A History of the Inquisition of Spain; vol. 3

by Henry Charles Lea

She was carried to the torture-chamber and told to tell the truth, when she said that she had nothing to say. She was ordered to be stripped and again admonished, but was silent. When stripped, she said “Señores, I have done all that is said of me and I bear false-witness against myself, for I do not want to see myself in such trouble; please God, I have done nothing.” She was told not to bring false testimony against herself but to tell the truth. The tying of the arms was commenced; she said “I have told the truth; what have I to tell?” She was told to tell the truth and replied “I have told the truth and have nothing to tell.” One cord was applied to the arms and twisted and she was admonished to tell the truth but said she had nothing to tell. Then she screamed and said “I have done all they say.” Told to tell in detail what she had done she replied “I have already told the truth.” Then she screamed and said “Tell me what you want for I don’t know what to say.” She was told to tell what she had done, for she was tortured because she had not done so, and another turn of the cord was ordered. She cried “Loosen me, Señores and tell me what I have to say: I do not know what I have done, O Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!” Another turn was given and she said “Loosen me a little that I may remember what I have to tell; I don’t know what I have done; I did not eat pork for it made me sick; I have done everything; loosen me and I will tell the truth.” Another turn of the cord was ordered, when she said “Loosen me and I will tell the truth; I don’t know what I have to tell—loosen me for the sake of God—tell me what I have to say—I did it, I did it—they hurt me Señor—loosen me, loosen me and I will tell it.” She was told to tell it and said “I don’t know what I have to tell—Señor I did it—I have nothing to tell—Oh my arms! release me and I will tell it.” She was asked to tell what she did and said “I don’t know, I did not eat because I did not wish to.” She was asked why she did not wish to and replied “Ay! loosen me, loosen me—take me from here and I will tell it when I am taken away—I say that I did not eat it.” She was told to speak and said “I did not eat it, I don’t know why.” Another turn was ordered and she said “Señor I did not eat it because I did not wish to—release me and I will tell it.” She was told to tell what she had done contrary to our holy Catholic faith. She said “Take me from here and tell me what I have to say—they hurt me—Oh my arms, my arms!” which she repeated many times and went on “I don’t remember—tell me what I have to say—O wretched me!—I will tell all that is wanted, Señores—they are breaking my arms—loosen me a little—I did everything that is said of me.” She was told to tell in detail truly what she did. She said “What am I wanted to tell? I did everything—loosen me for I don’t remember what I have to tell—don’t you see what a weak woman I am?—Oh! Oh! my arms are breaking.” More turns were ordered and as they were given she cried “Oh! Oh! loosen me for I don’t know what I have to say—Oh my arms!—I don’t know what I have to say—if I did I would tell it.” The cords were ordered to be tightened when she said “Señores have you no pity on a sinful woman?” She was told, yes, if she would tell the truth. She said, “Señor tell me, tell me it.” The cords were tightened again, and she said “I have already said that I did it.” She was ordered to tell it in detail, to which she said “I don’t know how to tell it señor, I don’t know.” Then the cords were separated and counted, and there were sixteen turns, and in giving the last turn the cord broke.

She was then ordered to be placed on the potro. She said “Señores, why will you not tell me what I have to say? Señor, put me on the ground—have I not said that I did it all?” She was told to tell it. She said “I don’t remember—take me away—I did what the witnesses say.” She was told to tell in detail what the witnesses said. She said “Señor, as I have told you, I do not know for certain. I have said that I did all that the witnesses say. Señores release me, for I do not remember it.” She was told to tell it. She said “I do not know it. Oh! Oh! they are tearing me to pieces—I have said that I did it—let me go.” She was told to tell it. She said “Señores, it does not help me to say that I did it and I have admitted that what I have done has brought me to this suffering—Señor, you know the truth—Señores, for God’s sake have mercy on me. Oh Señor, take these things from my arms—Señor release me, they are killing me.” She was tied on the potro with the cords, she was admonished to tell the truth and the garrotes were ordered to be tightened. She said “Señor do you not see how these people are killing me? Señor, I did it—for God’s sake let me go.” She was told to tell it. She said “Señor, remind me of what I did not know—Señores have mercy upon me—let me go for God’s sake—they have no pity on me—I did it—take me from here and I will remember what I cannot here.” She was told to tell the truth, or the cords would be tightened. She said “Remind me of what I have to say for I don’t know it—I said that I did not want to eat it—I know only that I did not want to eat it,” and this she repeated many times. She was told to tell why she did not want to eat it. She said, “For the reason that the witnesses say—I don’t know how to tell it—miserable that I am that I don’t know how to tell it—I say I did it and my God how can I tell it?” Then she said that, as she did not do it, how could she tell it—“They will not listen to me—these people want to kill me—release me and I will tell the truth.” She was again admonished to tell the truth. She said, “I did it, I don’t know how I did it—I did it for what the witnesses say—let me go—I have lost my senses and I don’t know how to tell it—loosen me and I will tell the truth.” Then she said “Señor, I did it, I don’t know how I have to tell it, but I tell it as the witnesses say—I wish to tell it—take me from here—Señor as the witnesses say, so I say and confess it.” She was told to declare it. She said “I don’t know how to say it—I have no memory—Lord, you are witness that if I knew how to say anything else I would say it. I know nothing more to say than that I did it and God knows it.” She said many times, “Señores, Señores, nothing helps me. You, Lord, hear that I tell the truth and can say no more—they are tearing out my soul—order them to loosen me.” Then she said, “I do not say that I did it—I said no more.” Then she said, “Señor, I did it to observe that Law.” She was asked what Law. She said, “The Law that the witnesses say—I declare it all Señor, and don’t remember what Law it was—O, wretched was the mother that bore me.” She was asked what was the Law she meant and what was the Law that she said the witnesses say. This was asked repeatedly, but she was silent and at last said that she did not know. She was told to tell the truth or the garrotes would be tightened but she did not answer. Another turn was ordered on the garrotes and she was admonished to say what Law it was. She said “If I knew what to say I would say it. Oh Señor, I don’t know what I have to say—Oh! Oh! they are killing me—if they would tell me what—Oh, Señores! Oh, my heart!” Then she asked why they wished her to tell what she could not tell and cried repeatedly “O, miserable me!” Then she said “Lord bear witness that they are killing me without my being able to confess.” She was told that if she wished to tell the truth before the water was poured she should do so and discharge her conscience. She said that she could not speak and that she was a sinner. Then the linen toca was placed [in her throat] and she said “Take it away, I am strangling and am sick in the stomach.” A jar of water was then poured down, after which she was told to tell the truth. She clamored for confession, saying that she was dying. She was told that the torture would be continued till she told the truth and was admonished to tell it, but though she was questioned repeatedly she remained silent. Then the inquisitor, seeing her exhausted by the torture, ordered it to be suspended.

It is scarce worth while to continue this pitiful detail. Four days were allowed to elapse, for experience showed that an interval, by stiffening the limbs, rendered repetition more painful. She was again brought to the torture-chamber but she broke down when stripped and piteously begged to have her nakedness covered. The interrogatory went on, when her replies under torture were more rambling and incoherent than before, but her limit of endurance was reached and the inquisitors finally had the satisfaction of eliciting a confession of Judaism and a prayer for mercy and penance.[71]

RATIFICATION OF CONFESSION

It is impossible to read these melancholy records without amazement that the incoherent and contradictory admissions through which the victim, in his increasing agonies, sought to devise some statement in satisfaction of the monotonous command to tell the truth, should have been regarded by statesmen and lawgivers as possessed of intrinsic value. The result was a test of endurance and not of veracity. In one case we find a man of such fibres and nerves that all the efforts of the torturer fail to elicit aught but denial—the cords may rasp through the flesh to the bone and limbs be wrenched to the breaking without affecting his constancy. In another, when a few turns of the garrote have twisted a single cord into his arm—or even at the mere aspect of the torture-chamber, with its grimly suggestive machinery—he will yield and confess all that is wanted as to himself and all the comrades whose names he can recall in the dizziness of his suffering. Yet, with full knowledge of this, for centuries the secular and ecclesiastical courts of the greater part of Christendom persisted in the use of a system which, in the name of justice, perpetrated an infinite series of atrocities.

Yet, as though still more effectually to deprive the system of all excuse, the confession obtained at such cost was practically admitted to be in itself worthless. To legalize it, a ratification was required, after an interval of at least twenty-four hours, to be freely made, without threats and apart from the torture-chamber. This was essential in all jurisdictions, and the formula in the Inquisition was to bring the prisoner into the audience-chamber, where his confession was read to him as it had been written down. He was asked whether it was true or whether he had anything to add or to omit and, under his oath, he was expected to declare that it was properly recorded, that he had no change to make and that he ratified it, not through fear of torture, or from any other cause, but solely because it was the truth. Such ratification was required even when the confession was made on hearing the sentence of torture read or when placed in conspectu tormentorum.[72] This was customarily done on the afternoon of the next day, to allow the full twenty-four hours to expire, but there was sometimes a longer interval. Thus, in the case of Catalina Hernández, at Toledo, who confessed on being stripped, July 13, 1541, it was not until the 27th that her ratification was taken, the inquisitors explaining that press of business had prevented it earlier.[73]

The declaration in the ratification, that it was not made through fear of torture was a falsehood, for, in all jurisdictions, a retraction of the confession called for a repetition of torment, and in fact we sometimes find that when the confession was made the prisoner was warned not to retract for, if he did so, the torture would be “continued.”[74] This was possibly to evade a singularly humane provision in the Instructions of 1484, to the effect that, if the confession is ratified, the accused is to be duly punished, but if he retracts, in view of the infamy resulting from the trial, he is to abjure publicly the heresy of which he is suspect and be subjected to such penance as the inquisitors may compassionately assign. The mercy of this, however, is considerably modified by a succeeding clause that it is not to deprive them of the right to repeat the torture in cases where by law they can and ought to do so.[75] Still, it was probably the first portion of the provision that guided the Toledo tribunal, in 1528, in the case of Diego de Uceda, on trial for Lutheranism. At the sight of the torture-chamber he broke down and admitted all that the witnesses had testified, but could not remember what it was. As this was evidently inspired by fear, the torture went on when, at the first turn of the garrote, he inculpated himself so eagerly that he was warned not to bear false-witness against himself. He declared it to be the truth and was untied. Before he was called upon to ratify, he asked for an audience in which he ascribed his confession to fear and declared himself ready to die for the faith of the Church, and a week later he ratified this revocation, saying that he was out of his senses under the torture. He was not tortured again and his sentence, some months later, was in accordance with the Instructions of 1484—to appear in an auto de fe, to abjure de vehementi and to be fined at the discretion of the inquisitors.[76]

REPETITION

Such cases, however, were exceptional and the regular practice was to repeat the torture, when a confession followed by another revocation, subjected the victim to a third torture.[77] Whether the process could be carried on indefinitely was a doubtful question which some legists answered in the negative on the general philosophic assumption that nature and justice abhorred infinity, but this reasoning, however, academically conclusive, was not respected in practice when a conviction was desired. There was one dissuasive from revocation, which was brought to bear when culprits gave unreasonable trouble, which was the penalty incurred by revocantes. This is illustrated, as also the troublesome questions which sometimes perplexed the tribunals, by the case of Miguel de Castro, tried for Judaism, at Valladolid, in 1644. As a negativo, he was tortured and confessed, after which he ratified, revoked and ratified again. A process was commenced against him for revoking; he was tortured again, until an arm was dislocated and he lost two fingers, during which he confessed and then revoked the confession. He would have been tortured a third time had not the physician and surgeon declared him to be unable to endure it. The Suprema ordered him to be relaxed to the secular arm, if he could not be induced to repent and return to the Church, when, under the persuasion of two calificadores, he begged for mercy and confessed as to himself and others. Finally he was sentenced to reconciliation and irremissible prison and sanbenito, with a hundred lashes as a special punishment for revocation, which was executed January 21, 1646.[78]

Some culprits, we are told, cunningly took advantage of the opportunity of retraction, by confessing at once, as soon as subjected to torture, then recanting and repeating this process indefinitely, to the no small disgust of the inquisitors. A writer of the close of the seventeenth century, who mentions this, shows that the subject was then in an indeterminate condition, by suggesting as a remedy that they should be subjected to extraordinary penalties.[79] A case at Cuenca, in 1725, in which these tactics were successful, indicates that by that time a third torture was not recognized as lawful. Dr. Diego Matheo López Zapata, as soon as the torturer was ready to begin, exclaimed that he was ready to confess, and made a detailed confession of Judaic practices followed for nearly fifty years. The next day he revoked and, when the torture was resumed, he repeated his confession, only to revoke it as before. The tribunal appears to have been powerless and contented itself with making him appear in an auto de fe as a penitent, with a sanbenito to be immediately removed, abjuration de vehementi and twenty years’ exile from Cuenca, Murcia and Madrid.[80] At an earlier period he would scarce have escaped without scourging, galleys and irremissible prison.