CHAPTER XXVII

THE LAST “INSTRUCTIONS” OF TORQUEMADA

The expulsion of the Jews may be considered the supreme and crowning work of Torquemada’s life. It marks the high meridian of his achievement. Hereafter his career dwindles gradually in importance in a measure as it sinks slowly to its setting.

In Rome, meanwhile, in that year 1492, a new Pontiff--Roderigo Borgia--had ascended the throne of St. Peter under the title of Alexander VI, and from this Pontiff’s hands Torquemada received his confirmation in the great office which he held--a confirmation which, being couched in the otiose terms of affection not uncommon in papal bulls, seems to have led many to believe that Alexander viewed Torquemada and the Holy Office of Spain with particular fondness. As a matter of fact, this Pope’s attempts to curb the excessive rigour of the Grand Inquisitor were less lethargic--we dare not say more energetic--than those exerted by Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII; and it was Alexander VI who, weary of complaints, finally contrived the retirement of the Prior of Holy Cross.

But that was not yet. Before that came to pass, the scandals of secret absolutions sold and subsequently rescinded by the Holy See were now repeated. Vigorous appeals were made to the Holy Father against the procedure of the Grand Inquisitor, and the Holy Father, acting upon the advice of the Apostolic Court, dispatched his briefs of absolution. Torquemada, incensed once more by this fresh interference with his jurisdiction, made his appeal to the Sovereigns, and jointly with them laid his protests before the Pope, who complacently cancelled the briefs that had been paid for--or rather that part of the absolution which concerned the temporal courts. For the moneys received it could be shown that full value had been given, since these absolutions still held good in the tribunal of conscience. We are familiar by this time with the argument.

* * * * *

Torquemada’s enemies in Spain were increasing now at an alarming rate. But, secure in the royal protection, this old man steadily and ruthlessly advanced along the path of intolerance, undismayed by ill-will. Conscious of the hatred he provoked, he may have gloried in the maledictions hurled against him by the persecuted, conceiving that the malevolence of the infidel would render his deeds the more acceptable in the sight of his God. But whatever the equanimity with which he may have confronted spiritual hostility, he took his measures to secure himself from its temporal manifestations. That he went in dread of attack is evinced not only by the fact that he was never seen abroad without his numerous escort of armed familiars, but further by the circumstance that he never sat down to dine without a horn of unicorn upon his table as a charm against poison.[252]

So arbitrarily and arrogantly did he widen the sphere of autocratic jurisdiction accorded him that soon he was usurping the functions of the civil courts, thereby provoking a still deeper resentment. He conducted the business of the Holy Office in such a manner that all other courts of the kingdom became subservient to it, and where the magistrates, resenting these encroachments, attempted to withstand him, or even to question his authority, they were--as had happened in the case of the Captain-General of Valencia--promptly charged with lack of zeal and even impeached as hinderers of the Holy Office. They were compelled to submit to humiliating penances, which in the case of magistrates entailed a total loss of dignity and prestige. And such was the ascendancy this man had gained by now that complaints or appeals to the Sovereigns were useless.

Meanwhile, however, and by his own act, his enemies at home had found two powerful mediators with the Pope, two powerful advocates to plead their cause before the Apostolic Court. These were Juan Arias Davila, Bishop of Segovia, and Pedro de Aranda, Bishop of Calahorra.

Torquemada’s frenzied intolerance of men of Jewish blood was by no means confined to those who practised the Law of Moses. It extended to those who had accepted baptism and to their descendants, and it kept alive his mistrust of them.

Very markedly is this exhibited in the proceedings he instituted against the two bishops mentioned, notwithstanding the Papal decree which inhibited inquisitors from proceeding against prelates save by special pontifical authority.

The Bishop of Segovia--Juan Arias Davila--was the grandson of a Jew who had received baptism in the reign of Henry IV, and had held an honourable position at the court of that king by whom he had been ennobled. Considering the ecclesiastical eminence attained by his grandson--now a very old man--one would imagine that the latter should have been secure from inquisitorial attacks on the score of alleged offences committed by his ancestor against the Faith. But the terrible Torquemada contrived to rake up some matters against the long-deceased _converso_, accused him of having re-Judaized before his death, and instituted proceedings which must have resulted in the destitution, degradation and infamy of the bishop, his descendant.

“It sufficed,” says Llorente on this subject,[253] “that a deceased Jew should have been fortunate and wealthy to seek cause of suspicion upon his faith and religion, such was the ill-will against those of Jewish blood, such the desire to mortify them, and such the covetousness to absorb their property.”

To these proceedings Davila set up a stout resistance and made appeal to the Pope, whereupon Torquemada experienced his first serious check. The Pope ordered him to stick to the letter of the law, and to lay the matter before the Apostolic Court, as was due. Thither went the Bishop also, to defend his grandfather’s bones from the accusation lodged. He was well received by the Pontiff, who ultimately gave him the victory over Torquemada, for when the case was tried his father’s memory was cleared of all guilt.[254]

In the meanwhile, however, Davila had not only received a very kindly welcome at the Vatican, but, pending his trial, he was given a position of honour, and he was associated with Cardinal Borgia of Monreale (Alexander’s nephew) when the latter went as papal legate to Naples, to crown Alfonso II of Aragon.[255]

Less fortunate was Pedro de Aranda, the other accused Bishop. In his case, too, the proceedings instituted were based upon the alleged Judaizing of his deceased father--a Jew who had been baptized in the time of St. Vincent Ferrer.

His case was tried at Valladolid, but the inquisitors and the diocesan ordinary disagreed in their findings, and in 1493 the Bishop, accompanied by his bastard son Alfonso Solares, set out for Rome, to present in person his appeal to the Pontiff. Him, too, the Pope received with the utmost kindliness. His Holiness issued a brief inhibiting the inquisitors, and relegating the case to the Bishop of Cordova and the Prior of the Benedictines of Valladolid.

The case being tried by them, a verdict entirely favourable to the Bishop was obtained, and his father’s memory was acquitted of the charge preferred against it. But the tribulations of the living son were not permitted to end there. Torquemada would not suffer that his prey should escape so easily.

Already in 1488 the Bishop had been defamed by a suspicion of judaizing, and the Grand Inquisitor now pressed that he should be called to answer to that charge, forwarding the indictment under seal to Rome.

Pending the solution of the matter by the Apostolic Court, Alexander not only treated Aranda well, but heaped honours and favours upon him and his son. The Bishop was sent to Venice as papal legate, he was appointed Master of the Sacred Palace, whilst upon his offspring was conferred the position of apostolic prothonotary.[256]

But despite the papal favour which he enjoyed, and notwithstanding the fact that he called upwards of a hundred witnesses to testify in his defence, he was found guilty. It is said that his own witnesses helped to bring about his conviction. The Pontifical Court was obliged to sentence him to loss of all ecclesiastical dignities and benefices, to degrade him and reduce him to the lay estate, whereafter he was imprisoned in Sant’ Angelo, and there he died a few years later.[257]

Notwithstanding the sentence of the Apostolic Court, Llorente finds it impossible to believe that Aranda was really guilty of Judaizing. “It seems incredible that it should have been so, considering that he had preserved the reputation of good Catholic for so long and with such applause that the Queen Donna Isabella should have named him President of the Council of Castile. His celebrating the Synodal Council in his bishopric argues zeal for the purity of religion and its dogmas. That the witnesses called should have deponed to any words or actions of his that were contrary to this does not signify as much as may at first appear, for we know, from a multitude of instances, that to fast on Sunday, to abstain from work on Saturday, to refuse to eat pork, to dislike the blood of animals, and other similar matters, sufficed as grounds upon which to declare a man a Judaizing heretic, and this notwithstanding that, as any one knows to-day, these are circumstances not at all at issue with a firm adherence to the Catholic dogmas.”[258]

His sentence, however, was not pronounced until 1498. Until then he enjoyed, as we have seen, great favour at the Papal Court. Taking advantage of this, he and the Bishop of Segovia not only acted as mediators to lay their countrymen’s grievances against Torquemada before the Pope, but, in their very natural resentment at the injustice of the prosecutions instituted against themselves, they went so far as to urge the Pope to depose the Grand Inquisitor from his office. And Llorente--who states this upon the authority of Lumbreras--adds that these petitions would, of themselves, have prevailed but for the royal protection which Torquemada continued to enjoy.[259]

* * * * *

But the complaints of the Grand Inquisitor’s abuse of his power continued to pour into Rome. They multiplied to such an extent, they were of such a nature, and they were presented by Spaniards of such eminence at the court of the Spanish Pontiff, that thrice was Torquemada forced to send an advocate to defend him before the Holy See.[260] And in the end Alexander considered it necessary to take measures to circumvent the royal protection which continued to oppose the deposition of the Prior of Holy Cross.

Since to depose him were too aggressive a course to adopt towards the Sovereigns, with whom the Pontiff desired to preserve the friendliest relations, at least Torquemada’s power must be curtailed. And so, by a brief of June 23, 1494, indited with all the craft and diplomacy of which Roderigo Borgia was a master, a brief in which he assures the Grand Inquisitor that “he cherishes him in the very bowels of affection for his great labours in the exaltation of the Faith,” and charged with tender solicitude for Torquemada’s failing health, the Pontiff puts forward these infirmities as a reason for assuming him no longer equal to discharge single-handed the heavy duties of his office. Therefore His Holiness considers it desirable to appoint him assistants who will lighten the labour of his declining years.

The assistants appointed by Alexander were Martin Ponce de Leon, a Castilian nobleman who was Archbishop of Messina, Don Inigo Manrique, Bishop of Cordova (nephew of the prelate of the same name who was Archbishop of Seville), Don Francisco Sanchez de la Fuente, Bishop of Avila, sometime Dean of Toledo and Councillor of the Suprema, and Don Alonso Suarez de Fuentelsaz, Bishop of Mondonedo, who had also held the position of inquisitor.

These assistants were equipped by the Pontiff with the amplest powers--powers as ample as Torquemada’s own--so that they were in no sense subservient to the Prior of Holy Cross. The term “assistant” was a papal euphuism, serving thinly to veil the fact that Torquemada’s autocratic rule was virtually at an end.

Such was the absolute equality of the authority of each of the five Grand Inquisitors now in existence, that it was explicitly set forth that any one of them had power singly to determine any matter, or singly to conclude any case that might have been initiated by one of the other four.[261]

But of the four assistants appointed only two accepted office jointly with Torquemada. These were the Bishop of Avila and the Archbishop of Messina, who at once took up their duties.

The Pope went a step further on November 4 following, when by a supplementary brief he appointed Sanchez de la Fuente (Bishop of Avila) to be Judge of Appeal in cases of the Faith. And from now onwards it is to Sanchez de la Fuente that the Pope addresses his briefs concerning the conduct of the affairs of the Holy Office. It was to him personally that Alexander gave orders that when a bishop was unable or unwilling to perform upon an offending cleric of his diocese the ceremony of degradation, this should be undertaken by the Bishop of Avila himself, or else by a bishop by him appointed.

Thus it would seem that Torquemada had virtually been superseded, and that Sanchez de la Fuente had been rendered his superior. If so, that superiority cannot have been more than nominal. In spite of it, Torquemada remained the guiding spirit of the Holy Office in Spain, the supreme arbiter and law-giver, as we shall see when we come to consider his last “Instructions,” published in 1498.

* * * * *

In spite of these measures taken by the Pope with a view to softening inquisitorial severity and bringing it within more reasonable bounds, complaints to Rome seem to have continued unabatedly.

Far from restricting inquisitorial jurisdiction--as was intended--the appointment of these assistant Grand Inquisitors appears to have widened it. They now went so far as themselves to sell and dispose of confiscated property--a matter which hitherto had been conducted by the officers of the royal treasury. And this was more than Ferdinand could stomach. Where humanitarian considerations, where arguments of political expediency had failed to curb his bigotry, acquisitiveness seems easily to have carried the victory. So that at last we see the King himself turning in appeal to the Pope against this despotism of a court upon which he had conferred the power to become mightier than himself in his own kingdom.

The response to his appeal was the bull of February 1495, commanding the inquisitors under pain of excommunication to desist from their course, and never to resort to it again save under royal sanction. The power to proceed against inquisitors in case of fraud or irregularity in this matter was vested in the famous Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros.[262]

This man, who has been called the Richelieu of Spain, had risen from very humble beginnings, as a barefoot friar-mendicant, to the very splendid eminence of Primate of Spain--in which office he had just succeeded Cardinal Mendoza, who died in that year (1495).

* * * * *

In the following year Torquemada made his exit from the Court, where for a decade he had been a figure of an importance second only to that of the Sovereigns themselves.

Crippled by gout, he withdrew to his monastery at Avila.[263] There he now dwelt in retirement, an emaciated old man in his seventy-sixth year, debilitated and racked with bodily infirmities, but with all his vigour and energy of mind unimpaired, his severity as uncompromising as of old, his conscience entirely at peace in the conviction that he had given of his best--indeed, his all--to the service of his God.

But even now his retirement can have been little more than physical. His attention continued focussed upon the Inquisition and engrossed by it. To the last do we find him actively directing the procedure of that tribunal of the Faith.

In the spring of 1498 he summoned the principal inquisitors of the kingdom to the monastery of St. Thomas of Avila, to the end that with himself they might concert the promulgation of further decrees to check abuses which had crept into the administration of the justice of the Holy Office, proving inadequate his enactments of 1484, 1485, and 1488.

These, the fourth “Instructions” of Torquemada, were published on May 25, 1498. They contain a good deal that seems calculated to soften the rigour of the earlier decrees, yet much of this is more or less illusory.

Let us very briefly consider the sixteen articles of which they consist.

The first three provide: (I) that of the two inquisitors appointed to each court one shall be a jurist and the other a theologian, and that they shall not proceed other than jointly to decree prison, torture, or publication of witnesses; (II) that the inquisitors shall not permit their officers to bear weapons in those places where the bearing of weapons is forbidden; (III) that no one shall be arrested save upon sufficient proof of his guilt, and that all cases be disposed of with dispatch and not delayed in the hope of discovering increased justification to sentence.

This last clause merely repeats an earlier one that we have already seen, and from this repetition we are led to suppose that the former expression of the same command had not received proper attention and obedience. The stipulation that no arrest should be made save where there was sufficient proof of guilt is not as generous as it sounds. It is dependent upon what the inquisitors would consider “sufficient proof”; this is revealed by the jurisprudence of the Holy Office: the accusation of a spiteful or malevolent person, or a delation wrung from some wretch under torture, would be accounted “sufficient proof” to justify the arrest and its sequel. To abolish the inequitable character of this it would have been necessary to have rescinded the decree which accounted “semiplenal proof” sufficient ground for taking action.

Very merciful in its terms is Article IV, which sets forth that in proceedings against the dead the inquisitors must absolve promptly where complete proof of crime is not forthcoming, and not delay in the hope of obtaining further proof, as legal delays are very injurious to the children, who are unable to contract marriage whilst such matters are _sub judice_. But it comes a little late in the day. It comes when the great harvest from the wealthy dead has been safely garnered. Besides, no conditions imposed could mitigate the horrible rigour of the enactment to exhume and burn the bones of the dead together with their effigies, and to reduce the children or grandchildren to destitution and infamy, even when the person convicted was known to have died penitent and comforted by the sacraments of the Church--in consequence of which, by their own Faith, the inquisitors believed him to be saved.

Article V provides that when the tribunal shall be short of money for salary, no further pecuniary penances be imposed than would be the case if the court had funds in hand.

Conceive, if you can, the notions of equity prevailing in a tribunal which needed to have it decreed that fines were to be governed by the offence committed, and not by the court’s need of money at the time!

Similarly illumining is Article VI, which sets forth that imprisonment or other corporal penances must not be commuted to fines, and that only the inquisitors-general shall have power to dispense an offender from wearing the _sanbenito_ and to rehabilitate the children of heretics so that they shall have liberty in the matters of apparel and employment.

As Llorente points out,[264] the very existence of this decree shows of what abuses of power the inquisitors were guilty for the purpose of increasing their already considerable profit.

Article VII is thoroughly imbued with the inquisitorial spirit of mercilessness. It warns inquisitors to be cautious in the matter of admitting to reconciliation those who confess their fault after arrest, since, considering how many years have passed since the institution of the Inquisition, the contumacy of such offenders may be taken as established.

On the subject of Article VIII, which enjoins inquisitors to punish false witnesses with public pains, Llorente is particularly interesting in a commentary:

“Properly to understand this article, it is necessary to realize that there were two ways of being a false witness: one by calumniating, another by denying knowledge of heretical words or deeds upon which a person might be questioned in the course of proceedings against an accused. I have seen many records of proceedings against those of this second class, but very rarely (_rarissima vez_) any against those of the first. Nor could it be easy to prove that a calumniator has borne false witness, for the unfortunate accused would have to guess his identity, and though he were to guess correctly the court would not admit it.”[265]

Article IX provides that in no tribunal shall there be two persons who are related or one who is the servant of another, even though their respective offices should be entirely different and separate.

Articles X, XI, and XVI are calculated to increase the secrecy of inquisitorial proceedings. The first makes provision for the secret custody of all documents and for punishing any notary who shall betray his trust; the second enacts that a notary must not receive the depositions of witnesses save in the presence of the inquisitor; the last decrees that after the witnesses shall have been sworn by the inquisitors in the presence of the fiscal, the latter must withdraw so as not to be present when the delations are made.

The remaining four articles are concerned with such matters as the setting up of courts of the Inquisition where these have not yet been established, the submission of difficult questions that may arise to the Suprema for decision, the provision of separate prisons for women and for men, and the stipulation that officers of the court shall work six hours daily.

* * * * *

In addition to the foregoing sixteen articles, he promulgated in that same year special instructions concerning the _personnel_ of the Holy Office. They speak for themselves, and very vividly suggest the abuses they were framed to suppress.

For governors of prisons and constables he decreed that they must permit no one to visit the prisoners with the exception of the persons appointed to bear them food, and that these must be bound by oath to preserve the “secrecy” inviolate, and to examine all food to ascertain that no written matter is concealed in it. Food, it is added, shall be conveyed to the prisoners by persons specially appointed for that duty, and never by a constable or gaoler.

All officers are to be sworn to preserve inviolate secrecy upon all things they may see or hear.

Receivers are commanded that in the event of the acquittal of a person whose property has been sequestered, they must restore the property according to the inventory drawn up at the time of effecting the sequestration--but if there are debts to be satisfied by such a person, these may be paid by order of the inquisitors without awaiting the consent of the debtor.

If amongst confiscated property there should be any that is in litigation, the matter is to be judicially decided; and if it is found that any property which should have formed part of a confiscation shall have passed into the hands of third parties, action is to be taken to recover it.

Confiscated property is to be sold after thirty days, and the receivers are not to purchase any under pain of greater excommunication and a fine of 100 ducats. Each receiver is authorized to give vouchers for property up to the value of 300,000 maravedis.

For the inquisitors themselves it is provided that upon assuming office they shall be bound by oath to discharge their duties well and faithfully and to observe the secrecy; that no inquisitor or officer of the Inquisition shall receive any gift of whatsoever nature from a prisoner, under pain of loss of office and a fine of twice the value of the gift plus 100,000 maravedis, whilst any who shall have knowledge of such matter and fail to divulge it shall be subject to the same penalty.

Inquisitors are to make oath never to be alone with a prisoner, and neither an inquisitor nor any officer of the court shall hold two offices or receive two salaries. Lastly, in any district where the Inquisition’s tribunal is established, the inquisitors must pay for their own lodgings, and must never receive any hospitality from _conversos_.[266]

* * * * *

We have seen Torquemada’s efforts strained to obtain the fullest possible control over subjects of inquisitorial jurisdiction in Spain, and to establish himself the sole arbiter in matters concerning heresies there committed. And we have seen his frequent conflicts with Rome in consequence of what he accounted undue interference on the part of the Holy See in affairs which he considered purely within his own province. Despite repeated protests which had resulted in the annulment of absolutions granted by the Apostolic Court, the Holy See had ever continued to receive those who fled thither from Spain in quest of a reconciliation that was procurable in Rome upon terms far easier than were accorded by Torquemada’s delegates.

Never, however, had the fugitives to Rome been so numerous as they were now in the reign of Alexander VI. Never before had so many Judaizers--who were liable, if discovered in Spain, to perpetual prison or the fire--sought at the hands of the Pontiff the absolution which, subject to penitence and penance, the Holy Father was willing and ready to accord them.

On July 29, 1498, an Auto de Fé was held in Rome in the vast square before St. Peter’s, when 180 Spanish Judaizers came to be reconciled to the Church.[267]

It is worth while to take a glance at this, and to mark the difference between the Act of Faith in the very heart of Christendom, and the spectacles provided under the same title by Spanish bigotry and fanaticism.

There were present the Governor of Rome, Juan de Cartagena, the Spanish Orator at the Vatican, the Apostolic auditors, and the Master of the Sacred Palace, whilst the Pope himself surveyed the scene from the balcony above the steps of St. Peter’s.

The penitents received the _sanbenitos_, which were put on over their ordinary garments, and arrayed in these they entered St. Peter’s. There all were assembled and reconciled, whereafter they were taken in procession to the Church of Santa Maria della Minerva. In this temple they put off their _sanbenitos_, and each one withdrew to his home without further bearing the insignia of shame and infamy.[268]

The view taken by Torquemada of a Pope who so little understood what the former considered to be the duties of Christ’s earthly Vicar is to be gathered from the attitude of the Sovereigns in the matter of these reconciliations, and their protests--protests which, beyond doubt, would be inspired by the Grand Inquisitor.

Alexander advised the Sovereigns in reply--by a brief of October 5--that in according these absolutions one of the pains imposed upon the penanced was that they must never return to Spain without the special sanction of the Catholic Sovereigns.[269]

In this manner, clearly, there was no infringement by the Pontiff of the power relegated to the Spanish inquisitors, since as long as the penitents remained abroad they were beyond the jurisdiction of the Holy Office of Spain. As for the prohibition to return being a part of the penance imposed, it was surely supererogative, for we cannot think that any of those who had so fortunately obtained absolution would easily incur the risk of coming within reach of the talons of a court that would disregard, or else find a way to cancel or circumvent, the Roman reconciliation.

* * * * *

But by the time the brief reached Spain, Frey Tomás de Torquemada, the arch-enemy of the Jews, had breathed his last in his beautiful monastery of St. Thomas at Avila.

He passed away in peace, laying down the burden of life and sinking to sleep with the relief and thankfulness of the husbandman at the end of a day of diligent, arduous, and conscientious toil. His honesty of purpose, his integrity, his utter devotion to the task he had taken up are to be weighed in the balance of historic judgment against the evil that he wrought so ardently in the unfaltering conviction that his work was good.

His name has been execrated and revered at once. He has been vituperated as a fiend of cruelty, and all but worshipped as a saint; and there is bias in both judgments--both are no better than gratifications of prejudice.

Perhaps Prescott is nearest the truth when he says that “Torquemada’s zeal was of so extraordinary a character that it may almost shelter itself under the name of insanity.”[270]

Garcia Rodrigo speaks of the barbarians of the nineteenth century who desecrated the monastery of St. Thomas, and whose “revolutionary hammers” smashed so many of the sepulchral and other marbles. He turns the medal about for us when he pours his fierce invective upon anti-religious fanaticism and speaks of these broken marbles as evidences of “perversity, intolerance, and want of enlightenment.”[271]

The anti-religious fanaticism and intolerance must be admitted. But it must be admitted that they are the inevitable fruits that fanaticism and intolerance produce. Men reap as they sow. And what but thistles shall be yielded by the seed of thistles?

The same author inveighs against the political fanaticism of Spanish Liberalism, which in the hour of reaction sought fiercely for the bones of the first Grand Inquisitor. He denounces it indignantly for disturbing the peace of sepulture. In the main we share his feelings; and yet can we avoid perceiving here a measure of retributive justice? Can we fail to see in this fanatical act the vengeance of humanity for the almost obscene violation of a thousand graves by that same Grand Inquisitor’s fanaticism?

He was laid to rest in the chapel of his monastery, and his tomb bore the following simple inscription:

HIC JACET REVERENDUS P. F. THOMAS DE TURRE-CREMATA PRIOR SANCTÆ CRUCIS, INQUISITOR GENERALIS HUJUS DOMUS FUNDATOR. OBIIT ANNO DOMINI MCDLXLVIII, DIE XVI SEPTEMBRIS.[272]

But his work survived him. His spirit--through his enactments--continued for three centuries after his death to be the guiding spirit of the Inquisition, executor of the stern testament he left inscribed upon the walls of his monastery--

PESTEM FUGAT HÆRETICAM.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ariz, Luys: “Historia de Avila.” Alcalá, 1607.

Babut, Charles E.: “Priscillian et le Priscilliantisme.” Paris, 1909.

Bernaldez, Andrés: “Historia de los Reyes Catolicos.” 1870.

Bleda, Jaime: “Coronica de los Moros de España.” Valencia, 1618.

Burchard, Johannes: “Diarium sive Rerum Urbanarum Commentarii” (Ed. Thuasne). Paris.

Castillo, Hernando del: “Historia General de Santo Domingo.” Valladolid, 1612.

Colmenar, Juan Alvarez de: “Delices d’Espagne.” Leyden, 1715

Colmenares, Diego de: “Historia de Segovia.” Madrid, 1640.

“Copilacion de las Instrucciones hechas, etc.” Madrid, 1576.

Didron, A. N.: “Iconographie Chrétienne.” Paris, 1835.

Douais, C.: “Les Hérétiques du Midi au XIII Siècle.”

Emeric, David: “Histoire de la Peinture.” Paris, 1842.

Eymericus, Nicolaus: “Directorium Inquisitorum.” Romæ, 1578-79.

Fita, Fidel: in “Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia,” vols, v., vi., ix., xv., xvi., xvii., and xviii.

Frazer, Jas. Geo.: “The Golden Bough.” London, 1900.

Guidonis, Bernardus: “Practica Inquisitionis.” Paris, 1886.

Lecky, W. E. H.: “Rationalism in Europe.” London, 1865.

Limborch, Phillippi a: “Historia Inquisitionis.” Amstelodami, 1692.

Llorente, Juan Antonio: “Anales de la Inquisicion de España.” Madrid, 1812.

Llorente, Juan Antonio: “Historia Critica de la Inquisicion de España.” Madrid, 1822.

Llorente, Juan Antonio: “Memoria Historica.” Madrid, 1812.

Loeb, Isidore: in “Revue des Etudes Juives,” vols. xv., xviii., xix., and xx.

Mariana, Juan de: “Historia General de España.” Madrid, 1849-51.

Marin, Julio Melgares: “Procedimientos de la Inquisicion.” Madrid, 1886.

Marineo, L.: “Cronica d’Aragon.” Valencia, 1524.

Mendoza, Salazar de: “Cronica de el Gran Cardinal.” Toledo, 1625.

Mendoza, Salazar de: “Monarquia de España.” Madrid, 1770.

Moreno, Martin Martinez: “Historia del Martirio del Santo Niño de La Guardia.” Madrid, 1786.

Paramo, Ludovicus a: “De Origine et Progressu Sanctæ Inquisitionis.” Madrid, 1598.

Pulgar, Hernando del: “Chronica de los Reyes Catholicos.” Valencia, 1780.

Pulgar, Hernando del: “Claros Varones de Castilla.” Madrid, 1789.

Rios, José Amador de los: “Estudios sobre los Judios de España.” Madrid, 1848.

Rios, José Amador de los: “Historia de los Judios de España y Portugal.” Madrid, 1875.

Rodrigo, Francisco Xavier Garcia: “Historia Verdadera de la Inquisicion.” Madrid, 1877.

Rule, W. H.: “History of the Inquisition.” London, 1874.

St. Hilaire, Rosseuw: “Histoire d’Espagne.” Paris, 1845.

Torrejoncillo, Francisco de: “Centinela contra Judios.” Pamplona, 1720.

Trasmiera, Diego Garcia de: “Epitome de la Vida de Pedro de Arbués.” Madrid, 1664.

Zuñiga, Diego Ortiz de: “Anales de Sevilla.” Madrid, 1677.

Zurita, Geronimo: “Anales de la Corona de Aragon.” Madrid, 1852.

INDEX

ABADIA, JUAN DE--conspires against Inquisition, 218; arrested, 221; commits suicide, 222

ABARBANEL, ISAAC--365; on sufferings of the Jews, 372

ABDURRAHMAN THE OMAYYAD--founds Amirate of Cordova, 51

ABENAMIAS, MOSÉ--in affair of La Gardia, 289; consecrated wafer sent to, 312, 325, 338; letter to, 340

ABGARUS OF EDESSA--recipient of portrait of Christ, 21

ABJURATION--146

ABOLAFIO, JUAN FERNANDEZ--conspires, 115; burnt, 116

ADRIAN--approves Christianity, 20

AGUSTIN, ANTONIO--denounces J. P. Sanchez, 226

AGUSTIN, PEDRO--procures release of Sanchez, 226; arrested, 227

ALARCON, DR. ALONSO DE--sent to Zaragoza, 221

ALBIGENSES--32

ALCANTARA, KNIGHTS OF--59

ALEXANDER SEVERUS--20

ALEXANDER VI, POPE--confirms Torquemada in office, 377; curtails power of Torquemada, 383; bull of, 385; fugitives to Rome under, 391

ALFARO, JUAN DE--constable of Holy Office, 240

ALFONSO I--founds Kingdom of Galicia, 51

ALFONSO V OF PORTUGAL--invades Spain, 54

ALFONSO VIII--Jews under, 76

ALFONSO XI--promulgates “Partidas,” 78

ALFONSO OF ARAGON--in Zaragoza riots, 220; at penance of Infante of Navarre, 224

ALMORAVIDES--empire of, 52

ANTONINUS PIUS--tolerates Christians, 20

ARANDA, PEDRO DE--Bishop of Calahorra, 379; prosecuted by Torquemada, 380; convicted at Rome, 381

ARBUÉS DE EPILA, FR. PEDRO--213; appointed inquisitor in Zaragoza, 216; murdered, 219 et seq.; avenged by Inquisition 223; miracles and sanctity of, 229; canonized, 230

ARCOS, COUNT OF--New-Christians shelter in dominions of, 112

ARIAS DAVILA, JUAN (Bishop of Segovia)--inquires into case of ritual murder, 79; prosecuted by Torquemada, 379; protected by Pope, 380

ARIUS--heresy of, 23

AUGUSTINE, ST.--Manichæan, 24; denounces religious liberty, 25 et seq.

AURELIAN, 21

AUTOS DE FÉ--the first in Seville, 116 et seq.; the second, _ib._, 126; Voltaire on, 201; where to be held, 205; in Toledo, 244; described, 247 et seq.; ceremonial with clerics, 252; ceremonial with deceased, 254; in Rome, 391

AVILA--Monastery of St. Thomas built by Torquemada, 262; Auto de Fé in, 343; feeling against Jews, 344

AVILA, ANTONIO DE--attends Yucé Franco, 286

BAJAZET, SULTAN--on banishment of Jews from Spain, 375

BARCELONA--resists Torquemada’s authority, 231

BARCO, LOPEZ DE--109

BARROSO, PEDRO (Archbishop of Seville)--suspends Martinez, 83

BELTRANEJA, LA--bastard daughter of Juana of Portugal, 54

BERBER TARIK--invades Peninsula, 51

BERNALDEZ, ANDRÉS--on Isabella’s moral reforms, 65; on introduction of Inquisition, 70; on Jews, 95; on Susan, 116; on _Quemadero_, 128; on banishment of Jews, 368, 370; baptizes Jews, 374

BERNARDONE, FRANCESCO--goes to Rome, 39

BOBADILLA, BEATRIZ DE--61; escapes from Segovia, 62

BOBADILLA, PEDRO DE--seized by Maldonado, 61

BORGIA, RODRIGO--Cardinal of Valencia, 133; becomes Pope, 377 (see Alexander VI.)

BORGIA OF MONREALE--Cardinal, 380

CABALLERIA, ALONSO DE--in council of Tarragona, 216; prosecuted by Inquisition, 224; appeals to the Pope, 225

CABRERA, ANDRÉS DE--Seneschal of Segovia, 60; conspired against, 61; rescued by Isabella, 63

CALATRAVA, KNIGHTS OF--59

CALETRIDO, JUAN--spies upon Jews, 266

CANONICAL PURGATION--160

CARILLO, ALONSO--councillor of Suprema, 137; in council of Tarragona, 216

CASAR DE PALOMERO--outrage upon crucifix at, 266

CATHARS--32

CEBRIAN, FR. ALONSO DE--appointed inquisitor by Pope, 131; “_Centinela contra Judios_”--360

CHAMARRO, PRINCE--alleged letter of, 361

CLAUDIUS--expels Nazarenes from Rome, 19

CLEMENT VI, POPE--excommunicates persecutors of Jews, 81

COLUMBUS, CHRISTOPHER--discovers New World, 52

COLVERA, FR. JUAN--sent to Zaragoza, 221

CONSTANTINE--supported by Christians, 21; embraces Christian Faith, 22

CORDOVA--tribunal established by Torquemada, 136

_Coroza_--for convicts of heresy, 209

_CORTES_--consider Jewish question, 208; held at Tarragona, 215

DECEASED--proceedings against, 161

DECIUS--21

DIEGO OF ARAGON--defeats Saracens, 52

DIOCLETIAN--21

DOMINIC, ST.--see GUZMAN

DOMITIAN--persecutes Christians, 19

ECIJA, CANON OF--see MARTINEZ, HERNANDO

EFFIGIES BURNT--248

ELI, LEONARDO--arrested, 217

ENRIQUEZ, FR. ALONSO--sent to Yucé Franco, 286

ENRIQUEZ, FADRIQUE--his quarrel with Guzman, 57; disobeys Isabella, 58; banished, 59

ESPERANDEU, JUAN DE--conspires against Inquisition, 218; murders Arbués, 219; arrest and execution of, 221, 222

EYMERIC, NICOLAUS--“Directorium” of, 139; quoted, 144 et seq.; on abjuration, 148; on canonical purgation, 160; on children of heretics, 164; enjoins guile, 174; on torture, 184; on _relapsos_, 200

FAMILIARS OF THE HOLY OFFICE--227

FERDINAND OF ARAGON--marries Isabella, 52; elected Grand-Master of Santiago, 60; favours Inquisition, 98, 109; attitude examined, 110; protests to Pope, 132; holds _Cortes_ at Tarragona, 215; reluctant to expel Jews, 268; in conquest of Granada, 356; unable to resist Torquemada, 364; rebuked by Torquemada, 367; appeals against inquisitorial despotism, 385

FITA, FIDEL--publishes _dossier_ of Yucé Franco’s trial, 269

FRANCIS OF ASSISI, ST.--see BERNARDONE

FRANCO, ALONSO--arrested, 289, 307; incriminated by Yucé Franco, 315; obtained consecrated wafer, 340; confirms confessions made, 341; burnt, 344

FRANCO, ÇA--arrested, 285; examined, 313; admissions of, 314; confrontation of, 328; further incriminated by Ocaña, 329; tortured, 340; burnt, 344

FRANCO, GARCIA--arrested, 289, 307; incriminated by Yucé Franco, 315; communicates with Yucé Franco, 323; burnt, 344

FRANCO, JUAN--in Legend of _Santo Niño_, 272; arrested, 289, 307; incriminated by Yucé Franco, 315; tortured, 324; confrontation of, 328; further admissions of, 328; bound on rack, 341; admits that he procured boy in Toledo, 342; burnt, 344

FRANCO, LOPE--arrested, 289; burnt, 344

FRANCO, MOSÉ--284; deceased, 286, 307, 325

FRANCO, NICOLAO--Legate _a latere_, 98

FRANCO, YUCÉ--arrested, 285; ill in prison, 286; lured to betray himself, 287; examined at Segovia, 292; at Avila, 293; indictment of, 294; denies accusations, 296; defended, 297; unable to prove innocence, 302; placed in communication with Benito Garcia, 303; learns of his father’s arrest, 304; examined in prison, 306; confessions of, 308; promised pardon, 310; admits attending enchantment, 311; further examined, 312; admits witnessing crucifixion, 314; further admissions of, 318; explains statement made in Segovia, 322; confrontation of, 327; further incriminated by Ocaña, 329, 330; incriminated by Benito Garcia, 330; denies taking part in crucifixion, 332; repudiates charges, 333; questions asked him, 333; impugns witnesses, 334; confessions upon the rack, 336; ratifies, 340; abandoned by his advocate, 341; burnt, 344

FRAZER, DR. J. G.--on ritual murder, 79

FREDERIC II, EMPEROR--and the friars preachers, 43; excommunicated, 44

GARCIA, BENITO--in Legend of _Santo Niño_, 271 et seq.; arrest of, 282; tortured, 283; confesses to Judaizing, 284; placed in communication with Yucé Franco, 303; inveighs against Inquisitors, 304; incriminated by Yucé Franco, 318; tortured, 322; confrontation of, 327; incriminates Yucé Franco, 330; further admissions of, 341; burnt, 344

GRANADA--funds for war against, 150; conquered, 356; Holy Office established in, 376

GREGORY IX, POPE--gives stable form to Inquisition, 44 et seq.

GRIBOURG, ABBÉ--353

GUEVÁRA, ALONSO DE--accuses Yucé Franco, 294; furnished with evidence, 331; submits proofs, 332; petitions torture of Yucé Franco, 334; petitions sentence, 342; at Auto de Fé, 343

GUI, FR. BERNARD--his manual, 139

GUZMAN, DOMINGO DE (St. Dominic), goes to Rome, 38; and the Albigensian heretics, 39; founds order of preachers, 40 et seq.; first ordained inquisitor, 42; penitential garb prescribed by, 206

GUZMAN, RAMIRO DE--his quarrel with Enriquez, 57; offends Isabella, 59

HENRY II--sells Jews into slavery, 82

HENRY IV--his character, 53

HOLY OFFICE--see INQUISITION.

HONORIUS III, POPE--creates the brotherhoods of St. Dominic and St. Francis, 41; protects Jews, 75

HUSSÉE, PRINCE--alleged letter of, 362

INNOCENT III, POPE--and the Albigensian heretics, 32; founds Inquisition, 33 et seq.; papal luxury in his day, 37

INNOCENT VIII, POPE--inhibits proceedings against Caballeria, 225; confirms Torquemada in his office, 232; cancels briefs of absolution, 258; issues bulls of absolution, 259; simony of, 259; bull of concerning Pico della Mirandola, 264

INQUISITION--founded, 33; not concerned with Jews, 89 et seq.; proposed to Isabella, 92; established in Spain, 106; inaugurated in Seville, 112; espionage by, 126; confiscations by, 141; unstable form of, 135; cupidity of, 161; methods of procedure, 173 et seq.; tortures employed by, 184 et seq.; employs secular arm, 194 et seq.; not favoured in Castile, 213; power of, 214; system of police, 227; religious and political institution, 232; expenses of, 237; activity of, _ib._; set up in Toledo, 239; banner of, 249

ISABELLA THE CATHOLIC--51; marries Ferdinand of Aragon, 52; in war with Portugal, 54; Pulgar’s portrait of, 54; founds _Hermandad_, 56; attitude towards the nobles, 57 et seq.; banishes Enriquez, 59; contrives Ferdinand’s election to Grand-Mastership of Santiago, 60; quells riot in Segovia, 62; restores order in Seville, 63; revokes grants, 64; controls mints, _ib._; purifies court and convents, 65; goes barefoot to thanksgiving-service, 66; suppresses clerical usurpations, _ib._; urged to deal with Judaizers, 88; Inquisition proposed to her, 92; rejects proposal, 97; seeks conversion of Jews, 99; influenced by Torquemada, 106; last efforts of to avoid Inquisition, 107; her antipathy to the Inquisition, 108; her patience exhausted, 109; attitude towards Inquisition, 110; petitions Pope to establish court of appeal in Spain, 133; petitions Pope to give the Inquisition a settled form, 135; in conquest of Granada, 356; unable to resist Torquemada, 364; rebuked by Torquemada, 366

ISABELLA, THE INFANTA--at Segovia, 60

JAEN--tribunal established at by Torquemada, 136

JAIME DE NAVARRE--penanced by Inquisition, 224

JAMES THE APOSTLE, ST.--shrine at Compostella, 59; his mission to Iberia, 73

JESUS CHRIST--iconography of, 20; cited as authority for the burning of heretics, 206

JEWS IN SPAIN--71 et seq.; attitude of Christians towards, 73; their attitude towards Christians, 74; their numbers in thirteenth century, 75; control finances, 76; their wealth and arrogance, 77; accusations against, 78; charged with ritual murder, 79; massacred, 81; sold into slavery 82; synagogues demolished, 83; massacred throughout Spain, 84; driven to accept baptism, 85; their privileges forfeited 86; laws against them relaxed, 87; tolerated in Rome, 91; old repressive laws revived, 108; when subject to inquisitorial jurisdiction, 141; shatter a crucifix, 267; popular feeling against, 356; finance war of Granada, 356; their expulsion urged by Torquemada, 357; they plead with the Sovereigns, 358; Dominicans preach against them, 359; letter of, 361; calumniated, 363; appeals of, 365; banished, 367 et seq.; exploited, 368; attempts to convert them, 369; encouraged by their rabbis, 370; exodus from Spain, 371; their sufferings, 372; apostates, 373

JUAN, PRINCE--illness of, 359

JUDAIZERS--93; discovered, 101; in Seville, 109, 111; “edict of grace” to, 120; trapped, 121; signs by which known, 121 et seq.; seek absolution in Rome, 132; number convicted in Toledo, 256; Auto of in Rome, 391

LACHAVES, JUAN GUTIERREZ DE--appointed assessor, 136; councillor of the Suprema, 137

LA GARDIA, THE HOLY CHILD OF--crucified, 269; legend of, 271 et seq.; “Testimonio” quoted, 276; paternity of, 329; why crucified, 337; evidence considered, 346 et seq.; discrepancies in evidence, 350 et seq.; an operation in magic, 353; worship of, 354

LA GARDIA, SACRISTAN OF--arrested, 346

LEA, H. C.--on “solicitation,” 172

LECKY, W. E. H.--on persecution, 9

LLORENTE, J. A.--sketch of career, 6 et seq.; on ritual murder, 78; on blood-lust of inquisitors, 117; on _Quemadero_, 127; on Torquemada, 136; on “solicitation,” 171; on trials in Zaragoza, 225; on case of Aranda, 381; on false witnesses, 388

LOEB, ISIDORE--his theory on the affair of La Gardia, 319, 348

MALDONADO, ALONSO--conspires against Cabrera, 61

MANRIQUE, GOMEZ--arrests Toledo conspirators, 241

MANRIQUE, IÑIGO--appointed to assist Torquemada, 383

MARINÆUS, LUCIUS--on Isabella’s reforms, 69

MARTIN, ALONSO, reputed father of “_Santo Niño_,” 329

MARTINEZ, HERNANDO, Canon of Ecija, denounces Jews, 82; defies authority, 83; causes massacre in Seville, 84

MEDINA, JUAN RUIZ DE--109

MEDINA SIDONIA, DUKE OF--New-Christians shelter in his dominions, 112

MEDINA, TRISTAN DE--appointed assessor, 136; councillor of the Suprema, 137

MENDOZA, PEDRO GONZALEZ DE--Primate of Spain, 97; entrusted with conversion of Jews, 99; introduction of Inquisition ascribed to, 100; delegated to appoint inquisitors in Castile, 109; instrumental in the proclamation of the “edict of grace,” 120

MENDOZA, SALAZAR DE--on foundation of Kingdom of Spain, 72; ascribes introduction of Inquisition to Cardinal Mendoza, 100

MERLO, DIEGO DE--charged with conversion of Jews, 107

_MILITIA CHRISTI_--227

MONTERUBIO, FR. PEDRO DE--sent to Zaragoza, 221

MONTFORT, SIMON DE--33

MOORS--see MOSLEM

MORENO, MARTINEZ--his “_Historia del Santo Niño_,” 269; on miracles of “_Niño_,” 355

MORILLO, FR. MIGUEL--inquisitor in Seville, 109; vindictive procedure of, 116; his hatred of the Jews, 126; Pope protests against his rigour, 128; confirmed in office by Torquemada, 136

MORISCOES--immunity enjoyed by, 376

MOSLEM--in Peninsula, 89; banished, 375; in Granada, 376

_NEGATIVOS_--194; deemed impenitent, 197

NERO--persecutes Christians, 19

NEW-CHRISTIANS--87; objects of malevolence, 93; in offices of eminence, 94; fly from Seville, 112; terrorized, 114; their peril, 125; seek refuge in Rome, 128; complain to Pope, 129; in Aragon, 215; appeal against tribunal of Zaragoza, 216; their despair, 217; their panic in Zaragoza, 223; seek secret absolutions, 257; swindled, 258

NICÆA--Council of, 23

OCAÑA, JUAN DE--incriminated by Benito Garcia, 284; arrested, 286; incriminated by Yucé Franco, 318; tortured, 324; confrontation of, 327; further incriminates Yucé and Ça Franco, 329, 330; further admissions of, 341; burnt, 344

OJEDA, FR. ALONSO DE--urges establishment of Inquisition, 93; resisted by Isabella, 97; renews efforts, 98; supplied with fresh argument, 101; charged with conversion of Jews, 107; at burning of Susan, 117; dies of plague, 118

OPTATUS--urges massacre of the Donatists, 25

OROZCO, SEBASTIAN DE--239; on plot in Toledo, 241; on first Auto de Fé in Toledo, 244

ORTEGA, JUAN--organizes _Hermandad_, 56

PANTIGOSO, JUAN DE--Yucé Franco’s advocate, 297

PARAMO, LUDOVICUS Á--on source of Inquisition, 17; ascribes to Mendoza introduction of Inquisition to Castile, 100

PECUNIARY PENANCES, 150

PEGNA, FRANCESCO, the scholiast, 143; on canonical purgation, 160; on children of heretics, 164; on examination of accused, 173; enjoins guile, 174 et seq.; his honesty, 180; on torture, 185; on execution of innocent men, 197; on formal intercession, 204; on Auto de Fé, 205

PELAGIUS--heresy of, 24

PENITENTIARIES--ordered by Torquemada, 237

PEREJON, DAVID--in affair of La Gardia, 318, 325

PICO DELLA MIRANDOLA, GIOVANNI--eludes Inquisition, 264

PIUS IX, POPE--canonizes Arbués, 230

PRISCILLIAN--burnt, 27

PULGAR, HERNANDO DEL--on state of Castile, 53; on Isabella’s reforms, 69; on judaizing, 71; a New-Christian, 94; on Mendoza’s catechism, 100

_QUEMADERO_--built, 127; demolished by Bonaparte’s soldiers, 128

QUINTANILLA, ALONSO DE--Isabella’s chancellor, 56

RAYMOND OF TOULOUSE--33

_RELAPSOS_--149, 194; defined, 198

RIARIO, RAFFAELE,--67

RIBERA, HERNANDO DE--in affair of La Gardia, 291, 326; convicted, 347

RIOS, AMADOR DE LOS--on first appearance of Jews in Spain, 73; on Jewish community in thirteenth century, 75; on ritual murder, 80; on Susan’s daughter 115; on banishment of Jews, 369

RITUAL MURDER--charges of, 78 et seq.

RODRIGO, F. J. GARCIA--8; on Susan’s conspiracy, 116; on _Quemadero_, 128; on torture, 187; on prisons, 263; on fanaticism, 393

RULE, DR. W. H.--8, 31; on _Quemadero_, 128

ST. HILAIRE, ROSSEEUW--on Torquemada, 6; on Isabella’s reforms, 69

ST. PETER THE MARTYR--Confraternity of, 117, 227

_Sanbenito_--revived by Torquemada, 149; its origin and history, 206 et seq.; considered salutary by Torquemada, 209; its various forms, 209; preserved after Autos de Fé, 255

SANÇ--Yucé Franco’s attorney, 297; abandons case, 341

SANCHEZ DE LA FUENTE, FRANCISCO--appointed assistant to Torquemada, 383

SANCHEZ, GUILLERME--procures his brother’s release, 226; arrested, 227

SANCHEZ, JUAN PEDRO--conspires against Inquisition, 217; burnt in effigy, 222; arrested in Toulouse, 226; released, 226; his befrienders arrested, 227

SAN MARTINO, FR. JUAN DE--inquisitor in Seville, 109; vindictive procedure of, 116; hatred of Jews, 126; Pope protests against rigour of, 128; confirmed in office by Torquemada, 136

SANTA CRUZ, GASPAR DE--escapes to Toulouse, 228; amends imposed upon his son, 228

SANTANGEL, LUIS DE--conspires against Inquisition, 217; arrested, 221

SANTIAGO--Knights of, 59; Grand-Mastership of, 60

SANTILLANA, FRANCISCO DE--106

SANTO DOMINGO, FR. FERNANDO DE--delegated to try affair of La Gardia, 289; at Auto de Fé, 343

_SANTO NIÑO_--see La Gardia, Holy Child of

SAULI, MANUEL--conspires, 115; burnt, 116

SECRET ABSOLUTIONS--257; bulls of, 251

SECULAR ARM--euphemistic expression, 194; abandonment to, 204

SEGOVIA--riots in, 60

SENEOR, ABRAHAM--365

SEVILLE--visited by Isabella, 63; judaizing in, 109, 111; Inquisition established in, 114 et seq.; first burnings in, 118; numerous arrests in, 119; number burnt in, 127; permanent tribunal established in by Torquemada, 136

SILICEO, CARDINAL JUAN MARTINEZ--discovers Jewish letter, 361

SIXTUS IV, POPE--opposed by Isabella, 67; orders Inquisition, 89; grants bull for establishment of Inquisition in Castile, 107; protests against rigour of Seville inquisitors, 128; revokes right of Sovereigns to appoint inquisitors, 129; appoints inquisitors, 131; letter of to Isabella, 133

SOLARES, ALFONSO,--380

“SOLICITATION”--sin of, 169

SOLIS, ALONSO DE--charged with conversion of Jews, 107

SUAREZ DE FUENTELSAZ, ALONSO--appointed assistant to Torquemada, 383; virtually supersedes Torquemada, 384

SUPREMA, COUNCIL OF--137

SUSAN, DIEGO DE--conspiracy of, 114; betrayed by his daughter, 115; burnt, 116 et seq.

TABLADA--meadows of, 118; permanent burning platform erected there, 127

TAZARTE, YUCÉ--procures consecrated wafer, 306; enchantment performed by, 308; his sorceries examined, 320

TERUEL--in revolt, 231

TOLEDO--tribunal established in, 136, 239; plot against Inquisition in, 240; activity of Inquisition in, 243; first Auto de Fé in, 244; second Auto in 246; secular arm, 247; burning-place of, 251; further Autos in, 252 et seq.; Judaizers convicted in, 256

TORQUEMADA, FR. JUAN DE (Cardinal of San Sisto)--94, 104

TORQUEMADA, LOPE ALONSO DE--104

TORQUEMADA, PERO FERNANDEZ DE--105

TORQUEMADA, FR. TOMÁS DE--advocates Inquisition, 102; his name and family, 104; Prior of Santa Cruz, 105; Isabella’s confessor, 105; influence with Isabella, 106; asceticism of, 106; withdraws to Segovia, 107; delegated to appoint inquisitors in Castile, 109; appointed inquisitor by Pope, 131; created Grand-Inquisitor of Spain, 135; reconstitutes the Holy Office, 136; president of the Suprema, 137; assembles his subaltern inquisitors, 138; formulates his code, 142; the articles of his first “instructions,” 144 et seq.; revives _sanbenito_, 149 and 209; decrees “secrecy,” 157; on prosecution of the dead, 161; seeks to extend inquisitorial jurisdiction, 168; on _negativos_, 197; on _relapsos_, 200; his power, 214; stirs Aragonese tribunal into activity, 215; convenes council at Tarragona, 216; delegates Arbués and Yuglar, 217; his action on murder of Arbués, 221; orders proclamation of Autos, 222; attempts to withstand papal authority, 225; resisted in Aragon, 231; his decrees of 1485, 233; ordered by Pope to re-edit his “code of terror,” 235; his decrees of 1488, 236; orders building of penitentiaries, 237; renders delation compulsory, 242; his fanatical hatred of Jews, 243; complaints of his rigour, 256; resents papal interference, 257; protests to Pope, 260; his wealth, 260; his character, 261; treatment of his sister, 261; builds Monastery of St. Thomas, 262; fanaticism of, 263; arrogance of, 264; violates equity, 266; urges expulsion of Jews, 268; accused of inventing affair of La Gardia, 269; intends to direct trial of Y. Franco, 288; entrusts this to his delegates, 289; goes to Andalusia, 292; in connection with affair of La Gardia, 353; exploits the affair, 354, 356; advocates banishment of Jews, 357, 363; purity of his aims, 364; rebukes Sovereigns, 366; desires conversion of Jews, 369; irresistible, 374; his service to Spain, 376; confirmed in office by Alexander VI., 377; protests against papal briefs, 378; his enemies increasing, _ib._; ascendancy of, 379; prosecutes bishops, 380; appeals to Pope against him, 382; his power curtailed, 383; virtually superseded, 384; crippled by gout, 385; last “instructions” of, 386 et seq.; his death, 392; his epitaph, 394

TORRALBA, BARTOLOMÉ--conspires, 115; burnt, 116

TORRE, DE LA--conspires, 240; arrested, 241

TORREJONCILLO, FR. FRANCISCO DE--scurrilous publication of, 360

TORTURE--by inquisitors, 155; when employed, 184 et seq.; the five degrees of, 188; engines employed, 189 et seq.; ratification of confession, 192

TRASMIERA, DIEGO GARCIA DE--in praise of “secrecy,” 157; on Mercy and Justice, 211; on murder of Arbués, 221; on Autos de Fé, 222

TRIANA, CASTLE OF--prison of the Inquisition, 119

URANSO, VIDAL DE--conspires against Inquisition, 218; murders Arbués, 219; put to torture, 221; his confession betrays all sympathizers, 222

VAL, DOMINGO DE--crucified by Jews, 78

VALENCIA--resists Inquisition, 231; attempted crucifixion in, 360

VALENCIA, PONCIO DE--councillor of Suprema, 137

VALENCIA, CAPTAIN-GENERAL OF--humiliated, 264

VALERIAN--21

VAUDOIS--see WALDENSES

VAZQUEZ, MARTIN--Yucé Franco’s advocate, 297

VEGAS, DAMIANO DE--his “Memoria” of the _Santo Niño_, 269

_VERGUENZA_--244

VILLADA, DR. PEDRO DE--Provisor of Astorga, 282; examines Benito Garcia, 283; delegated to try affair of La Gardia, 289; visits Yucé Franco in prison, 306; enjoins Yucé Franco to make full confession, 316; at Auto de Fé, 343

VILLA REAL--tribunal established in by Torquemada, 136

VINCENT FERRER, ST.--converts Jews, 85

VOLTAIRE--on Auto de Fé, 201

WALDENSES--32

WENDLAND, P.--on ritual murder, 80

XIMENES DE CISNEROS, FRANCISCO--385

YUSUF BEN TECHUFIN--defeats Christians, 52

_Zamarra_--see _Sanbenito_

ZARAGOZA--Inquisition established in, 216; first Auto held in, 217; riot in, 220; Autos during 1486 in, 222; reign of terror in, 223

ZOSIMUS, POPE--banishes Pelagius, 24

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

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Paramo, “De Origine et Progressu Sanctæ Inquisitionis,” p. 588.

[2] Possibly the images of the Saviour prevalent in the third century may have contributed to the apparent fitness of this. For at this epoch--and for some three hundred years after--these images embodied the Greek ideas of divinity; they represented Christ as a youth of superb grace and beauty, and they appear largely to have been founded upon the conceptions of Orpheus. Indeed, in one representation which has survived, we see Him as a beardless adolescent, seated upon a mountain, grasping an instrument with whose music he has charmed the wild beasts assembled below. Another picture in the catacombs (included in the illustrations of Didron’s “Iconographie Chrétienne”), representing Him as the Good Shepherd, depicts a vigorous youth, beardless and with short hair, in a tunic descending to the knees; His left hand supporting a lamb which is placed across His shoulders, His right holding a shepherd’s pipe.

That such pictures were not accepted as portraits by the fathers, but merely as idealistic representations, is clear from the disputes which arose in the second century (and were still alive in the eighteenth) on the subject of Christ’s personal appearance. St. Justin argued that to render His sacrifice more touching He must have put on the most abject of human shapes; and St. Cyril, also holding this view, uncompromisingly pronounced Him “the ugliest of the sons of men.” But others, imbued with the old Greek notions that beauty was in itself a mark of divinity, protested: “If He is not beautiful, then He is not God.”

St. Augustine formally states that no knowledge existed in his day (the fourth century) of the features of either the Saviour or His Mother. “Nam et ipsius Dominicæ facies carnis, innumerabilium cogitationum diversitate variatur et fingitur, quæ tamen una erat, quæcumque erat.... Neque enim novimus faciem Virginis Mariæ. Nec novimus omnino, nec credimus” (“De Trinitate,” lib. viii. cap. 4).

It is clear, therefore, that the two miraculous portraits were not known in St. Augustine’s time--_i.e._ the Veronica, or the Holy Face (which is preserved at St. Peter’s, Rome), and another portrait of similar origin, which it was alleged Christ had, Himself, impressed upon a cloth and sent to Abgarus, Prince of Edessa (as related by St. John of Damascus, in the eighth century). To preserve it, Abgarus glued the cloth upon wood, and thus it came later to Constantinople and thence to Rome, where it is still believed to be treasured in the Church of St. Sylvester in Capite.

These portraits, and still more a letter purporting to have been written to the Roman Senate by Lentulus (who was pro-consul in Judea before Herod) and believed to have been forged to combat the generally repugnant theory that Christ was ugly and deformed (“sine decore et specie”), supply the materials for the representations with which we are to-day familiar. That letter contained the following description:

“At this time there appeared a man who is still living and who is gifted with great power. His name is Jesus Christ. His disciples call him the Son of God; others consider him a mighty prophet.... He is tall of stature and his countenance is severe and full of power, so that to look upon him is to love and to fear him. The hair of his head is of the colour of wine; as far as the roots of the ears it is dull and straight, but from the ears to the shoulders it is curled and glossy; from the shoulders it falls over the back, divided into two parts, after the manner of the Nazarenes. His brow is pure and level; his countenance is without blemish and delicately tinted; his expression is gentle and gracious; his nose and mouth are of perfect beauty; his beard is copious, of the colour of his hair, and forked. His eyes are blue and extremely bright. His face is of marvellous grace and majesty. None has ever seen him laugh, but rather weeping. Erect of body, he has long, straight hands and beautiful arms. In speech he is grave and weighty, and sparing of words. He is the most beautiful of the sons of men (Pulcherrimus vultu inter homines satos).”

It is clear, however, that there was no knowledge either of this description or of the miraculous portraits mentioned as late as the fourth and fifth centuries, during which Christ continued to be represented as the lithe, beardless adolescent. And it is no doubt by these representations that Michelangelo was inspired to present Christ in “The Last Judgment” in a manner so unusual and startling to modern eyes.

Similarly there were no portraits of the Virgin Mary, and it is fairly established that none came into existence until after the Council of Ephesus, and that some seven pictures attributed to St. Luke--four of which are in Rome--are the work of an eleventh-century Florentine painter named Luca.

Whilst on the subject it may be added that the crucifix, as the emblem of Christianity, was not introduced until the seventh century, when it was established by the Quinisexte Council at Constantinople. Its nature rendered its earlier adoption dangerous, if not impossible; since--as the familiar Roman gallows--it was liable to provoke the scorn and derision of the people.

For further information on this subject see Emeric-David, “Histoire de la Peinture,” A. N. Didron, “Iconographie Chrétienne,” and Marangoni, “Istoria della Capella di Sancta Sanctorum.”

[3] IX. of the Theodosian Code.

[4] Epist. clxvi.

[5] “History of Rationalism in Europe,” vol. ii. p. 8.

[6] The decretal of Siricius, five years after the execution of Priscillian, strictly enjoined celibacy on all in holy orders above the rank of a sub-deacon, and dissolved all marriages of the clergy existing at the time. Leo the Great, in the middle of the fifth century, further extended the rule so as to include the sub-deacons hitherto excepted. This was largely the cause of the split that occurred between the Greek and Latin Churches.

[7] See E. C. H. Babut, “Priscillian et le Priscilliantisme.”

[8] “History of the Inquisition,” vol. i. p. 14.

[9] And yet Dr. Rule’s statement is perilously akin to a truth untruly told, for the persecuting spirit, which is the impugnable quality of the Holy Office, has been present in other churches than that of Rome--_vide_ the Elizabethan persecution of all who were not members of the Anglican Church.

[10] See C. Douais, “Les Hérétiques du Midi au XIII^e Siècle.”

[11] Eymericus, “Directorium Inquisitorum,” p. 58.

[12] Concilium Avenionense, A.D. 1209.

[13] Eymericus, “Directorium Inquisitorum,” p. 60.

[14] “Concilium Lateranense IV,” A.D. 1215.

[15] See Cæsar, “De Bello Gallico,” p 13., libca vi.

[16] “Paradiso,” C. xi. v. 37-39.

[17]

“Ma il suo peculio di nuova vivanda E’ fatto ghiotto si, ch’ esser non puote Che per diversi salti non si spanda;

“E quanto le sue pecore remote E vagabonde più da esso vanno, Più tornano all’ ovil di latte vote.”

DANTE, “Paradiso,” C. xi. v. 124-9.

[18] Limborch, “Historia Inquisitionis,” lib. i. cap. 12.

[19] Limborch, “Historia Inquisitionis,” lib. i. cap. 12.

[20] 1231, N. 14, 16-17.

[21] Or, say, 1½ ft. by 1, ft.

[22] Llorente, “Historia Critica,” i. p. 135. Raynaldus 1233.

[23] Pulgar, “Chronica,” Part II. cap. li.

[24] Pulgar, “Cronica,” II. capzz. iv.

[25] Pulgar, “Cronica,” II. cap c.

[26] The Jesuit Mariana is among those who doubt the story of St. James’s visit to Spain and the presence of his body at Compostella, but he considers that “it is not desirable to disturb with such disputes the devotion of the people.”--“Hist. General de España.”

[27] Colmenares, “Historia de Segovia,” cap. xxxiv, §§ xii and xiii; Pulgar, “Cronica,” II. cap. lix.

[28] Cap. cc. Bernaldez was the parish priest of Palacios at the time of the Queen’s death. He has left us a rather intimate history of the Catholic Sovereigns, fairly rich in vivid detail.

[29] “Hizo corrigir y castigar la gran disolucion y dishonestidad que habian en sus reinos cuando comenzó de reinar entre los frailes y monjas de todas las ordenes, y fizo encerrar las monjas de muchos monasterios que vivian muy dishonestas, asi en Castilla como en los reynos de Aragon y Cataluña.”--BERNALDEZ, “Historia de los Reyes Catolicos,” cap. cc.

[30] St. Helena’s memory was prominently before the public attention just then, owing to the discovery in Rome of a silver box containing what was alleged to be the label that had been hung upon the Cross. Its recovery from the Holy Land was, of course, attributed to St. Helena, and it was supposed that it had been brought by her to Rome.

[31] The ducat was worth 7_s._ 6_d._ of our present money, with fully five times the purchasing power of that sum; so that, roughly, this would be equivalent to-day to £200,000.

[32] Salazar de Mendoza, “Cronica del Gran Cardenal,” I. cap. lii.

[33] “Histoire d’Espagne,” tom. v. p. 432.

[34] “Historia General de España,” lib. xxiv. cap. xvii.

[35] “Chronica de los Reyes Catholicos,” Pt. II. cap. lxxvi.

[36] To Judaize (_Judaizar_) was to embrace the Mosaic law, and the term was applied particularly to the relapse of those who had been converted to Christianity.

[37] Toledo, Mendoza tells us, was founded by Hercules, who sailed to Spain in the ship _Argo_.

[38] Tomás Tamayo de Vargas maintains that the Jews in Toledo at the time of the Crucifixion sent a letter of warning and disapproval to their brethren in Jerusalem. This letter--which it is alleged was translated into Castilian when Toledo fell into the hands of Alfonso VI--the historian quotes. Amador de los Rios, in his able and exhaustive history of the Jews in Spain, pronounces the document to have been manufactured to impose upon the credulity of the ignorant, since to any one acquainted with the growth and development of the Castilian language a glance is sufficient to prove its apocryphal character.

It is in this letter that the legend of the Jewish incursion into Spain after the fall of Babylon has its roots. It concludes with the following statement: “... You know that it is certain your temple must soon be destroyed, for which reason our forefathers, upon issuing from the Babylonian captivity, would not return to Jerusalem, but with Pyrrhus for their captain--sent by Cyrus, who gave them many riches taken from Babylon in the year 69 of the captivity--they came to Toledo and built here a great aljama.”

[39] “Historia de los Judios en España,” vol. i. pp. 28, 29.

[40] A case is at present before the Russian law courts, arising out of a charge of this nature urged by an officer of police.

[41] Rios, “Hist. de los Judios,” i. cap. x.

[42] See also Torrejoncillo’s “Centinela contra Judios.”

[43] This engrossing subject is exhaustively treated with great force and suggestiveness by J. G. Frazer in “The Golden Bough,” bk. iii. cap. iii., and also by P. Wendland in “Jesus als Saturnalien-König.”

[44] The decree is quoted by Amador de los Rios in “Historia de los Judios de España y Portugal,” vol. ii. p. 571.

[45] See Ortiz de Zuñiga, “Anales de Sevilla,” under _año_ 1391.

[46] See Rosseeuw St. Hilaire, “Hist. d’Espagne,” liv. xix. chap. I.

[47] “Chronica,” II. cap. lxxvi.

[48] See Gregorovius, “Geschichte der Stadt Rom,” bk. ix. cap. ii.

[49] Pulgar, “Chronica,” II. cap. lxxvi.

[50] In “Claros Varones de España,” Pulgar says that even in the veins of her sometime confessor, Frey Juan de Torquemada, Cardinal of San Sisto, there was a strain of Jewish blood. But the authority is insufficient, and Pulgar, himself a New-Christian, is perhaps anxious to include as many illustrious men of his day as possible in the New-Christian ranks. Zurita, on the other hand, says that the Cardinal’s nephew, Fr. Thomas de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor, was of “clean blood”--de limpia linaje (lib. xx. cap. xlix.). The term “clean” in this connection arose out of the popular conception that the blood of a Jew was a dark-hued fluid, distinguishable from the bright red blood of the Christian.

[51] Bernaldez, “Historia de los Reyes Catholicos,” cap. xliii: “Modo de vivir de los Judios.”

[52] “Anales,” lib. xii. año 1478.

[53] “Chronica,” II. cap. lxxvii.

[54] “De Origine et Progressu Sanctæ Inquisitionis,” lib. ii. tit. ii. cap. iii.

[55] The “relapsos”--of whom we shall hear more presently--were those who, having been converted to Christianity, were guilty of relapsing into Judaism.

[56] Paramo, “De Origine,” lib. ii. tit. ii. cap. iii.; Zuniga, “Anales,” 1477.

[57] “Anales,” cap. ii. 10.

[58] “Historia Verdadera de la Inquisicion,” by D. F. J. G. Rodrigo, vol. ii. p. 111. This history is to be read with the greatest caution. It is an attempt to justify the Inquisition and to combat Llorente’s writings; in his endeavours to achieve this object the author is a little reckless and negligent of exactitude.

[59] Paramo, p. 157, and Hernando de Castillo in “Historia de Santo Domingo y de su Orden,” part iii. cap. lxxiv.

[60] “Coronica de los Moros de España,” p. 879.

[61] Llorente, “Anales,” cap. ii. § 14.

[62] “Historic Verdadera,” ii. p. 71.

[63] Mendoza, “Monarquia de España,” iii. p. 336. Bleda says that there were 100,000 apostates in that diocese (“Coronica de los Moros,” p. 880).

[64] Zuñiga, “Anales,” lib. xii. año 1480.

[65] Bernaldez, cap. xliv.; Garcia Rodrigo, i. cap. xx.; Amador de los Rios, “Historia de los Judios,” lib. iii. cap. v.

Amador de los Rios adds in a foot-note, on the score of this girl: “Don Reginaldo Rubino, Bishop of Tiberiades, informed of the delation and of the state of la Fermosa Fembra, contrived that she should enter one of the convents of the city to take the veil. But dominated by her sensual passions, she quitted the convent without professing, and bore several children. Her beauty having been dissipated by age, want overtook the unnatural daughter of the millionaire Diego de Susan, and in the end she died under the protection of a grocer. In her will she disposed that her skull should be placed over the doorway of the house in which she had pursued her evil life as an example and in punishment of her sins. This house is situated in the Calle de Ataúd, opposite to its entrance from the direction of the Alcazar, and there the skull of la Fermosa Fembra has continued until our own times.”

[66] Llorente says “January 6,” an obvious mistake considering that the inquisitors published their first edict on the 2nd of that month, and that Susan’s offence was subsequent to that publication.

[67] See Garcia Rodrigo, vol. i. cap. xx.

[68] Bernaldez tells us (cap. xliv.) that in the town of Aracena alone, where the Inquisitors sought refuge from the pestilence, they set up a tribunal and burnt twenty-three persons alive in addition to the number of bodies they exhumed for the purpose.

[69] Bernaldez, cap. xliv.; Zuñiga, “Anales,” lib. xii. año 1481.

[70] “Historia de los Reyes Catolicos,” cap. xliv.

[71] See Llorente, “Historia Critica,” tom. i. p. 256 _et seq._

[72] Fidel Fita in “Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia,” xxiii. p. 370.

[73] “Chronica,” part ii. cap. lxxvii.

[74] This, however, is a statement in which a misconception seems obvious. If the statues were of plaster (and it is Llorente himself who says so) they would not have stood the heat of furnaces placed beneath them. Moreover, since death in such ovens would have been more lingering and painful than at the stake, it is difficult to think upon what possible grounds, where all were equally guilty, any of the condemned should have been relegated to this further degree of torment, or--conversely--those who died at the stake should have been spared it. Besides, it is to be remembered that it was desired, and held desirable, that the victims should suffer in full view of the faithful. But the mistake which has crept in can be indicated. What Bernaldez actually says is: “Ficieron facer aquel quemadero en Tablado con aquellos quatro profetas de yeso en que los quemaban.” The “en que” may refer either to the Quemadero generally or to the statues in particular. But there can be little doubt that it refers to the Quemadero, and that Llorente was mistaken in assuming it to refer to the statues.

A curious instance of adapting the shape of a fact so that it will fit the idea to be conveyed is afforded in this connection by Dr. Rule, who calmly alters the substance of the statues, translating _yeso_ as “limestone.” “Hist. of the Inquisition,” vol. i. p. 134.

[75] Garcia Rodrigo tells us that the architect of this elaborate altar of intolerance was a New-Christian of such zeal that he found employment in the Holy Office as one of its receivers, but that being discovered in Judaizing practices he was himself burnt on the Quemadero he had erected. No authority is furnished for the story, nor does Llorante mention it, and one is inclined to place it in the category of fables such as that which relates how the first head to be shorn off by the guillotine was that of its inventor, Dr. Guillotin.

[76] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 133. Llorente quotes this brief from Lumbreras, adding that the original is in the royal library. See his “Memoria Historica,” p. 260.

[77] “... e fueron aplicados todos sus bienes para la Camara del Rey y de la Reyna, los cuales fueron en gran cantidad.”--Pulgar, “Cronica,” cap. xcv.

[78] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 136.

[79] See letter quoted in Appendix to Llorente’s “Memoria Historica.”

[80] The bull of nomination is quoted in full by Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 137.

[81] “Hist. Critica,” tom. i. art. i. §. 2.

[82] Afterwards Ciudad Real.

[83] “Copilacion de las Instrucciones hechas, etc.” Press-mark C. 61. e. 6.

[84] Eymeric, “Directorium,” pars iii. Quæst. xli. _et seq._

[85] The compendious tome including these very ample annotations and commentaries was published first in Rome, 1585.

[86] Tennyson’s “Queen Mary,” Act V. sc. i.

[87] See Eymeric, “Directorium,” pars iii. p. 315 _et seq._

[88] See Fidel Fita in “Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia,” vol. xi. p. 296.

[89] “Vida de Arbués,” p. 56.

It is interesting to turn to modern writers who defend this secrecy--such, for instance, as the Rev. Sidney Smith, S.J., whose good faith there is no cause to doubt. He writes as follows: “To pass over the question of injury often done to the reputation of third parties, it has occasionally been forced on public attention that crimes cannot be put down because witnesses know that by giving evidence they expose themselves to great risks, the accused having powerful friends to execute vengeance in their behalf. This was exactly the case with the Inquisition. The Marranos had great power through their wealth, position, and secret bonds of alliance with the unconverted Jews. These would certainly have endeavoured to neutralize the efforts of the Holy Office had the trials been open. Torquemada, in his statutes of 1484, gives expressly this defence of secrecy, etc.”--“The Spanish Inquisition,” p 17, in “Historical Papers.”

The argument is specious, and it is fundamentally true. But when it is considered that the delator, so carefully screened from all danger, was protected entirely at the expense of the accused, it becomes clear that such a procedure must argue a reckless eagerness to accumulate convictions. It suffices to reflect that, whilst all the arguments advanced to justify this secrecy could with equal justice have been urged by the contemporary civil courts of Europe, it is impossible to point to a single one that had recourse to so inequitable a measure. The inquisitorial point of view may be appreciated, even with a certain sympathy, by the extremely tolerant. It cannot be justified.

[90] “Directorium,” pars iii. p. 312.

[91] “Historia Critica,” vol. ii. p. 15.

[92] Pars iii. quæst. cxiv. and cxv.

[93] See “Directorium,” pars iii. p. 387.

[94] See Llorente’s “Historia Critica,” I. cap. xxviii.

[95] “Las delaciones sobre solicitacion en el confessionario se deben recibir con gran cuidado, haciendo que la denunciante declare todas las circunstancias siguientes:

“En que dia, hora y en que confessionario, si fué antes de la confession ó despues, ó ella mediante; si estaba de rodillas y se avia ya persignado, ó si simulaba confession, que palabras la dijo el confessor, ó que acciones ejecutó, poniendo las palabras como ellas se dixeron; quantas veces sucedió, y si despues la absolvió, si alguna persona lo pude oir ó entender, ó si ella se lo ha dicho a alguien, y si sabe que el dicho confessor ó otro aya solicitado a otras, ó si ella ha sido solicitada por otro. Y declare la edad y señas personales del dicho confessor, y tambien en caso de aver pasado tiempo del delito, porque no lo ha delatado antes al Santo Oficio, y si sabe la residencia del dicho confessor.”

“Orden de Procesar,” compiled by Fr. P. Garcia, published by the Press of the Holy Office, Valencia, 1736.

[96] “Historia Critica,” I. cap. xxviii.

[97] “History of the Spanish Inquisition,” vol. iv. p. 135.

[98] “Historia Critica,” I. cap. xxviii.

[99] Eymeric, pars iii. p. 286--“Modus interrogandi reum accustum.”

[100] “Directorum,” pars. iii. Schol. xix.

[101] Schol. xxvii (pars iii.).

[102] “Directorium,” iii. p. 293.

[103] Schol. xxix. (lib. iii.).

[104] See “Directorium,” iii. Schol. xxix.

[105] “Directorium,” iii. Schol. xxvi.

[106] Schol. xxvi. lib. iii.

[107] Pars iii. quæst. lxi.

[108] Schol. cxviii.; lib. iii.

[109] “Directorium,” pars iii. p. 313 _et seq._

[110] Schol. cxviii.; lib. iii.

[111] “Historia Inquisitionis,” p. 332.

[112] See, _inter alia_, Melgares Marin, “Procedimientos de la Inquisicion,” i. p. 253. This author says that sometimes the patient would be left hanging for as long as three hours.

[113] See Melgares Marin, “Procedimientos,” i. p. 256.

[114] Schol. cxviii. lib. iii.

[115] “Directorium,” pars iii. quæst. lxxiii

[116] “Directorium,” pars ii. quæst. xxxiv.

[117] “Directorium,” iii. p. 338.

[118] “Sed si fortassis per iniquos testis est convictus, ferat id æquo animo ac lætatur quod pro veritatem patiatur.” “Directorium,” pars iii. Schol. lxvi.

[119] Schol. lxviii. pars iii.

[120] Eymeric, lib. ii.; quæst. lviii. and Pegna, lib. ii.; Schol. lxiv.

[121] Lib. iii. p. 331.

[122] Lib. ii. Schol. lxiv.

[123] Eymeric, lib. iii. p. 331.

[124] See “Essai sur les Mœurs.”

[125] “Rogamus tamen et efficaciter dictam curiam sæcularem quod, circa te, citra sanguinis effusionem et mortis periculum sententiam suam moderetur.”--“Directorium,” pars iii.--“Forma Ferendi Sententiam,” p. 549.

[126] “Vida de Arbués,” p. 57.

[127] Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. 116.

[128] Zurita, “Anales,” lib. xx. cap. lxv.; Amador de los Rios, “Historia Social,” lib. iii. p. 262; Garcia de Trasmiera, “Vida de Pedro Arbués.”

[129] Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. 181.

[130] “Vida de Arbués,” p. 82.

[131] Llorente, “Memoria Historica,” p. 112, and “Historia Critica,” vol. i. p. 205.

[132] “Historia Critica,” vol. ii. cap. vi.

[133] “Historia Critica,” vol. ii. cap. vi.

[134] Another advantage was that any member of this confraternity was entitled to plead benefit of clergy, so that no civil court could take proceedings against him.

[135] See “Instrucciones hechas en 1485, etc.,” in the “Copilacion de las Instrucciones.”

[136] “Historia Verdadera,” vol. iii. p. 165.

[137] “Historia de los Judios,” vol. iii. p. 272.

[138] See “Instrucciones hechas en 1488, etc.,” in “Copilacion de las Instrucciones.”

[139] “Boletin de la Real Academia,” xi p. 296 _et seq._, which see, and also Llorente, “Anales,” ii. 110 _et seq._

[140] “Quia si in virido ligno hæc faciunt, in arido quid fiet?” (Luke xxiii. 31). See Garcia Rodrigo, “Hist. Verdadera,” i. p. 373.

[141] Later on a cage was substituted for the stool.

[142] See “Boletin,” xi. p. 310 _et seq._

[143] See “Anales” under the dates given.

[144] “Boletin de la Academia, etc.,” vol. xi. p. 296 _et seq._

[145] Lumbreras, quoted by Llorente, “Anales,” i. p. 132. The bull is quoted in full by M. Fidel Fita, “Boletin,” xvi. p. 315.

[146] Llorente, “Historia Critica,” tom. ii. p. 118.

[147] Lumbreras, quoted by Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. III.

[148] Lumbreras, quoted by Llorente in “Anales,” vol. i. p. 138.

[149] “De Origine,” p. 276.

[150] “Historia Critica,” tom. ii. p. 146.

[151] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 157.

[152] See H. del Castillo, “Historia General de Santo Domingo.”

[153] “Boletin de la Academia,” vol. xxiii. p. 413.

[154] Castillo, “Historia de Sto. Domingo,” pt. i. p. 486.

[155] Ariz, “Historia de Avila,” vol. i. p. 46.

[156] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 158.

[157] “Historia Verdadera,” vol. ii. p. 115.

[158] The case of the “Santo Niño of La Guardia.”

[159] Fidel Fita in “Boletin,” vol. xvi. p. 315.

[160] Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. 168, and Torrejoncillo, “Centinela contra Judios.”

[161] Fidel Fita in “Boletin,” vol. xi. p. 160.

[162] “Historia del Santo Niño,” p. 40.

[163] “Rummage” is the only word that does justice to the original: “El judio andaba buscando el corazon, revolviendo las entrañas con su mano carniciera, y no lo hallando, le preguntó: ‘Que buscas, Judio? Si buscas el corazon yerras buscandolo en esa parte, buscalo al otro lado y lo incontrarás.’”--“Historia del Santo Niño,” p. 50.

[164] “Historia del Santo Niño,” p. 95.

[165] “Historia del Santo Niño,” p. 98 _et seq._

[166] There is a great deal more of this, but the alleged insults become too obscene for translation.

[167] But they did not find the body--a circumstance which appears to be here slurred over.

[168] Fidel Fita in “Boletin de la Real Academia,” vol. xi. p. 35. “Mas de lo que sabia” is the actual and rather ambiguous phrase. It may mean either that he had related more than was known to him at the time of the torture--_i.e._ more than was actually true; or that he had said more than he knew--_i.e._ more than he could recall--now, at the time of his conversation with Yucé Franco.

[169] See this upon his own word, as related in Yucé Franco’s depositions (“Boletin,” xi. p. 35 _et seq._) and admitted by himself.

[170] “Boletin,” xi. p. 60.

[171] “... estava alli sobre una MITA de NAHAR que avido sido como de la manera de OTOHAYS.”

[172] See Loeb in “Revue des Etudes Juives,” vol. xv. p. 218.

[173] This is not only in the depositions of Frey Alfonso Enriquez and the physician Avila (“Boletin,” xi. pp. 56 and 57), but it is also admitted and corroborated in detail by Yucé Franco himself in his examination of September 16, 1491 (_ibid._ p. 58).

[174] “Boletin,” vol. xxiii. p. 413.

[175] “Boletin,” xi. p. 9.

[176] “Boletin,” xi. p. 29.

[177] By Eymeric in the “Directorium.”

[178] “Boletin,” vol. xi. p. 13.

[179] Such is the consistent but obviously inaccurate spelling of the name.

[180] “Boletin,” xi. p. 16.

[181] “Boletin,” xi. p. 21.

[182] “Boletin,” xi. p. 32.

[183] _Ibid._ p. 46.

[184] “Boletin,” xi. p. 32 _et seq._

[185] “Boletin,” xi. p. 46.

[186] _Ibid._ p. 32.

[187] _Ibid._ p. 46.

[188] “Boletin,” xi. pp. 30-38.

[189] _Ibid._

[190] _Ibid._ p. 31.

[191] “Boletin,” xi. p. 39.

[192] “E que lo diesen palabra e seguro de perdón e seguridad de todos sus errores e de su persona e de su padre.”

[193] “Que les plasia con tanto que en todo dixiese enteramente la verdad, porque ellos bien conoscerian poco más ó menos si la diria.”

[194] “Boletin,” xi. p. 26.

[195] “Revue des Etudes Juives,” vol. xv. p. 232.

[196] “Boletin,” xi. 52.

[197] “Boletin,” xi. p. 55.

[198] _Ibid._ p. 50.

[199] “Boletin,” xi. p. 52.

[200] _Ibid._

[201] Which was framed upon the sentence ultimately passed.

[202] All this is contradicted by Juan Franco’s later confession that he himself procured the child from Toledo, and brought him to the cave. The name of the child’s father is as much a fiction as the rest of this vindictive deposition.

[203] “Boletin,” xi. p. 24.

[204] “Boletin,” xi. p. 26.

[205] “Boletin,” xi. p. 72.

[206] _Ibid._ p. 78.

[207] _Ibid._ p. 80.

[208] “Boletin,” xi. p. 80.

[209] _Ibid._ p. 87.

[210] “Boletin,” xi. p. 91.

[211] _Ibid._ p. 90.

[212] _Ibid._ p. 91.

[213] _Ibid._ p. 89.

[214] “Boletin,” xi. p. 97.

[215] “Boletin,” xi. p. 94.

[216] _Ibid._ p. 421.

[217] “Boletin,” xi. p. 113.

[218] “Boletin,” xi. p. 421.

[219] “Boletin,” xii. p. 169.

[220] “Revue des Etudes Juives,” vol. xv. p. 232.

[221] See “Boletin,” xiii. p. 113.

[222] “Y se halló la verdad y demonstracion de todo ello.”

[223] See the phrases quoted in the “Testimonio.”

[224] “Historia del Martirio,” p. 83.

[225] “Historia,” p. 146.

[226] Amador de los Rios, “Historia de los Judios,” vol. iii. p. 292.

[227] “Cronica,” cap. xlvi.

[228] The castellano was worth 480 maravedis.

[229] “Anales,” vol. i. p. 199.

[230] See “Centinela,” p. 153.

[231] See Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. 196, and “Centinela,” p. 86.

[232] See “Centinela,” p. 152.

[233] Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. 182.

[234] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 143; Llorente, “Historia Critica,” ii. p. 114.

[235] The edict is quoted in full in Appendix IV. of Amador de los Rios’ “Historia de los Judios.”

[236] See the text of the edict in Rios’ “Historia de los Judios,” Appendix IV.

[237] Amador de los Rios (iii. p. 310) very reasonably questions their being permitted to take money in bills of exchange, although the statement is contained in Bernaldez’ “Chronicle,” and is mentioned by other contemporaries.

[238] “Historia,” tom. i. cap. cx.

[239] “Historia de los Judios,” vol. iii. p. 311.

[240] Colmenares, “Hist. Segovia,” cap. xxxv. § ix.

[241] “Historia,” tom. i. cap. cx.

[242] Llorente, “Anales,” vol. i. p. 190.

[243] Bernaldez, “Historia,” tom. i. p. 339.

[244] “Historia,” tom. i. cap. cx.

[245] The cruzado is of the value of a florin, but with the purchasing power then of at least five times that sum.

[246] “Historia,” tom. i. p. 344.

[247] _Ibid._ p. 338.

[248] Zurita, “Anales,” lib. i. cap. iv.; Salazar de Mendoza, “Monarquia de España,” iii. p. 338.

[249] “Historia,” lib. xxvi. cap. i.

[250] See Amador de los Rios, “Historia de los Judios,” vol. iii. p. 316.

[251] Paramo states that it was. See “De Origine,” p. 143, and also Salazar de Mendoza, “Monarquia de España,” iii. p. 337.

[252] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 156.

[253] “Historia Critica,” tom. ii. p. 125.

[254] Colmenares, “Hist. Segovia,” cap. xxxv., and Paramo, “De Origine,” lib. ii. cap. iv. Paramo says that the Bishop had “causa propria” as well as the defence of his grandfather’s bones to take him to Rome.

[255] Burchard, “Diarium” (Thuasne Ed.), ii. p. 163.

[256] Burchard, “Diarium” (Thuasne Ed.), ii. pp. 409 and 494.

[257] Limborch, lib. xiv. cap. 41; Llorente, “Historia Critica,” tom. ii. p. 126; Burchard, “Diarium,” ii. 494, iii. 13--.

[258] Llorente, “Hist. Critica,” ii. p. 126. It was alleged against Aranda that in the course of his Judaizing, when praying he would always say “Gloria Patri” purposely omitting the “Filio et Spiritu Sancto,” that he took food before celebrating Mass, that he ate meat on Good Fridays and other days of abstinence, that he denied the efficacy of indulgences, and did not believe in Hell or Purgatory, and much else. See Burchard, “Diarium,” iii. p. 14.

[259] “Anales,” tom. i. p. 214.

[260] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 156.

[261] Lumbreras, quoted by Llorente, “Anales,” tom. i. p. 215.

[262] Llorente, “Anales,” tom. i. p. 222.

[263] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 159.

[264] “Historia Critica,” tom. ii. p. 77.

[265] _Ibid._ ii. p. 78.

[266] See “Copilacion de las Instrucciones,” under date.

[267] This is the figure given by Burchard, and is the most authoritative (“Diarium,” ii. 492). Llorente says “250,” and Sanuto (“Diario,” i. col. 1029) “zercha 300 marrani.”

[268] Llorente, “Anales,” tom. i. p. 238; Burchard, “Diarium,” ii. pp. 491-2. Sanuto the Venetian diarist reports the matter from letters received from Rome with a sarcasm entirely characteristic: “The Pontiff sent some 300 _marranos_ in penitence to the Minerva, dressed in yellow, candle in hand: this was their public penance; the secret one would be of their money....” (“Diario,” i. col. 1029).

[269] Lumbreras, quoted by Llorente, “Anales,” tom. i. p. 238.

[270] “History of Ferdinand and Isabella,” vol. i. p. 286.

Llorente estimates the number of Torquemada’s victims at 8,800 burnt, 6,500 burnt in effigy, and 90,000 penanced in various degrees. These figures, however, are unreliable and undoubtedly exaggerated, although they are in themselves a correction of his earlier estimate, which fixes the number of burnt at upwards of 10,000--an estimate flagrantly preferred by Dr. Rule and other partisan writers on the subject.

[271] “Hist. Verdadera,” vol. ii, p. 113.

[272] Paramo, “De Origine,” p. 159.

[Transcriber’s Note:

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]