Spain was not exceptional in this. In 1700, a pastoral of Archbishop Precipiano of Mechlin describes with equal energy this profanation of saints’ days.—Collectio Synodorum Archiep. Mechliniensis, II, 434 (Mechliniæ, 1829).
[1122] Relazioni Venete, Serie I, T. V, p. 18.—In 1565, Giovanni Soranzo makes the same statement and both remark on the facility with which Spanish troops passed over to the infidel—Ibid, p. 82.
[1123] Aspilcueta de Oratione, cap. v, n. 25-35.
It was not until 1772 that Carlos III prohibited, in the churches of Madrid, the dances and gigantones and tarascas, or great pasteboard figures of giants and serpents, in the processions, as causing disorder and interfering with devotion; and in 1780 this was extended over the whole kingdom.—Novís. Recop., Lib. I, Tit. i, ley 12.
[1124] Santos, El no Importe, pp. 107-31.—For a similar description by Juan de Zabaleta see his “El dia de fiesta,” Obras, p. 166 (Madrid, 1728). The El no Importe was reprinted in 1787.
These profanities were not confined to Spain and were condemned by the Council of Tours in 1583 and by Archbishop Precipiano of Mechlin, in 1700.—Concil. Turonens., ann. 1583, Tit. xv (Harduin X, 1424).—(Collect. Synod. Mechlin., II, 436).
[1125] Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds Dupuy, no. 589, fol. 30.
[1126] Relacion del Auto de fe de 1733. Discurso isagogico, § 2 (Lima, 1733).
[1127] P. Ricardo Cappa, S. J., La Inquisicion española, Madrid, 1888.
[1128] Don A. Rodríguez Villa has printed the essential portions of this memorial in the Boletin for July—September 1906, pp. 87-103. It is anonymous and without date, though he tells us that a note on the MS., in a contemporary hand, attributes it to P. Hernando de Salazar or to D. Diego Serrano de Silva, of the Suprema. It is unquestionably by a member of the Suprema, for no one else would have such knowledge of the internal affairs of the Inquisition or discourse of them so freely, even to the sovereign. Allusion to the successes of the Dutch in Brazil assign it to the time, between 1620 and 1630, when there was so much discussion as to the Portuguese New Christians (see Vol. III, p. 275), to which this paper was doubtless a contribution.