Inquisition in Spain was consolidating its power and
threatening to dominate the monarchy, in the Canaries there seems to have
been an unconscious combination of opposing forces which crippled its
energies and gradually rendered it inert. Yet during the early years of the
seventeenth century it had vigor enough to burn two unfortunates alive.
Gaspar Nicholas Claysen (Claessens?) a Hollander, had been condemned to
a year of prison, in the auto of 1597, when he must have professed

conversion. He seems to have imagined that he would escape recognition
and, in 1611, he tempted his fate again and sought the Canaries as the
captain of a merchant vessel. He was arrested April 19th and tried again. In
spite of torture he maintained his faith to the last and, on January 27, 1612,
he was sentenced to relaxation, as an impenitent, by the inquisitors Juan
Francisco de Monroy and Pedro Espino de Brito. Then a delay of two years
occurred, possibly occupied with efforts for his salvation, and it was not
until February 22, 1614, that the governor, Francisco de la Rua, was
summoned to hear his sentence and receive him for execution. There was a
Dutch ship in the harbor and many of his compatriots in the town, so that
his rescue seems to have been feared, for such is the reason given for
loading him with chains and guarding him with four soldiers carrying
arquebuses with lighted matches. At the appointed hour he was paraded
through the streets, under a guard of soldiers, to the plaza de Santo
Domingo, where he was duly burnt alive. The next year, on June 2, 1615,
Tobias Lorenzo, a Hollander settled in Garachico (Tenerife), who had been
arrested in 1611, was burnt as a relapsed Protestant.[296]
This was the last relaxation in person, making, according to Millares, a
total of only eleven since the foundation of the tribunal, but, as he omits the
earliest one, Juan de Xeres, the count amounts to twelve.[297] After this a
long interval occurs before there was even an effigy burnt. Duarte
Henríquez Alvarez was a Portuguese New Christian, who was a collector of
the royal revenues and a rich merchant in Tenerife. In his frequent voyages
to Europe he fell in love with the daughter of an Amsterdam correspondent
and resolved to marry her and return to the faith of his ancestors. He
remitted to Holland as much money as he could without exciting suspicion,
he abandoned to the Inquisition the rest of his considerable property and
departed, never to return. He was duly prosecuted in absentia and
condemned to relaxation in effigy. Permission to execute the sentence in an
auto particular was asked of the Suprema and its assent was received, May
29, 1659. No time was lost; on June 1st the auto was held in the cathedral;
the effigy was delivered to the corregidor and was solemnly burnt in the
quemadero, being the last execution in the Canaries.[298] From this time to
the end of the century the work of the tribunal was almost nothing, the
records of the prison showing that there were rarely more than one or two
prisoners.[299]

Before following the history of the tribunal to its decadence and
extinction, we may pause to consider its condition and the various
directions in which its activity was developed.
Its financial resources presumably were limited. During the earlier term
of its career, when it had no buildings of its own and no prison to maintain,
when its officials for the most part were drawn from the chapter and other
beneficed incumbents, an occasional confiscation and levying of fines
probably met the moderate necessary expenses. In 1563 it had the benefit of
a suppressed prebend and when, in 1568, Fúnez was sent to organize it, the
energy of his administration doubtless supplied the funds necessary for the
establishment which he founded. Imposing fines, however, probably was
easier than collecting them, for when, in 1570, he was about to depart on a
visitation of the islands he impressed upon the fiscal, Juan de Cervantes,
that there were many persons who owed the fines to which they had been
condemned and he was especially empowered to use all the rigor of law in
compelling payment.[300] This seems to have been the only source thus far
of funds, for when one of the charges against Fúnez, in the visitation, was
that he kept no book for recording confiscations, his reply, in 1577, was that
there had been none since that of the Felipes (in 1569) and this was so
involved that he waited till he could visit Lanzarote and straighten it out.
[301]

A more promising field, however, as we shall see, was now developing
in the prosecution of heretic merchants and shipmasters who were seeking
the trade of the Canaries, when a latitudinarian construction of the law
permitted the seizure of vessels and cargoes, on which the grip of the
Inquisition was not easily relaxed. Either from this or some other source the
tribunal was emerging from its poverty, for a stray document shows us that,
in 1602, it was investing 5000 ducats in a ground-rent, from which it was
still receiving the income in 1755.[302] We also catch a glimpse of its affairs
in 1654, when the Seville Contratacion sent its fiscal to the Canaries to put
a stop to the exportation of wine to the Indies, the commerce of which was
confined to Seville. On June 15th the tribunal addressed to Philip IV a
memorial, arguing that to cut off this trade would be the total destruction of
the islands, which now pay the king 60,000 ducats a year over the expenses
of the garrison and judiciary, for the English took only the malmsey of
Tenerife and the rest of the vintage, amounting to 16,000 pipes per annum,
went to the Indies. The bishopric, now worth 30,000, would not be worth

10,000; as for the Inquisition, it held ground-rents on the vineyards paying
22,232 reales and 28 maravedís, which it would lose, and, as its only other
source, the prebend, was worth only 300 ducats a year, its support would
fall on the king.[303] The only relief obtained from the king was permission
to ship 1000 tuns a year to various American ports. Whether the tribunal
suffered or not we have no means of knowing, but in 1660 we find it
gathering in the estate of Duarte Henríquez, burnt in effigy in 1658, and
applying 1942 reales from it to the renewal of 212 sanbenitos, hung in the
churches, which had become worm-eaten and indistinct with age.[304]
This does not look as if the tribunal were oppressed with poverty; in fact
it must have enjoyed abundant means for about this time it completed what
is described as an imposing palace for its habitation. This had a spacious
patio, covered with an awning in hot weather, which led into a handsome
garden, opening upon a street in the rear. To these the public was freely
admitted and they formed a thoroughfare from one street to another, the
object of which was to enable witnesses and informers to come without
attracting attention. In the building were lodged the senior inquisitor, the
gaoler and the subordinate officials, the prison and the torture-chamber
being in the rear.[305] Later financial data are missing, but the tribunal
probably managed to meet its expenses to the end, with no greater difficulty
than those of the Peninsula. From first to last it was not burdened with a
punitive prison or casa de la misericordia, and its sentences to confinement
are always to convents or to the houses of the culprits or to hold the city as
a prison. The detentive or secret prison was economically administered, the
ration, as we learn in 1577, being only 24 maravedís a day. The visitor,
Bravo y Zayas, was assailed with many complaints by the inmates of
insufficient food, which they ascribed to the knavery of the officials, but
Fúnez explained it by saying that, while in the Canaries there were usually
one or two months of scarcity in a year, there had been a famine lasting
through 1571, 1572 and 1573, when the price of bread went up to a cuarto
of six maravedís for two or three ounces and the people were reduced to
eating chestnuts; meat was correspondingly scarce and the supply of fish
was very uncertain. Rich and poor suffered alike and, as the prisoners’
allowance was in money, their food was unavoidably diminished.[306]

Judaizing New Christians, who furnished, in the Peninsula, so abundant
a source of exploitation, formed a comparatively insignificant feature in the

activity of the Canary tribunal. At first there was better promise, as we have
seen in the statistics of the earlier autos, but these energetic proceedings
seem either to have driven them away or to have thoroughly converted them
and, in the subsequent period, the cases of Judaism are singularly few, in so
far as we can learn from existing documents. In 1635 there is a
denunciation of a Dutchman named Rojel, who had been in Tenerife and
who subsequently was seen in Holland, dressed and living as a Jew. In
1636, a man named Mardocheo, aged 80, resident of La Laguna in Tenerife,
was accused of talking Judaism by a man who had been a fellow-prisoner
with him in the public gaol. In 1638 the Licenciado Diego de Arteaga was
suspected of being de casta de Judío, in consequence of irregular conduct in
a procession. In 1653, Francisco Vicente, a West Indian, who had
accompanied his master Diego Rodrigo Arias from Havana to London and
thence to Tenerife, denounced him for taking a crucifix every night from his
chest and flogging it for half an hour. In 1659 we have seen the relaxation
in effigy of Duarte Henríquez Alvarez. In 1660 Fray Matias Pinto accused
Antonio Fernández Carvajal of saying that he was a Jew since Protector
Cromwell had broken peace with Spain. In 1662 Gaspar Pereyra, alias de
Vitoria, was convicted of Judaism and sent to Seville to serve out his term
of imprisonment. His grandmother had been burnt and his business as a
merchant had carried him to Brazil, Angola, Lisbon, Madrid, Antwerp,
Amsterdam, Middelburg and many other places, so that he had a
comprehensive acquaintance with the communities of Jewish refugees
everywhere, and the care with which the minute evidence that he gave
concerning them was collected and ratified, although they were all out of
reach, shows that the paucity of cases in the records is not the result of any
lack of desire to persecute. It was natural however that the inquisitors
should enquire about Gerónimo Gómez Pesoa, a rich Lisbon merchant who
disappeared just in time to avoid arrest and, as an English vessel sailed that
night without a licence, he was supposed to have escaped in it—a
supposition fortified by learning that he had joined the colony of Conversos
in Rouen and had thence gone to Amsterdam.[307] Doubtless there were
more cases than these, but the records available do not furnish them.

During the sixteenth century baptized Moorish and negro slaves
furnished a certain amount of business, especially when they escaped and
added to the impressiveness of the autos with their effigies, but

subsequently we hear little of them. When prosecuted in person it would
seem that the owner was obliged to pay for their maintenance, for a warrant
of arrest, in 1575, of Pedro Morisco manco, slave of Pedro d’Escalona,
requires eight ducats to be brought with him, to be furnished by his master.
[308] There is one case of a free Morisco which is not easy to understand.
About 1590, Sancho de Herrera Leon, with his wife and children, was
carried off in a Moorish raid. After a short time he returned and, although he
asserted that he had come back to preserve his faith, he was made to abjure
de levi, was fined in forty doblas and was exiled perpetually from Lanzarote
and Fuerteventura, under pain of scourging and galleys.[309] In the
seventeenth century we hear little of such cases, but in 1619 there occurs
one which throws some light on the fate of the Moriscos expelled from
Spain in 1610. Juan de Soto, born in Valladolid and brought up as a
Christian, was seven years old at the time of the expulsion. The family
passed into France; at Toulouse his parents and brothers died, but a kinsman
took charge of him and carried him to Barbary, where he was circumcised
and made to utter certain words in Arabic. For seven years he served
various masters, who carried him twice to Constantinople, Alexandria and
other places. In 1618 a fleet sailed from Algiers to the Canaries, in which he
served a Turkish captain named Hamet. Sent ashore on Lanzarote with a
foraging party and attacked by the natives, three were killed and he was
wounded and captured. The Inquisition claimed him, which was probably
fortunate for him, for, as a renegade he escaped with reconciliation and four
years of sanbenito and reclusion in a convent.[310]
Renegades, in fact, were quite numerous, and the facility is noteworthy
with which Christians when captured abandoned their faith. The tribunal
kept a close watch on them and all who escaped from Barbary were closely
questioned as to fellow-prisoners who had renegaded, when these could be
prosecuted in absentia, or record be kept to confront them in case of their
return.[311]

The vast number of denunciations which kept pouring in upon the
tribunal shows how sedulously the population was trained as spies and
informers upon their neighbors. Many of the alleged offences were of the
most trivial character, yet they have their interest as an index of the
hypersensitiveness of orthodoxy with which the Spanish mind was imbued.
Among the cases which Doctor Bravo y Zayas brought home with him for

trial, from his visitation of the islands in 1571, was that of a man who,
while dressing himself, was annoyed by the glare of the sun and pettishly
exclaimed “Devil take the sun,” which was gravely qualified as blasphemy.
Another who, in a procession, had aided in carrying the frame on which was
seated an image of the Virgin, remarked that it was a load for a camel,
which was decided to be ill-sounding and offensive to pious ears. Even
absence of intention did not excuse. In 1591, Gaspar López of Tenerife,
when on guard one night, went through the exercise of arms with his
partizan, in the course of which he happened to strike a wooden cross that
was behind him, and for this he was sentenced to the indelible disgrace of
appearing in an auto, followed by vergüenza—parading on an ass through
the streets, naked from the waist up, while the town-crier proclaimed his
misdeed.[312] This hyperæsthesia did not diminish with time. In 1665 the
tribunal entertained and investigated an accusation that a certain person
when praying allowed his rosary to hang down his back, which was
regarded as irreverence.[313]
How readily such a system could be abused to gratify malevolence is
indicated in the case of the Dominican Fray Alonso de las Roelas. In March,
1568, he made an utterance about purgatory which excited remark, and
some of his brother frailes discussed it with him, when Fray Blas Merino, a
prominent member of the Order, said that Roelas was simple and did not
know what he said and that it was not for them to denounce him. Some
years later, however, Blas Merino, in the hope of being made Provincial,
was engaged in a sort of plot to get the Canaries separated from the
Province of Andalusia and erected into a province of the Order. The
Dominican authorities heard of this and Roelas was commissioned to seize
all the papers connected with it and to notify Merino to abandon the project.
To revenge himself Merino hunted up all the witnesses to Roela’s utterance
and persuaded them to denounce him in 1572. Bishop Azólares, whose zeal
for the Inquisition we have seen, said that the matter was not worth
prosecuting, because Roelas did not deny purgatory, which was a matter of
faith, while its place and the character of its torment were matters of debate
with theologians. Nevertheless Roelas was arrested and tried, and, as usual
during trial, he was recluded in the convent of his Order in Las Palmas. One
midnight he came knocking at the door of the Inquisition; Fúnez was
awakened and sent him word that it was no time for him to call and that he
could come the next day. He did so and stated that his brethren so

maltreated him, because he had once served as inspector of the house, that
he asked to be placed in the secret prisons, a request which was granted,
and he stayed there until sentenced. The sentence punished him with
reclusion and he was delivered to the prior of the convent, when they at
once commenced snarling and growling at each other like quarrelsome
dogs. Fúnez rebuked the prior, telling him to avoid such public scandals and
that he would send Roelas to the convent in Tenerife until the Provincial
should decide as to his place of reclusion. Fúnez probably spoke from
experience when he said that among frailes there was no restraint nor truth,
but only envy.[314]

The Canaries enjoyed an ample supply of beatas revelanderas, but, as a
rule, the tribunal did not follow the example of the Peninsula in molesting
them. One of the most renowned of these was Catalina de San Mateo, a nun
of the house of Santa Clara in Las Palmas, who had ecstasies and
revelations and was reverenced as a saint. God spoke with her familiarly
through the medium of a painted Ecce Homo, which hung in her cell, giving
her counsels and spiritual comfort and prophecies. On her death, May 26,
1695, the body lay for three days emitting the odor of sanctity and was
viewed by a vast concourse, eager to touch it with rosaries and other
objects, and all her clothes and effects were treasured as relics. All this is
described in a letter of July 5th, to the Suprema, by the inquisitors Lugo and
Romero, who express no doubts as to her holiness. Commencement was
made to collect testimony for her canonization, but enthusiasm evaporated
and the effort was abandoned. She was succeeded in popular veneration by
Sor Petronila de San Esteban, of the convent of San Bernardo in Las
Palmas, which she had entered in 1680, at the age of four. She was a bride
of God; the child Jesus came to nestle in her arms; the man Christ came to
soothe her with sweet words; legions of angels, headed by David, came to
rejoice her with the music of heaven. She had terrible conflicts with
demons, whom she overcame, and a little wooden image of St. John, with
which she held discourse, was the medium through which she enjoyed
revelations and prophecies. The Inquisition took no action to interfere with
her and almost the only case in which it instituted proceedings, in such
matters, was one, in 1695, against Don Miguel de Araus, confessor of two
beatas in La Laguna, Francisca Machado de San José and Margarita de
Santa Teresa, the former of whom boasted of the stigmata.[315]

In the later period a very considerable share of the labors of the tribunal
was devoted to cases of “solicitation”—the seduction of women by their
confessors. It was not until 1561 that this crime was subjected to
inquisitorial jurisdiction, under the pretext that it implied erroneous belief
as to the sacrament of penitence, and some time was required to settle the
question of including it in the Edict of Faith calling for denunciations. The
earliest case I have met occurs in 1574, when María Ramos accused her
confessor, Fray Pedro Gallego.[316] After this they occur with increasing
frequency and offenders appear to be treated with even more sympathetic
leniency than in Spain. There was moderate rigor in the sentence of Fray
Pedro de Hinojosa, denounced in 1579 by numerous maids, wives and
widows, for he was deprived of the faculty of hearing confessions, he
received a circular discipline in his convent and he was recluded for three
years in a convent with the customary disabilities.[317] Much less severity
was shown, in 1584, to Manuel Gómez Pacheco, priest of Garachico,
accused by a number of women, for he was only sentenced to abjuration de
levi, deprivation of administering the sacrament of penitence, two months
reclusion in a convent and some spiritual exercises.[318] The penalties varied
with the discretion of the tribunal. About 1590 Fray Antonio Pacheco
Sampayo, against whom there were many accusers, was deprived of
confessing, had three years of reclusion and fifty lashes in his convent,
while Andrés de Ortega, parish priest of Telde, likewise accused by several
women, was deprived merely of confessing women, fined in twenty ducats
and severely reprimanded.[319]
Cases grow more frequent with time and, with their increasing
frequency, the penalties seem to grow less. In 1694 Fray Domingo Mireles
was accused by four women, with details of foul obscenity. He was
sentenced to deprivation of confession and reclusion for four years, but was
allowed to choose his place of retreat. He served out the term, went to
Spain, and returned with a rehabilitation charitably granted by the
inquisitor-general. In 1698 Fray Cipriano de Armas was prosecuted on the
evidence of two women; the case was carried to the end and remitted for
decision to the Suprema, which ordered its suspension. In two cases in 1742
the sentence was merely deprivation of confessing, six months’ reclusion
and five years’ exile from certain places. In 1747 Fray Bartolomé Bello had
not only seduced Maria Cabral González, but had strangled in his cell a

child born to them, after piously baptizing it, but when the case reached the
Suprema it was suspended. In 1750 Francisco Rodriguez del Castillo was
prosecuted on very serious charges but was only suspended for two years
from confessing and given some spiritual exercises. In 1755 there were nine
complainants against Fray Francisco García Encinoso, who was deprived of
confessing and sentenced to six months’ reclusion, when he was sent to the
convent of N. Señora de Miraflor, with instructions to the superior to keep
the matter profoundly secret and to treat him well. In 1769 Fray Domingo
Matos was sentenced only to six months’ reclusion and the denial of certain
privileges, which was subsequently remitted. The sympathy of the tribunal
apparently was exhaustless and frequently resulted in practical immunity. In
1785, Fray Joseph Estrada, Franciscan difinidor, was accused by several
women with full details, but the tribunal, on December 7, 1793, suspended
the case. Then, in 1804, he was again accused by a nun in the convent of la
Purisima Concepcion of Garachico. Finally, after twelve years’ delay, on
February 28, 1805, the tribunal ordered its commissioner to give him
audiencias de cargos, or private examinations, on report of which the case
would be voted on, bearing in mind the advanced age of the accused and the
difficulty of communicating with the Suprema, in consequence of the war.
This was the last of the matter for, on April 9, 1806, the commissioner at
Ycod reported the death of the culprit.[320] When so serious an offence was
visited so lightly, we can scarce be surprised that its subjection to
inquisitorial jurisdiction failed to check it. There naturally was much
difficulty in inducing women to come forward as accusers, yet the number
of denunciations was large and steady. Thus, from July 26, 1706, to
February 15, 1708, the total denunciations of all kinds to the tribunal was
75; of these only 22 were of men, out of which 7, or practically one-third,
were for solicitation.[321]

The bulk of the business of the tribunal consisted in trials for sorcery,
under which term were included all the superstitions, more or less innocent,
employed to cure or to inflict disease, to provoke love or hatred, to discover
theft and to pry into the future, for theological ingenuity inferred pact,
express or implicit, with the demon in everything which could be construed
as transcending the powers of nature, except the ministrations of the priest
or exorcist. Such a community as that of the Canaries, in which the
primitive magic arts of the natives were added to those of their conquerors,

and on these were superimposed the beliefs of Moorish and negro slaves,
could not fail to accumulate an incongruous mass of superstitions affecting
all the acts of daily life, and the summaries of cases printed by Mr. Birch
afford to the student of folk-lore an inexhaustible treasury of curious details.
No matter what might be the industry of the tribunal in prosecuting and
punishing the practitioners of these arts, it could effect nothing in repressing
them, or in disabusing popular credulity, for its very jurisdiction was based
on the assumption that the powers attributed to the sorcerer were real, and
he was punished not as an impostor but as an ally or instrument of the
demon.
It would carry us too far to attempt even a summary of the multitudinous
superstitions embalmed in the records, but a couple of cases may be
mentioned which illustrate the popular tendency to ascribe to sorcery
whatever excited wonder, and also the good sense which sometimes
intervened to protect the innocent. In 1624, Diego de Santa Marta of
Garachico was denounced as a sorcerer to the tribunal in consequence of his
performance of some tricks with cards. The accusation was entertained and
Fray Juan de Saavedra was ordered to investigate and report. He invited
Diego to exhibit his skill and the performance took place in the cell of the
Provincial, Fray Bernardo de Herrera, who was a consultor of the
Inquisition, with whom were associated Padre Luzena, regent of the
schools, several theological professors and Don Francisco Sarmiento,
alguazil of the tribunal. Diego was not aware that he was practically on trial
before this imposing assemblage, and he performed some surprising card
tricks as well as sundry other juggleries. Fortunately for him the spectators
were clear-sighted and Fray Saavedra reported that it was all a matter of
sleight of hand, which could be detected by careful observation.[322] More
serious was the denunciation, in 1803, of any one of four women named
(apparently the individual was not identified) who had, twelve years before,
administered to María Salome some snuff which caused her to bark like a
dog. Luckily Doctor Elchantor, the inquisitor-fiscal, had a touch of the
rationalism of the age. He reported that the vomiting and extraordinary
movements alleged might have been produced by natural causes; that
among timid and ignorant women there was a habit of attributing all disease
to sorcery; that it could not be said that the snuff had been prepared with
diabolic arts and that there were no other suspicions against the parties

accused. He therefore advised that the papers be simply filed away, and in
this Inquisitor Borbujo concurred.[323]
Although the term bruja, or witch, occasionally appears in the records,
there would not appear to be any cases of specific witchcraft. The nearest
allusions to the Sabbat occur in 1674, when Doña Isabel Ybarra testified
that, a year before, Doña Ana de Ascanio told her that Don Juan de Vargas,
now dead, told her that once, in returning home about midnight; he
encountered a dance of women with timbrels and lighted candles. In the
same year Fray Pablo Guillen deposed that at midnight he saw Guillerma
Peré naked; she anointed herself and flew through the air with another
woman. Connected with this was the statement that a son of Juan
Hernandez, at midnight, found in the street Doña Ana María, widow of
Captain Juan de Molina, entirely naked. He took her to her house, when she
gave him a garment and begged him to keep silence.[324]

For a comparatively brief period the most important work of the tribunal
concerned the foreign heretics—mostly Englishmen and Flemings, or rather
Hollanders—who frequented the islands, whether for peaceful commerce or
for piracy. As the port of call in the trade with America, the islands were the
favorite resort of the sea-rovers of all the nations at enmity with Spain, that
is of nearly all Europe, in hopes of capturing some rich galleon or of
ravaging some unprotected spot. In 1570, a Norman Huguenot, cruising off
Gomera, seized a vessel starting for Brazil with forty Jesuit missionaries; he
put them all to death and landed his other prisoners at San Sebastian, a port
of Gomera, which next year was sacked by another French corsair.[325] To
some extent, doubtless, the Inquisition was regarded as a safeguard against
such marauders. In 1589, an Englishman, captured at Garachico from the
ship of Vincent Pieter the Fleming, was said to have been a pirate who had
pillaged in company with other Englishmen, and was brought before the
tribunal, although nothing else was alleged against him. About the same
time certain French “pirates,” taken on the islet of Graciosa, off Lanzarote,
were delivered to the tribunal, when they proved themselves to be good
Catholics by their familiarity with the prayers and other observances.[326]
Much more serious was the interference of the Inquisition with those
who came to trade, and it is difficult to understand how Spain could carry
on any commerce with foreign nations under the impediments which it

interposed. The earliest case in the records is one to which allusion has
already been made, that of John Sanders who, in 1565, came as a sailor in a
vessel from Plymouth, of which the master was James Anthony, the cargo
consisting of 28 casks of sardines, 20 dozen of calf-skins and a lot of
woollen goods, the property of the master and his brother Thomas. On
arrival at Las Isletas, as Sanders could speak and write Spanish, Anthony
got him to enter the goods as his own and installed him in a shop to sell
them. After two or three months, one day the public scrivener, Melchor de
Solis, came and demanded three reales, which Sanders refused. While they
were talking he placed his hand on the wall, where there was hanging a
paper print of Christ, which he had not recognized, as its face was turned to
the wall and it was partly torn. Passing his hand over it, a piece fell off,
when Solis charged him with tearing an image of Christ; he picked it up,
reverently kissed it and replaced it. The story spread and caused scandal; in
the abeyance of the tribunal, the provisor took up the matter, arresting
Sanders March 29th and sequestrating the property, which consisted of
2492 reales in money, 3½ casks of sardines and 2½ dozen of calf-skins, all
of which was duly placed in the hands of the secrestador, and, in addition,
Leónez Alvarez testified that he had bought and paid for goods to the
amount of 340 ducats. Under examination Sanders professed himself a
Catholic; he could recite the Pater Noster and Credo and the Ave Maria
without the final clause imploring the prayers of the Virgin, which he said
he had never been taught; he could cross himself but did not know the
peculiar Spanish form; he reverenced images of saints although the Queen
of England had banished from the churches all but those of Christ and the
Virgin, and he had attended mass since he came. Then James Anthony came
forward and claimed the property, confirming the story of Sanders, and it
was delivered to him, but not until he had furnished satisfactory security to
abide the result. What was the outcome we have no means of knowing, as
the papers were sent to the tribunal of Seville for its action, but the least that
could happen to Sanders and Anthony was interminable delay.[327]
Trading with the Canaries evidently was a hazardous business and the
danger increased as time went on, for it sufficed that the crew were heretics
to justify their trial and punishment, with the accompaniment of
sequestration and confiscation. Thus on April 24, 1593, a single vote
ordered the arrest with sequestration of the pilot and other officers, the
sailors and boys and passengers of the ship named El Leon Colorado and of

all who came in the ship named San Lorenzo, both now at anchor in the
port of Las Isletas.[328] The case of the Leon Colorado is suggestive. She
was an English ship which, until 1587, had been employed in the Lisbon
trade under a licence from the Marquis of Santa Cruz, but after his death
she seems to have been transferred to Flanders. On this voyage she had
sailed from Antwerp, a Spanish port, under a licence from Alexander of
Parma, the nephew of Philip II and the governor of the Low Countries. The
escrivano or purser of the ship, Franz Vandenbosch, while on trial, procured
a certificate from the municipal authorities of Antwerp setting forth that his
parents were good Catholics and so were their children, and that Franz had
sailed for the Canaries with the licence and passport of the Duke of Parma.
The only effect of this was a vote to torture him, on learning which he
confessed that in Mecklenburg he had embraced Calvinism, and his
sentence was reconciliation and confiscation, prison and sanbenito for three
years and perpetual prohibition to visit heretic lands or to approach within
ten leagues of the sea, for which reason he was to be sent to Spain. Another
member of the crew Georg Van Hoflaquen asserted his Catholicism and
adhered to it through four successive inflictions, each of three turns of the
cordeles. Then he was ordered to be placed on the burro or rack, when he
declared that he could no longer endure the agony and that he was a heretic.
He was sentenced to reconciliation and confiscation, and three years of
prison and sanbenito, with the corresponding disabilities.[329]
In these cases the adverse evidence is almost wholly derived from other
members of the crews, who had no hesitation in testifying to their
comrades’ Protestantism. There was usually no concealment attempted but,
when orthodoxy was asserted, torture was unsparingly employed.
Conversion did not obtain much alleviation of punishment. Another of the
crew of the Leon Colorado was Jacob Banqueresme, a Hollander, who
freely admitted his Calvinism. He knew nothing of Catholicism but was
ready to embrace it if it seemed to him good. Theologians were set to work
and, in due time, he announced his conversion and was formally admitted to
the Church, but he was sentenced to be sent to Spain and confined in a
convent for two years, in order to be thoroughly instructed, and he was
prohibited to go to heretic lands or to approach the sea within ten leagues.
[330]

The result of these labors was seen in the auto of 1597, in which there
were seventeen Englishmen and Flemings reconciled, with imprisonment

ranging from two to eight years, and twenty-six penanced, with from one to
four years of prison, the ships to which they belonged being La Rosa, San
Pedro, La Posta, San Lorenzo, Leon Colorado, Margarita and María
Fortuna.[331] There were no obstinate heretics and no martyrs. When this
active proselytism was carried on for twenty years or more with its
consequent confiscation of ships and cargoes, it is easy to understand the
financial ease of the tribunal and to conjecture its influence on the
commerce and prosperity of the islands.
This flourishing industry was interfered with by the treaty with England
ratified by James I on August 29/19, 1604, and by Philip III on June 16,
1605. It provided that English subjects visiting or resident in the Spanish
dominions were not to be molested on account of their religion, so long as
they gave no occasion for scandal, and this was extended to the United
Provinces in the twelve years’ truce, concluded in 1609.[332] The caution
induced by the treaty, even before its ratification by Spain, is exemplified in
the case of Edward Monox, an English captain and merchant, charged
September 10, 1604, with offences in the matter of images and with
following the doctrines of Luther and Calvin. The consulta de fe, September
11th, unanimously voted his arrest with sequestration but that, before
action, the papers be sent to the Suprema for its decision, in view of the
considerations of state arising from the peace with England, and from the
fact that he was a rich merchant who, since the death of Queen Elizabeth,
had twice come with highly commendatory passports from the Spanish
ambassador in London.[333]
While thus some wholesome restraint was imposed on the Inquisition
and the vexations inflicted on merchants and seamen became much less
frequent, they did not wholly cease, for the Suprema construed the treaties
arbitrarily in such wise as to limit the privileges of foreign heretics as far as
possible. How it still continued to throw obstacles in the way of trade may
be seen in the petition of Jacob and Conrad de Brier and Pieter Nansen,
merchants of Tenerife, presented May 3, 1611. The ship Los Tres Reyes
arrived at Las Isletas with some goods for them; for some reason, not stated,
it had been seized by the tribunal and its cargo had been sequestrated and
they sought release of their property. Their prayer was granted and, on May
25th, an order was given to deliver to their agent the packages specified and
their letters, subject however to the payment of the cost of disembarking the
goods, the carriage to Las Palmas, the fees of the secrestador for keeping

them, 24 reales to the interpreter of the tribunal for his trouble, 18 ducats 4
reales for the freight and 10 reales average to the ship, at the rate of one real
per package.[334]
When war broke out with England, lasting from 1624 to 1630, of course
the treaty of 1604-5 became dormant, but it was not until April 22, 1626,
that a royal proclamation of non-intercourse with England appeared,
confiscating all English goods imported in contravention of it, and this was
followed, May 29th, by a carta acordada of the Suprema ordering the
prosecution, in the regular way, of all Englishmen who had been delinquent
as regards the faith.[335] This led to a discussion between the three
inquisitors. Francisco de Santalis presented a long opinion to the effect that
in Tenerife there were very many of them who, in spite of the war,
remained, in place of departing as enemies. The orders of the Suprema were
therefore applicable to them; Catholics incurred the risk of
excommunication in supplying them with food and were exposed to the
danger of infection; they were delinquents in not hearing mass or
confessing and communing, and in eating meat on fast days. This was not
only a great scandal, but it afforded opportunity of flight and of concealing
their property, which was large. He therefore voted that secret information
be taken as to their delinquencies and, when this was sufficient, that they
should all be arrested and their property be sequestrated, after which the
orders of the Suprema could be awaited as to their prosecution. The other
two inquisitors, Alonso Rincon and Gabriel Martínez, referred to a
consultation had on September 2d with the Ordinary, the consultors, and the
calificadores, when it was resolved that the matter be referred to the
Suprema and no action be taken till its orders were received; the royal
proclamation had said nothing about residents; to seize them and their
property would be a great hardship; the commissioners at La Laguna,
Orotava and Garachico had been instructed to be vigilant and no
denunciations had been received. It is creditable to the tribunal that it
resisted the temptation of seizing the large amount of property involved,
and the English appear not to have been molested.[336]
Yet the position of the foreign merchants was exceedingly precarious, as
is shown by the case of John Tanner, prior to these deliberations. He was
arrested and brought to the prison, November 12, 1624. On examination he
stated his age as 22; he was a baptized Christian, who kept feast-days and
Sundays, but did not hear mass or confess, for in his country there was no

mass or confession; he knew nothing of the Catholic faith and had never
been instructed in it. When asked as usual if he knew the cause of his arrest
he said that he did not, unless it was because Juan Jánez, the commissioner
at Garachico, had asked him for some linens and a pair of wool stockings
which he refused, when Jánez called him a heretic dog and they came to
blows, and then he was thrown into the public gaol. On being told, as usual,
to search his memory, he added that once he went with some other
Englishmen to La Laguna to see Don Rodrigo de Bohórquez, then governor
of Tenerife; he asked Bohórquez to pay him 400 pesos owing to him and
2800 reales due to Robert Spencer for goods taken, when Bohórquez grew
angry and said that Henry Ysan was the cause of all the English making
demands upon him; if he had hanged him while in his power there would be
none of this and he was a heretic dog, for no one could be a Christian who
was not a Roman. Tanner replied that one could be a Christian without
being a Roman, when Bohórquez called for witnesses and swore that he
should suffer for it. Tanner was then asked what he meant by saying that
one could be a Christian without being a Roman, when he fell on his knees
and begged mercy if he had erred. He was a poor youth and had a ship lying
at Garachico, on which he had to pay demurrage of 120 reales a day, while
the embargo on his property prevented his despatching her. At a second
audience on November 19th he again begged mercy on his knees; his credit
was being ruined by the demurrage on his ship, and the loss fell on his
principal. Then, on the 23d, he asked for an audience in which he
represented that the ships were loading and preparing to sail, while his was
idle; his whole career was being wrecked; he begged them for the love of
God to have mercy on him and tell him what he had done; he had lived in
the religion of his fathers and must continue to do so, or he could not return
to England; he had engaged to serve his master for seven years and his
parents were under bonds for him. The pleadings of the poor wretch were
fruitless; the case dragged on through the customary formalities and, on
February 11, 1625, the consulta de fe voted that he be absolved ad cautelam
and be recluded for two years in a convent for instruction, at the expiration
of which he must bring a certificate of improvement. In accordance with
this, on February 18th, he was placed in the Franciscan convent, his
maintenance being paid for as a pauper.[337] Proselytism after this fashion
can scarce have conduced to the salvation of souls, however much it may
have replenished the treasury of the Holy Office.

With the peace of 1630 the provisions of 1604 were revived but hardly a
year passed in which some Englishman was not thrown in prison and
prosecuted on one pretext or another, as Roderick Jones, in 1640, for saying
that God alone is to be prayed to, and Edward Bland, in 1642, for having a
Bible in his house.[338] In spite of this the flourishing wine-trade of the
islands brought many English and Hollanders as residents, and there was
even an English company established at Tenerife, where, in 1654, the
tribunal reported that there were more than fifteen hundred Protestants
domiciled, who were prevented from infecting the people by its incessant
vigilance. The captains-general usually sought to protect them, and the
influence of their ambassadors in Madrid was invoked on occasion, but,
when one fell sick, the Inquisition sought to isolate him from his family and
friends and put him in charge of theologians to convert him, giving rise to
unseemly contests in which it was not always successful. To remedy this the
tribunal, September 18, 1654, asked of the Suprema power to insist that
when one of the rich Protestant residents fell sick, his compatriots should be
excluded and entrance should alone be permitted to learned Catholics who
might wean him from his errors.[339] We should probably do no injustice to
the motives of the tribunal in assuming that this was dictated rather by the
expectation of pious bequests than by zeal for death-bed conversions.
Foreigners sometimes sought to avert trouble by pretending Catholicism
and thus placed themselves in the power of the tribunal, which was
constantly on the watch for them. In 1654, for instance, Fray Luis de
Betancor was summoned and interrogated as to his knowledge of such
cases, to which he replied that, some twelve years before, Evan Pugh, an
English surgeon, had come to Adeje to cure Doña Isabel de Ponte, and
sometimes went out to hunt with her brother Juan Bautista de Ponte. He
remembered that one day, when he had finished celebrating mass, he was
told that Pugh had stood at the church-door with his hat in his hand, and it
was currently said that he confessed to Fray Juan de Medina. Similarly, in
1674, we find the Hollander Pieter Groney testifying that when he sailed
from the Texel in 1671 Juan de Rada was a fellow-passenger, who told him
he was a Protestant and as such joined in the services during the voyage,
but, when the ship was visited on arrival he swore that he was a Catholic
and had since then acted exteriorly as a Catholic, though, when they lived
together for a couple of months, he ate meat freely on fast days and he
regarded him as a Protestant rather than as a Catholic.[340] What was the

outcome in these cases cannot be told, but the investigations illustrate the
careful watchfulness of the tribunal and the dangers incurred by residence
within its jurisdiction. Even his official position did not protect from
prosecution Edmund Smith, the British consul at Tenerife, when he was
accused, in 1699, of maltreating converts to Catholicism and of persuading
and threatening those inclined to it, even, it was said, shipping them away
when other measures failed.[341]
In the 18th century, while foreign vessels were closely watched and a
vigilant eye was kept on resident Protestants, they were no longer molested
with investigations and denunciations. If, in 1728, Philip V ordered the
expulsion of all foreigners, it was not on religious grounds, but to put an
end to frauds on the revenue. None, however, were expelled, although some
professed conversion to save themselves from annoyance.[342] A similar
impulse seems to have impelled Dr. James Brown, a physician of Tenerife,
who wrote, in March, 1770, to the tribunal, from the Augustinian convent of
La Laguna, in which he had sought asylum from the captain-general, who
was seeking to seize him and send him to England. To secure its protection
he asserted his desire to abjure his errors and to be received into the
Catholic Church, but in this he failed for, on July 14, he was ordered to
leave the islands within forty days.[343]

The intellectual activity of the Canaries was not such as to call for much
vigilance of censorship, at least during the earlier period. The visitas de
navíos, or examination of ships arriving, for heretics and heretic books, was
performed after a fashion, but the tribunal was inadequately equipped for
the duty. One of the charges against Inquisitor Fúnez, in 1577, was his
sending the gaoler to perform it, to which he replied that he had done so but
once and that on occasions he had sent the fiscal or the secretary; it was not
his business and he had no one to whom to depute it.[344]

Towards the middle of the seventeenth century there was some little
activity with regard to the foreign Protestants, who were assumed to be
subject to the rules of the Index. The prosecution of Edward Bland, in 1642,
for possessing a Bible, seems to have attracted attention to this and, on July
5, 1645, the tribunal ordered its commissioner at Orotava to take the
alguazil, notary and two familiars and visit the houses of the English
heretics, secretly, without disturbance and with much discretion, asking
them to exhibit all the books they possessed, examining all their chests and
packages, making an inventory of all books and their authors, and making
them swear before the notary as to their having licences to hold them; also
whether they had been examined by the Inquisition and, if so, at what time
and by what officials. If there were works by prohibited authors, or such as
had not been seen by the Inquisition, they were to be deposited with a
suitable person, sending a report to the tribunal, with lists of the books, and
awaiting its action. If portraits or busts of heresiarchs were found they were
to be seized and deposited with the books.
Under these elaborate instructions the search was duly made and the
reports, if truthful, would indicate that literature and art were not
extensively cultivated by the English traders. Nothing dangerous was found,
though of course, as regards English books, the investigators had to accept
the word of the owners. In one house they describe, as hanging on the walls
of a room, very ugly half-length portraits of a strange collection of worthies
—Homer, Apelles, Philo Judæus, Aristotle, Seneca, Pliny, two of Gustavus
Adolphus and one without a name. It is perhaps significant that nowhere
was there a Bible, a prayer-book or a work of devotion. The houses of two
Portuguese traders were similarly inspected, where were found pictures of
saints and of damsels with exuberant charms; also of Barbarossa and of
some other pirates.[345] Possibly supervision of this kind may have
continued for, on June 7, 1663, Richard Guild was summoned to the
tribunal to describe six English books and four pamphlets, found in
possession of Edward Baker, when among them there proved to be several
controversial works as to Presbyterianism and the Independents. So, in
1670, Captain Joseph Pinero, a Portuguese, who was building a ship, was
denounced for the more dangerous offence of having some Jewish books,
but diligent search failed to discover them.[346]
Books, however, were not the only objects of censorial animadversion.
In 1671 some plates and jars with figures of Christ, the Virgin and the

saints, sold by Juan Martin Salazar of Ycod, were apparently deemed
irreverent, as subordinating the divine to the commonplace of daily life, and
Fray Lucas Estebes was ordered to go to his shop, with alguazil and notary,
and break the stock on hand, at the same time ascertaining the name of the
seller and of all purchasers. Soon after this, in 1677, an edict was issued
ordering the surrender of some snuff-boxes, brought by an English vessel,
which were adorned with two heads—one with a tiara and the legend
Æcclesia perversa tenet jaciem diaboli, and the other of a philosopher and
the motto Stulti sapientes aliquando.[347]
In the latter half of the eighteenth century there seems to be more
intellectual activity and desire to seek forbidden sources of knowledge, for
we begin to hear of licences to read prohibited books. A register of them,
commencing in 1766, shows that when obtained from the inquisitor-general
they had to be submitted to the tribunal for its endorsement, but it could
exercise the discretion of suspending and protesting, as in the case of one
granted, in 1786, by Pius VI and endorsed by Inquisitor-general Rubin de
Cevallos, to Fray Antonio Ramond, on which the tribunal reports that he
ought not to have it, as he is of a turbulent spirit and disorderly life.
Licences generally made exception of certain specified books and authors,
but sometimes they were granted without limitation. When the holder of a
licence died, it was, as a rule, to be returned to the tribunal.[348]
At this period the main activity of the tribunal was in its function of
censorship. It did not content itself with awaiting orders but assumed to
investigate for itself; nothing escaped its vigilance, and we are told that the
monthly lists which it forwarded to the Suprema of the books denounced or
suppressed are surprising as coming from a province so small and so
uncultured. In fact, in 1781 it expressed its grief that great and small, men
and women, were abandoning themselves to reading, especially French
books.[349] To do it justice it labored strenuously to discourage culture and
to perpetuate obscurantism.
Yet the visitas de navíos, as described in a letter of August 23, 1787,
were less obstructive to commerce than the practice in Spain. When a vessel
cast anchor, after the visit of the health officer, the captain landed and, in
company with the consul of his nation, went to the military governor, and
then to the Inquisition where, under oath, he declared his nationality, his
port of departure and what passengers and cargo he brought. When the
vessel was discharging, the secretary of the tribunal superintended the

process and noted whatever he deemed objectionable, whence it often
happened that matters adverse to religion were seized.[350]
Notwithstanding all vigilance, however, the dangerous stuff found
entrance. The works of Voltaire and Rousseau were widely read among the
educated class and the hands of the tribunal were practically tied. It would
laboriously gather testimony and compile a sumaria against one who read
prohibited books, only to be told, when submitting it to the Suprema, to
suspend action for the present. In a letter of May 24, 1788, it complained
bitterly of this and of the consequent diminution of respect for the
Inquisition. Chief among the offenders were the Commandant-general and
the Regent of the Audiencia, whose cases had been sent on April 26th. Their
openly expressed contempt for the tribunal perverted the whole people, who
laughed at censures and read prohibited books. An object of especial
aversion was the distinguished historian of the Canaries, José de Viera y
Clavijo, Archdeacon of Fuerteventura. His sermons had caused him to be
reprimanded repeatedly and, when his history appeared with its explanation
of the apparition of the Virgen de Candelaria and other miracles of the
Conquest, and its account of the controversies between the chapter and the
tribunal, the indignation of the latter was unbounded. A virulent report was
made to the Suprema, September 18, 1784, which remained unanswered.
Another was sent, February 7, 1792, complaining of the evil effect of
allowing the circulation of such writings, but this failed to elicit action, for
the work was never placed on the Index.[351]

Whatever may have been its deficiencies in other respects, the tribunal
seems never to have lost sight of its functions in fomenting discord with the
authorities, secular and ecclesiastical. In 1521 we hear of Inquisitor
Ximenes excommunicating some of the canons, in consequence of which
the chapter withdrew the revenue of his prebend and sent a special envoy to
the court, but he appealed to Rome and a royal cédula of July 8, 1523,
ordered the chapter to make the payments.[352] Even during the inertness of
Padilla’s later inquisitorship, he had sufficient energy to carry on a
desperate quarrel with the Audiencia. He ordered the deputy governor, Juan
Arias de la Mota, to arrest Alonso de Lemos, who had been denounced to
the tribunal and, on his obeying, the Audiencia arrested and prosecuted him,
which led to an envenomed controversy in which excommunications and
interdict were freely employed, until Philip II, February 16, 1562, ordered

the liberation of Arias, adding an emphatic command in future to give to the
inquisitor and his officials all the favor and aid that they might require in
the discharge of their duties and to honor them as was done everywhere
throughout his dominions. It was doubtless in the hope of putting an end to
these unseemly disturbances that Philip, by a cédula of October 10, 1567,
prescribed rules for settling competencias, or conflicts over jurisdiction.
The inquisitor and the Regent of the Audiencia were required to confer,
when, if they could not come to an agreement, the bishop was to be called
in, when the majority should decide.[353]
No regulations were of avail to prevent the dissensions for which all
parties were eager and which were rendered especially bitter by the
domineering assumption of superiority by the Inquisition. It was not long
after Fúnez had reorganized the tribunal that he became involved in an
angry controversy with Bishop Cristóbal Vera. Alonso de Valdés, a canon,
incurred the episcopal displeasure by removing his name from an order
addressed to the chapter for the reason that he was not present. Vera
thereupon imprisoned him incomunicado so strictly that his food was
handed in to him through a window. It chanced that Valdés was also notary
of the tribunal and Fúnez claimed jurisdiction, but the bishop refused to
surrender him, in spite of the fact that the absence of its notary impeded the
Inquisition. The tribunal complained to the Suprema which came to its aid
in a fashion showing how complete was the ascendancy claimed over the
episcopal order, and how little chance a bishop had in a contest with such an
antagonist. Inquisitor-general Quiroga wrote to Vera that, if the fault of
Valdés was such that he should punish it, this should have been done in
such wise as not to impede the operation of the tribunal. He hoped that
already the case would have been handed over to the tribunal to which it
belonged and that in future Vera would not give occasion for such troubles.
This was enclosed in a letter of instructions from the Suprema prescribing
the utmost courtesy and the most vigorous action. Fúnez is to call, with a
witness, on the bishop and demand the person of Valdés and the papers in
the case, as being his rightful judge, at the same time promising his
punishment to the bishop’s satisfaction. If Vera refuses, Quiróga’s letter is
to be handed to him, and if he still refuses he is to be told that he obliges the
tribunal to proceed according to law.
This so-called law is that the fiscal shall commence prosecution against
the bishop and his officials for impeding the Inquisition. Then the inquisitor

is to issue his formal mandate against the provisor, officials, gaolers, etc.,
ordering them, under pain of major excommunication and 200 ducats
without further-notice, to surrender Valdés within three days to the tribunal
for punishment, so that he can resume his office of notary. If this does not
suffice, a similar mandate is to be issued against the bishop, under pain of
privation of entering his church. If the provisor and officials persist in
disobedience through three rebeldias (contumacies of ten days each), the
inquisitor shall proclaim them excommunicated. If the bishop is stubborn he
is to be prohibited from entering his church and to be admonished that if he
does not comply he will be suspended from his orders and fined. If he
perseveres through three rebeldias, letters shall be issued declaring him to
have incurred these penalties and admonishing him to obey within three
days under pain of major excommunication. If still contumacious, letters
shall be issued declaring him publicly excommunicated and subject to the
fine, which shall be collected by levy and execution. In all this he is not to
be inhibited from cognizance of the case, but only that he must not impede
the Inquisition by detaining its notary, and, as it is very possible that he may
seek the aid of the Audiencia, if it intervenes it is to be notified of the royal
cédula (of 1553) prohibiting all interference in cases concerning the
Inquisition.[354]
This portentous document was received in the tribunal, April 11, 1577. It
was impossible to contend with adversaries armed with such weapons and
Bishop Vera was obliged to submit. Not content with its triumph the
tribunal undertook to humiliate him still further. Doña Ana de Sobranis was
a mystic who believed herself illuminated and gifted with miraculous
powers. In 1572 she had denounced herself because a Franciscan, Fray
Antonio del Jesús, had given her, as he said by command of God, nine
consecrated hosts, which she carried always with her and worshipped. The
tribunal took the hosts and dismissed the case but, as the bishop was her
warm admirer and extolled her virtues, to mortify him, in 1580, the fiscal
presented a furious accusation against her, as a receiver and fautor of
heretics and heresies. She was arrested and imprisoned, but the tribunal had
overreached itself. She had friends who appealed to the Suprema and, in
May, 1581, there came from it a decision ordering a public demonstration
that she was innocent and that there had been no cause for her arrest.[355]
Undeterred by the fate of Bishop Vera, his successor Fernando de
Figueroa, about 1590, had a lively struggle with the tribunal. He

excommunicated Doctor Alonso Pacheco, regidor of the Grand Canary and
deputy governor of Tenerife, because he would not abandon illicit relations
with a married woman. The tribunal intervened and evoked the case, giving
rise to a prolonged competencia, which remained undecided in consequence
of the death of the culprit.[356] Causes of such strife were never lacking and
the first half of the seventeenth century was largely occupied by them and
by an endless struggle to compel the chapter to allow to the inquisitors
cushioned chairs in the cathedral.[357] On one occasion, in 1619, the chapter
offended the tribunal by obeying a royal cédula and disregarding a threat
which enjoined disobedience. The canons were thereupon excommunicated
and appealed to the king, who found himself obliged to withdraw the
cédula.[358] The overbearing conduct of the tribunal produced a chronic
feeling of exasperation and the veriest trifle was sufficient to cause an
outbreak. One custom provocative of much bad blood was that of selecting
in Lent a fishing-boat and ordering it to bring its catch to the Inquisition,
when, after supplying the officials and prisoners, if there was anything left
it might be sold to the people. In 1629 the municipality fruitlessly
complained of this to the visitor Juan de Escobar, and in 1631 there was an
explosion. The Audiencia rudely intervened by throwing in prison
Bartolomé Alonso, the luckless master of a boat selected, and threatening to
scourge him through the streets. He managed to convey word to the
tribunal, which at once sent its secretary Aguilera to the Audiencia, with a
message asking the release of Alonso, but the Audiencia refused to receive
anything but a written communication and Aguilera came back with a
mandate requiring obedience under pain of two hundred ducats, but he was
received with insults and Alonso was publicly sentenced to a hundred
lashes. Then the tribunal declared the judges excommunicate, displayed
their names as such in the churches and had the bells rung. The Audiencia
disregarded the censures and arrested Aguilera, while the Alcaide Salazar,
who had accompanied him, hid himself, but the Audiencia ordered a female
slave of his to be seized and his house to be torn down, in response to which
the tribunal published heavier censures and fines, demanding the release of
the prisoners. Then Bishop Murga intervened and asked the tribunal to
accept an honorable compromise, but it refused; he returned to the charge,
urging the affliction of the people, who dreaded an interdict at a time when
there was so much need of rain and when Holy Week was approaching; if
reference were made to the Suprema there would be a delay of six months

and meanwhile the prisoners under trial by the Audiencia would languish in
gaol, for the judges would be incapacitated by the excommunication. The
inquisitors, in their report to the Suprema, explained that, seeing that the
people were ready for a disastrous outbreak, and as the bishop promised
that the prisoners should be released at once (as they were, after a
confinement of five hours) they ordered the excommunicates to be absolved
and abstained from proceeding against the guilty. Then, when peace seemed
restored, the quarrel broke out fiercely again, for the inquisitors demanded
the surrender of the warrant of arrest, which Bartolomé Ponce, the official
charged with it, refused to give up. He was arrested and as, after two days,
he appealed to the Audiencia, they manacled him and ordered the arrest of
the advocate and procurator who had drawn up the appeal. This secured the
surrender of the document and the inquisitors felicitated themselves to the
Suprema on the vigor with which they had impressed on every one the
power of the Inquisition. Whether the innocent cause of the disturbance, the
fisherman Bartolomé Alonso, received his lashes, seems to have been an
incident too unimportant to be recorded.[359]
Rodrigo Gutiérrez de la Rosa, who was bishop from 1652 to 1658, was a
man of violent temper, not as easily subdued as Bishop Vera, and his
episcopate was a prolonged quarrel with his chapter and with the tribunal.
In 1654, Doctor Guirola, the commissioner at Santa Cruz de Tenerife, was
denounced, for his oppression, to the bishop, who ordered an investigation
and his arrest if cause were found. This proved to be the case and the arrest
was made, against which the tribunal protested in terms so irritating that
Gutiérrez excommunicated all its officials, ringing the bells and placing
their names on the tablillas, besides imposing a fine of 2000 ducats on each
of the inquisitors. They met this by calling on the civil and military
authorities for forcible aid and summoned all the bishop’s dependents to
assist them. Miguel de Collado, the secretary, went to the cathedral to serve
these notices, on hearing which Gutiérrez hastened thither with his
followers and, not finding Collado, proceeded to the house of Inquisitor
José Badaran, which he searched from bottom to top for pledges to secure
the payment of the fine. Word was carried to the tribunal, when the
inquisitors, with a guard of soldiers, went to Badaran’s house, which they
found barred against them, broke open the door and a stormy interview
ensued. The bishop in the cathedral, published Badaran and the fiscal as
excommunicates; the inquisitors ordered the notices of excommunication

removed and fined the bishop in 4000 ducats. To collect this, they
embargoed his revenues in Tenerife and he in turn embargoed the fruits of
their prebends. They obtained guards of soldiers posted in their houses and
in that of the fiscal, fearing attack from the satellites of the bishop, such as
he had made in 1552 in the cathedral and in 1554 at the house of the dean.
In reporting all this to the Suprema, they promise to send the fiscal with all
the documents by the next vessel, for the authority and power of the
Inquisition depend upon the result.[360]
While this was pending a quarrel arose between the tribunal and the
chapter, because the latter refused to pay to the fiscal the fruits of his
prebend. Inquisitor-general Arce y Reynoso ordered the chapter to make the
payment, which led the canon Matheo de Cassares and the racionero
Cristóbal Vandama to commit certain acts of disrespect. To punish this the
inquisitors, on November 16, 1655, arrested them, in conformity with the
rules prescribed by the Suprema, in its letter of September 6, 1644,
respecting the arrest of prebendaries, but, at the prayer of the chapter, they
were released on the third day. They were friends of Bishop Gutiérrez, who
nursed his wrath until December 26th, when there was a solemn celebration
in the cathedral, at which Inquisitor Frias celebrated mass. When Inquisitor
Badaran entered and took his seat in the choir, Gutiérrez in a loud voice
commanded him to leave the church, as he was under excommunication for
arresting clerics without jurisdiction. To avoid creating a tumult he did so;
Frias celebrated mass and then joined him in the tribunal, where they drew
up the necessary papers. The affair of course created an immense scandal
and led to prolonged correspondence with the Suprema, which ordered it
suspended April 12, 1657.[361] They were not much more successful in the
outcome of the previous quarrel, although they succeeded, at the end of
1656, in procuring a royal order summoning Gutiérrez to the court. In
communicating this to the bishop, December 13, 1656, the Licenciate Blas
Canales advises him, if he has any money to spare, to invest it in a jewel for
presentation to the king, through the hands of the minister Louis de Haro.
He probably followed the judicious counsel, for the matter ended with a
decree relieving him from the fine imposed on him by the inquisitors.[362]
The next encounter was with the Audiencia, in 1661. For eight years
there had been no physician in the island, when the tribunal, needing one
for the torture-chamber, induced, in 1659, Dr. Domingo Rodríguez Ramos
to come. He became a frequent visitor at the house of Doña Beatriz de

Herrera, the amiga of the judge Alvaro Gil de la Sierpe, to whom she had
borne several children. Sierpe became jealous and, on some pretext, Dr.
Ramos was arrested, January 28, 1661, and imprisoned in chains. The
tribunal asserted its jurisdiction by inhibiting the Audiencia from
prosecuting the case and, on this being disregarded, the judges were
excommunicated with all the solemnities. They impassively continued their
functions; the tribunal then excommunicated the officials of the court, who
were more easily frightened; for several months there was much popular
excitement but, in October, the competencia was decided in favor of the
Audiencia—doubtless because the physician was not an official of the
tribunal—and a royal letter sharply rebuked the inquisitors.[363]
The tribunal was evidently losing its prestige and matters did not
improve with the advent of the Bourbon dynasty. The enmity between it and
the chapter continued undiminished and when, on the death of the Marquis
of Celada, in 1707, his son, the Inquisitor Bartolomé Benítez de Lugo,
asked that his exequies should be performed in the cathedral, the request
was refused. This led to a violent rupture, in the course of which the
tribunal voted the arrest of the canons, with sequestration. The chapter
appealed to Philip V, who condemned the tribunal in a cédula of November
7, 1707. This did not arrive until the following year, when the chapter kept
it secret until Easter; in the crowded solemnity of the feast-day, when
Inquisitor Benítez was present, a secretary mounted the pulpit and read the
royal decree, to his great mortification.[364] Even worse befell the tribunal in
1714, when its inexcusable violence, in another quarrel with the chapter, led
Philip V to demand the recall of the inquisitors and to enforce his
commands in spite of the repeated tergiversations of the Suprema.[365]

As the eighteenth century advanced, the hostility of ecclesiastics and
laymen towards the tribunal continued unabated, while respect for it rapidly
decreased and its functions dwindled, except in the matter of censorship. A
curious manifestation of the feeling entertained for it is to be found in the
attitude of the parish priests with regard to the sanbenitos of the heretics
hung in their churches. A report on the subject called for by the Suprema, in
1788, elicited the statement that for many years there had been no culprits
of the class requiring sanbenitos. In 1756, when the walls of the parish
church of Los Remedios de La Laguna were whitened, the incumbents
resisted the replacement of the sanbenitos, or at least wished to hang them

where they should not be seen, but the tribunal ordered them to be
renovated and hung conspicuously. In the Dominican church of Las Palmas,
there used to be sanbenitos, but they had disappeared and the inquisitors
could not explain the cause of their removal. Eight years ago the parish
church of Telde was whitened and the incumbents would not replace them;
Inquisitor Padilla was informed of this, but he took no action. The only ones
then to be seen in Las Palmas were in the cathedral; the building was
undergoing alterations and the walls would be whitened, which the
inquisitors expected would be alleged as a reason for removing them.[366]
Equally suggestive of the feeling of the laity is the fact that, when the
position of alguazil mayor fell vacant, it was offered in vain to
representatives of the principal families, who all declined under various
pretexts.[367]
The sentiment of the population was duly represented by the eloquent
priest Ruiz de Padron in the debates of the Córtes of Cádiz, in 1813, and the
suppression of the Inquisition was greeted by the ecclesiastics of the
Canaries in a temper very different from that manifested in the Peninsula.
The bishop, Manuel Verdugo, a native of Las Palmas, was an enlightened
man, who had had frequent differences with the tribunal. The decree of
suppression was received by him March 31st; it was his duty to take charge
of the archives and to close the building, and he lost no time in
communicating it to the inquisitors, José Francisco Borbujo y Riba and
Antonio Fernando de Echanove. The chapter was overjoyed and, at a
session on April 3d, it addressed the Córtes, characterizing the decree as
manifestly the work of God and as removing from the Church of Christ a
blemish which rendered religion odious. The same afternoon the sanbenitos
in the cathedral were solemnly burnt in the patio. The bishop also reported
to the Córtes that their manifesto, which had excited the canons of Cádiz to
such extremity of opposition, had been duly read that morning, and that he
had been greatly pleased to see that the acts of the Córtes had been received
throughout his diocese with universal satisfaction. He lost no time in taking
possession of the archives, but the inquisitors had already taken the
precaution to remove, from the volume of their correspondence with the
Suprema, two leaves in which they had spoken ill of him. The financial
officials at the same time assumed charge of the landed property and
censos, or ground-rents, of the tribunal, which we are told were large and
numerous. Inquisitor Borbujo remained at his post, awaiting the reaction.

The poets of the island were prompt in expressing the exuberance of their
joy in verses, for which action was subsequently taken against the priest,
Mariano Romero, Don Rafael Bento and Don Francisco Guerra y
Bethencourt.[368]
When the Restoration swiftly followed, Inquisitor Borbujo received, on
August 17, 1814, the decree re-establishing the Inquisition and called on the
bishop to surrender the building, but the latter declared that he must await
orders from competent authority. On September 29th there came an order
for the re-installation of the tribunal and Borbujo made another effort to
gain possession of the building and property, but it was not until a royal
mandate of November 28th was received that he succeeded in doing so. The
tribunal was thus fairly put on its feet again, but such was the abhorrence in
which it was held that its edicts were torn down, its jurisdiction was
everywhere contested, and its offices of alguazil and familiars could not be
filled.[369]
Thus resuscitated, it diligently collected the pamphlets and periodicals
and verses of the revolutionary period, and molested their authors as far as
it could. In fact, under the Restoration, except the occasional prosecution of
a wise-woman, its functions, as in Spain, were mainly political, liberalism
being equivalent to heresy and, except when it had some political end in
view, its efforts were ridiculed by both the civil and military authorities,
which regarded it with no respect and encroached upon it from all sides.
When the Revolution of 1820 broke out, news of Fernando VII’s oath to the
Constitution and decree of March 9th suppressing the Holy Office reached
Santa Cruz de Tenerife April 29th and Las Palmas some days later. Amid
popular rejoicings, the Inquisition closed its doors, delivered up its archives
and the inquisitors sailed for Spain. No care was taken of the archives,
which were pillaged by curiosity hunters and those whose interests led them
to acquire documents concerning limpieza or old law-suits. What remained
were stored in a damp, unventilated place; when removed, they were carried
off by cartloads, without keeping them in any order and, in 1874, Millares
describes them as forming a pile of chaotic, mutilated and illegible papers
in a room of the City Hall.[370]
The reader may reasonably ask what, in its labor of three centuries, the
tribunal of the Canaries accomplished to justify its existence.

CHAPTER VI.

MEXICO.

The ostensible object of the Spanish conquests in the New World was the
propagation of the faith. This was the sole motive alleged by Alexander VI,
in the celebrated bull of 1493, conferring on the Spanish sovereigns
domination over the territories discovered by Columbus; it was asserted in
the codicil to Queen Isabella’s will, urging her husband and children to keep
it ever in view, and it was put forward in all the commissions and
instructions issued to the adventurers who converted the shores of the
Caribbean into scenes of oppression and carnage.[371] If Philip II was
solicitous to preserve the purity of the faith in his own dominions, he was
no less anxious to spread it beyond the seas; he prescribed this as one of the
chief duties of his officers, describing it as the principal object of Spanish
rule, to which all questions of profit and advantage were to be regarded as
subordinate.[372]
It must be admitted, however, that the effort to spread the gospel lagged
behind those directed to the acquisition of the precious metals. It is true
that, on the second voyage of Columbus, in 1493, the sovereigns sent Fray
Buil, with a dozen clerics and full papal faculties, but he busied himself
more in quarrelling with the admiral than in converting the heathen.[373]
The first regular missionaries of whom we have knowledge were two
Franciscans who, in 1500, accompanied Bobadilla to the West Indies and, in
a letter of October 12th of that year, reported to the Observantine Vicar-
general, Olivier Maillard, that they found the natives eager for conversion
and that they had baptized three thousand in the first port which they
reached in Hispañola.[374] They were followed, in 1502, by a few more
Franciscans under Fray Alonso del Espinal, a worthy man, according to Las
Casas, but who could think of nothing but the Summa Angelica of his
brother Franciscan, Angelo da Chivasso.[375] The first earnest effort to
instruct the natives was made by Fray Pedro de Córdova, who came in 1510
with two Dominicans and was soon followed by ten or twelve more; during
the succeeding years he and the Franciscans founded some missionary
stations on the coast of Tierra Firme, but they were broken up by the

Indians in 1523.[376] As, however, we are told that none of the missionaries
took the trouble to learn the Indian languages, their evangelizing success
may be doubted.[377]
The efforts to organize a church establishment proceeded but slowly at
first. Hispañola was divided into two bishoprics, San Domingo and la Vega.
For the former, at a date not definitely stated, the Franciscan, García de
Padilla, was appointed, but he died before setting out to take possession.
For the latter, Pero Suárez Deza, nephew of Inquisitor-general Deza, was
chosen and we are told that he governed his see for some years[378] but, as
he figures in the Lucero troubles of Córdova, in 1506, as the “archbishop-
elect of the Indies” the period of his episcopate is not easily definable.
However this may be, the first bishop who appears in the episcopal lists of
Hispañola is Alessandro Geraldino, with the date of 1520.[379] Cortés, who
had asked to have bishoprics organized in his new conquests, speedily
changed his mind and requested Charles V to send out only friars. The
priests of the Indians, he said, were so rigidly held to modesty and chastity
that, if the people were to witness the pomp and disorderly lives of the
Spanish clergy, they would regard Christianity as a farce and their
conversion would be impracticable. Charles heeded the warning and, during
the rest of his reign, he appointed as bishops only members of the religious
Orders, while the secular clergy were but sparingly allowed to emigrate and
those who succeeded in going earned as a body a most unenviable
reputation.[380] The Church thus started grew rapidly and, towards the close
of the century, Padre Mendieta informs us that New Spain (comprising
Mexico and Central America) had ten bishoprics, besides the metropolitan
see of the capital, four hundred convents and as many clerical districts, and
that each of these eight hundred had numerous churches in its charge.[381]
It seems strange that the Spanish monarchs, combining earnest desire for
the propagation of the faith with intense zeal for its purity, should have so
long postponed the extension of the Holy Office over their new dominions,
while thus active in building up the Church. The Indian neophytes, it is true,
were not in need of its ministrations, but the colonists might well be a
subject of concern. Manasseh ben Israel (circa 1644) tells us that, after the
expulsion in 1492, many Jews and Judaizing New Christians sought an
asylum in the New World and that Antonio Montesinos, a Spanish Jew who
had long lived there, reported that he found the Jewish rites carefully
preserved, especially in certain valleys of South America.[382] It is true that

there were repeated efforts to prohibit New Christians and those who had
been penanced by the Inquisition, with their descendants, from emigrating
to the Indies, but this was a provision difficult to enforce, and relief from it
was a financial expedient tempting to the chronically empty treasury of
Spain. In the great composition of Seville, in 1509, there was a provision
that, for twenty thousand ducats, the disability should be in so far removed
that such persons could go to the colonies and trade there for two years, on
each voyage. After Ferdinand’s death, this was confirmed by Charles V, but
he soon afterwards, September 24, 1518, ordered the Casa de Contratacion
of Seville not to permit them to embark. They complained loudly of this
violation of faith and, on January 23, 1519, he ordered the Inquisition of
Seville to examine the agreement and, if it was found to contain such a
clause, the prohibition should be withdrawn. Six months later, on July 16th,
it was renewed, exciting fresh remonstrances that they were compelled to
pay the money while the privilege was denied. The matter was then referred
to the Suprema, which decided that the complaints were justified,
whereupon Charles, on December 13th, ordered the inquisitors of Seville to
permit them to go, provided the whole amount of the composition, eighty
thousand ducats, had been fully paid.[383] Thus, in one way or another, the
enterprising New Christians sought successfully to share in the lucrative
exploitation of the colonies, and it illustrates the ineffectiveness of Spanish
administration that, in 1537, it felt obliged to call in papal assistance to
supplement its deficiencies. Accordingly Paul III, in his bull Altitudo divini
consilii, forbade all apostates from going to the Indies and commanded the
colonial bishops to expel any who might come.[384] Prince Philip followed
this by a decree of August 14, 1543, ordering all viceroys, governors and
courts to investigate what Moorish slaves or freemen, recently converted, or
sons of Jews resided in the Indies and to banish all whom they might
discover, sending them to Spain in the first ships, for in no case were they
to be allowed to remain.[385]
It is evident that the persevering New Christians evaded these
regulations and that their success in this was a subject of solicitude, yet
there was long delay in providing effectual means to preserve the faith from
their contamination. It is true that, when bishoprics were erected, the
jurisdiction over heresy, inherent in the episcopal office, might have been
exercised on them, had not the Inquisition arrogated to itself the exclusive
cognizance over all matters of faith and regarded with extreme jealousy all

episcopal invasions of its province. This is illustrated by a case in 1515
which shows how indisposed it was even to delegate its power. Pedro de
Leon, with his wife and daughter, had sought refuge in Hispañola, where
the episcopal provisor arrested them and obtained confessions inculpating
them and others. In place of authorizing him to complete the trial and
punish them, the Suprema notified him that the inquisitor-general was
sending a special messenger to bring them back to Seville, together with
any other fugitives whom the provisor may have arrested, and he is
commanded to deliver them without delay or prevarication, under penalty
of forfeiture of temporalities and citizenship; moreover, the Admiral Diego
Colon is commanded to render aid and favor and the Contratacion of
Seville is required to furnish the messenger with a good ship to take him to
the Indies and to see that on his return he has a vessel with a captain beyond
suspicion and a place where the prisoners can be confined and kept
secluded from all communication.[386]
This was evidently a very cumbrous and costly method of dealing with
heretics, but it does not appear that the Holy Office consented to delegate its
powers until 1519, when Charles V, by a cédula of May 20th, confirmed the
appointment by Cardinal Adrian the inquisitor-general, of Alfonso Manso,
Bishop of Puertorico and the Dominican Pedro de Córdova, as inquisitors
of the Indies, and ordered all officials to render them obedience and
assistance.[387] On the death of Pedro, the appointing power is said to have
vested in the Audiencia of San Domingo which, in 1524, appointed Martin
de Valencia as commissioner. He was a Franciscan of high repute for
holiness who in that year reached Mexico at the head of a dozen of his
brethren and was received by the Conquistadores on their knees. We are
told that he burnt a heretic and reconciled two others, which if true would
show that he was clothed with the full powers of an inquisitor. He soon
afterwards returned to Spain and we hear of Fray Tomás Ortiz, Fray
Domingo de Betanzos and Fray Vicente de Santa María as succeeding him
in 1526 and 1528, but the references to these shadowy personalities are
conflicting and there are no records of their activity.[388]
With the appointment of bishops in New Spain, in 1527, and the gradual
systematic organization of the hierarchy, it would seem that special
inquisitoral powers were delegated to them, of the results of which we have
traces in the sanbenitos or tablillas of those burnt or reconciled which were
hung in the cathedrals. Early in the nineteenth century Padre José Pichardo

made a list of those remaining in the cathedral of Mexico, which has
recently been printed and from this we learn that an auto de fe was
celebrated in 1536, at which Andreas Morvan was reconciled for
Lutheranism, and another in 1539, when Francisco Millan was reconciled
for Judaism and a cacique of Tezcoco was burnt for offering human
sacrifices.[389] This latter stretch of authority by Archbishop Zumárraga was
contrary to the policy of the government and, in 1543, Inquisitor-general
Tavera superseded him by sending Francisco Tello de Sandoval, inquisitor
of Toledo, to Mexico to perform the same office. His commission, dated
July 18th of that year, empowers him to take up and prosecute to the end all
cases commenced by previous inquisitors, and a letter of Prince Philip, July
24th, to the royal officials of New Spain, commands them to give him all
requisite assistance.[390] It does not appear, however, that he was furnished
with officials to organize a tribunal and, as his principal charge was that of a
visitador or inspector of the ecclesiastical establishment, it is not probable
that he accomplished much as inquisitor. The list of sanbenitos shows no
more autos de fe until 1555, by which time the work had fallen back into
the hands of Archbishop Montúfar, for the home Government was evidently
unwilling to assume the heavy cost of a fully organized tribunal, and the
bishops were ready to perform its duties. When, in 1545, Las Casas, as
Bishop of Chiapa, asked the royal Audiencia of Gracia á Dios to sustain
him in his episcopal jurisdiction against his recalcitrant flock, he makes
special reference to cases of the Inquisition as included in it and, soon after
this, in Peru, Juan Matienzo says that the bishops exercised inquisitorial
jurisdiction and that, when any attempt was made to appeal from them, they
would elude it by claiming that they were acting as inquisitors.[391] That this
was recognized at home is manifested by Prince Philip, in 1553, extending
to the Indies the Concordia of Castile regulating the fuero of familiars, as
though there was a regularly organized Inquisition throughout the colonies.
[392]

In the auto of 1555, Gerónimo Venzon, an Italian, was reconciled for
Lutheranism and it was followed by one in 1558, when María de Ocampo
was reconciled for pact with the demon.[393] There was also an Englishman
named Robert Thompson, condemned for Lutheranism to wear the
sanbenito for three years, and a Genoese, Agostino Boacio, for the same
crime, to perpetual prison and sanbenito. These two latter were shipped to
Seville to perform their penance, but Boacio managed to escape at the

Azores. In 1560 there were seven Lutherans reconciled, concerning whom
we have no details; in 1561 a French Calvinist and a Greek schismatist and
in 1562 two French Calvinists.[394] This shows that the episcopal Inquisition
was by no means inert, and a sentence rendered by the Ordinary of Mexico,
in 1568, indicates that its severity might cause the installation of the regular
Holy Office to be regarded rather as a relief. A Flemish painter, Simon
Pereyns, who had drifted to Mexico, in a talk with a brother artist,
Francisco Morales, chanced to utter the common remark that simple
fornication was not a sin and persisted in it after remonstrance. That the
episcopal Inquisition was thoroughly established is indicated by his
considering it prudent to denounce himself to the Officiality, which he did
on September 10, 1568. In Spain this particular heresy, especially in
espontaneados, was not severely treated, but the provisor, Esteban de
Portillo, took it seriously and threw him in prison. During the trial Morales
testified that Pereyns had said that he preferred to paint portraits rather than
images, which he explained was because they paid better. This did not
satisfy the provisor who proceeded to torture him when he endured, without
further confession, three turns of the cordeles and three jars of water
trickled down his throat on a linen cloth. This ought to have earned his
dismissal but, on December 4th, he was condemned to pay the costs of his
trial and to give security that he would not leave the city until he should
have painted a picture of Our Lady of Merced, as an altar-piece for the
church. He complied and it was duly hung in the cathedral.[395] A still more
forcible example of the abuse of episcopal inquisitorial authority was the
case of Don Pedro Juárez de Toledo, alcalde mayor of Trinidad in
Guatemala, arrested with sequestration of property by his bishop,
Bernardino de Villalpando, on a charge of heresy. He died in September,
1569, with his trial unfinished; it was transferred to the Inquisition on its
establishment and, in the auto de fe of February 28, 1574, a sentence was
rendered clearing his memory of all infamy, which we are told gave much
satisfaction for he was a man much honored and the vindictiveness of the
prosecution was notorious.[396]
These inquisitorial powers, however, were only enjoyed temporarily by
the bishops and when, in 1570, a tribunal was finally established in Mexico,
a circular was addressed to them formally warning them against allowing
their provisors or officials to exercise jurisdiction in matters of faith and
ordering them to transmit to the inquisitors any evidence which they might

have or might obtain in cases of heresy. The bishops apparently were
unwilling to surrender the jurisdiction to which they had grown
accustomed, for the command had to be repeated, May 26, 1585.[397]
It is worthy of remark that there seems to have been no pressure from
Rome to extend the Inquisition over the New World. St. Pius V,
notwithstanding his fierce inquisitorial activity in Italy, could give Philip II
the sanest and most temperate advice about the colonies. On learning that
the king proposed to send thither officials selected with the utmost care, he
wrote, August 18, 1568, to Inquisitor-general Espinosa to encourage him in
the good work. The surest way, he says, to propagate the faith is to remove
all unnecessary burdens and to so treat the people that they may rejoice
more and more to throw off the bonds of idolatry and submit themselves to
the sweet yoke of Christ; the Christians who go thither should be such as to
edify the people by their lives and morals, so as to confirm the converts and
to allure the heathen to conversion.[398] To do Philip justice, he earnestly
strove to follow in the path thus wisely indicated, but Spanish
maladministration was too firmly rooted for him to succeed. If he could not
thus render the faith attractive he could at least preserve its purity; the
colonists were becoming too numerous for their aberrations to be left to
episcopal provisors, overburdened with a multiplicity of other duties, and
the only safety lay in extending to the colonies the Inquisition whose
tribunals would have no other function.
The incentive to this, however, was not so much the danger anticipated
from Judaizing New Christians as from the propaganda of the Reformers,
who were regarded as zealously engaged in sending to the New World their
heretical books and versions of Scripture and even as venturing there
personally in hopes of combining missionary work with the profits of trade.
This is the motive alleged by Philip II, in his cédulas of January 25, 1569,
and August 16, 1570, confirming the action of Inquisitor-general Espinosa
in founding the Mexican tribunal.[399] Leonardo Donato, the Venetian
envoy, in his report of 1573, assents to this as the cause, not only of the
establishment of the Mexican Inquisition but also of the prohibition of
intercourse with the colonies to Germans and Flemings, although the latter
were Spanish subjects.[400] The Protestant missionary spirit in fact was, at
this time, by no means as ardent as the Inquisition sought to make the
faithful believe, yet it could reasonably point in justification to the number

of Protestants who furnished the material for the earlier inquisitorial
activity.
Although the decision to establish colonial tribunals was reached and
made known in the cédula of January, 1569, Philip proceeded with his usual
dilatory caution. It was not until January 3, 1570, that Espinosa notified
Doctor Moya de Contreras, then Inquisitor of Murcia, that he had been
selected as senior inquisitor of the projected tribunal; he was to enjoy a
salary of three thousand pesos and the fruits of a prebend in the cathedral;
he was to have a colleague, a fiscal and a notary or secretary, while such
other officials as might be necessary would be appointed on the spot, in
accordance with instructions to be given to him.[401] Contreras declined the
appointment on the ground of his health, which would not endure the
voyage, and his poverty, for he was endeavoring to place his sister in a
convent. Espinosa insisted, pointing out that the position would be but
temporary and would lead to promotion, which was verified for, in 1573,
Contreras became Archbishop of Mexico, served for a time as viceroy, and,
on his return to Spain, was made president of the Council of Indies.[402] The
junior inquisitor was the Licenciado Pascual de Cervantes, canon of
Canaries, who was instructed to learn the duties of his office from his
experienced senior. Their commissions bore date August 18, 1570, and
empowered them to evoke and continue all cases that might be in the hands
of inquisitors or episcopal officials. It was not until November 13th that
they set sail from San Lucar for the Canaries, where they hoped to take
passage on the fleet. In this they were disappointed, as it did not call at the
islands, and they were detained in Tenerife until June 2, 1571. Cervantes
died on the voyage July 26th and Contreras was wrecked on the coast of
Cuba, August 11th, but he found refuge on another vessel and reached San
Juan de Ulua August 18th. He entered the city of Mexico September 12th,
but the ceremonies of reception and installation were delayed until
November 4th.[403] These were of the most impressive character. A
proclamation, two days before, to sound of drum and trumpet, had
summoned to be present in the cathedral, under pain of major
excommunication, the whole population over twelve years of age. From the
building assigned to the tribunal, the viceroy and senior judge of the royal
court, followed by all the officials, conducted the inquisitor to the church,
where, after the sermon and before the elevation of the host, the secretary of
the Inquisition read the royal letters addressed to the viceroy and all other

officials, reciting at great length the dangers of the heretic propaganda and
commanding every one to render all aid and service to the inquisitors and
their officials, arresting all whom they should designate and punishing with
the legal penalties those whom they should relax as heretics or relapsed.
Moreover the king took under his protection all those connected with the
Holy Office and warned his subjects that any injury inflicted on them would
be visited with the punishment due to violation of the royal safeguard. Then
an edict was read, embodying the oath of obedience and pledging every
one, under fearful maledictions, spiritual and temporal, to aid the
Inquisition in every way and to denounce and persecute heretics as wolves
and mad dogs. On this the viceroy arose and, placing his hand on the
gospels which lay on a table, took the oath and all the officials present
advanced in procession and followed his example.
The Inquisition thus was fairly established in the city of Mexico; it
issued its Edict of Faith and, on November 10th, it published letters
addressed to all the inhabitants of its enormous district, stretching from the
Atlantic to the Pacific and from Darien to the unknown regions to the
North, commanding them and their officials to take the same portentous
oath of obedience. In an age of faith, it is easy to see how profound was the
impression made when the population of every parish and mission was
assembled in its church and listened to such utterances in the name of Christ
and the pope, with their reduplication of threats and promises, and each one
was required to raise his right hand and solemnly swear on the cross and the
gospels to accept it all and obey it to the letter.[404]
As communication between the tribunal and the Supreme Council in
Madrid was slow and irregular, there was necessity that it should have
greater independent authority than that allowed to the provincial
Inquisitions in Spain, which at this period were constantly becoming more
and more subject to the central head. Accordingly it was furnished not only
with the general Instructions current everywhere but with special elaborate
ones, providing among other matters that in the consulta de fe, or meeting
to decide upon a sentence, if there should be discordia or lack of unanimity
among the inquisitors and the episcopal Ordinary (who always took part in
such matters) the case was not referred to the Suprema, as in Spain, unless
the question was as to relaxation to the secular arm; if this was involved, the
accused was to be sent to the Suprema, which decided his fate. If the
sentence was to torture or reconciliation, or a milder penance, then the

opinion prevailed of the two inquisitors, or of the Ordinary and one of the
inquisitors, while if all three were discordant, then the consultors decided as
to which of the three opinions should be adopted. Appeals to the Suprema
against sentences of torture, or of extraordinary punishments, were similarly
replaced by giving the prisoner another hearing, allowing the fiscal to argue
against him and reconsidering the sentence in the consulta de fe.[405] These
instructions also prescribed the enforcement of the Index of prohibited
books, both as to the suppression of those existing in the colony and the
watchful supervision of imports, all of which Doctor Contreras hastened to
execute by requiring every owner of books to present a sworn list of those
in his possession. It would not be easy, however, to define whence he
derived his authority for his next step, which was to forbid the departure
from the land of any one without a special licence from the Inquisition—a
stretch of power which we are told met with the hearty concurrence of the
viceroy, Martin Enríquez, who had not otherwise manifested much
prepossession in favor of the new jurisdiction thus established in his
territories.[406]
The inquisitor evidently magnified his office and the result soon showed
how much more efficient was a tribunal of which the energies were
concentrated on a single object, than the desultory action of the episcopal
provisors. He had, on his arrival, lost no time in filling up his staff by
appointing an alguazil mayor, an alcaide of the secret prisons, a portero or
apparitor and a messenger, as well as a receiver of confiscations, to whom
he assigned the handsome salary of six hundred ducats, not anticipating
how slender, for some time, were to be the receipts from that source. His
efforts were seconded at home for, by a carta orden of the Suprema,
January 5, 1573, the Spanish tribunals were instructed to give precedence
over all other business to requests from colonial Inquisitions for evidence to
be taken and furnished, experience having already shown the great benefit
arising from their establishment there.[407] The publication of the Edict of
Faith had brought in many denunciations; arrests were frequent and the
number of prisoners soon exceeded the capacity of the improvised prison—
among them some thirty-six Englishmen, the remnant of the hundred of Sir
John Hawkins’s men who had taken their chances on shore after the disaster
at San Juan de Ulua, in 1568.[408] The fruits of this energy were seen when
the first great auto de fe was celebrated February 28, 1574, with a solemnity
declared by eyewitnesses to be equal in everything, save the presence of

royalty, to that of Valladolid, May 21, 1559, when the Spanish Lutherans
suffered. A fortnight in advance it was announced throughout the city with
drums and trumpets, the Inquisition commenced to erect its staging and the
city authorities did the like for themselves and their wives, and invited the
judges and their wives to seats on it. A week later, on learning that
prominent officials from all parts of the country were coming, the invitation
was extended to them. The population poured in from all quarters, crowding
the streets and occupying every spot from which the spectacle could be
witnessed. The night before was occupied in drilling, in the courtyard of the
Inquisition, the unfortunates who were to appear and at daylight they were
breakfasted on wine and slices of bread fried in honey.
The accounts of the auto as given by Señor Medina are somewhat
confused, but from them we gather that there were seventy-four sufferers in
all. Of these, three were for asserting that simple fornication between the
unmarried was no sin; twenty-seven were for bigamy; two for blasphemy;
one for wearing prohibited articles although his grandfather had been burnt;
two for “propositions;” one because he had made his wife confess to him
and thirty-six for Lutheranism, of whom two, George Ripley and Marin
Cornu were burnt. These Lutherans were all foreigners of various
nationalities, but mostly English, consisting of Hawkins’s men. One of
these, named Miles Phillips has left an account of the affair, in which he
says that his compatriots George Ripley, Peter Momfrie and Cornelius the
Irishman were burnt, sixty or sixty-one were scourged and sent to the
galleys and seven, of whom he was one, were condemned to serve in
convents; the wholesale scourging was performed the next day, through the
accustomed streets, the culprits being preceded by a crier calling out “See
these English Lutheran dogs, enemies of God!” while inquisitors and
familiars shouted to the executioners “Harder, harder, on these English
Lutherans!” Páramo, who doubtless had access to official records, tells us
that there were about eighty penitents in all, of whom an Englishman and a
Frenchman were burnt, some Judaizers were reconciled, together with
several bigamists and practitioners of sorcery. One of these latter, he says,
was a woman who had made her husband come in two days to Mexico from
Guatemala, two hundred leagues away and, when asked by the inquisitor
why she had done this, she replied that it was in order to enjoy the sight of
his beauty, the fact being that he was the foulest of men. Bigamy, he adds,

was a very frequent crime, for men thought that, at so great a distance from
Spain, there was little chance of detection.[409]
Miles Phillips says that at the conclusion of the auto the victims relaxed
were burnt on the plaza, near the staging. This shows that no proper
preparation had been made for these solemnities and in fact, it was not until
1596 that the municipality, at a cost of four hundred pesos, constructed a
quemadero or burning place, where concremation could be performed
decently and in order. It was a ghastly adjunct to a pleasure-ground, for it
was situated at the east end of the Alameda. There it remained until the
stake was growing obsolete and was removed in 1771 to enlarge the
promenade.[410]
This was the last inquisitorial act of Doctor Contreras, whose promotion
to the archbishopric had already taken place. He had been provided with a
colleague by the promotion of the fiscal Bonilla in 1572, and the vacancy
caused by his retirement was filled by the appointment of Alonso Granero
de Avalos. These held an auto March 6, 1575, in which there were thirty-
one culprits, twenty-five of them for bigamy and but one Protestant, the
Irishman William Cornelius, who was burnt. Less important was an auto
celebrated February 19, 1576, with thirteen culprits, all for minor offences,
except an Englishman named Thomas Farrar, a shoemaker long resident in
Mexico, who was reconciled for Protestantism. Another auto followed
December 15, 1577, in which, besides the customary minor offenders, three
Englishmen, Paul Hawkins, John Stone and Robert Cook, were reconciled
for Protestantism and the first Judaizer, Alvarez Pliego, abjured de
vehementi and was fined in 500 pesos.[411] The Judaism which thus
commenced to show itself speedily furnished further victims for, in 1578,
two Spaniards were burnt for it and, in 1579, another, García González
Bermejero, while a Frenchman, Guillaume Potier, who escaped, was burnt
in effigy for Calvinism. After this, until 1590, the tribunal seems to have
become indolent; but few autos were celebrated and the culprits consisted
of the miscellaneous bigamists, blasphemers, sorcerers and soliciting
confessors, whose cases present no especial interest. With 1590 the yearly
autos were resumed. In that year nine Judaizers at least were reconciled,
one was burnt in person and one in effigy. With the advent of Alonso de
Peralta as inquisitor, in 1594, the tribunal seems to have been aroused to
increased activity and the auto of December 8, 1596, was a memorable one
in which there were sixty-six penitents, including twenty-two Judaizers

reconciled, nine burnt in person and ten in effigy. Even this was exceeded
by the great auto of March 26, 1601, also celebrated by Peralta, in which
there were one hundred and twenty four penitents, of whom four were burnt
in person and sixteen in effigy. There would seem to have been a
recrudescence of Protestantism, for among these were twenty-three
Lutherans and Calvinists.[412]
The Inquisition thus vindicated the necessity of its existence if the land
was to be purified of heresy and apostasy, for some of the Judaizers had
been practising their unhallowed rites for an incredible length of time.
García González Bermejero, who was burnt in 1579, had been thus
outraging the faith in Mexico for twenty years; Juan Castellanos, who
repented and was reconciled in 1590, had done so for forty-eight years.
Although their Judaism was almost public, for they ate the paschal lamb
and smeared their houses with blood, they were only discovered through the
confession of an accomplice tried in Spain, who denounced González. Of a
family of Portuguese Jews who suffered in 1592, and the following years,
we are told that the father, Francisco Rodríguez Mattos, was a rabbi and a
dogmatizer, or teacher. Fortunately for him he was dead and was only burnt
in effigy, as was likewise his son, who escaped by flight. His four daughters
repented and were reconciled. They were in high social position and a
cultured race, for it is said that the youngest, a girl of seventeen, could
recite all the psalms of David and could repeat the prayer of Esther and
other Hebrew songs backwards. A brother of these girls, Luis de Carvajal,
was governor of the province of New Leon and a man who had rendered
essential service to the crown; for the crime of not denouncing them, he was
prosecuted, publicly penanced as a fautor of heresy and deprived of his
office; he relapsed, was tried and tortured in 1595 and was burnt in the auto
of December 8, 1596, together with his mother and three sisters.[413] The
men who founded the Mexican Inquisition knew their duty and were
resolute in its performance. They were kept busy for, between 1574 and
1600, they despatched no less than 879 cases, or an average of about thirty-
four per annum.[414] Considering the complex character of inquisitorial
procedure, with its inevitable delays and consumption of time, this
represents a creditable degree of industry, equal to that of the great tribunal
of Toledo which, at the same period, was averaging thirty-five cases per
annum.

It will be observed that no Indians figure among the victims on these
occasions, since the zeal of Bishop Zumárraga, in 1536, burned the cacique
of Tezcoco. In fact, the native population was exempt from the jurisdiction
of the Inquisition. This exemption was originally attributable to the theory
held by the Conquistadores that the Indians were too low in the scale of
humanity to be capable of the faith—a theory largely relied upon to excuse
the cruelties inflicted upon them. In 1517, when Las Casas was laboring in
their behalf at the Spanish court, this proposition was advanced by a
member of the royal council to Fray Reginaldo Montesino, who was
assisting Las Casas and who promptly declared it to be heretical. To settle
the question, he asked one of the foremost theologians of the time, Fray
Juan Hurtado, to assemble the doctors of the University of Salamanca to
decide the matter; thirteen of them debated it and drew up a series of
conclusions which they all signed, the final one being that whoever
defended with pertinacity such a proposition must be put to death by fire as
a heretic.[415] Notwithstanding this decision, the theory was so generally
asserted in the New World that Fray Julian Garcés, the first Bishop of
Tlaxcala, wrote to Paul III on the subject and elicited a brief of June 2,
1537, condemning those who, to gratify their greed, asserted that the
Indians were like brutes to be reduced to servitude, and declaring them
competent to receive the faith and enjoy the sacraments.[416] Bishop
Zumárraga had already acted on this presumption when he burnt the
cacique and this suggested an obstacle, almost as damaging as the popular
theory, to the conversion which was the ostensible object of the conquest,
for it was evident that the doctrineros, or missionaries, would find their
labors nugatory if the Indians realized that, in embracing the new faith, they
would be liable to death by fire for aberrations from it. To remove this
impediment, Charles V, by a decree of October 15, 1538, ordered that they
should not be subject to the inquisitorial process but that, in all matters of
faith, they should be relegated to the ordinary jurisdiction of their bishops.
As the papal delegation of power to the inquisitors gave them exclusive
faculties in all cases of faith, this imperial rescript would have been invalid
without papal sanction, but this had already been procured in the brief
Altitudo divini consilii of Paul III, June 1, 1537.[417]
It was probably through an oversight that the commissions issued to
Francisco Tello de Sandoval in 1543 and to Dr. Contreras in 1570 granted
them jurisdiction without exception over every one, of whatever condition,

quality or state; possibly the latter may have commenced to exercise it on
the Indians, but the error was rectified by Philip II, in a decree of December
30, 1571, ordering the inquisitors to observe their instructions and the
previous law, and the injunction had to be repeated in 1575. Moreover, to
silence any objections as to the episcopal power, he procured from Gregory
XIII a brief granting full faculties to the bishops to absolve the Indians for
heresy and all other reserved cases.[418] The Indians thus remained exempt
from prosecution by the Inquisition—an exemption popularly attributed to
their not being gente de razon, or not rational enough to be responsible—
which libel on their intellect Las Casas considers as perhaps the worst of the
many offences committed upon them.[419] They could, however, endure this
philosophically so long as it exempted them from the Holy Office and
confided them to the more temperate zeal of the bishops.[420]
While the Inquisition, as we have seen, maintained its awful dignity
before the people, by the solemnity of its public functions and its severity
towards the evil-minded, all was not entirely serene within its walls. In fact,
its financial history illustrates so vividly some of the aspects of Spanish
colonial administration that it is worth recounting in some detail. We have
seen that Inquisitor Contreras was promised a salary of three thousand
pesos and a prebend in the cathedral, but he was confronted with a decree of
January 25, 1569, prescribing that the income of all benefices enjoyed by
inquisitors and fiscals in the Indies was to be deducted from their salaries,
and the retention of this provision in the Recopilacion shows that it was not
of mere temporary validity.[421] It was doubtless however waived in favor
of the Inquisition, as was likewise another question which speedily arose.
The tribunal was expected to become self-supporting, from
confiscations, fines and pecuniary penances, but this required time and
meanwhile Philip granted it a subvention from the royal treasury, to
continue during his pleasure, of 10,000 pesos per annum, being 3000 each
for two inquisitors and a fiscal and 1000 for a notary. Although the tribunal
started with but one inquisitor, the thrifty receiver, or treasurer, collected the
salaries of two and, when called to account, claimed that he spent the
money on the maintenance of poor prisoners. The treasury officials had no
authority to allow this and refused further disbursements till the amount was
made good but, when Philip was appealed to, he ordered, by a cédula of
December 23, 1574, the receiver’s claim to be allowed.[422] Thus early
began the long-continued bickering between the Holy Office and the

treasury, which Philip had already, in 1572, endeavored to quiet by
instructing the inquisitors to obtain their salaries direct from the viceroy and
not from subordinates, whom he forbade them to prosecute or
excommunicate for the purpose of enforcing their demands.[423]
While Philip had provided liberally for the superior officials, he had
taken no thought of the minor positions and, in spite of the solemnity of the
autos de fe and the successful persecution of heresy, the internal working of
the tribunal was pursued under difficulties, in the absence of resources from
confiscations. A curious insight into these troubles is afforded by some
correspondence of 1583 with Inquisitor-general Quiroga by the two
inquisitors, Santos García and Bonilla. It seems that their portero or
apparitor, Pedro de Fonseca, had exhibited to them a commission, which he
had secretly obtained from Quiroga, promoting him to the post of notary of
sequestrations. They met this piece of jobbery with the favorite inquisitorial
formula—obedecer y no cumplir, obeying without executing—for they say
they obeyed it without admitting him to the office until they could consult
the cardinal. This notariate, they say, is the least necessary of offices, as
there are no sequestrations or confiscations, and they have no other portero
and no money wherewith to pay a substitute: besides, Pedro is destitute of
all qualifications for the position. If a good salary could be assured, proper
persons would apply for the position but, in the absence of salaries, the
offices have not a good reputation and people say they are bestowed on any
one who will accept them. In view of the poverty of the tribunal and small
prospect of improvement they repeat what they had previously said that, if
the king will not provide for it, it had better be abolished rather than
maintained precariously, with the officers relying on the hope of
confiscations that never come, so that one resigns today and another
tomorrow, leaving only the alcaide and portero, who are so poor that they
would also have gone if they saw other means of escaping their creditors. It
is therefore suggested that, in addition to the two inquisitors, the fiscal and
the notary, salaries be furnished of 600 ducats for an alguazil, 500 for an
alcaide or gaoler and 400 for a messenger—or otherwise that, as in Spain, a
canonry be suppressed for the benefit of the Inquisition, in each of the
eleven bishoprics of the district, though this would have its disadvantages in
view of the poverty of the churches and paucity of ministers. Then, in
another letter the inquisitors announce that they have filled the vacant post
of alguazil by appointing Don Pedro de Villegas, for whom they ask

Quiroga to send a commission; it is true, they say, that he is too young, but
then both he and his wife are limpio—free from any taint of heretic blood—
and he has the indispensable qualification of possessing means to live on
without a salary and that, in the present condition of the Inquisition, is the
main thing to be considered.[424]
It is an emphatic testimony to the exhaustion of the royal treasury that so
pious a monarch as Philip II should have shown indifference to this
deplorable condition of a tribunal which had already given evidence so
conspicuous of its services to the faith, but he remained deaf to all appeals
and it was left to struggle on as best it could. As the number of its
reconciled penitents increased it felt the need of a carcel perpetua or
penitential prison, for their confinement and, having no funds wherewith to
purchase a building, it besieged the Marquis of Monterey, the viceroy, for
an appropriation. In 1596 he yielded in so far as to authorize the treasurer to
lend the tribunal 2000 pesos, on its giving security to return the money in
case the royal approbation should not be had within two years. The term
elapsed without it, but Philip III, September 13, 1599, graciously approved
the expenditure, at the same time warning the viceroy not to repeat such
liberality without previous permission.[425] Even though the monarchs were
thus niggardly, there were advantages in serving the Inquisition which in
many cases answered in lieu of salary, for official position conferred the
fuero or right to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition as well as substantial
exemptions. As early as 1572, Philip II decreed that, during the royal
pleasure, the inquisitors, the fiscal, the judge of confiscations, one secretary,
one receiver, one messenger and the alcaide of the secret prison should be
exempt from taxation and the royal officials were ordered, under penalty of
a thousand ducats and punishment at the king’s pleasure, to observe this and
protect them in all the honors and exemptions which such officials enjoyed
in Spain.[426]
A further, although illegal, relief was found by sharing in the
repartimientos under which the Indians were allotted to Spaniards who
lived upon their enforced labor. It is to this cruel system that Las Casas,
Mendieta and Torquemada attribute the rapid wasting away of the natives
and the hatred which they bore to the Spaniards. Among other attempts to
diminish the evils arising from the system, repeated laws of 1530, 1532,
1542, 1551 and 1563 prohibited the allotment of Indians to any officials or
to prelates, clerics, religious houses, hospitals, fraternities, etc. In spite of

this, as soon as the Inquisition was established, it claimed and was allowed
its quota in the allotments. It watched vigilantly, moreover, to see that it was
not defrauded in any way, for one of its earliest recorded acts, in 1572, was
the prosecution of Diego de Molina, the repartidor de los Indios of San
Juan, because, in allotting the Indians of that place, the twelve assigned to
the Inquisition proved to be boys and incapables, while the useful ones,
who could be hired out advantageously, such as carpenters and masons, he
gave for bribes to others. He was mercifully let off with five days’
imprisonment and a forcible warning and doubtless served as a wholesome
example to other partitioners.[427] Like most of the salutary legislation of
Spain, it seems to have been impossible to enforce the prohibition, and that
the Inquisition continued to enjoy the unpaid service of Indian serfs is
manifested by its being specifically included in subsequent repetitions of
the law in 1609, 1627 and 1635.[428]
When, as we have seen, the Judaizers commenced to appear among the
penitents in the autos de fe, the longed-for relief derivable from
confiscations, fines and penances was at hand. Spanish finance was already
suffering the distress which was to become so acute and the treasury
naturally looked to find its burden lightened by the income from these
sources. It looked in vain, for whatever the tribunal acquired from its
victims it retained and it persisted, with incredible audacity, in refusing
even to render an account, although the confiscations belonged to the crown
which never renounced its claim to them. In 1618 a royal cédula required
the receiver to render itemized statements of all receipts and expenditures;
in 1621 Philip IV sought to enforce this by ordering his viceroys in the
Indies not to pay salaries until proof should be furnished that the
confiscations were insufficient to meet them in whole or in part, and this
was to be observed inviolably, no matter what urgency there might be, but
repetitions of the decree, in 1624 and 1629, show how completely it was
ignored.[429] Not the slightest attention was paid to these repeated royal
commands and, to the last, the Inquisition never permitted either the king or
the Council of Indies to know what it acquired in this manner, although the
sums were large and the tribunal became wealthy through investments of
the surplus, besides making, with more or less regularity, very considerable
remittances to the Suprema.
Finding himself thus baffled by the immovable resistance of the Holy
Office, Philip, in 1627, sought to relieve his treasury by despoiling the

Church. He reported to Urban VIII that he expended 32,000 ducats a year
on the tribunals of Mexico, Lima and Cartagena, wherefore he prayed that
the bull of Paul IV, January 7, 1559, suppressing a prebend in every
cathedral and collegial church in Spain, for the benefit of the Inquisition,
might be extended to the Indies. Urban complied in a brief of March 10,
1627, whereupon Philip ordered the archbishop and bishops to remit to the
senior inquisitors of their respective tribunals the fruits of the prebends as
they should fall in, furnishing, at the same time, to the royal officials a
statement of the sums thus paid, so that the amount should be deducted
from the salaries.[430] Receipts from this source commenced at once and
went on increasing as vacancies occurred, amounting, according to the
estimate of the Council of Indies, to 30,000 pesos per annum for the three
tribunals, while the Suprema admitted that those of Mexico and Lima
produced about 11,000 pesos each, but those of Cartagena, it said, yielded
only about 5000.[431]
During this time there had been frequent collisions between the
inquisitors and the treasury officials, arising from the refusal of the former
to reveal the amount of the confiscations and penances and the obedience,
more or less persistent, of the latter to the royal commands to require such
statements as a condition precedent to paying the royal subvention. In these
collisions the inquisitors enforced their demands as usual by prosecution
and excommunication, giving rise to unseemly controversies and, when the
Suprema forbade their use of such measures, they were reduced to
impotence. In a letter of February 13, 1634, they complained bitterly of this;
during 1633, they said, in spite of all their efforts, they received no money
until October, after all the royal officials had been paid and, as they had no
other means of support, they were exposed to the deepest humiliations.[432]
The suppressed canonries, however, introduced an element of pacification
and, in the Concordia of 1633, between the Suprema and the Council of
Indies, a plan to harmonize differences was agreed upon which was a
practical surrender to the Inquisition. It provided that every year, before the
first tercios (four months’ instalments in advance) were paid, the receivers
should render a sworn itemized statement of all receipts and expenditures,
including confiscations, fines and penances, in accordance with the royal
cédulas and, when this was delivered to the viceroy, the tercios should be
paid in advance without delay. If the treasury officials should take exception
to any portion of the statement, they were to forward it with their comments

to the Council of Indies, but this was not to interfere with the prompt
payment of the salaries and the inquisitors were to furnish the Suprema with
their explanations. If the statement should show a surplus applicable to the
salaries, this was, if agreed to by both parties, to be deducted from the
second tercio; but if the inquisitors presented any reasons why this tercio
should be paid in full, the treasury should pay it and the question be referred
for settlement to the two Councils. The inquisitors were not to proceed
against the treasury officials with censures or fines or other penalties, but
were to apply to the viceroy, to whom positive instructions were sent to pay
them punctually, both the arrearages then unpaid and the current salaries,
while any fines or penalties that had been imposed were to be withdrawn or,
if collected, to be refunded.[433]
This elaborate arrangement is only of importance as showing that, in
spite of the suppressed canonries, the treasury was still required to support
the tribunal and that the latter could be bound by no agreements however
solemnly entered into. Except at Cartagena it was never carried into effect.
No statement of receipts was ever rendered. In 1651, Count Alva de Aliste,
the viceroy, reported to Philip IV that he had no means of learning what the
confiscations amounted to but, on cautiously sounding the inquisitors, they
told him that they reported them to the Suprema and would obey its
instructions. They might well keep the facts secret. In the exterminating
persecution of the wealthy New Christians, during the decade 1640-50, of
which more hereafter, the confiscations were very large, placing the tribunal
at its ease for all future time, besides what was embezzled by the
inquisitors. The auto of 1646 yielded 38,732 pesos; that of 1647, 148,562.
What was gathered in two autos held in 1648 does not appear, but between
November 20, 1646, and April 24, 1648, the inquisitors remitted 234,000
pesos in bills of exchange while the crowning auto of 1649 furnished three
millions more.[434] In spite of this enormous influx of wealth, the
Inquisition still maintained its grip on the royal subvention of 10,000 pesos
per annum, though for how long it is impossible to determine with
positiveness. In the prolonged controversy which raged between the
Suprema and the Council of Indies over the relations of the colonial
tribunals, the former, in 1667, positively declared that, after 1633, there had
been no subvention paid in Mexico or Lima and this assertion was repeated
in 1676, but the statements of the Suprema are so full of duplicity that no
reliance can be reposed in them.[435] On the other hand, in 1668, we find the

Council of Indies earnestly advising the king to withdraw the subvention on
the ground that the tribunals were rich and could support themselves, as
they do in Castile; in 1675 it speaks of the payments as still continuing and
urges their discontinuance without consulting the Suprema, as it is a matter
wholly within the control of the treasury and, in 1676, Carlos II answered
the Suprema by demanding a prompt decision as to a proposition made by
the Council of Indies to discontinue the subventions enjoyed by the three
tribunals for the salaries of their officials.[436] When they were definitely
discontinued it would be impossible to assert, but it is probable that those of
Mexico and Lima were stopped in 1677, while that of Cartagena was
prolonged even later. In 1683 Inquisitor Valera of that tribunal complained
that, owing to the exhaustion of the public treasury through wars and
piratical attacks, an arrearage had accumulated of thirty-three tercios. He
claimed that the king was indebted to the tribunal in the sum of 58,000
pesos and he urged its transfer to Santa Fe, where the royal treasury was in
better condition to meet the obligation. The transfer was not made,
payments of the subvention became more and more irregular and we shall
see that in 1706 the tribunal was still unavailingly endeavoring to enforce
them.[437]
In a letter to the king, July 31, 1651, the viceroy, Alva de Aliste, took the
ground that the subvention had been merely a loan, to be repaid when
confiscations should come in, and as, within the last few years, these had
been large enough to settle the debt, he had had the accounts examined and
had found that, since the beginning, there had been advanced for salaries
559,189 pesos, 6 tomines and 5 granos and, for other purposes, 6837 pesos,
5 granos, wherefore he suggested that the king should compel restitution of
this amount.[438] To a treasury so desperately embarrassed as that of Spain
the prospect of such relief was most welcome. Philip referred the viceroy’s
letter to the Council of Indies, which delayed its reply till December 12,
1652, when it advised the king that examination showed that the salaries
were to be defrayed by the confiscations, which were to be reported to the
treasury. The only light that could be thrown upon the subject was to be
sought in the registration, by the Contratacion of Seville, of the amounts of
silver passing through it from Mexico and Peru and from these registers it
appeared that the colonial tribunals had remitted to the Suprema the
aggregate of 76,965 pesos de ensayados and 85,454 pesos de á ocho, thus
showing that those tribunals had revenues largely in advance of their needs.

In view of the magnitude of the sums furnished by the treasury, the
extensive confiscations, the income of the suppressed canonries and the dire
necessities of the royal finances, it therefore advised the king to call upon
the Suprema for restitution and to furnish statements of the amount of the
confiscations from the beginning. To this the king replied, in the ordinary
formula of approval “It is well and so have I ordered.”[439] When the
Suprema was concerned, however, obedience by no means followed royal
orders and so it proved in this case.
Philip’s weakness was shown in his next despatch to the viceroy,
February 1, 1653, in which he said that he had determined that the Suprema
should arrange to make restitution and that, to facilitate a proper adjustment
of the matter, it should furnish a statement of all confiscations from the
beginning, “for neither my Council of Indies nor my viceroys have been
able to obtain this, but only the records of the shipments of silver from the
Indies.”[440] There is no evidence that the Suprema made any attempt to
obey the royal commands or that it paid any attention to a reiterated demand
made on August 12, 1655. Then the effort seems to have been abandoned
and the matter was allowed to slumber until attention was called to it again
in 1666. Philip had written, August 12, 1665, to the Marquis of Mansera,
then Mexican viceroy, urging him to extinguish the debt of 1,333,264 pesos,
by which amount the Mexican treasury was in arrears with its payments.
The viceroy replied, September 5, 1666, pointing out the difficulty of
accomplishing this and, at the same time, keeping up the remittances by the
fleet, which were imperatively required by the absolute needs of the
monarchy. He added that one of the chief causes of the indebtedness was
the large sums withdrawn from it by the salaries and expenses of the
Inquisition since its foundation in 1570; this had been intended as a loan,
until it could be repaid from the confiscations, fines and penances but,
although these had been large, restitution had never been made. The cédula
of 1653 had inferred that the matter would be settled between the two
councils and therefore the viceroys were powerless, but he suggested that
the tribunal was rich and held large amounts of property; it had the
disposition, which it might not have in future, to commence making this
just and long overdue payment. This despatch the Council of Indies
reported to the queen-regent, together with copies of the royal cédulas of
1653 and 1655, in order that she might compel the Suprema to make
restitution, not only of the sums reported by Count Alva de Aliste, but of

what had since been paid to the tribunal, seeing that it had the means to do
so and was remitting such large amounts to the Suprema.[441]
It is scarce worth while to follow in detail the discussion which ensued,
lasting, with true Spanish procrastination, until 1677, when the effort to
make the Inquisition refund seems to have been abandoned out of sheer
weariness. Of course the feeble queen-regent and the feebler boy-king,
Carlos II, failed in the attempt and the only importance to us of the debate
lies in the falsehoods and prevarications of the Suprema’s defence. It was
notorious that there had been heavy confiscations, for persecution, as we
have seen, had become active and exceedingly profitable as the half-century
had drawn to a close. The tribunal had grown rich and had made large
investments, besides the enormous remittances to the Suprema, and these
had been derived almost exclusively from the confiscations and penances.
Yet the Suprema endeavored to make it appear that financially confiscation
had been a failure. There had been some confiscations, it admitted, in
Mexico and Lima; there was the one of Diego López de Fonseca,
amounting to 79,965 pesos, but Jorje de Paz of Madrid and Simon
Rodriguez Bueno of Seville had come forward with claims amounting to
more. They had asked to have the money sent to the receiver of Seville for
adjudication and, on its arrival, the king had seized it and, by a cédula of
July 14, 1652, had bound himself to satisfy the claimants, which he did by
assigning to them certain matters. It was true that, in 1642, a number of
Judaizing Portuguese had been discovered in Mexico, of whom some had
moderate fortunes and one was reputed to be rich, but on the outbreak of the
Portuguese rebellion, for fear that the viceroy would embargo their
property, they had concealed it, and although the Inquisition had published
censures, only a little had been discovered, while there came forward
creditors with evidences of claims amounting to 400,000 pesos, so that it
was difficult to make the confiscations meet them, to say nothing of the
heavy expenses of feeding the prisoners, hiring houses to serve as prisons
and the increased number of officials required. Besides this, there was
protracted and costly litigation in investigating the claims and detecting
suspected frauds. For this, Archbishop Mañozca was appointed visitador; on
his death Medina Rico was sent out for the same purpose and, when he
died, the matter had not been settled, nor has it yet.[442] If the Suprema was
to be believed, confiscation cost more than it came to.

In the same way it sought by garbled statements to conceal the fact that
it was secretly deriving a considerable revenue from the colonial tribunals,
thus proving that they were possessed of superabundant means. In its
private accounts for the year 1657, there is an item of 10,000 ducats from
those of Mexico and Lima, with the remark that this is always in arrears and
is now two years overdue[443]—for the tribunals were as anxious as the
Suprema to conceal their gains. Yet it could not hide the fact that it was in
receipt of large remittances through the Contratacion of Seville and the
Government, in its extremity, had an awkward habit of seizing what took its
fancy and possibly paying for silver in vellon, for we chance to hear of such
an occurrence in 1639 and again in 1644.[444] The Council of Indies, as we
have seen, did not fail to call attention to the large amounts which it was
thus receiving, but it airily replied, in its consulta of November 16, 1667,
that the three tribunals had, at various times, remitted the aggregate of
130,803 pesos, 3 reales, as the proceeds of sales of varas or offices of
alguazil, and that this and much more, from the home tribunals, amounting
in all to over 700,000 pesos, had been contributed to the necessities of the
State. It repeated this, May 11, 1676, with the addition that the colonial
tribunals had sent about 8000 pesos to the fund for the attempted
canonization of Pedro Arbués and that there were also remittances for the
media añata of the officials and for the deposits of aspirants to office to
defray the expenses of the investigations into limpieza—the whole
manifesting extreme desire to divert attention from the confiscations.[445] In
spite of these subterfuges there can be no question that the tribunals of
Mexico and Lima accumulated vast amounts of property. The magnificence
of the palace of the Mexican tribunal, rebuilt from 1732 to 1736, shows that
it could gratify its vanity with the most profuse expenditure.[446] That it was
fully able to do this without impairing its revenues may be assumed from
the assertion, in 1767, of the royal fiscal, when arguing a case of
competencia before the Audiencia, that if its accumulations were not
checked, the king would have but a small portion of territory in which to
exercise his jurisdiction.[447] Certain it is that the tribunal continued to be
able to render large pecuniary support to the home institution. In 1693 we
hear of a remittance of 93,705 pesos and in 1702 of 19,898 in spite of heavy
defalcations by the receivers. This was followed by remittances of 40,000
pesos in 1706, of 16,500 in 1720, and of 31,500 in 1727. In 1771 the
tribunal lent to the viceroy, for the emergencies of the war with England,

60,000 pesos, which were repaid, and, in 1795, a further loan was made of
40,000 to aid in the war then raging.[448] As late as 1809 the Government
seized a remittance from it to the Suprema of 60,131½ pesos and gave a
receipt for the proceeds, being 915,886 reales, for which, after the
Restoration, we find the Suprema claiming restitution.[449] In spite of these
reiterated drains we shall see hereafter what wealth the tribunal possessed
when suppressed.

If we are to trust the list of sanbenitos hung in the cathedral of Mexico,
after the great auto of 1601, there ensued a period of comparative inaction
for nearly half a century, in which Protestants almost disappeared and were
replaced by comparatively few Judaizers.[450] The sanbenitos however
represent only the serious cases and the tribunal continued to gather its
customary harvest of bigamists, blasphemers, sorcerers, solicitors and other
minor offenders, some of whom yielded a liberal amount of fines.[451] In
fact, a report of the cases pending in 1625 amounts to the very considerable
number of sixty-three, showing that there was ample business on hand,
receiving attention with more or less diligence.[452] After this however the
activity of the tribunal diminished so greatly that, on July 12, 1638, it
reported that it had not a single case pending, and a year later that it had but
one, which was against a priest charged with solicitation in the
confessional.[453] This is a singular tribute to the efficacy of the Edict of
Faith—a proclamation requiring, under pain of excommunication, the
denunciation of all offences enumerated under it, of which any one might
be cognizant or have heard of in any way. According to rule, this should be
solemnly published every year in all parish and conventual churches; it kept
the faithful on the watch for all aberrations and rendered every one a spy
and an informer. It had, however, at this time, fallen into desuetude. In a
letter of February 13, 1634, the inquisitors say that for ten years the
publications had been suspended in consequence of the indecency which
attended it after the viceroys refused to be present, owing to quarrels as to
ceremonial, and they ask that a royal order should be issued through the
Council of Indies requiring the attendance of the civil magistracy in the
procession and publication.[454]
Nearly ten years more, however, were to elapse, before the questions of
etiquette and precedence were settled, and at last, on March 1, 1643, the
Edict was read with all solemnity in the cathedral of Mexico and was

followed by an abundant harvest of denunciations.[455] How numerous these
habitually were may be gathered from partial statistics of those received
after a publication of the Edict in 1650. These were recorded in eight books,
of which four, representing presumably one-half, have been preserved,
containing altogether two hundred and fifty-four cases of the most varied
character, as may be seen by the summarized classification below.[456]
The most significant feature in this mass of so-called testimony is the
manner in which the most trivial acts inferring suspicion were watched and
denounced, so that every man lived under a universal spy-system stimulated
by the readiness of the Inquisition to listen to and make record of the veriest
gossip passing from mouth to mouth. Thus one informer relates how in
1642, eight years before, he saw Simon de Paredes quietly put to one side
on his plate a piece of pork that came to him from among the miscellaneous
contents of the olla. Another gravely deposes how a man had casually told
him that he had heard how a miner named Blas Garcés, of the mines of Los
Papagayos, now dead, had once taken some of the herb Peyote to find some
mines of which he had chanced to see specimens, and the marvels which
thence ensued.[457] From the book of Membretes kept by the tribunal it
would appear that when this kind of evidence did not lead to a prosecution
it was carefully preserved and indexed for reference in case of subsequent
testimony against an individual. Such was the training of the population and
such was the shadow of terror under which every man lived.
Meanwhile, during the quiescent period of the tribunal, the class of New
Christians, who secretly adhered to the ancient faith, increased and
prospered, accumulating wealth through the opportunities of the colonial
trade which they virtually monopolized. Their fancied security, however,
was approaching its end. The vigorous measures taken in Spain, between
1625 and 1640, to exterminate the Portuguese Judaizers, revealed the names
of many accomplices who had found refuge in the New World; these were
carefully noted and sent to the colonial tribunals.[458] Moreover, from 1634
to 1639, the Lima Inquisition was busy in detecting and punishing a large
number of its most prominent merchants guilty of the same apostasy, who
had relations with their Mexican brethren, revealed during the trials. The
tribunal seems to have been somewhat slow in realizing the opportunities
thus afforded, but in 1642 there opened an era of active and relentless
persecution which was equally effective in enriching its treasury and in
purifying the faith. To prevent the escape of its victims, on July 9th it sent

orders to Vera Cruz prohibiting the embarkation of any Portuguese who
could not show a special licence from it. A wealthy merchant named
Manuel Alvarez de Arrellano had already sailed for Spain, but his ship was
wrecked on Santo Domingo and he was compelled to return to Havana. The
tribunal was on his track and, on December 1st, it sent orders to its
commissioner at Havana to arrest him, seize all his property, sell it at
auction and send him in chains with the proceeds to Vera Cruz. This was
successfully accomplished and, in acknowledging his arrival, the tribunal
gave further instructions as to some cases of cochineal, which it understood
to have been saved from the wreck.[459]
There was small chance of escape for any culprit. The New Christians
were closely connected by family, religious and business ties, and each new
prisoner was forced to implicate his friends and kindred. Gabriel de
Granada, a child of 13, arrested in July, 1642, was made to give evidence
against 108 persons, including his entire family.[460] There were then three
inquisitors, Francisco de Estrada y Escobedo, Bernabé de la Higuera y
Amarilla and Juan Saenz de Mañozca, whose names became a terror to the
innocent as well as to the guilty. Their cruel zeal is manifested in a letter to
the Suprema virtually asking authority to relax ten persons, although they
had confessed and professed repentance in time to entitle them, by the rules
of the Inquisition, to reconciliation.[461] It was a wild revel of prosecutions
and condemnations. Medina Rico, the visitador or inspector who came in
1654, reported that, in reviewing the proceedings, he found that no attention
had been paid to the defences presented by the accused, although in many
cases they were just. A single case will indicate the heartlessness of the
tribunal. September 24, 1646, Doña Catalina de Campos sought an audience
to say that she was very sick and near unto death and that she would die in
the Catholic faith in which she had lived. She was sent back to her cell, no
attention was paid to her and some days later she was found dead and
gnawed by rats.[462]
The result of this method of administering justice was a succession of
autos particulares, in 1646, 1647 and 1648, followed by an auto general in
1649.
In 1646 there were thirty-eight Judaizers reconciled and, as
reconciliation, in addition to prison and sanbenito, inferred confiscation, the
harvest as we have seen was large. In 1647 the number was twenty-one.[463]
In 1648 there were two autos—a public one on March 29th and an auto

particular in the Jesuit church on March 30th. In the former there were
eleven penitents for various offences, eight Judaizers penanced and eight
reconciled, two reconciliations for Mahometanism, twenty-one effigies of
Judaizers burnt and one burning in person. In the latter there was one
penitent brought from the Philippines for suspicion of Mahometanism, who
escaped with abjuration de levi and servitude for life in a convent for
instruction; there were two for personating priesthood and administering
sacraments without orders, who received 300 and 200 lashes respectively
and were sent to the galleys; one for marrying in orders, who abjured de
vehementi and was sent to serve in a hospital for five years; a bigamist who
had 200 lashes and the galleys; a curandera, who employed charms to cure
disease and was visited with 200 lashes and perpetual exile from Puebla,
and finally there were twenty-one Judaizers. Of these, two escaped with
fines of 2000 and 3000 ducats respectively and perpetual exile from
Mexico, one was only exiled and eighteen were reconciled with
confiscation and various terms of imprisonment, in addition to which five
of them were scourged and, of these latter, two were also sent to the galleys.
[464]

The great auto general of April 11, 1649, marks the apogee of the
Mexican Inquisition and of this we have a very florid account, written by an
official.[465] A month in advance the solemn proclamation announcing it
was made in Mexico, March 11th, with a gorgeous procession, to the sound
of trumpet and drum, and this had previously been sent to every town in
New Spain, so that it was published everywhere at the same hour.
Consequently, for a fortnight in advance of the appointed day, crowds began
to pour in, some of them from a distance of a hundred or two hundred
leagues, till, as we are told, it looked as though the country had been
depopulated. The reporter exhausts his eloquence in describing the
magnificence of the procession of the Green Cross, on the afternoon
preceding the auto, when all the nobles and gentlemen of the city, in
splendid holiday attire, took part, and the standard of the Inquisition was
borne by the Count of Santiago, whose grandfather had done the same in
the great auto of 1574 and his father in that of 1601. A double line of
coaches extended through the streets, from the Inquisition to the plazuela
del Volador, where the ceremonies were to be performed, and so anxious
were their occupants not to lose their positions that they remained in them
all night and until the show was over. It might seem that all Mexico, from

the highest to the lowest, was assembled to demonstrate the ardor of its
faith and to gain the indulgence which the Vicar of Christ bestowed on
those who were present at these crowning exhibitions of the triumph of the
Church Militant. Inside of the Inquisition the night was spent in notifying of
their approaching fate those who were about to die and in preparing them
for death.
Of the one hundred and nine convicts there was but one Protestant, a
Frenchman named François Razin, condemned to abjure for vehement
suspicion of heresy and to two years’ service in a convent for instructions;
as he was penniless, we are told that he was not fined. There were nine
Judaizers who abjured for vehement suspicion and were banished to Spain;
three of them, being impoverished, were not fined but on the other six were
imposed mulcts, ranging from 1000 to 6000 ducats, amounting in all to
15,000 ducats and one in addition had 200 lashes. There were nineteen
reconciled, whose estates of course were confiscated, as also were those of
the relaxed, seventy-eight in number. Of these, fifty-seven were effigies of
the dead, of whom ten had died in prison, two of the latter being suicides, in
addition to which were eight effigies of fugitives. Thirteen were relaxed in
person, but of these twelve were garroted before burning, having professed
repentance and conversion in time. Only one was burnt alive—the hero of
the occasion, Tomás Treviño of Sobremonte. His mother had been burnt at
Valladolid, and nearly all of his kindred, as well as those of his wife, had
been inmates of the Inquisition. He had been reconciled in the auto of 1625
and there could be no mercy for a relapsed apostate, though he could have
escaped the fiery death by professing conversion again. He had lain in
prison for five years during his trial, always denying his guilt, but when
notified of his conviction, the night before the auto, he proclaimed himself a
Jew, declaring that he would die as such, nor could the combined efforts of
all the assembled confessors shake his resolution. To silence what were
styled his blasphemies, he was taken to the auto gagged, in spite of which
he made audible assertion of his faith and of his contempt for Christianity.
It is related that, after his sentence, when he was mounted to be taken to the
quemadero, the patient mule assigned to him refused to carry so great a
sinner; six others were tried with the same result and he was obliged to
walk until a broken-down horse was brought, which had not spirit enough
to dislodge its unholy burden. An Indian was mounted behind him, who
sought to convert him and, enraged at his failure, beat him about the mouth

to check his blasphemies. Undaunted to the last, he drew the blazing brands
towards him with his feet and his last audible words were—“Pile on the
wood; how much my money costs me!”[466]
The inquisitor-general, Arce y Reynoso, on October 15, 1649,
congratulated Philip IV on this triumph of the faith, which had been the
source of joy and consolation and universal applause, whereat the pious
monarch expressed his gratification and desired the inquisitors to be
thanked in his name. As summarized by Arce y Reynoso the results of the
four autos were two hundred and seven penitents of whom a hundred and
ninety were Jews, nearly all Portuguese. There was one drawback to his
satisfaction. The penitents sentenced to banishment were directed to be sent
to Spain, and repeated royal orders required that they should be transported
free of charge, but the captains of all vessels, both naval and commercial,
refused to carry them without pay and, as they had been stripped of all their
possessions, they could not defray the passage-money themselves, while the
Inquisition made no offer to supply the funds. Consequently they remained
in Vera Cruz or wandered through the land, throwing off their sanbenitos
and infecting the population with their errors. Arce y Reynoso suggested to
the king that he should give them rations while on board ship so as to help
to bring them over. It never seemed to occur to him that the Inquisition,
which was enriching itself with their confiscations, could spare the trifle
requisite for the execution of its sentences on these homeless and penniless
wretches.[467]
After this supreme manifestation of its authority, the Inquisition became
again somewhat inert, for its attention was largely absorbed in settling the
details of the confiscations which involved the greater portion of Mexican
commerce.[468] The tribunal had its routine business of bigamists, soliciting
confessors and women guilty of so-called sorcery—cases usually
despatched in the audience-chamber—though there was an auto particular
celebrated October 29, 1656. In 1659, however, there was a public auto on
November 19th which, though not large, merits attention by its severity and
the peculiarity of some of the delinquents. Of these there were thirty-two in
all—twelve blasphemers, two bigamists, one forger, one false witness, one
for violating the secrecy of the prison, one who had been reconciled for
Judaism in 1649 and had thrown off the sanbenito, a woman for suspicion
of Judaism, an alumbrado, or mystic, with visions and revelations. Then
there were two sisters Romero, prosecuted for fraudulent visions and

revelations, of whom one was acquitted and the other had 200 lashes and
ten years’ service in a hospital—a third sister having been penanced in the
auto particular of 1656. There was also Manuel Méndez, a Portuguese,
suspected of Judaism, who had died in prison and was now acquitted.
Another Portuguese, Diego Díaz, was not so fortunate; he had been
condemned in 1649 to abjuration de vehementi and perpetual banishment,
but he did not leave Mexico; arrested February 26, 1652, he had lain in
prison awaiting an auto and was now sentenced to be burnt alive as
pertinaciously impenitent; by mistake the executioner commenced to
garrote him, but was stopped by the alguazil mayor, who ordered the fire
lighted, so that he had both punishments. Similar was the case of Francisco
Botello, arrested in 1642, sentenced in 1649 to 200 lashes and banishment,
remaining in Mexico, arrested again in 1650 and now garroted and burnt.
These two cases indicate the treatment accorded to those alluded to above,
who, after being stripped of their property, were ordered to leave the
country, but were not furnished with means to do so.
Another convict, Francisco López de Aponte, was accused of pact with
the demon and of heresies. He gave signs of insanity, but on examination by
physicians was pronounced sane. Under severe torture he remained
perfectly quiescent and insensible to pain, which could only be explained
by diabolical aid, so he was shaved all over and inspected carefully for
charms or for the devil’s mark, but in vain. A second torture was endured
with the same indifference and he was condemned to relaxation as an
apostate heretic. On the night before the auto he said to the confessor who
endeavored to convert him “There is no God, nor hell, nor glory; it is all a
lie; there is birth and death and that is all.” During the auto he manifested
no emotion and was burnt alive as an impenitent.
Juan Gomez had been arrested, May 28, 1658, as an Illuminist and
herége sacramentario, for teaching many opinions contrary to the Catholic
faith. Condemned to relaxation, he maintained his heresies until, during the
auto, he weakened and professed repentance, notwithstanding which he was
burnt alive.
Pedro García de Arias was a wandering hermit who, although
uneducated, had written three mystic books containing erroneous doctrine.
When on trial he claimed that he had never committed sin, and he abused
the Inquisition, for which he was scourged through the streets with 200
lashes. When notified of his condemnation to relaxation he protested that he

would not beg for mercy, but on the staging he asked for an audience, in
which he insisted that there were no errors in what he had written.
Nevertheless he was garroted before burning, when his books, hung around
his neck, were consumed with him.
Sebastian Alvárez was an old man who claimed to be Jesus Christ, but
was pronounced to be sane by the experts who examined him. He persisted
in his delusion and was sentenced to relaxation. On the staging he asked for
an audience and was remanded to the Inquisition, where two days later he
had an audience and, as he still asserted himself to be Christ, he was
sentenced to burning alive if he did not retract. On the way to the
quemadero he retracted and was garroted before burning.
In this curious assemblage of eccentric humanity, the most remarkable of
all was an Irishman named variously William Lamport or Guillen
Lombardo de Guzman. He had lain in prison since his arrest as far back as
October 25, 1642, on a denunciation that he was plotting to sever Mexico
from Spain and make himself an independent sovereign, for he claimed to
be the son of Philip III by an Irish woman, and thus half-brother to Philip
IV. This was his real offence, but the Inquisition claimed jurisdiction
because he had consulted an Indian sorcerer and certain astrologers to
assure the success of his enterprise. The details of his scheme show that it
was suggested by the success with which, in June, 1642, Bishop Palafox,
acting under secret orders from Philip, had ousted from the viceroyalty the
Marquis of Escalona, who was suspected of treasonable leanings towards
João of Braganza and the revolted Portuguese. With the aid of an Indian
singularly skilled in forgery, Lamport had drawn up all the necessary royal
decrees which would enable him to seize control, on the arrival of the
expected new viceroy, the Count of Salvatierra. Yet he was no common
adventurer, but a man of wide and various learning, thoroughly familiar
with English, French, Spanish, Italian, Latin and Greek, with the classical
poets and philosophers, with the Scriptures and the fathers and with
theology and mathematics. This was proved by the memorials which he
drew up in prison, without the aid of books, yet full of citations and extracts
in all languages and of scripture texts. These were scrutinized by the
calificador who verified the citations and found them all correct and who
moreover certified that there were no errors of faith.
In the account of his life, which all prisoners of the Inquisition were
required to give, he stated that he had been born in England, from which he

had fled in his twelfth year because of a pamphlet entitled Defensio Fidei
which he had written against the king. After marvellous adventures in many
regions, in which he had rendered services to Spain, Philip IV had
summoned him to Madrid, where Olivares patronized him. He was then
sent to Flanders to aid the Cardinal Infante, to whose success he largely
contributed, especially at the battle of Nördlingen (1634). After much other
service, Philip gave him the title of Marquis of Cropani and the viceroyalty
of Mexico, from which he was to eject the occupant—and for this he held
forged royal cédulas. That there was some residuum of truth at the bottom
of his story would appear from his familiarity with details of persons and
events, and there is no doubt that he was an object of interest in Madrid, for
a royal cédula of May 13, 1643, ordered the case to be expedited and that
after his punishment all his papers should be given to the judge, Andrés
Gomez de Mora. Why the case should then have been protracted for
seventeen years is inexplicable, unless it was designed to keep him
imprisoned for life, but, however that may be, he continued to be a source
of solicitude, not unkindly, for the Suprema, under royal orders, wrote June
21, 1550, that he should be given a cell-companion to alleviate his
confinement if he so desired and that every care should be taken of his life.
Again, on July 7, 1660, when the Suprema received the account of his
relaxation, it wrote to ask why this had been done against its express orders.
Altogether the case is a mystery to which the clue is lost.
Diego Pinto, the companion given to share his confinement, was soon
won over to join him in a plan of escape, which was executed December 26,
1650, with remarkable skill and perseverance. In place of flying to some
safe retreat Lamport spent the night in affixing in various prominent places
certain writings which he had prepared, and in persuading a sentinel at the
palace to convey one to the viceroy urging him to arrest the inquisitors as
traitors. Towards dawn he induced a householder to take him in and awaited
the result of his papers, besides writing others, when the host became
apprehensive and made him remove to another house. No time was lost by
the tribunal in issuing a proclamation, describing his person and ordering
his capture under severe penalties; his host promptly reported him and he
was carried back to the Inquisition, when he was lodged in an exceptionally
strong cell, his feet in stocks and his hands in fetters. In January, 1654, he
asked for writing materials, with which he composed a tremendous attack
on the Inquisition, and during the winter he utilized the sheets of his bed to

write a book, which when transcribed proved to be a treatise in Latin verse
which filled 270 closely written pages. He had now lain twelve years in
prison without trial; his overwrought brain was giving way and his insanity
became more and more manifest. At last the time for the auto approached
and, on October 8, 1659, without further audience, the accusation was
presented; the trial proceeded swiftly and on November 6th sentence was
pronounced, condemning him to relaxation for divination and superstitious
cures showing express or implicit pact with the demon, besides which he
had plotted rebellion and was a heretic sectary of Calvin, Pelagius, Huss,
Luther and other heresiarchs and an inventor and dogmatizer of new
heresies. As a special punishment for his defamatory libels and forgery of
royal decrees, he was to listen to his sentence on the scaffold with a gag and
hanging by his right arm fastened to an iron ring. During the night before
the auto he assailed with opprobrious epithets the holy men who sought to
save his soul; he exclaimed that a hundred legions of devils had entered his
cell with them and finally he covered his head with the bed-clothes and
refused to speak. At the auto on the staging he was like a statue and at the
stake he escaped burning alive by throwing himself against the iron ring
encircling his throat with such force that it killed him.[469]
The last act of the tragedy was the burning of the effigy of Joseph
Bruñon de Vertiz, a priest whose offence was that he had been the dupe of
the imposture of the Romero sisters and had reduced to writing their visions
and revelations. Arrested September 9, 1649, he speedily admitted that he
had been deceived and cast himself on the mercy of the inquisitors, vainly
endeavoring to ascertain what was the nature of the charge against him so
that he could confess and retract whatever errors were imputed to him. It
was not, however, the estilo of the Inquisition to do more than to tell the
accused to search his memory and clear his conscience and after eighteen
months of this suspense Bruñon’s mind commenced to give way. He was
left in his cell apparently forgotten, except when he would seek an audience
to ask for writing materials with which, in 1652 and 1654, he drew up and
presented attacks upon the tribunal of a character to show that he was
becoming insane through despair. No notice was taken of these ebullitions
and on April 30, 1656, he died without the sacraments, after six years and a
half of incarceration, during which he had never been informed of the
charges against him. His body was thrust into unconsecrated ground and the
trial was continued against his fame and memory as an alumbrado heretic,

in an accusation presented May 11, 1657. There was no defence possible by
his kindred; he was duly condemned and in this auto of November 19,
1659, his effigy was brought forward, clad in priestly garments, the
impressive ceremony of degradation was performed and it was cast into the
flames with his bones exhumed for the purpose.[470]
Cruel as all this performance may seem to us, it was in strict conformity
with the convictions of the age and, when Philip IV received the report of
the auto, he warmly congratulated the inquisitor-general on the vigilance
which preserved the purity of the faith by inflicting merited chastisement.
[471]

With this auto the murderous activity of the tribunal may be said
virtually to end. Until the end of the century its business consisted almost
exclusively in the commonplace routine of bigamists, blasphemers, petty
sorcerers, soliciting confessors, clerics administering the sacraments
without priest’s orders and the like. Thus in an auto celebrated January 15,
1696, out of twenty-six penitents, there was but one heretic with a
sanbenito; there was a Greek schismatic reconciled and the rest were
sixteen bigamists, one Franciscan tertiary for Illuminism, a woman for
imposture and four men and two women for the superstitious practices
conveniently classed as sorcery with explicit or implicit pact with the
demon.[472] Yet during this half-century there were a couple of cases
showing that a nearly bloodless career was not due to any surcease of
fanatic zeal. In November, 1673, was arrested a wandering hermit named
Juan Bautista de Cardenas, charged with being iluso y alumbrado, with
grave suspicion of sacramentarian heresy. After giving the customary
account of his life he took refuge in absolute silence, which suggested that
he was possessed by a demon, but exorcism proved unavailing. Sharp
torture was then tried, but it elicited only the usual shrieks of pain. The
conclusion drawn from this was that he was a contumacious heretic and in
July, 1675, he was condemned to relaxation, when, on being notified of it,
he only said that if he was carried to the quemadero he would die for God.
The tribunal however did not dare to execute its own sentence and sent the
papers to the Suprema which, June 22, 1676, altered it to abjuration de levi,
deprivation of the habit he wore and exile from the cities of Mexico and
Puebla, adding that the torture had been abusive seeing that he had not been
formally testified against for heresy. The other case was that of Fray
Francisco Manuel de Cuadros, who had left his Order and practised as a

curandero, or curer of disease by charms. He was thrown in prison,
November 14, 1663, and during his trial, which was protracted for nearly
fifteen years, he confessed to being an agnostic, except as to the existence
of God, but he admitted that he was ignorant and half-crazy. At the auto of
March 20, 1679, he was condemned to relaxation after degradation, but at
the quemadero he showed signs of repentance, in virtue of which he was
admitted to the sacraments and was strangled before burning.[473]

In the public autos there is no trace of one of the principal duties of the
Inquisition in the repression of the prevalent crime of the seduction of
women by their confessors, euphemistically known as solicitation in the
confessional. Even as bigamy had been brought under inquisitorial
jurisdiction by the somewhat forced assumption that it implied erroneous
belief in the sacrament of matrimony, so solicitation was held to infer in the
confessor error as to the sacrament of penitence. At least this was the reason
alleged when, recognizing that the spiritual courts were useless to check the
practice, Paul IV, in 1561 entrusted its suppression in the Spanish
dominions to the Inquisition, and Gregory XV, in 1622, extended this to
other lands in which the Holy Office existed. Priests, however, for the
avoidance of scandal, were never paraded in public autos, unless they were
to be deprived of their orders; their sentences were read in the audience-
chamber with closed doors and in the presence only of a selected number of
their brethren, to whom the fate of the culprit should serve as a wholesome
warning.[474] While, therefore, the knowledge of this offence was
sedulously kept from the public, it gave the tribunal considerable
occupation. The morals of the Colonial clergy, for the most part, were
notoriously loose and, in the solitary missions and parishes among the
natives, evil passions had free rein.[475] This was enhanced by the almost
assured prospect of immunity, for the women seduced were the only
possible accusers and it has always proved exceedingly difficult to induce
them to denounce their seducers. Naturally therefore the Inquisition, on its
establishment, was speedily called upon to prosecute such culprits and, up
to 1577, it already had five cases.[476] It seems however not to have
enforced its exclusive jurisdiction over the offence if we may judge from
the proceedings in the case of Fray Juan de Saldaña, in 1583, for when it
assumed the prosecution he was undergoing six months’ imprisonment by
his superiors because at Tequitatlan he had violated an Indian girl and,

when she refused to continue the connection, he had her arrested and
flogged, after which she submitted. Though only 34 years of age he was a
person of consideration in his Franciscan Order, he had occupied various
positions of importance and at this time was guardian of the convent of
Suchipila, where he seduced three sisters, his penitents, the daughters of
Diego Flores, the encomendero of Suchipila and a person of distinction.
There seems to have been little or no concealment about it; he boasted
openly of the women he had seduced, Spanish as well as Indian, not only in
Suchipila but in his visitations, and he evidently had no idea that he was
incurring risk of the Inquisition, for when remonstrated with he asked what
his prelates could do to him—it was only a dozen strokes of the discipline
and a year’s suspension from his guardianship. When brought to trial he
was frank in his admissions; two years before he had been deprived of
confessing Spanish women, but as guardian he had licence to do so; he
mentioned seven Indian women whom he had seduced in confession
besides a mestizo and several Spaniards. In these cases, the accusation of
the fiscal and the exordium of the sentence are eloquently rhetorical as to
the heinous guilt in one, clothed with the awful power of the priesthood,
using that power to lead astray the souls seeking salvation through him, but
when it came to defining the penalty there is a tenderness which suggests
that in reality the offence was regarded as much less important than
aberration on some minute point of faith. When his sentence was read, May
5, 1584, he was subjected to the discipline for the space of a miserere; he
was deprived of the faculty of confessing, was suspended from orders for
six years, was recluded for two years in a convent with the customary
disabilities and was banished for six years from the see of Guadalajara.[477]
Such treatment was not adapted to strengthen the carnal-minded against
temptation so severe and the vice flourished accordingly. As the inquisitors
stated in a letter to the Suprema of May 22, 1619, it was a very frequent
offence in those parts and many confessors regarded it as trivial,[478] and the
list of cases of solicitation for the years 1622-4 contains fifty-six names, of
which seven were from Manila, for the Philippines were a dependency of
the Mexican tribunal. That leniency increased with time may be assumed
from the case, in 1721, of Fray Francisco Diego de Zarate, President of the
Mission of Santa María de los Angeles of Rio Blanca, a Franciscan
entrusted with many important positions. The summary in his trial states
that the evidence collected proved a hundred and twenty-six acts of

solicitation with fifty-six women and that it was his habit to solicit every
one who came to him to confess. It is impossible to conceive anything more
brutal than some of the details of the evidence; the offence in many cases
was almost public and might have continued indefinitely had he not
banished from Rio Blanco a woman and her family because she resisted
him, whereupon she talked and created a scandal that rendered action
necessary. Of the women, twenty-one were Indians, eight were Spaniards
(one of them his near relative), eight Mulattos, four Mestizos and fifteen
whose race is not specified. When the accusation, detailing all the cases,
was read to him, he admitted its correctness and indeed he had previously
made a written confession which contained a large number that had escaped
the investigations of the prosecution. Aggravated as was this case Fray
Francisco escaped with a second reading of his sentence in the Franciscan
convent, where a circular discipline was administered, perpetual deprivation
of confessing and of active and passive voice in his Order, six months’
suspension from celebrating mass and two years’ reclusion in a convent, of
which the first was to be passed in a cell with fasting on bread and water on
Fridays and Saturdays, and the last place in choir and refectory.[479] Yet
inadequate as was the habitual treatment of the offence by the Inquisition, it
was regarded as unduly harsh by the clerical authorities. The inquisitors, in
a letter of 1666 to the Suprema, by way of illustrating the prevalent laxity of
the Religious Orders, mention that after they had penanced four frailes for
solicitation, they were applied to to remove the restrictions which prevented
the culprits from being promoted to prelacies.[480] Self-denunciation, as in
Spain, was tolerably certain to win virtual immunity. In 1712, Luis Marin,
vicar of Nativitas, accused himself by letter, to which the tribunal promptly
responded by summoning him to appear within thirty days, but that only a
reprimand was intended is evident from the summons being accompanied
with a faculty to absolve him from the excommunication incurred, sent to
Padre Fernández de Córdova, S. J., who was instructed to counsel him to
abstain for the present from confessing women.[481]
The very miscellaneous functions assumed by the Inquisition in
extending its jurisdiction over a variety of matters foreign to its original
purpose is illustrated by a fortuitous collection of 397 cases between its
commencement in 1572 and the year 1800. In these the offences alleged
are[482]—

Bigamy 76
Judaism 71
Offences against the Inquisition 49
Solicitation 44
Blasphemy 39
Sorcery and superstitions 29
Heresy 20
Propositions 13
Illuminism 12
False witness 10
Personating priesthood 7
Miscellaneous 27
The considerable proportion of offences against the Inquisition arose
from the perpetual troubles caused by what was known as its temporal
jurisdiction, apart from its spiritual sphere of action. Every one connected
with it in an official capacity, however insignificant, with his family,
servants and slaves, was entitled, in a greater or less degree, to the fuero, or
jurisdiction of the Holy Office, and to exemption from pleading or
prosecution in the secular court if a layman, or the episcopal court if an
ecclesiastic. As favoritism rendered this privilege virtually an immunity for
crime it was eagerly sought and, as it was the source of influence and of
profitable business, the tribunal endeavored to extend its jurisdiction in
every way, with little regard to the limits imposed by law. This led to
constant conflicts between the rival jurisdictions, in which the tribunal used
without scruple its faculties of excommunication and of treating any
opposition as an attempt to impede its freedom of action, a crime to be
prosecuted and severely punished. In Spain these irreconcilable pretensions
were the cause of constant troubles, the settlement of which was through the
process known as competencia, carrying them up to the Supreme Council of
the Inquisition on the one hand and to the Council of Castile or of Aragon
on the other, with the monarch as the final arbiter. In the Colonies, however,
as we shall see, this system was practically eluded, and the tribunals
became even more arbitrarily lawless than those of the home country,
sometimes abusing their power after a fashion that involved the whole land

in confusion, for in matters of faith they had no superior, short of the
inquisitor-general, and it rested with themselves to define what was, directly
or indirectly, a matter of faith.
There were two classes of officials whose claims to the fuero were
different. Those known as titulados y asalariados were directly employed
in the tribunal, holding commissions from the inquisitor-general, enjoying
salaries and understood to devote themselves exclusively to its service. For
them and their families and dependants the fuero was complete, in both
civil and criminal matters, and both active and passive—that is, whether as
plaintiff or defendant. They were comparatively few in number, their
position was unchallenged and, whatever may have been the injustice and
oppression thence arising, there was little occasion for dispute. Beyond
these were the unsalaried officials—commissioners and their notaries and
alguazils, stationed at all important centres, consultors, calificadores or
censors and, above all, familiars numerously scattered throughout the land.
All these pursued their regular avocations and only acted when called on for
special service; they received no salary, but the positions were eagerly
sought, chiefly on account of the privileges and immunities which they
conferred. Of these the familiars were by far the most numerous and
troublesome. In Spain the definition of their privileges had been the subject
of numerous settlements known as Concordias and, when Philip II
established the colonial tribunals, he endeavored to forestall trouble by
extending to them the Castilian Concordia of 1553, which was much less
favorable to the familiars than those of the kingdoms of Aragon and, at the
same time, he sought to limit the number of appointees.
Among the documents issued in 1570 is a cédula addressed to the
colonial authorities, in which Philip conveys to them the regulations
adopted by the inquisitor-general. In the city of Mexico there are allowed
twelve familiars, in the cathedral towns four, in other towns one. Lists of
these and of all changes are to be furnished to the local magistracy, so that
they may see that the number is not exceeded and, in case of improper
appointments, they are to report to the tribunal or, if necessary, to the
inquisitor-general. In civil suits the familiars are not entitled to the fuero,
whether as plaintiffs or defendants. In criminal matters not as plaintiffs
while, as defendants, they are to enjoy it except in cases of treason,
unnatural crime, raising popular commotions, forging letters of safe-
conduct, resistance to royal commands, abduction or violation of women,

highway robbery, house or church breaking, arson of houses or harvests and
“other crimes greater than these” and also in resistance or disrespect to the
royal judges. Excepted also is official malfeasance in those holding public
office. Arrest by secular judges is permitted, in cases entitled to the fuero,
provided the culprit is handed over to the Inquisition, together with the
evidence, which is to be at his expense. If the offence is committed outside
of the city of Mexico, the offender cannot return to his place of residence
without exhibiting a copy of the inquisitorial sentence, with evidence of its
fulfilment. By a cédula of May 13, 1572, moreover, offences committed
against Indians were added to the excepted cases.[483]
This all appears definite enough, but it was easily evaded. At first there
seems to have been a disposition to conform to its intent. In 1575 a familiar
named Rodrigo de Yepes, who had given the lie to, and repeatedly struck in
the face, the alcalde of Valladola, was arrested by the civil magistrate and
claimed by the tribunal but, after a competencia, or discussion of the case
by the civil and inquisitorial authorities, the latter admitted that it was
excepted and surrendered him. On the other hand, in 1615, Diego de
Carmona Jamariz, a familiar of Puebla, was arrested for the murder of his
enemy, Joan de Olivárez, and was surrendered to the Inquisition without a
competencia, although murder would seem to be a greater crime than
highway robbery or burglary. The widow prosecuted him before the
tribunal, but it was useless and the case was dropped. In Spain, the
Inquisition had devised the ingenious argument that, until a crime was
proved, it could not be classed as excepted and therefore the affair was
under its jurisdiction until conviction, which enabled it to protect its
familiars, and this plea was used, in 1616, in the case of Gonzalo Antúnez
Yáñez, a familiar, prosecuted by order of the viceroy.[484]
It was not only the familiars who gave trouble, but the numerous other
unsalaried officials. The commissioners with their notaries and alguazils
formed little groups in the provincial towns, of which the members
supported each other and set the magistrates and courts at defiance. In the
original instructions issued to the inquisitors they were admonished to be
careful in the selection of commissioners, who were not to interfere with the
constituted authorities or to provoke quarrels, but were merely to execute
the mandates of the tribunal and to report on such matters as should present
themselves.[485] Distance and the difficulty of communication, however,
rendered them prone to abuse their position, and in this they were

emboldened by the unwavering support of the tribunal. Throughout all the
Spanish Colonies the commissioner was an object of dread and the subject
of perpetual complaint on the part of the secular and ecclesiastical powers.
The general sentiment is expressed, as late as 1777, by Santiago Joseph,
Bishop of Cuba, in a letter to Inquisitor-general Bertran. All the
commissioners whom he had known, he said, had been ignorant persons,
with the exception of one whose term of service was brief. There was no
salary to attract competent men and the place was taken only to serve as an
excuse for neglecting all clerical functions and duties. The commerce of
Havana brought numerous heretics who scattered their poison and he dared
not interpose for fear of the consequences of invading inquisitorial
jurisdiction. The existing incumbent paid no attention to this and, when not
absent, was wholly occupied in stirring up quarrels with the civil
authorities.[486]
The commissioners of Mexico fully justified this characterization by the
good bishop. In the great majority of cases the hopelessness of resistance to
their arbitrary acts caused submission, but occasionally one emerges to light
which illustrates the spirit animating the Inquisition and its officials. In
1699, Father Pistoya, S. J., the ecclesiastical judge of Sinaloa, prosecuted
Martin de Verastegui for incestuous adultery with Maria García. Thereupon
his intimate friend, Pérez de Ribera, the commissioner, to protect him,
promptly appointed him notary, an act for which he had no authority.
Pistoya sent the evidence in the case to the royal court of Guadalajara
(Jalisco), which ordered the Governor of Sinaloa, Don Jacinto de
Fuensaldaña, to arrest the guilty pair, embargo their property and send them
to the royal prison of Guadalajara. Ribera claimed him as an official of the
Inquisition and, on refusal, excommunicated the governor and the military
officers who had executed his orders and posted them as such on the
tablillas of the church. The tribunal sustained its commissioner; the
governor was obliged to appear before it and beg for absolution; the
commissioner was empowered to take testimony in the case and report it to
the tribunal, which naturally found the parties innocent and Verastegui was
rewarded with a genuine notary’s commission in lieu of the fictitious one
which had protected him from justice. It is no wonder that, in replying to
their report of another outrageous case in 1695, the Suprema had sharply
rebuked the inquisitors, ordering them to act with justice and moderation
and prevent the complaints of their proceedings, which came daily to the

king from the Council of Indies, but the case of Verastegui shows how little
respect they paid to the admonition.[487]
Yet, with all this, there were comparatively few of the bitter struggles, so
frequent in Spain during this period, between the royal and inquisitorial
jurisdictions. It was not that the inquisitors were less arbitrary and
audacious than at home, for their distance from the court rendered them
even more independent, but that the secular magistracy felt its weakness
and offered less resolute resistance. Spain was far off and the viceroy,
though representing the royal autocracy, was under strict orders to show
every favor to the Inquisition. There was kept in the royal chancellery the
formula of a letter to all viceroys, emphasizing the great services of the
Inquisition to religion and to the king and ordering it to be favored and
guarded in all its privileges, exemptions and liberties, including those of its
officials and familiars. Adherence to this would be regarded as most
acceptable service and the contrary would not be permitted.[488] This
portentous document was sent to the Viceroys of Mexico and Peru in 1603
and was doubtless repeated to them whenever necessary, as it was to other
royal representatives at subsequent periods. As a rule however the viceroys
and the tribunal were at odds and their quarrels were not conducive to
popular tranquillity or edification. More than once we find viceroys like
Mancera, Cerralbo and Gelvez threatening the inquisitors with banishment.
[489]

As a matter of course, under such auspices, colonial inquisitors could
never be restrained within the limit of their rightful prerogatives, great as
these were. A royal cédula of January 20, 1587, scolds those of Lima for
illegal protection of their familiars and for vexing the local magistrates by
summoning them from long distances before the tribunal. Another of March
8, 1589, rebukes them for creating too many familiars and other officials.
Another of August 23, 1595, reprimands those of Mexico for supporting a
familiar in refusing to render an account to the royal chancery of his
functions as custom-house officer at Vera Cruz.[490] These complaints were
of almost daily occurrence until at length Philip III sought to cut them off at
the root by forming a junta of two members from each of the Councils of
the Inquisition and of Indies to advise him. After mature deliberation they
did so and the result is what is known as the Concordia of 1610. The
prohibitions embodied in this are eloquent of the audacity of the inquisitors
in exceeding their functions, abusing their authority in matters wholly

outside of their jurisdiction and exercising an insufferably vexatious petty
tyranny, the exasperating effect of which was intensified by the immunity
enjoyed by the servants and slaves of the officials. These were justiciable
only by the tribunal, which invariably protected them, so that the
community was exposed without redress to the insolence of a class
peculiarly apt to abuse its privileges.
Under pain of forfeiture of office the inquisitors were forbidden, directly
or indirectly, by themselves or their kindred, to farm the public revenues or
to prevent their being farmed to the highest bidder. Neither they nor the
salaried officials were to engage in any kind of trade, under the same
penalty. They were not to claim the right of seizing articles at an appraised
price, except under urgent necessity for the support of the prisoners or
buildings of the Inquisition. Their negroes were not to carry arms except
when accompanying their masters. They were not to defend commissioners
or familiars in frauds on the revenue nor in refusing to render an account of
deposits made with them by order of court. They were not to detain the
couriers and messengers who served as a rudimentary post-office and were
to remove the prohibition against vessels leaving port or passengers
departing without their licence. They were not to arrest the royal alguazils
except for grave and notorious excess against the Inquisition. They were to
be allowed one alguazil in Vera Cruz and were to dismiss all those
appointed elsewhere.[491] They were not to protect familiars, who held
public office, when prosecuted for official malfeasance, nor commissioners
who held benefices for offences committed in their character of incumbents.
They were not to order universities to grant degrees in contravention of
their statutes, nor were they to interfere in matters of government apart from
their functions. They were not to excommunicate a viceroy in cases of
competencia, nor was the viceroy to evoke to himself a case that might lead
to a competencia. A provision was also made for the settlement of
competencias without the tedious resort to the councils in Spain. If the
senior judge and senior inquisitor could not agree in their conference, the
inquisitors were to name three ecclesiastical dignitaries to the viceroy, who
was to select one; he was to be adjoined to the judge and inquisitor and the
majority was to decide or, if there were three discordant opinions, the
viceroy was to choose between them.[492]
This project for the settlement of competencias was ineffective. A cédula
of February 7, 1569, had extended to the colonies the system in force at

home, and under it there had been in Mexico, during the remainder of the
century, seven cases; there was one in 1601 and another in 1602, after
which they ceased.[493] Solorzano tells us that they were not revived by the
new regulations, which omitted to specify the place where the conferences
were to be held, and the judges and inquisitors each summoned the others to
come to them. The judges had old custom and royal cédulas on their side,
but the inquisitors refused compliance because the orders had not been
transmitted to them through the Suprema which they claimed was requisite
to their validity, and thus important cases, both civil and criminal, remained
undecided, to the great injury of individuals and the public. Moved by the
complaints thus occasioned, Philip III, in a cédula of November 19, 1618,
ordered that the conferences be held in the vice-regal palace, where the
senior judge was to have precedence over the inquisitor, and this was
repeated in a cédula to the court of Lima, May 28, 1621, but again the
inquisitors of both Mexico and Peru refused obedience on the same pretext
as before. Thus cases continued undecided until the urgency of the Council
of Indies led Philip IV to consult both councils and, in 1636, he ordered that
the judge and inquisitor should meet before the viceroy, the one who was
senior in office taking the right hand.[494] This compromise did not suit the
pretensions of the Holy Office for precedence and it gained the victory in a
cédula of May 30, 1640, which recites that, after many conferences, it was
determined that the senior judge must go to the Inquisition, where the senior
inquisitor was to have precedence, when the competencia was to be settled
under the provisions of the Concordia of 1610.[495] Apparently this
assumption of their inferiority was insufferable to the judges, for no formal
competencia occurred between 1602 and 1711. Matters in dispute were
occasionally referred to the councils in Spain, but this was of little benefit
for it was usually the last heard of the case.[496] To appreciate fully the
cruelty of all this, we must reflect that perhaps some accused person or
unlucky alguazil, arrested for executing the orders of his superiors, might be
languishing in gaol for a life-time, awaiting the settlement of a conflict of
jurisdiction which could never be settled.
Whether or not the other prescriptions of the Concordia of 1610 were
better observed than those concerning competencias it would be difficult to
determine, but the presumption is adverse. At all events, inquisitorial
ingenuity was constantly devising new methods of aggression and further
complaints led Philip IV to assemble a junta of two members of each

council, whose conferences resulted in the enactment of another Concordia,
published April 11, 1633. Many of its clauses relate to the ever-present
question of precedence, which need not detain us here, except the
suggestive one that, at bull-fights in the plaza, the first courses are to be
performed before the secular authorities, unless the latter, of their own
accord, desire that honor to be paid to the inquisitors. Equally suggestive in
another way are the prescriptions that commissioners shall treat the public
courteously and that inquisitors shall treat the judges with respect and shall
cease molesting the officers of the royal courts with censures and
summoning and detaining them. They are again forbidden to engage in
trade and are told not to interfere with the elections of secular officials nor,
in times of scarcity, are they to persecute with excommunications the
guards in charge of boats bringing grain, but are to apply to the viceroy,
who will promptly supply their wants. The prohibition of detaining ships is
repeated, but they are allowed to grant licences for sailing and for
individuals to depart, which practically amounted to the same thing. The
inquisitors seem to have gained their point as to the right of seizing goods
and materials at a “just price,” for this is allowed, subject to some
limitations. The inviolability of the domicile of inquisitors is admitted in the
provision that it is not to be abused by secreting goods to the prejudice of
third parties; and, in the case of salaried officials, it is limited by a clause
that when it is necessary for officers of justice to enter the house of such
official, or of the widow of one during her widowhood, notice shall first be
given to the tribunal, which shall appoint one of its ministers to be present,
with an appointee of the viceroy or court and, if such an appointment is not
made within two or three hours, the entry can be made without longer
waiting. One of the petty privileges which gave rise to constant
exacerbation is indicated in the provision that, of the cattle slaughtered in
the public shambles, there shall be given weekly the chine and chitterlings
of ten oxen—two to each of the inquisitors, one to the alguazil and
secretaries, one to the receiver and notary of sequestrations, and the rest to
the poor prisoners; this is said to be all that the tribunal is entitled to and
anything more must be paid for, nor shall its servants take the chitterlings
and sell them.[497]
Concordias were only attempts to restrain existing abuses and they could
not provide for the perpetual new aggressions suggested by the facile
weapon of excommunication through which the Inquisition could overcome

the resistance of the secular authorities. The distribution of quicksilver, for
instance, to the miners was a matter jealously reserved to the viceroy and
the junta of the treasury but, when the Inquisition wanted it for some mines
belonging to it in Zacatecas, it forced, by threats of excommunication, the
royal officials to supply its demands. Viceroy Mancera, in a letter of
December 8, 1666, complains of this and of a case in which the royal
treasurer of Guadalajara owed a personal debt to the tribunal of 980 pesos
and the commissioner there, by order of the acting inquisitor and visitador,
Medina Rico, forced the auditor of the treasury to pay it out of the royal
funds, by threats of excommunication and of a fine of 500 pesos. Mancera
endeavored by courteous remonstrance to obtain restitution but, after the
inquisitors had insulted him, he only succeeded in getting 600 pesos
returned. In reporting these matters to the king, the Council of Indies
pointed out forcibly how incompatible with subordination and good
government were these arbitrary extensions of inquisitorial jurisdiction over
matters wholly foreign to the objects of its institution.[498]
Indeed, the existence of so uncontrollable and disturbing an element
goes far to explain the ill-success of Spanish colonial administration. In
1615, Fray Isidro Ordoñez, commissioner in San Francisco del Nuevo
Mexico, under pretext of a fictitious order from the tribunal, gathered a
band of soldiers and citizens, to whom inquisitorial orders were supreme,
and seized Don Pedro de Peralta, Governor of New Mexico, and held him
in irons for nine months. Peralta managed to complain to the tribunal,
which summoned Ordoñez to the capital and assigned to him his convent
for a prison, but Peralta obtained no satisfaction beyond a declaration that
there had been no cause for his arrest, while Ordoñez, in place of the severe
punishment which he merited, was permitted to attend the general chapter
of his Order in Rome, as procurator of the province of Mexico.[499] Another
Governor of New Mexico, Diego de Peñalosa, fared even worse when, for
indiscreet words about priests and inquisitors and expressions verging on
blasphemy, he was exposed to the humiliation of appearing as a penitent in
the auto de fe of February 3, 1668—thus virtually incapacitating him for
further service.[500] It was not without grounds that the Council of Indies, in
1696, addressed a formal remonstrance to Carlos II, recapitulating a long
array of abuses and violences, showing the impossibility of enforcing
observance of the Concordias or obedience to the royal commands. Prelates
and governors were alike sufferers from the irrepressible audacity which

admitted no responsibility to any one, so long as it was upheld and justified
by the Suprema at home, and the council supplicated the king, if not for the
total extinction of the tribunal, at least for the dismissal of the officials.
Without some thorough change the retention of the colonies could scarce be
hoped for, as all the population was inspired with a common hatred arising
from its violence.[501]
As the council says, prelates were as liable as royal officials to be
subjected to the lawless action of the tribunal. There never were lacking
pretexts for quarrel. In 1617 Archbishop Pedro de Villareal fared badly in a
rupture caused by his inserting in an edict some matters which the tribunal
claimed to belong to its jurisdiction. In 1623 Bishop Bohorques of Oaxaca
had the same experience because he styled himself Inquisidor Ordinario.
The episcopate of Archbishop Matheo Sagade Bugueiro, from 1655 to
1662, was a succession of bitter dissensions, during which Bernardino de
Amezaga, chief notary of the court of testaments, was arrested by the
tribunal, deprived of his office and banished, while Francisco de Bermeo,
contador of the Santa Cruzada, was kept long in prison, fined 200 pesos and
a negro slave of his was sold to defray it. In 1658 the archbishop made a
demand that all edicts read in his cathedral must first be shown to him in
order to satisfy him that they contained nothing that invaded his
jurisdiction, and his action in enforcing this claim led the tribunal to publish
a manifesto declaring that, under the bull Si de protegendis, he had incurred
degradation and relaxation to the secular arm.[502]
There was one case, however, in which the tribunal and the Archbishop
of Mexico combined for the persecution of a bishop, for Juan de Mañozca,
the archbishop from 1643 to 1653, was cousin of the inquisitor of the same
name. The saintly Bishop Juan de Palafox of Puebla, in his capacity of
visitador and protector of the Indians, incurred the enmity of the archbishop
and of the Viceroy Salvatierra, and an occasion of gratifying it occurred
when he undertook to guard his episcopal jurisdiction against the
encroachments of the Jesuits. They appointed jueces conservadores to
protect their interests and the tribunal rushed eagerly into the fray, with
which it had absolutely no right to intervene.[503] It ordered the suppression
of the writings and edicts of Palafox and forbade any interference with
those of the conservators; it sent a commissioner to Puebla who terrorized
the community by arresting prominent priests and citizens of the bishop’s
party, parading them through the streets in chains and sending them to

Mexico, where they were thrown into the secret prison, thus inflicting
indelible disgrace on them and their posterity. In spite of the exemption of
Indians from inquisitorial jurisdiction, he flogged nearly to death, with four
hundred lashes, an unfortunate Indian who, at the command of a citizen,
had taken down one of the conservators’ edicts. Palafox was advised that he
too would be arrested and fled to the mountains, where he lay concealed for
several months.[504] When, in 1647, he appealed to the Suprema, powers
were sent to the Bishop of Oaxaca to investigate and report, but Archbishop
Mañozca threw every impediment in his way and, in his capacity of
visitador of the Inquisition, assumed to annul his commission. He appealed
to the Bishop of Yucatan, then Governor of New Spain, and to the
Audiencia for support, but the archbishop threatened to excommunicate
them all and they prudently declined the conflict. Palafox represents to the
Suprema that his life was in danger and he begs to be allowed to return to
Spain.[505] The combination of the archbishopric and Inquisition, under the
two Mañozcas, evidently held the whole land in its grasp, and no one was
hardy enough to oppose it. Palafox was obliged to abandon Mexico, but he
eventually secured a decision in his favor on an appeal to Rome.
An episode of this case is worth recounting in some detail, not only as
illustrating inquisitorial methods but as a rare instance of a victim obtaining
a measure of satisfaction. Doctor Juan de la Camara, a canon of the
cathedral, was a man of noble birth, proud of his unblemished limpieza, and
his appointment as visitador of the see of Guadalajara indicates the
estimation in which he was held by his superiors. Unfortunately he was a
friend and correspondent of Palafox. When, in 1646, a bitter libel was
circulated against the latter, one of the judges of the Audiencia, Alonso
González de Villalba, was included in it. Palafox endured the attack in
silence and endeavored to make Villalba follow his example, but the latter
was so incensed that he wrote a reply in which he handled roughly the
inquisitor Mañozca. He showed it to his neighbor Camara, who returned it
without comment and said nothing about it except to Don Antonio Urrutía
de Vergara, to whom he mentioned it in order that he might tell the
archbishop, and to a Doña Catalina de Diosdado, to whom he merely said
that he had seen two scandalous papers and that, if the author confessed to
him, he would not absolve him.
There was a chance that among his papers something might be found to
compromise Palafox, so an order of arrest with sequestration of property

was made out, February 7, 1647. At eight o’clock in the morning Camara
was roused from his bed and taken in his own carriage to the secret prison,
where he was confined in a cell of which the window had been blocked up,
so that the single candle to which he was restricted was his only light by
day and night. Here he was kept incomunicado for twenty days. After the
tenth day, however, on which he was examined, the obstructions were
removed from the window and, after the twentieth, his brother, Fray Diego,
and some other friends were permitted to see him on obtaining a special
licence for each visit. Meanwhile his papers had been carried off to the
tribunal, without being inventoried as required by the Instructions; on the
day after his arrest his household effects were inventoried and placed in the
hands of the receiver, Juan González de Castro, as depository, but they were
not removed from the house and no care was taken to ensure their safety.
At nightfall of March 15th he was taken back to his house and told that it
was henceforth to be his prison, under pain of excommunication and a
thousand ducats. On April 1st his prison was enlarged to the city, under the
same penalties, and he was enabled to resume his duties at the cathedral. Of
course the immurement in the secret prison, with sequestration of property,
of so prominent an ecclesiastic, caused a general sensation; it was at the
height of the prosecution of the Judaizers and the inevitable conclusion was
that they had implicated him, so that a stain was cast upon his honor which
no subsequent exculpation could wholly efface. His papers were withheld
from him; his house had been richly furnished, with abundance of silver
plate and linen, much of which had disappeared, and he seems to have
deplored especially the loss of eighteen ounces of amber. His trial remained
unconcluded and his repeated applications for a decision and for the
restoration of missing property were filed away without action. His only
hope of escape from prolonged and intolerable suspense lay in appealing to
the Suprema. The inquisitors had already sought to prejudice it against him
for, in a letter of May 20th, they spoke of the incredible efforts and
diabolical means employed to intimidate them from the performance of
their duty in the matter of Palafox; Camara was an accomplice of Villalba in
publishing the libel; he had perjured himself in his confessions and might
be assumed to be the author of the worst passages in it. In spite of this the
Suprema, by a decree of September 28, 1647, ordered his release, on the
security of his oath, and the sequestration of his property to be removed.

Camara succeeded in secretly obtaining from the king an order,
November 16, 1647, permitting him to go to Spain, but he was
impoverished and sent his brother, Fray Diego, to act for him. The mission
occupied Diego for several years, but he finally procured from the Suprema
a commission to the Inquisitor Higuera to try the case promptly for, during
all this time, it had been held suspended over Camara’s head. This was
presented, February 15, 1650, and, on the following July 12th, Higuera,
who was at odds with Mañozca, rendered a sentence acquitting him and
restoring him to his previous good fame, so that his arrest should work no
prejudice to him or to his kindred and their descendants; also that the
chapter should pay him all the accrued fruits of his prebend and that his
papers and property should be returned to him. From this Camara appealed
to the Suprema, which confirmed it, July 7, 1651; then the fiscal of the
Suprema appealed and it was again confirmed, July 31st. The whole
prosecution was thus stamped as being malicious and groundless, but
nevertheless Camara in vain endeavored to regain possession of his papers
and of his missing effects.
Archbishop Mañozca died in 1653; the affair of Palafox had created no
little scandal in Spain and, in 1654, a new visitador, Pedro de Medina Rico,
was sent out with instructions especially to investigate it. Camara promptly
set forth his grievances, in September, in a complaint against Estrada and
Higuera—for apparently Mañozca, as the subject of the libel, had not sat in
the trial. On December 1st he made his formal charges in a criminal action
against them, laying his damages at 12,000 pesos, which he claimed to be
the amount which the affair had cost him in losses and expenses. It was a
bold undertaking and probably unexampled, and he found it impossible to
secure the necessary legal assistance for, on January 20, 1655, he
represented that none of the procurators of the Audiencia would serve him,
wherefore he prayed for an order on Juan de Escobar to appear for him. It
was granted and enforced with a penalty of fifty pesos, under pressure of
which Escobar took charge of the case. In the same way his witnesses
refused to appear until he procured orders on them, with censures for
disobedience. The action went slowly on through its various stages; the
inquisitors made no effort to justify what they had done and confined their
defence to alleging that the affair was a cosa juzgada, which could not be
reopened, and to interjecting appeals to the Suprema at every adverse
interlocutory decree. It was not until May 31, 1656, that Medina Rico

pronounced sentence to the effect that Camara had proved his case
completely and that Estrada and Higuera had alleged nothing to palliate
their grave offence, the punishment of which he reserved for future
decision. As to what affected the interest of the plaintiff, he condemned
them jointly and severally to pay him two thousand pesos. The receiver, or
depository, was ordered to restore to him everything shown in the inventory
and, if it appeared that articles were not deposited with him, the inquisitors
must make them good under penalty of a thousand pesos. From this the
inquisitors appealed and, after protracted argument, Rico suspended the
order to pay the two thousand pesos until the Suprema should decide the
appeal, but that the rest of the sentence should be executed without awaiting
its action. Then followed a long and confused litigation with the executor of
the receiver de Castro, who had been dead for many years and his estate
distributed. The documents preserved end with November 14, 1657, at
which time they were made up for transmission to the Suprema and what
was its final decision cannot be told.[506] It is evident that Camara obtained
little compensation for his sufferings, but at least he had the satisfaction of
seeing his persecutors punished, although inadequately, for official
offenders were always treated tenderly by the Inquisition. Medina Rico, as
the result of his visitation, formulated hundreds of charges against them,
collectively and individually, and rendered sentence, May 17, 1662, in the
audience-chamber, where all the officials were assembled. Estrada was
condemned to severe reprimand, to a fine of 1500 pesos and to four years’
suspension, though, as he had died October 26, 1661, the penalty fell only
on his heirs. Higuera was sentenced to a fine of a hundred pesos and two
years’ suspension, which he endured until May 16, 1664. Mañozca was
visited more heavily with a fine of 1300 pesos and nine years of suspension.
[507] This he could afford to disregard for, in the autumn of 1661, he had
been provided with the bishopric of Santiago de Cuba whence, in 1666, he
was transferred to that of Guatemala and finally, in 1675, he obtained the
wealthy see of Puebla, from which he had driven Palafox. Retributive
justice, however, at last overtook him, for he died before he could take
possession.[508] Such were the men who largely filled the tribunals and
episcopates of the Colonies.

Among the privileges claimed by the Inquisition was exemption from
military service. This was strictly limited by the Concordia of 1633.

Officials holding commissions from the inquisitor-general were exempted
from appearing in the general musters, but familiars were not, unless
actually on duty for the tribunal and, if the enemy was in sight, all were
liable to service, save those necessary to guard the papers and records of the
tribunal, to whom certificates were to be given. As might be expected,
however, little respect was paid to these provisions. In 1685, the alcalde of
Puebla called a muster of the citizens to march to the succor of Campeachy.
Hipolito del Castillo, alguazil and familiar, claimed exemption, to which he
was clearly not entitled. The alcalde threatened to send him on a mule to
Campeachy and in effect threw him into prison, placed his head in the
pillory and made him pay a fine of 120 pesos. The commissioner at Puebla
defended Castillo and, on appeal to the Inquisition, it ordered the money to
be returned. Again, in 1718, when eight companies of merchants were
formed in Puebla, by order of the viceroy, to make the rounds of the city
and drive out malefactors, Martínez de Castro, a familiar and trader, was
enrolled; he protested and appealed to the Inquisition, which ordered his
discharge, in which the authorities immediately acquiesced.[509]

The inquisitorial function of censorship was by no means neglected.
Even before the establishment of the tribunal, it was felt necessary to guard
the faithful from the infection of heretical books and, in 1561, Inquisitor-
general Valdés sent to Archbishop Montufar a commission empowering him
to examine the book-shops for that purpose.[510] This conveyed no censorial
power, but Páramo proudly asserts that, almost at the inception of the Holy
Office, calificadores were appointed who exercised a most vigilant
supervision over all books introduced into the colony, even over those
which had passed the examination of the Suprema itself, and who
occasionally had the satisfaction of showing that books widely circulated in
Spain required expurgation. In fact, a letter of the Suprema respecting the
Index then in preparation shows that, as early as 1573, censures of books
were received from Mexico. The position of calificador, like that of
inquisitor, seems to have been a stepping-stone to the bishop’s chair, for the
first one was Domingo de Salazar, promoted, in 1581, to the
archiepiscopate of the Philippines; the second was Bartolomé de Ledesma,
who in 1581 became Bishop of Oaxaca, and the third was Pedro de Ribera,
who in 1594 was elected Bishop of Panama, but died on the road to take
possession.[511] Apparently the office was one not always easy to fill. In a

letter of September 1, 1655, the tribunal informed the Suprema that it was
in need of correctors of books and calificadores and it sent the genealogy of
Padre Juan Hortiz, Rector of the Jesuit College, as a fit person, though he
had not studied theology; the tribunal of Logroño thereupon reported
favorably as to his limpieza and, on November 11, 1659, after four years of
delay, the commission for him was sent.[512] It will be seen from all this that
the Mexican Inquisition exercised an independent function of censorship;
the earliest printing-press in the New World was established in the city of
Mexico and its products were supervised by the tribunal, which condemned
them, when necessary, without awaiting a reference to distant Spain.
Prohibitory edicts, moreover, emanating from the home censorship, were
duly published from every parish pulpit between the Caribbean and the
Pacific.[513]
As was the case in Spain, censorship was not confined to literature but
extended to works of art which might offend sensitiveness either of
modesty or of veneration. The degree to which this might interfere with
affairs of daily life depended upon the discretion of the tribunal, as was
instanced by an edict of March 2, 1600. This prohibited all crosses, heads of
Christ, the Virgin and the saints and scenes from sacred history carved or
engraved or painted or embroidered on furniture, bed-clothing, napery,
utensils of all kinds, or other places where these sacred symbols might be
exposed to disrespect, and everything of the kind was to be surrendered for
the erasure of the images. As Spanish piety had luxuriated in the use of such
emblems wherever possible, this raised a cloud of questions, which Fray
Diego Múñoz, commissioner at Mechoacan, endeavored to settle in
instructions issued to his delegate at Querétaro. Thus branding-irons for
cattle and horses, that had a cross on them, were to be surrendered; as for
beasts already so branded, the marks were to be erased where possible. Men
tattooed with crosses or the name of Jesus were to efface them within
fifteen days. Thimbles so adorned, if of gold or silver, were to be returned
after filing off the symbols. Moulds for pastry with sacred heads were
allowable, because the pastry was eaten and not treated with indecency, and
it was the same with tapestries and wall-hangings. That the opportunities
afforded by this decree were not neglected is indicated in a complaint to the
tribunal from Juan Rodríguez of Querétaro, who relates that Fray Francisco
de Parra, Guardian of the Franciscan convent, under orders from Múñoz,
had seized and carried off to the convent a bedstead of gilt wood, costing

500 pesos, because it had some carved heads, which were not of Christ or
angels; also counterpanes, pillows, curtains, towels, etc., because they had
crosses or the word Jesus embroidered on them, and finger-rings with five
stones set as a cross. Others had suffered in the same way, and Rodríguez
prayed for the restoration of the articles.[514]
Incident to the censorship was the visita de navíos, or search of all
vessels on their arrival, regarded as an indispensable duty to prevent the
importation of forbidden books and the immigration of suspected heretics
and Judaizers, as well as to ascertain whether, during the voyage, any one
on board had committed acts subjecting him to inquisitorial jurisdiction. As
in Spain, this performance inevitably led to friction with the secular
authorities of the sea-ports. As early as 1584 there is a prosecution of
Hernando de Moxica, alcalde mayor, and of Diego de Yepes, regidor of
Vera Cruz, for impeding the commissioner in this work and speaking
disrespectfully of it, resulting in a fine of five hundred pieces each, with
excommunication until they should withdraw their opposition.[515] Of
course it was difficult to control the officials of the tribunal in the matter of
fees and to keep the peace between them and the royal representatives as to
questions of precedence, points which the Concordia of 1633 endeavored to
regulate by fixing the fee at four pesos, of which two accrued to the
commissioner and one each to the alguazil and notary, an amount never to
be exceeded, no matter how many assistants might be employed, while
existing orders were to be strictly observed as to their concurrence with the
royal officials.[516] Of course it was not easy for the Inquisition to maintain
supervision over so extended a coast. In a consulta of February 15, 1620,
the Suprema informed Philip III that there had recently been printed in
Holland large numbers of Spanish Bibles to be sent to the colonies and, as
the Inquisition was unable to prevent their introduction unaided, the king
was asked to instruct the royal officials to exercise greater vigilance. To this
he assented and the request was renewed, June 28, 1629. It was probably to
meet this that, in 1633, an agreement between the Suprema and the Council
of Indies permitted the appointment of an alguazil in Yucatan to aid in
searching the ships arriving at the ports.[517]

With the advent of the Bourbon dynasty, there occurs, in Mexico as in
Spain, a disposition on the part of the secular authorities to restrain the
overbearing petulance and audacity of the Holy Office. It is true that the

tribunal obtained a victory in 1712, in a quarrel with the Royal Audiencia
which had prosecuted its notary, and it was so overjoyed that it hastened to
communicate the fact to the tribunal of Lima so that it might serve as a
precedent. It related how the royal cédula of 1640, repeated in 1667 and
1701, had been strictly observed, when the senior judge came to the
competencia and occupied the lowest seat and the decision was that the
notary was entitled to the fuero of the Holy Office.[518] Though
competencias thus commenced to reappear they did not always end so
satisfactorily. In 1722, Joseph Freire de Somorostro, commissioner in
Zacatapan, was fined 500 pesos and suspended for six years from his
functions as an advocate by the royal court, for an offence against its
authority. He appealed to the tribunal which, in its customary threatening
methods, demanded that the papers in the case be delivered to it within
fifteen days, but they were withheld. It succeeded better in the case of
Alonso Diaz de la Vega, alguazil of Goamantla who, in 1723, was
concerned with his son in a quarrel, in which a man was killed. They were
arrested and prosecuted, but the tribunal interfered vigorously, obtained
possession of both father and son, gave notice that prosecutors must present
themselves within eight days and, as none appeared, discharged the accused
—thus affording convincing proof of the advantage of the fuero to
criminals. It showed, however, a juster sense of the limitations of its
jurisdiction in another case of the same year which illustrates the tendency
of its officials to obstruct the secular authorities. The Castellan of Vera Cruz
complained to the viceroy of the commissioner, Gregorio de Salinas, who
had assisted the mutineers of the fleet in demanding their pay and had
defended the asylum of the convent of San Francisco, in which they had
taken refuge. The viceroy forwarded the statement to the tribunal, which
forthwith ordered the commissioner to desist; the Inquisition had nothing to
do with the matter; if he had assembled the officials of the Inquisition with
their badges and had taken them to the convent to defend its right of
asylum, he had done very wrong and must instruct each of them, before a
notary, to keep aloof and he must, in the same way, withdraw the delegated
power given to the superior of the convent. It does not appear however that
the peccant commissioner was punished in any way for this inexcusable
prostitution of the authority of the Holy Office. Another case, in the same
year, illustrates the multifarious ways in which these petty local officials
abused the mysterious attributes with which they were invested. Valdés la

Vandera, commissioner of Valle de Santa Barbara, claimed fees for all
interments to which he was invited, even when he did not wear surplice and
cap as ordered by the Constitucion Sinodal and, not content with this,
charged double fees; he also demanded that, in the assemblies of Corpus,
San Pedro and other feasts of obligation, he should have the highest place,
in virtue of being commissioner. The clergy complained to the tribunal,
which condemned his pretensions and ordered him to desist.[519]
The enlightened despotism of Carlos III brought increased tendency to
curtail the privileges of the Inquisition and to curb its audacity. A cédula of
February 29, 1760, declares that the titular and salaried officials shall enjoy
the fuero only as defendants, in both civil and criminal matters, and wholly
withdraws that of the familiars. Also that in clear and notorious cases there
shall be no competencia, but that the viceroy, as the personal representative
of the sovereign, shall decide what is fitting to prevent invasion of the royal
jurisdiction.[520] The transitory liberalism of the period greatly diminished
the traditional awe inspired by the Inquisition. About the year 1767, it had a
serious conflict with the Audiencia, over the case of a Doctor Bechi, in
which the royal fiscal, during his argument, treated it with scant respect,
reciting how Charles V had been obliged to limit its jurisdiction in Sicily,
how the reigning monarch had exiled from court the Inquisitor-general
Quintano Bonifaz, and hinting not obscurely that, if it was abolished,
substitutes for it could be found—all of which was made the subject of
bitter, and apparently fruitless, remonstrance to the king by the Suprema, in
a consulta of February 29, 1768. This unprecedented freedom of speech
reveals the existence of a belief in some impending change, and this was
stimulated by the startling expulsion of the Jesuits, skilfully managed by the
viceroy, the Marquis de Croix, June 25, 1767. The foundations of the
ecclesiastical structure seemed to be crumbling and there arose a
universally accredited rumor that the Inquisition would be the next to suffer.
So definite did this become that the day was fixed for September 3d and the
precaution taken by the viceroy, in anticipation of disturbance, by keeping
troops under arms all that night, especially in the quarter where the
Inquisition was situated, only strengthened the delusion. So firmly rooted
was this that, when the night passed away without the expected event, the
archbishop called upon the viceroy to learn for himself the truth of the
belief that the suppression had only been postponed until certain pending
trials should be completed.[521]