Chapter III: Harsher Penalties (2)

There was the same reduction in the duration of imprisonment as in its severity, owing presumably to the same economical motive. As we have seen, the medieval Church recognized only lifelong imprisonment as the fitting penalty for the heretic who saved his forfeited life by recantation and, in recognition of this, the penitential prison in Spain was officially known as the perpetual prison, the sentences being always for perpetual imprisonment. At a very early period, however, it was clearly recognized that the literal enforcement of this was a physical impossibility. Bernaldez tells us that in Seville, up to 1488, there had been five thousand reconciled and condemned to perpetual imprisonment, but they were released after four or five years with sanbenitos and these were subsequently removed to prevent the spread of infamy throughout the land.[442] At Barcelona the tribunal had scarce been established, when we find it drawing a distinction in its sentences to perpetual imprisonment, some being _cum misericordia_ and others _absque misericordia_--thus anticipating the so-called "irremissible" perpetual prison--and from the sentences it would appear that "without mercy" was exceptional.[443]

This inevitable laxity provoked opposition on the part of the more rigid authorities and, in 1509, while Ximenes was in Oran, there was a discussion on the subject in the Suprema, when we are told that his temporary representative, Rojas Archbishop of Granada, stood alone against the other members.[444] What was the nature of the decision is not recorded, but it probably favored the laxer view, for Ximenes and the Suprema, in 1516, deemed it necessary to order that all sentences to prison and sanbenito must be perpetual, in accordance with the canon law; if, in any case, the inquisitors thought there should be a remission it must be left to the discretion of the inquisitor-general.[445]

The tendency to shorten the term was irresistible; the conservatives had to yield and, by the middle of the sixteenth century, Simancas tells us that perpetual prison was customarily defined to be three years, if the penitent was repentant, while those condemned to irremissible prison were usually released after eight years.[446] So purely technical did the term "perpetual prison" become that inquisitors saw nothing incongruous in such sentences as "perpetual prison for one year" or "for six months," which are constantly met with, as well as "perpetual prison" followed by terms of exile. The real infliction was therefore much less severe than it appears on the records, and when periods longer than eight years were intended, they were specified, as when Salvador Razo, for Molinism, was sentenced, in the Granada auto of July 4, 1745, to ten years, of which the first five were to be spent in the galleys--a hardship remitted on account of his infirmities.[447]

[Sidenote: _DURATION OF IMPRISONMENT_]

The terms of imprisonment were frequently shortened, moreover, sometimes, from humane motives, but more often from financial considerations, for the dispensing power in this, as in the other penalties, was a source of profit. Thus Mayor García, a Morisca of Daimiel, condemned in the Toledo auto of September 21, 1550, to perpetual prison for six months, on January 13, 1551, petitioned the tribunal for release "as was customary with others," saying that her husband would pay what the inquisitors should demand. The matter was promptly arranged with Inquisitor Alonso Pérez for four ducats, to help to build the staging for an auto de fe--a somewhat heavy payment for two months' relief.[448] This dispensing power was the subject of a prolonged struggle between the tribunals and the Suprema. In the early period, at Barcelona, the former endeavored to secure it by the device of discretional sentences, which inquisitors could curtail or extend at will, and this was recognized in a letter of the Suprema, October 4, 1499, authorizing them, under such sentences, to dispense with the imprisonment but not with the sanbenito.[449] In 1513, however, Ximenes forbade this without his consent and the repetition of the order in 1514 and 1516 shows that it was difficult of enforcement.[450] In spite of this when the Valencia tribunal, February 25, 1540, condemned five Moriscos to "habit and prison for as long a time as we shall determine," the Suprema insisted that, when discretion was specified, it must alone be that of the inquisitor-general, a mandate that had to be repeated more than once, even as late as 1592.[451]

The question of this, as of all other commutations, was inevitably settled, as we have seen, in favor of the inquisitor-general. In many cases there was no concealment that it was purely an affair of bargain and sale, but it is pleasant to record that often it was prompted by humanity. Petitions for abridgement of the penance were numerous and were usually sent in at the time of the greater feasts, which are alleged as a reason for mercy, in addition to the misery of the penitent. As an example of these petitions may be mentioned the case of Violante Rodríguez who, with her husband Duarte Valentin, was arrested for Judaism March 15, 1664. After a three years' trial, she was sentenced at Granada, February 24, 1667, to two years' imprisonment, while her husband was similarly sentenced at Cuenca. About August 10th she petitioned for commutation, alleging that she had eight little children, deprived of both parents. The Suprema promptly sent to Granada for the details of the case, but the tribunal delayed until October 8th, when it accompanied its report with the suggestion that she should be released with spiritual penances after the expiration of the first year, as she had manifested true repentance. Growing impatient, on December 24th, she again petitioned the Suprema, alluding to her seven children, thus showing that one had meanwhile died. That she was duly discharged in February there can be no doubt, and there is no trace in the correspondence of any pecuniary consideration. Some of the petitions for release, in truth, were well calculated to inspire compassion, such as that of Simon Méndez Soto, in 1666, wherein he describes himself as 84 years old, blind, deaf, crippled on both sides with many infirmities and penniless, and he supplicates release that he may seek for cure.[452]

There would appear to have been no minimum age for imprisonment short of irresponsibility. The Toledo tribunal condemned for Judaism García son of Pedro the potter of Aguda, a boy eleven years of age, to perpetual prison. In the Cuenca auto of June 29, 1654, for the same offence, Escolástica Gómez, aged 12 and Isavel Díaz Jorje, aged 14 had the same penalty and, in the Toledo auto of October 30, 1701, José de Leon, a boy of 16 was sentenced to irremissible prison.[453]

THE SANBENITO.

The sanbenito, or penitential garment, was the invariable accompaniment of reconciliation and prison, constituting together the "carcel y abito" of the sentences, although it was not exclusively reserved for such cases. It was not invented by the Spanish Inquisition, even though we can scarce agree with an enthusiastic writer, who traces its origin to the Fall, when God made the delinquents put on penitential habits of skins, corresponding with the _sacos benditos_ now used in the tribunals.[454]

[Sidenote: _THE SANBENITO_]

The penitential habit of sackcloth sprinkled with ashes, customary in the early Church, has passed into a proverb. That the penitents of the Inquisition should be required to wear such a garment was inevitable and, from the foundation of the institution, in the thirteenth century, they were distinguished from other penitents by two yellow crosses, one on the breast and the other on the back. From Eymerich we learn that in Aragon this garment was like the scapular worn by the religious Orders.[455] This _saco bendito_ became known as the sanbenito or, more commonly, _abito_ and was necessarily inherited by the new Inquisition. In 1486, at the Toledo auto of December 11th, two hundred penitents, reconciled under the Edict of Grace, were required to wear in public such a garment for a year, under penalty of relapse.[456] For those reconciled after trial, the infliction was more severe. In 1490, Torquemada ordered that they should wear during life a _sanbenitillo_ of black or gray cloth, eighteen inches long and nine inches wide, like a small tabard, hanging on breast and back, with a red cross before and behind, occupying nearly the entire field. This was hung over the outer garment, and was a conspicuous indication to all beholders of the shame of the wearer, rendering it a punishment regarded as exceedingly severe.[457] In 1514, Ximenes changed the cross to an _aspa de San Andrés_, a St. Andrew's or oblique cross, of which the bars traversed diagonally the breast and back.[458] Finally the Instructions of 1561 describe the _abito penitencial_ as made of yellow linen or cloth, with two red _aspas_, although in some parts of Aragon there are particular customs as to colors which must be observed--referring probably to the use of green cloth in place of yellow, which seems to have been the case in Valencia and Sicily.[459] In some tribunals there was also in use, for those who abjured _de vehementi_, a sanbenito _de media aspa_, or half cross, consisting of a single diagonal band. Those who were to be relaxed appeared in the auto de fe in a black sanbenito, on which were painted flames and sometimes demons thrusting the heretic into hell.[460] Llorente tells us that abjuration _de levi_ was performed in a _zamarra_, or yellow sanbenito without aspas, but I have met with no allusion to its use.[461] The distinction between the sanbenito _de dos aspas_ and the one _de media aspa_ was maintained, and the former was understood to indicate that the wearer had been guilty of formal heresy, that he and his children were subject to the consequent disabilities, and that he was liable to the stake in case of relapse. The latter was worn only during the auto de fe, after which it was laid aside.[462]

Although, in the early period, the sanbenito was imposed perpetually, the expression is to be taken in the same sense as imprisonment. As a rule, the two were coterminous and the sentences are almost invariably "habit and prison for two years," or perpetual or irremissible as the case may be. Where, indeed, the heresy was trivial or technical rather than real, or the conversion seemed genuine and spontaneous, the sanbenito was merely a symbol, to be worn only during the auto, or even for a briefer period, although it none the less left its ineffaceable stigma. There were gradations suited to every case, as is well illustrated in the Granada auto of May 27, 1593, where, in three cases, it was removed after reading the sentence, in two, after returning to the Inquisition, in two, after twenty-four hours (one of these being the Licentiate Juan Fernández, who had Judaized for thirty-six years), in one case it was imposed for two years and in another for three, and Leonor Fernández had two years of sanbenito and four of prison. It was even put on the effigy of Doña Inez de Tórres, from which it was removed after reading the sentence, because she had confessed and died as a Catholic, with ample signs of contrition.[463] Thus the tribunal could vary the penalty at its discretion, and was not bound to the rule of coterminous _abito y carcel_. In the Toledo auto of March 15, 1722, two girls of 14, Manuela Díaz and María de Mendoza, were sentenced to six months of prison and two months of sanbenito, while in that of February 24, 1723, Manuel Ximenes had perpetual prison and one year of sanbenito.[464]

From the fact that, in the sentences, the penitents are told that they are not to go out of their prisons or their houses without the sanbenito, it is inferable that it was not worn within doors. Discarding it, as we have seen, was a grave offence, punishable as non-fulfilment of penance and, in the Edicts of Faith, the denunciation of this, as of other infractions, was required. There was one occasion, however, in which this was done on a large scale with impunity, for in the Palermo rising of 1516 against the Inquisition, there was a universal throwing off of sanbenitos. When order was restored and the tribunal was re-established, there was a fruitless effort made to reimpose them. In 1522 the Suprema wrote to Inquisitors Calvete and Cervera calling attention to this as a great disservice to God and a heavy charge on the souls of the penitents, who must be compelled to resume them, and all secular and ecclesiastical authorities were commanded to assist. Then again, in 1525, Inquisitor-general Manrique insisted on the resumption of the sanbenitos, but at the same time he cautioned the inquisitors not to cause scandal or trouble, and we may assume that the attempt was practically abandoned.[465]

* * * * *

[Sidenote: _SANBENITOS IN CHURCHES_]

Cruel as was the imposition of the sanbenito, it was a punishment inherited from the elder Inquisition, but Spanish ingenuity invented a still more cruel use of it to stimulate the detestation of heresy. This was the preservation of the sanbenitos, with suitable inscriptions, conspicuously displayed in the churches, thus perpetuating to future generations the memory of the crime and punishment of the delinquent. The origin of this may perhaps be traceable to the ceremonies observed in the early period, when penitents were relieved of the _abito_. As described, in 1490, at Barcelona, they were assembled in the Inquisition and preached to by the inquisitor. A fortnight later they gathered in the parish church of Santa María del Pino and heard mass; then they marched in procession to the chapel of Our Lady of Monserrat, again heard mass, offered twelve dineros apiece to the Virgin, and passed the night, after which their sanbenitos were taken off and hung in a prominent place near the door.[466] Of course, in the case of those who were burnt, the sanbenito was hung up at once, and this remained the rule, as we learn from the Instructions of 1561--the sanbenito of the reconciled was hung when it was removed, whether during the auto or after years of prison; that of the relaxed, immediately after the auto.[467]

The custom must have been of gradual growth. There is no allusion to it in the _Instrucciones antiquas_, nor have I found any indication as to the time when it became imperative except that, in 1512, there is a decision of the Suprema expressing the will of the king and the cardinal that the sanbenitos of the relaxed and reconciled of the Campo de Calatrava shall be hung in the churches, except those of the reconciled in the Time of Grace, and that, if any of the latter have been hung, they are to be removed.[468] This indicates a custom favored by the authorities, spreading, but as yet subject to question. It had already passed to Sicily, where one of the incidents of the rising of 1516 was the tearing down of the sanbenitos in the churches, and so great was the popular detestation of it that, at the end of the century, it had not been possible to restore the practice.[469]

It mattered little to the descendants that the sanbenitos of the victims in the early years had escaped this publicity. The perversity which inspired it developed into such malignity that, in 1532, the Suprema ordered the tribunals to make from their records lists of all burnt or reconciled, even under Edicts of Grace, and to suspend in the churches whatever sanbenitos were found to be lacking. The inexcusable cruelty of including the voluntary reconciliados under Edicts of Grace caused this portion of the order to be revoked in 1538, but, in 1539, this was declared inapplicable to those which had already been hung--if they had been removed, they must be replaced. The question was revived, in 1552, and opinions were divided, but the decision to retain them prevailed. Meanwhile, in 1548, the Suprema stimulated the tribunals to fill all vacancies, whether arising from omissions or the surreptitious removal of old ones, and it ordered the hanging of new ones as soon as the autos were held, in order to anticipate the complaints and importunities of the sufferers and their kindred. Then, as though the tribunals were slack in their duty, in 1555 the order of 1532 was revived and repeated.[470] The wilful viciousness of this is indicated by the Instructions of 1561, which point out that, as those reconciled in Time of Grace are exempt from wearing the sanbenito, so their sanbenitos ought not to be suspended in the churches.[471]

[Sidenote: _SANBENITOS IN CHURCHES_]

The object was the cruel one of perpetuating the infamy of the victim and rendering it as galling as possible to his kindred and descendants. As the sanbenitos wore out or became illegible with time, they were replaced, and finally superseded by yellow linen cloths, bearing full details of the name, lineage, crime and punishment of the culprit.[472] Originally they were hung in the cathedral of the city of the Inquisition, but this did not bring the disgrace sufficiently close to the descendants and, in some places at least, they were ordered to be transferred to the parish churches of the delinquents, whose infamy was thus kept alive in the memory of their neighbors. A single instance will illustrate the spirit actuating this. In 1519 the Suprema ordered this transfer made by the tribunal of Cuenca, but the command was slackly obeyed and was repeated in 1529. Then the descendants of Lope de Leon and Alvar Hernández de Leon, residents of Belmonte, petitioned the Suprema, saying that the wives of Lope and Alvar had been reconciled; they were natives of Quintanar, where they had committed their heresy, and the descendants now begged that the sanbenitos be hung in the church of Quintanar and not of Belmonte. To this the Suprema replied, April 15, 1529, by instructing the tribunal to hang the sanbenitos in the residence of the descendants, in a place so public that the reconciliation of the women should be notorious to all. It is true that the descendants secured delay until the pressing orders came of 1548, when, on November 9th the sanbenitos of the women were hung in the church of Belmonte.[473]

This policy of distribution cannot have been universal for, when the Toledo cathedral desired to be relieved of the great accumulation of sanbenitos, the Suprema forbade it, adding that if it was desired to have them in the parish churches it must be done with new ones, leaving the originals in the cathedral. At length, in 1538, the inquisitors Yáñez and Loaysa distributed them among the parish churches, when Sebastian de Orozco tells us that it caused infinite misery to the descendants, leading them all or nearly all to change their family names, so that in Toledo the names actually borne by the Conversos disappeared.[474]

Change of name was not the only device resorted to by the descendants, for they were constantly at work removing surreptitiously the evidence of their infamy. As early as 1518, the Saragossa tribunal was ordered to prosecute with rigor those who had abstracted them from the Dominican church.[475] Their zeal was stimulated by the fact that the inquisitors, in making up the records, included all who had been reconciled under Edicts of Grace, thus affording legitimate ground of complaint, as shown by a long-continued struggle at Frejenal. In 1556, Doctor Ramírez, Inquisitor of Llerena, protested to the Suprema against the efforts of the people of Frejenal for the removal of the names of those reconciled in Time of Grace; it would leave but few for, in 1491, there had been three hundred and fifty-seven reconciliations there, of which three hundred and fifty-four had been under the Edict. To render ancestral infamy more accessible to the public, besides the sanbenitos, the names and details were inscribed on a tablet of parchment. This became torn and nearly illegible and, on August 23, 1563, it was solemnly replaced by another, written in large letters, with printer's ink, and varnished to insure its preservation. The secret warfare waged against this perpetuation of infamy is described, in 1572, in a deposition of the familiar Rodrigo Carvajo. The people of the town, he said, were mostly descendants of Conversos, resorting to perjury and every other means to conceal their origin. The sacristans were generally Conversos, who connived at the methods employed to destroy the evidence, and the sanbenitos were stolen; there used to be five hundred and ninety-nine, and now there were only ten or a dozen, worn and torn and so placed that they could not be read, while the tablet with the names was gradually being defaced and rendered illegible. Thus it continued until 1576, when Inquisitor Montoyo brought to Frejenal a new set of sanbenitos prepared from the records, which were duly suspended, and a tablet containing names and details was placed where all could read it. This list shows the obstinate persistence with which the names of the spontaneously reconciled were retained. It contained a hundred and sixty-two relaxed and four hundred and nine reconciled, all, with very few exceptions, in the years from 1491 to 1495. There were none between 1499 and 1511, and none later than 1511.[476] Struggles similar to this were doubtless on foot in numerous other places.

[Sidenote: _SANBENITOS IN CHURCHES_]

The churches themselves do not seem to have looked with favor on this desecration of their sacred precincts. At Cuenca, there was apparently an attempt to hide the sanbenitos of which the tribunal complained in 1571, when the Suprema ordered it to see that nothing was put before them, even on feast-days.[477] The parish church of San Salvador, at Cifuentes, went further and, in 1561, appealed to Pius IV, explaining to him the Spanish custom, and representing that not only was the attractiveness of the church marred by the prominence assigned to the sanbenitos, but that they led to many scandals, all of which would be prevented if they were removed to some less prominent place or laid away altogether, but that licence from the Holy See was requisite for this. The pope gave the required licence, subject to the assent of the Inquisition to the removal, which of course rendered it inoperative.[478] The cathedral of Granada was more fortunate for when, in 1610, Inquisitor-general Sandoval consecrated as archbishop Pedro González de Mendoza, the latter asked him, as a special favor to his bride, that she should be relieved of the sanbenitos. Sandoval assented and the permission came soon after Mendoza had reached Granada. It was celebrated with great rejoicings and ringing of bells; the sanbenitos of the Moriscos were transferred to the church of San Salvador, in the Albaycin, while those of the Judaizers were hung in the church of Santiago, which was the parish church of the Inquisition.[479] Even when there was not this open antagonism, there was apt to be neglect which was practically more damaging. In 1642, the Valencia tribunal learned that some of those in the cathedral had fallen and were allowed to lie. It made an investigation and, from the report, it would seem as though every available spot was thus decorated and that all required attention for their preservation. The sacristans promised to do what was necessary, but apparently they had been quite willing to see them disappear.[480]

Conscious of this ecclesiastical indifference and of the constant effort of those interested to make way with the visible records of their infamy, the Suprema was incessantly active to counteract the results. The Instructions of 1561 insist imperatively on the duty of hanging the new sanbenitos and renewing the old, so that the memory of the infamy of heretics shall be preserved forever, and inquisitors on their visitations are commanded to see that the parish churches are kept with unbroken lines of the _mantetas y insinias_ of their culprit parishioners.[481] Philip II was no less urgent. In his instructions of 1595 to Manrique de Lara, he calls special attention to the subject; there are sanbenitos now to be hung and others which have never been hung, apparently through favoritism, for which the inquisitors deserve rigorous punishment, for this is the severest penalty which the Holy Office can inflict on heretics and their descendants, and Manrique is to see that all deficiencies are made good.[482]

In fact, the most pressing business of the inquisitor in visiting his district was to attend to this. In 1569 the Suprema ordered every one, before starting, to have full lists made out of the relaxed and reconciled of the region to be traversed and, in each place, these lists were to be compared with the existing sanbenitos and all that had disappeared were to be replaced. In 1600 and 1607 these instructions were repeated with still greater urgency, as a matter not to be neglected for a single day, in view of the evils that would follow.[483] That nothing was to be allowed to interfere with this pious duty is seen when Valencia had no money wherewith to defray the expense of renewals and was told to borrow it from the _Depositario de los pretendientes_--the sacred deposits of those seeking to prove their limpieza, which were thus used to preserve the muniments that might destroy their hopes.[484]

How, in fact, the sanbenitos were employed for this purpose is indicated in a perquisition conducted at Tortosa, in 1577, by the inquisitor, Juan de Zúñiga. The sanbenitos were carefully examined and lists were made out, classified firstly into those of which the trials could be identified and those of which no trace could be found in the records, and secondly into the penalties inflicted. Then two of the oldest residents--a notary and a priest--were summoned; the lists were gone over with them and their evidence was taken as to the descendants of the culprits, especially whether any had changed their names so as to elude disabilities. Thus a close watch was kept on them and every care was taken that the infamy of their ancestors should be lasting.[485]

* * * * *

[Sidenote: _SANBENITOS IN CHURCHES_]

As the seventeenth century wore on, it would seem that the zeal of the tribunals in the matter of sanbenitos was flagging. A general carta acordada of February 27, 1657, assumes this, in calling their attention to the Instructions of 1561 and to subsequent orders of similar import. As many autos de fe had recently been held, and as it was understood that, in some places, the sanbenitos had not been hung in the churches, the tribunals were commanded forthwith to make out lists of the relaxed and the reconciled, and to have corresponding sanbenitos suspended in the churches, as well as to renew the old ones which were worn out. In view of the importance of this to the service of God, a full report in detail was imperatively required to be furnished within four months. This may have excited the tribunals to spasmodic activity but, if so, its influence was but temporary for, in 1691, we find the Suprema ordering reports as to the length of time that had elapsed since sanbenitos had ceased to be hung in the churches; lists of deficiencies were called for; the old sanbenitos were to be examined and statements were to be rendered as to what were lacking and what had become illegible, so that the Suprema might take requisite action.[486]

This looks as if the custom had been falling into desuetude, but it was by no means abandoned and, as late as August 26, 1753, when a deceased delinquent named Horstmann was burnt in effigy at Valencia, two sanbenitos were ordered to be suspended, one in the cathedral and one in the parish church of San Lorenzo.[487] Still the same tribunal furnishes, in 1783, a refreshing evidence of the decline of intolerant zeal in the gradual diffusion of enlightenment. The cathedral had been undergoing restoration, during which the sanbenitos had been carefully stored in a room of the Inquisition. On the completion of the work, the tribunal suggested to Inquisitor-general Beltran that it would not redound to the service of God or of the public to hang them up again, to which Beltran assented; if the chapter did not ask for them, the tribunal was not to raise the question, or to do any thing in the matter and, from an endorsement on the letter, it is to be inferred that the sanbenitos were allowed to repose undisturbed.[488]

It is not to be supposed that, when the Córtes of Cadiz, February 22, 1813, abolished the Inquisition, it was satisfied to permit the continued existence of the sanbenitos which perpetuated so many dreadful memories. A decree of the same day recited that Article 305 of the Constitution provided that no punishment should extend beyond the criminal to his family; that the means by which, in public places, the memory of penalties inflicted by the Inquisition was preserved, brought infamy on families, and even exposed to evil repute persons of the same name. Therefore all portraits, pictures, or inscriptions, recording the punishments imposed by the Inquisition, existing in churches, cloisters, convents and other places, were to be removed or blotted out within three days after receipt of the decree.[489]

The condition of Spain was not such as to insure any wide obedience of this decree, although it is scarce likely that the French armies had left many sanbenitos hanging in towns occupied by them during the war. What occurred elsewhere may probably be guessed by the example of Majorca, when the Constitution of Cadiz was enthusiastically received and the sanbenitos were removed from the church of San Domingo, but they were providently stored away and were again hung up after the Restoration in 1814. In the Revolution of 1820, however, they were torn down and burnt and the Inquisition was levelled to the ground.[490]

The custom of suspending in the churches the _habitelli_ or sanbenitos of the reconciled and relaxed seems to have been borrowed by Italy from Spain, at least in some places. It is to the credit of the Roman Inquisition that it disapproved this barbarous practice, as appears from a decree of 1627 ordering them to be removed from the cathedral of Faenza and to be secretly burnt.[491]

DISABILITIES.

Disabilities have already been considered in their relation to the finances of the Inquisition, arising from the sale of dispensations, but they formed too important a portion of the penal system not to require further treatment in this connection. They differed however from other punishments in that, although specified in the sentences, they were the inseparable consequences of condemnation for heresy and thus, in some sense, self-operative, for the severity of the laws for the suppression of misbelief was not content with confiscating the property of those whose lives were spared. The reconciled heretic was not only turned adrift penniless, but was subjected to restrictions incapacitating him from earning a livelihood. As this refinement of cruelty could not be applied to those who were burnt, it was visited on their descendants.

[Sidenote: _DISABILITIES_]

This latter provision was derived from the imperial legislation against treason, which disabled children of traitors from holding office and succeeding to collateral estates.[492] Frederic II, in his Ravenna decree of 1232, made this applicable to the children and grandchildren of heretics, which was eagerly incorporated into the legislation of Alexander IV and Honorius IV, although Boniface VIII mitigated it slightly by exempting grandchildren in the female line.[493] As part of the canon law this of course governed the Spanish Inquisition and, if there were those who questioned the justice of punishing orthodox children for their parents' heresy, they were triumphantly silenced by Alfonso de Castro, who pointed to Original Sin as an irrefragable proof that this was in accordance with the law of God.[494]

The application of these restrictions to reconciled penitents apparently originated with the Council of Béziers, in 1246, which ordered that penitents should not hold public office, or serve as physicians or notaries, or wear silk garments or gold and silver ornaments or other vanities--in short, that their apparel should befit those whose lives constructively were to be passed in repentance.[495] These provisions were not carried into the canon law but apparently became traditional in the Holy Office.

In the Instructions of 1484 there is nothing said as to the disabilities of descendants, but inquisitors were instructed to order penitents, after completing their penance, never to hold public office or benefices or to serve as procurators, tax-collectors, farmers of the revenue, grocers, apothecaries, physicians, surgeons, bleeders or brokers, thus prohibiting the professions which they had specially made their own. Moreover, they were not to wear gold or silver, coral, pearls or other precious stones or garments of silk or camlet or other finery or to ride on horse-back or bear arms, and all this during life, under penalty of relapse.[496]

There was evidently doubt as to the application of these restrictions to the descendants of those relaxed, but that there was an effort made in that direction is shown by their procuring, in 1486, from Innocent VIII, a brief enabling them to farm the revenues of churches.[497] In the assembly of inquisitors, in 1488, the matter excited considerable debate, resulting in instructions that each tribunal in its own district should enforce, under heavy penalties, the disability of children and grandchildren to hold any office or dignity that could be considered public, and the list of prohibited callings was enlarged by including those of merchants, notaries, scriveners, advocates, farmers of revenues and some others. The sumptuary restrictions were not extended to them, for they were not penitents, but they were forbidden to wear the insignia of any dignity, secular or ecclesiastic.[498] The omission was made good in a decree issued by Torquemada, April 22, 1494, but it was so slackly obeyed that when, in 1502, the sovereigns ordered its enforcement, they allowed a certain time for those affected to become acquainted with its provisions.[499] Ferdinand himself had had occasion to recognize the hardship of the rule for, in 1500, the mother of Pero Rúiz, a member of his royal guard, was condemned and consequently he was incapacitated from riding and bearing arms. Unwilling to lose him, Ferdinand wrote to Torquemada for letters of dispensation to be brought back by the messenger.[500]

We have seen how, in the struggle over the profits of dispensation, the sovereigns abandoned to the Inquisition the _cosas arbitrarias_, or sumptuary restrictions, and assumed to themselves, by the pragmáticas of 1501, control over the disability to hold office and to follow certain professions and trades, which limited so greatly the ability of the reconciled and of the children and grandchildren of the condemned to support themselves.[501] A humane exception was made however, in 1502, under which children reconciled below the age of 14 were exempted from the operation of the pragmáticas.[502] As these were municipal laws they were subject to the secular officials, who were ordered to enforce them under pain of confiscation and loss of office for negligence.

[Sidenote: _DISABILITIES_]

It was easier to publish edicts than to get them executed. The civil magistrates seem to have paid little attention to the pragmáticas, while the Inquisition did what it could within its allotted sphere. The Suprema issued orders to the tribunals to punish with all rigor those who disregarded the sumptuary restrictions, who were said to be numerous, in great contempt of the Holy Office. It was probably to stimulate zeal that, in 1509, it modified the penalty of relapse to a pecuniary penance, which it authorized the inquisitors to impose at discretion, bearing in mind the gravity of the case and the wealth of the offender.[503] The sums thus realized were considerable enough to tempt the cupidity of the courtiers for, May 9, 1514, we find the king making over to four of his ushers the penalties levied on the sons of Alonso Gallo of Toledo, and on April 1st he ordered Vázquez de Busto, alguazil of Toledo, to collect all the penances of this kind, to pay one-half to the receiver for the tribunal, and divide the other half between the fiscal, Martin Ximenes, and a servant of secretary Calcena.[504] The punishments decreed in the pragmáticas were also modified to fines, as we learn from a letter of June 20, 1515, dividing those incurred in Seville between Calcena and Aguirre, after setting aside one-third for the tribunal, and from another letter of January 8, 1516, bestowing on Fernando de Hoyos, portero of the Cuenca tribunal, the penalties incurred by the wives of Pedro de Vaguera and of Quiros and Jayme Boticario, for exercising the profession of apothecary.[505]

At length it was recognized that the Inquisition was the only instrumentality to be depended upon for the enforcement of the pragmáticas and Charles V, in a cédula of March 30, 1528, placed the whole business in its hands. He recited the laws of Ferdinand and Isabella, with their severe penalties for negligent officials, in spite of which he was informed that, in many places, they were disregarded, wherefore he granted to the Inquisition all necessary powers and ordered it to see to the execution of the law. Possibly there may have been some opposition by the secular authorities to this invasion of their jurisdiction, which called for a repetition of the cédula, March 2, 1543. In pursuance of this the Suprema, in cartas acordadas of 1548, 1549 and 1566, called the attention of the tribunals to the number of persons engaged in prohibited callings or wearing forbidden articles, and it urged them to be active in detecting and punishing the offenders.[506]

The construction of the laws was rigorous. There was a nice question whether, when a parent was condemned _in absentia_ as contumacious, the children were subject to the disabilities, for the heresy was presumptive and not proven. Farinacci held that they were not, for the absentee, even though burnt in effigy, could always return and prove his innocence. Peña represents the stricter Spanish view, that the fugitive was condemned as a heretic and his children were incapacitated. The matter was threshed out in the case of the son of Antonio Pérez, who was deprived of a pension on the church of Cuenca. This was the final decision of the Rota after full argument; it served as a precedent, and the sentence of the absent contained the same enumeration of disabilities as that of one who was burnt in person.[507] Some doubts arose as to whether the pragmáticas prohibited trade in general; all such points were reserved to the king and when, in 1566, it was proposed to prosecute some merchants, the Suprema ordered the cases to be suspended until he should be consulted. It was less cautious when, in 1542, it forbade all reconciled penitents to keep schools, or even to teach children their letters. A question arose whether the prohibition to ride on horseback comprehended mules, but Simancas decides it in the affirmative, and even desires to include vehicles, as it is fitting that all such persons should walk on foot.[508] Even the limits of the canon law were disregarded in the panic occasioned by the discovery of Protestantism in 1559, for in the Seville auto of September 24th, when Juan Ponce de Leon was burnt, the disabilities of his descendants in the male line were extended to the fourth generation.[509]

An ecclesiastical career was closed to penitents and their descendants, who were forbidden to enter holy orders. There was some question raised whether those who were in orders could obtain or retain benefices, but it was decided in the negative. The practice, as stated about 1640, was that on their visitation the inquisitors dealt summarily with cases concerning the _cosas arbitrarias_ while those which involved the holding of benefices or public office were sent to the tribunal for trial.[510] In the Edicts of Faith which they published, denunciations were invited, and all persons were required to give information as to any infractions of the laws of which they were cognizant.[511]

[Sidenote: _DISABILITIES_]

As everyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Inquisition was a marked man thereafter, and was liable to the suspicion that he had incurred disabilities--a suspicion apt to grow stronger with time and to affect his descendants--it became important for those who were not thus affected to have some evidence of the fact. In the earlier time the Inquisition was chary about affording this relief, but did not absolutely refuse it when the sufferer applied to the Suprema. It was not everyone however who could obtain the intervention of the Suprema; popular prejudice was strong, and no one knew what took place within the precincts of the tribunals. Blighted careers were thus numerous. Escobar, in his work on Limpieza, tells us that, at the origin of the Inquisition it punished the lightest offences with extreme severity and this, after the lapse of a century and a half, was still disastrously affecting the descendants; it was inhuman that a word inadvertently spoken through levity, or anger, or in jest should bring infamy on the delinquent and his posterity without limitation of time.[512] The memorial of 1623, by a member of the Suprema, discusses the same evil. The writer says that the Inquisition is surrounded by enemies who are daily multiplied through those afflicted by the tribunals. It is not merely those who are relaxed or reconciled or compelled to abjure _de vehementi_, but there are many well-affected Old Christians, punished with lighter penalties who, if they remain defamed and their posterity disabled from honors, must necessarily add to the number of enemies and it is pitiable thus to afflict them for trivial causes.[513]

The tribunals did not cease to afflict the people, but some relief was afforded by a practice, which gradually came into use, of including, in a sentence for light offences or of acquittal, a clause declaring that the party and his descendants were not subject to disabilities and that he could have a certificate to that effect. Two examples of this, occurring in Valladolid in 1638 will suffice. In the case of Agustin López, tried for blasphemy, the consulta de fe could not agree and the Suprema sentenced him to reprimand and exile, adding that the sentence should be no bar to offices of honor or in the Inquisition. So a sentence, acquitting Miguel Rúiz of a charge of sorcery, says that his imprisonment shall not be an obstacle to him and his children, and that he shall have a certificate to that effect. That Rúiz had not even been confined in the secret prison but in the public gaol shows how sensitive was the popular mind.[514] These certificates _de no obstancia_, as they were called, would appear, as a rule, not to be issued unless specially applied for, and yet how important they were to the individual and his posterity is manifested by a petition presented, January 17, 1818, by the Licenciate Mariano de Santander y Alvárez setting forth that, twenty years before, in 1798, his father had been arrested and prosecuted by the Valladolid tribunal because, in his trade as a bookseller, he had sold prohibited books. In the final sentence it was declared that his imprisonment and prosecution did not prejudice him or his descendants in the enjoyment of their civil rights, but the secrecy of the Inquisition, and the loss of the certificate given to the father, prevented the petitioner from furnishing the proofs necessary to his admission as an advocate in the royal chancellery, wherefore he begged for a proper testimonial. The Suprema had the statement verified and ordered a certificate to be duly issued.[515]

From this, as well as from the memorial of 1623, it appears that not merely reconciliation but even abjuration or lesser penalties inflicted disabilities, if not as to the _cosas arbitrarias_ at least as to the attainment of an honorable career. In the closing years of the Inquisition this sometimes led to a merciful moderation of the sentence, as in that pronounced, August 27, 1817, on Francisco Mosquera Villamarino, of Santiago, "Bachiller clasico y Profesor del 6º Cuerpo de Canones en su Real Universidad," for certain propositions. He escaped with a reprimand in the audience-chamber and without abjuration, it being expressly stated that he was treated with this benignity in order not to prejudice him in his career, though he was warned that the Inquisition would keep a watch on him.[516]

[Sidenote: _DISABILITIES_]

Popular prejudice, as we have seen, intensified the cruelty of the cruel laws. How inveterate was this is manifested in the case of Josef Calot who, in 1791, sought in marriage the daughter of Pablo Bordo, a merchant of Valencia. The parents refused assent and the lovers eloped. Bordo brought the matter before the royal Audiencia, showing that Calot was the great-grandson of Clara Muñoz who, at the age of 19, was reconciled for Judaism in the Barcelona auto de fe of April 2, 1724, and was sentenced to irremissible "carcel y abito," though after two years her husband, Antonio Antonelli, obtained her release. In view of this descent the Audiencia decided that Bordo's opposition to the marriage was reasonable and just, thus inflicting an indelible stigma on Calot and his posterity. In some way the affair reached the Suprema, which wrote to Valencia for details and, in transmitting them, the inquisitors added an expression of sympathy for Calot in the dishonor cast upon him; the punishment of his great-grandmother did not disable him from the professions, but it would be difficult to restore him to his good fame without calling in question the justice of the sentence of the Audiencia.[517] Even the Inquisition did not venture to repair an injustice caused by its assiduous training of the population in an unreasoning abhorrence of heresy.

* * * * *

The penalty for disregarding the disabilities settled down to the thrifty one of a fine. As regards those imposed by the pragmáticas, the Suprema, in 1531, replied to an inquiry from the tribunal of Avila and Segovia that, although the laws prescribed confiscation for infractions, yet the practice was to penance culprits in accordance with their wealth and station and the degree of the offence. So, in respect to the _cosas arbitrarias_, it decreed in 1536, that although the Instructions of 1484 provided the pain of relapse, they did not require the inquisitors to condemn the infraction as such, and the practice was to impose pecuniary and spiritual penances.[518] Cases of prosecution for infraction are not very numerous in the records, chiefly owing, we may presume, to the customary sale of rehabilitations; in the tribunal of Toledo they amount only to ninety-one and of these it is noteworthy that there are only three posterior to 1586--two in 1600 and one in 1616.[519] When they occurred, the penalty was at the discretion of the tribunal, and Toledo exercised this with great moderation, in 1579, when Bernardino de Aldana, a ribbon-weaver, spontaneously denounced himself. His mother, Isabel Alvárez, had been burnt by the Cuenca tribunal, yet he had worn a velvet cap, had carried a sword and had ridden on a mule with a saddle; he was married and had done this to satisfy his wife and her kindred, and besides his brother had told him that they had been rehabilitated. His artless story seems to have moved his judges, for he escaped with a reprimand and a fine of two ducats.[520] In 1703 the tribunal of Madrid was more severe with Simon de Andrade, a reconciled penitent, who had worn the prohibited articles. He was harshly reprimanded, was fined in fifty ducats, was banished for a year and was required to surrender the _cosas arbitrarias_, but we are told that he was permitted to keep the garments which he had on to cover his nakedness, especially as they were of ordinary cloth.[521]

CLERICAL OFFENDERS.

In a land where theocratic influence was so strong, it was inevitable that there should be especial favor shown to erring ecclesiastics. The Church has ever sought to conceal from the public the knowledge of weaknesses that might diminish veneration for its ministers, and scandal has been more dreaded than sin. The Inquisition established its jurisdiction over both the secular and the regular clergy, but it exercised that jurisdiction in accordance with the general policy of the Church. Every care was taken to keep clerical offences from public knowledge, except in cases of formal heresy or of administering the sacraments by those who held only the lower orders. As a rule, in place of being confined in the secret prison during trial, they were housed in some convenient convent, where their presence need excite no surprise. When convicted, they were not exposed in the public autos de fe, but their sentences were read in the audience-chamber with closed doors, though in certain cases a prescribed number of other clerics were summoned to be present as witnesses; even then they did not wear the penitential habit as did laymen.[522]

[Sidenote: _CLERICAL OFFENDERS_]

For aggravated offences, the ordinary punishment was reclusion in a designated convent for a specified term, a penalty which might be infinitely varied. Perhaps six months or a year was to be passed in a cell; the culprit was to be last in choir and refectory; he might be suspended for a term or perpetually from some or all of his functions and of the right to vote or to be voted for; spiritual penances might be superadded or, at his entrance, he might be subjected to a _zurra de rueda_, or circular discipline, in which all the members of the house, including the lay-brethren, took a hand. All these greater or less aggravations could be varied or accumulated to meet the exact shades of guilt. This conventual reclusion was adopted, perhaps, partly for concealment and partly as a milder form of incarceration, but the mercy was doubtful if we may trust the story told by Llorente of a Capuchin guilty of aggravated abuse of the confessional who, when condemned to five years' reclusion in a convent of his Order, begged to have it changed to incarceration in the secret prison; he had been, he said, provincial and guardian, he knew how the brethren treated those thrust upon them as criminals, and it would cost him his life. His prayer was refused and his prevision was correct, for he died within three years.[523] I have met, however, with cases in which the recluded fraile survived longer terms; as a rule, no doubt, life was not rendered pleasant, but it depended on circumstances. The Franciscan, Francisco Ortiz, sentenced to confinement for two years in a cell in the convent of Torrelaguna, without intercourse with his brethren, refused to leave his retirement on the expiration of the term and remained there till his death, twelve years later, the object of veneration to all around him.[524] There might or might not be sympathy for the penitent and his treatment naturally corresponded.

When, however, the offence was formal heresy, entailing reconciliation or relaxation, the cleric was obliged to appear in an auto de fe, like any other culprit. Cases of the kind were common enough in the early period, when many Conversos had entered the Church but, after the thorough weeding out by the Inquisition, they became rare. An essential preliminary was degradation from the priesthood, which was of two kinds, verbal and formal--the former sufficing for cases of reconciliation, while relaxation required the latter. Verbal degradation effaced the orders, but not the priestly _character_ and, in the later period, publicity was often avoided by executing the sentence in the audience-chamber, as in the Toledo cases of Jacinto Vásquez Aranso, a priest convicted of Judaism and condemned to the galleys, December 4, 1688, and of Buenaventura Frutos, cura of Mocejon, sentenced February 19, 1722.[525] Originally the ministration of a single bishop sufficed for verbal degradation, while two were required for formal, until Gregory IX, to facilitate the operations of the Inquisition, decreed that, in cases of heresy, the bishop of the culprit could perform the ceremony, in the presence of some abbots and other learned men, and finally, in 1551, the Council of Trent permitted a single bishop to officiate in all cases of formal degradation, and his vicar-general in verbal degradation.[526]

The ceremony of public formal degradation was impressive. The culprit marched in the procession bearing the mitre and sanbenito of relaxation, which were removed on the staging in order that he might be seen in his priestly vestments and tonsure. In the case of Fray Joseph Díaz Pimiento, a relapsed Judaizer, burnt at the Seville auto de fe of July 25, 1720, we are told that an immense crowd was assembled, for no degradation had been witnessed there since 1623. The auto was celebrated in the church of San Pablo but, as soon as Fray Joseph's sentence was read, he was taken by a number of officials to a scaffold in the Plaza de San Francisco, where the Bishop of Lycopolis, the assistant of the archbishop, performed the ceremony. His tongue, the palms of his hands and finger tips were scraped and rubbed with tow, the tonsure was erased by cutting his hair and he was deprived of his orders one by one in the reverse order of their bestowal. He was then handed over to his superiors of the Mercenarian Order, who stripped him of the habit, after which the mitre and sanbenito with painted flames were replaced on him and he was taken to the _juzgado_, or secular court, and delivered to the deputy Assistente of the city to be formally sentenced and conducted to the _brasero_.[527]