A History of the Inquisition of Spain; vol. 3

by Henry Charles Lea

IN the preceding chapter the general penal system of the Inquisition has been considered, but for its proper comprehension a brief exposition of its several penalties is requisite. In this it is unnecessary to treat of confiscation and pecuniary penance which have already been discussed as constituting the financial basis of the existence of the Holy Office.

REPRIMAND.

Of the minor inflictions, the most nearly universal was the reprimand. It is naturally absent from the severer sentences of reconciliation and relaxation but, with these exceptions, scarce any defendant escaped it, no matter how groundless the accusation was proved to be, or how plainly his innocence was manifested. The freedom with which it was administered is evidenced in a phrase of frequent occurrence in the reports of the Toledo tribunal—“as no offence was proved, he was reprimanded and warned for the future.”[320] We have seen that some strict constructionists held that reprimand was incompatible with suspension, but that this principle was universally disregarded. The same authority asserts that no reprimand was to be administered without a formal sentence, but cases are numerous in which it is expressly recorded that the party was reprimanded without a sentence, and sometimes this was by the special command of the Suprema. In the Valladolid tribunal there were eight such cases in the year 1641.[321] To scold the defendant was one of the prerogatives of the inquisitor, from the use of which he rarely abstained, especially as it afforded the opportunity of expatiating on the benignity which imposed penalties so incommensurate with the offences.

The severity of the infliction varied with his temper and power of invective, but constant practice rendered him skilful in detecting the sensitive places, and in applying the lash where it would be most keenly felt. There were those among the victims who regarded this as a severer penalty than a pecuniary penance, and it is not surprising that it occasionally drew forth remonstrance and retort, which were promptly suppressed by the infliction of a fine for the expenses of the tribunal.[322] No record was made of reprimands, beyond the fact of their utterance, but there is one which chances to have been preserved as it seems to have been carefully elaborated and reduced to writing. It was administered by the Licentiate Juan de Mañozca, who had been President of the Chancellery of Granada, to an unlucky gentleman prosecuted for having said that belief in matters of faith was good breeding. He had made the case worse by arguing, in his defence, that he could conceive of no word more applicable to the matter than cortesía, and that his long residence at the court had familiarized him with all the niceties of the Castilian tongue. For this, as a proposition ill-sounding and savoring of heresy, Mañozca belabored him through ten closely-written pages of savage ridicule. “In the Andalusian tunny fishery” he said “there may be seen an infinity of tunnies, the smallest of them as big as you, and yet not one of them will show the least particle of salt, although they have lived in the midst of salt.” So he went on, quoting the Scriptures, the classic poets and Plato, to prove that the unfortunate culprit was an ignoramus, closely approaching a heretic. Such ignorance was likened to the unfruitful ears of corn which, according to Christ, are only fit to be swept up and burnt, and the diatribe concluded with the significant warning that it was the Inquisition which gathered such worthless stocks and delivered them to the secular arm, that they might pass through temporal to eternal flame.[323] Doubtless the culprit was a fool, but his folly merited no such terrific warning.

ABJURATION.

Suspicion of heresy, as we have seen, was, in itself, a crime requiring punishment. In accusations of formal heresy which failed of proof, there remained, as a rule, at least suspicion, and there was besides a number of offences which, though not in themselves heretical, were brought under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition by a more or less forced assumption that they inferred suspicion of heresy—that no one who believed rightly as to sacraments and points of doctrine could be guilty of them. In the Old Inquisition, this suspicion was classified as light, vehement or violent and these distinctions were retained in the New. Violent suspicion, however, may be discarded from consideration here, for it sufficed for condemnation and, in practice, it admitted of no disproof or explanation for, although theoretically it might be explained away, this was but a bare possibility. As Peña says, it created presumption of law, as when a man remained for a year under excommunication.[324]

The distinction between light and vehement suspicion was somewhat nebulous. Like everything else in the vague region of morals, it was incapable of accurate definition, and each case had to be decided on its own merits, according to the temper of the judges. Alberghini’s attempted test of infrequent or habitual performance of acts inferring suspicion fails utterly in practice and moreover leaves unsettled the more important and common class of cases where testimony was insufficient for conviction and yet too strong for acquittal.[325] Moreover, suspicion might be modified by exterior circumstances, as when Miguel Calvo tells us that, with Moriscos, however slender may be the suspicion, it must be treated as vehement.[326] It was evidently impossible to prescribe any absolute rule, and it is to the credit of the Inquisition that it rarely pronounced suspicion to be vehement, while light suspicion occurs in almost all sentences short of reconciliation. Thus, in the Toledo record from 1648 to 1794, there are three hundred and fourteen abjurations de levi and only fifty-one de vehementi—or about an average of one every three years.[327]

Whatever other punishment might be visited on suspicion, abjuration of heresy in general, and especially of the heresy suspected, was indispensable. This could be administered either in the audience-chamber, or in a public auto de fe, and was an impressive ceremony. In the face of a cross and with his hand on the gospels, the culprit swore that he accepted the Catholic faith and detested and anathematized every species of heresy, and especially that of which he was suspect. He pledged himself always to keep the faith of the Church and to be obedient to the pope and the papal decrees. He declared that all who opposed the Catholic faith were worthy of condemnation, promising never to join them, but to persecute them and denounce them to prelates and inquisitors. He swore to receive patiently and humbly all penance imposed on him, and to fulfil it with all his strength. If the abjuration was for light suspicion, he consented and desired that, if he failed in any part of this, he should be held as impenitent and he submitted himself to the correction and severity of the canons, so that the penalties prescribed in them should be executed on his person, and finally he called upon the notary to record it and on all present to serve as witnesses. If the abjuration was for vehement suspicion, he consented and desired that, if he failed in his promises, he should be held and considered as a relapsed and suffer the penalties provided for relapse. This was the difference between abjuration de levi and abjuration de vehementi, so often alluded to above, and it was of no small import under the canons. After the former, reincidence in the offence entailed no special penalty; it was at the discretion of the tribunal merely to repeat the previous sentence, or to aggravate it, as the case might appear to deserve. But, after the latter, reincidence was relapse, for which the canons decreed irrevocable burning, ipso facto and without trial. To impress this on the penitent, his abjuration de vehementi was written out and he was made to sign it. Then, on the next day after the auto de fe, he was brought into the audience-chamber, it was read to him and he was warned to observe its conditions for, if he should again fall into any heresy whatever, he would be treated as a relapsed without mercy, and it would be the same if he did not perform the penance imposed.[328]

ABJURATION