by Henry Kamen
It also claimed precedence over both Church and state in public events. This was one of the most common causes of conflict. The inquisitors argued that because they represented both pope and king they were entitled to precedence over all other authorities, including bishops and viceroys. As a result, Church and city authorities would often refuse to attend autos de fe (the judges of the Chancillería of Valladolid refused to attend the great auto of May 1559 for this reason), and in Barcelona the city consellers as a rule never went to autos.
The problem of jurisdiction arose out of the peculiar dual nature of inquisitorial power. To confirm its claim of exclusive authority over its own officials, the tribunal always took refuge in the papal bulls it had been granted. Neither the crown nor the Church courts, it argued, could go against these privileges. When critics pointed out that this limited the Inquisition to being a papal and ecclesiastical tribunal, inquisitors were quick to retort that, on the contrary, the Holy Office was also a secular tribunal, exercising power delegated by the crown. Indeed, the crown always supported this pretension. On 18 August 1501 King Ferdinand issued a decree prohibiting one of his own corregidors from “issuing a declaration saying that the Inquisition is of a different jurisdiction, because in fact it is all ours.” And on 9 December 1503 at Ocaña, Queen Isabella confirmed the dual jurisdiction of the Holy Office, saying that “the one jurisdiction aids and complements the other, so that justice may be done in the service of God.”115 Armed with these powers, the inquisitors were, of course, free to arrest royal officials in the name of royal authority, even when royal courts ruled against. The crown, we should note, usually abstained from interfering in such cases, in order not to take sides. In the sixteenth century officials of the Holy Office arrested the corregidor of Murcia for disrespect, the diputats of Perpignan for insults and the vicar general of Saragossa for arresting a comisario. They made the entire city council of Tarragona together with the dean and chapter of the cathedral attend mass as penitents with candles in their hands, to atone for not letting the inquisitors into their city when they were fleeing from a plague in Barcelona.116
Conflicts between the Inquisition and secular authorities were at their most acute in the realms of the crown of Aragon. The undoubted hostility of the Inquisition to the fueros (regional laws) was put plainly in a statement it issued in 1565: “there is no point in saying that [the actions of the Inquisition] are against the fueros and laws of the realm, since the Holy Office is not subject to the fueros when these are out of step with the law.”117 It was an arrogant claim, though in practice the inquisitors were careful not to overstep the limits of prudence. Nothing, however, could efface from the minds of officials in the crown of Aragon the feeling that the Inquisition was an alien institution.
In certain regions, the question of language was crucial. Roughly one in four Spaniards during the sixteenth century did not habitually speak Spanish. If Moriscos were interrogated, a translator often had to be on hand. In Catalonia testimony might be taken in the regional language but then transcribed in the only language understood by inquisitors, Spanish. The translated or transcribed text, not the original deposition, would then be used as the basis for prosecution. Though Catalan was commonly used for interrogations and trials in the first few decades, after the 1560s it was decided that “since Catalans normally understand our language, depositions should be made in the Castilian language and all trials held in private should be written in it.”118 As may be imagined, the change opened the way to serious deformations of meaning. The diputats of Catalonia in 1600 pointed out that when evidence was given in Catalan or French, the Inquisition secretaries, who knew neither language, would make their interview notes in Castilian, leading to grave distortions and injustice. The Inquisition blithely ignored such protests. The rule was also applied in Valencia, and confirmed the alien character of the institution in Catalan-speaking areas. The diputats protested bitterly that “ever since foreigners [they meant Castilians] took over the Inquisition, there have been many cases of injustice.”119
In Valencia and Aragon, conflicts with the Inquisition centered on familiars and Moriscos. In both matters the nobility contested inquisitorial jurisdiction. In Aragon the Cortes of Monzón in 1564 claimed that
the inquisitors publish edicts on whatever they please and against everybody, on matters outside their jurisdiction, and against all the rules and laws of this kingdom. For many years now they have begun arresting many people who have not been nor are heretics, some for having quarreled with servants of their familiars, others for debts and petty causes.120
In 1566 the diputados of Aragon were demanding that “the inquisitors should not be able to issue edicts without the approval of the bishop.” By 1591, during the Antonio Pérez troubles, the rebels were demanding “that there should be no Inquisition in Aragon, or if there is one the inquisitors and their ministers should not be Castilians.”
Catalonia, of all the realms, was notoriously the most hostile to the Inquisition. In 1566 the diputats of Perpignan arrested and imprisoned the officials of the Inquisition after a dispute. The diputat Caldes de Santa Fe (a priest, as it happened) led the prisoners through the city, the Inquisition later complained, “to the sound of trumpets, and held celebrations and banquets as though he had gained a triumph and done something heroic.” The quarrel extended to Barcelona in 1568 when the Catalans refused to accept the accord of that year about familiars. The viceroy reported in 1569 that “they are all determined to lose their lives, family and income” rather than give in to the Inquisition.121 Continual conflicts were blamed directly on the Inquisition even by the council of Aragon in Madrid. “The said inquisitors,” the members of the council stated in 1587, “are those who normally give rise to the quarrels that occur.”122 The persistent opposition of the Catalans to the pretensions of the Inquisition was never in theory successful. On the other hand, though the inquisitors scored in nearly every skirmish, they never won the war.123
In Catalonia the Inquisition was always a despised institution, enjoying only minority support among the elite and people. “In this province,” the inquisitors reported in 1618, “they bear ill will to the tribunal of the Holy Office and would destroy it if they could.”124 “Among the trials suffered by this Inquisition and its officials,” inquisitor Andrés Bravo reported grimly from Barcelona in 1632, “are the contempt and scorn they face both in public and in private.”125 Not surprisingly, during the revolt against Castile in 1640 the Catalans drove out the Castilian Inquisition and in September 1643 reestablished the medieval papal one. This was suppressed when Barcelona fell in 1652, and the Castilian tribunal was reintroduced in August 1653. The unmistakable hostility in Catalonia, however, had its other side. Because the Holy Office was an independent jurisdiction, with its own bureaucracy and legal rights, many Catalans of humble origin were—the inquisitors explained in 1613—eager to become part of its apparatus “in order to free themselves from the heavy taxes and contributions that the nobles and even the bishops impose on their subjects.”126 It was the positive side of the more normal unwillingness—as we have seen above—of Catalans to become officials of the Holy Office.
Thanks to the great number of competing jurisdictions, both of Church and of state, in Castile conflicts were no less serious than in the fuero regions. Several times in the course of the seventeenth century the council of Castile urged the king to take action, notably in proceedings in 1620, 1622 and 1631. In 1639 the inquisitors were accused of “enjoying the privilege of afflicting the soul with censures, life with adversity, and honor with exposure.”127 It is significant that most of these protests occurred in the crisis years of the century, when the statutes of limpieza and other aspects of public policy were called in question. Opposition to the Inquisition in Castile was normally led by representatives of royal authority, that is, by competing jurisdictions such as high courts, civil governors and government councils in Madrid. The tribunal was seen as the opponent, not the promoter, of crown authori
ty. The fact undermines a common but misplaced view that the Inquisition was a bulwark of royal power.
Government ministers repeatedly criticized its role. During the 1591 troubles in Saragossa (touched on below), his own advisers in Madrid protested to Philip II that “it is very important that the tribunal not meddle in matters that do not concern it directly.”128 Philip’s commander in Saragossa, Vargas, likewise insisted that “to conserve its authority the Inquisition should not interfere in things that do not concern it.”129 The virtually unanimous opposition of Madrid ministers to the Inquisition during those events is confirmed by a memorandum written by the next king’s chief minister, the duke of Lerma, in 1599. “It is important to see,” he wrote, “that the Inquisition does not meddle in things that are not its concern, since one can see the harm it did in Saragossa over Antonio Pérez.”130
This clearly confirms that the tribunal was not significantly employed with the intention of extending royal power. The few occasions when the crown made use of inquisitorial officials, in order to check smuggling at the frontiers or the distribution of false coin, were marginal and temporary. Occasionally the king might interfere in trials, but discreetly. A case in point is that of Felipe de Bardaxi, an Aragonese noble condemned in absentia for blasphemous swearing by the tribunal of Saragossa in 1563. He stayed in France, where he remained safely out of the hands of the inquisitors. In France he also helped the king by acting as an agent in negotiations with the Catholic nobles there. Philip therefore prevailed on the Aragonese Inquisition to suspend its verdict against him confiscating his property.131
Endless clashes between the Inquisition and other Castilian courts reached a climax at the end of the seventeenth century.132 The Chancillería of Granada, a supreme court of the realm, had been humiliated by the Inquisition in a dispute in 1623, but in 1682 was caught up in yet another typically petty case over a secretary of the Inquisition who had ordered the arrest of a noisy neighbor. This time the city council, the archbishop and the Chancillería combined against the Holy Office with such effectiveness that the crown ordered the banishment until further notice of the inquisitors. At the same time the council of Castile protested energetically against the abuses committed by the Inquisition. The final straw came in 1696, when the Diputación of Catalonia entered into conflict with the inquisitor of Barcelona, Bartolomé Sanz y Muñoz, and complained that “the disorders in this tribunal arise in part because inquisitors are normally foreigners, from another province, who have no understanding of the temperament of our people.”133 Sanz was deported from Catalonia by royal order. As an immediate result, the government in Madrid set up a special committee consisting of two members from each of the six leading councils. On 12 May 1696 this body issued a damning report on the abuses of jurisdiction committed by the tribunal:
There is no vassal free of its power whom it does not treat as an immediate subordinate, subjecting him to its mandates, censures, fines and prisons; no casual offense or light incivility to its servants which it does not avenge and punish as a crime against religion; not satisfied with exempting the persons and property of its officials from all public taxes and contributions, it even wishes to claim the immunity of not having criminals arrested in its houses; in the style of its letters it uses and affects ways to decrease respect for the royal judges and even respect for the authority of superior magistrates.134
The report then went on to argue that precedent fully favored complete royal authority over the Inquisition in all matters not pertaining to faith. Although the report was not acted upon, the attitude of Philip V in the subsequent reign made it clear that he wished to subject the tribunal more closely to royal control, and “regalism” came to be the official policy of the state with regard to the Inquisition. From what we have seen, particularly in respect of the conflicts between state tribunals and the Holy Office, it becomes difficult to sustain the old argument that the Inquisition served the interests of royal absolutism.
The tribunal of course had a political role. Its authority very conveniently did not recognize frontiers within Spain,135 and the crown consequently made use of it when no other recourse was available. But it would be impossible to demonstrate that royal power was strengthened in any way. Ferdinand the Catholic, for example, used the Inquisition as a political lever. Behind virtually every move of his concerning the Inquisition, political motives can be discerned. In 1507 he was pursuing the famous son of Pope Alexander VI, Cesare Borgia, into Navarre. Failing to secure his victim by any other means, Ferdinand persuaded the Inquisition to initiate proceedings against him for blasphemy, atheism and materialism. But Borgia’s death in battle cheated both the Holy Office and the king of Aragon of their prey. Later, in the case of Antonio Pérez, touched on below, the crown made a similar use of the tribunal. Never, in any of these cases, did it attempt to increase its own authority. The Holy Office was useful in some specific cases but normally restricted its activity to its own sphere, and did not give up its ecclesiastical role for a purely political one.136 Though it was periodically involved in political intrigues, there is little evidence that its religious character was used for political purposes. Its involvement in the prominent case of Jerónimo de Villanueva, who enjoyed power and influence under Philip IV’s chief minister Olivares and fell soon after his master, was based on legitimate charges arising out of the spiritual practices of the nuns of the convent of San Placido.137
The alleged alliance between Inquisition and crown is usually identified with the reign of Philip II. In the sixteenth century the Venetian ambassadors, who were consistently critical of Spain’s role in Italy, claimed that Philip II was using the tribunal to extend his power. The papal nuncios told the same story. “The king and his ministers,” nuncio Castagna reported in 1567 apropos of some problems with the Catalans, “cannot exercise any control over them save through the Inquisition, so they refuse to listen to them at all and instead try to give the greatest possible authority to the Inquisition.”138 The claim, though sometimes accepted by scholars,139 was wholly untrue. In those same years the Venetian ambassadors in Madrid were also making the grotesque claim that the Inquisition, not Philip II, ruled Spain.140 Any modern study of the reign of this king demonstrates that such statements have no basis in fact.141
In a few moments of national crisis the Holy Office played a role, but always a marginal one. When the revolution of 1640 broke out in Catalonia, for example, it was the inquisitor general himself who suggested that his tribunal should begin proceedings against the rebels. During the War of the Spanish Succession from 1702 to 1714, when the provinces of the crown of Aragon broke away from Castilian tutelage, it was the Inquisition that threatened censures against those guilty of treasonable opinions. An inquisitorial edict of 1706 ordered penitents to denounce confessors who told them in the confessional that Philip V was not the rightful king of Spain.142 However, at no time was the offense of disloyalty to be treated as one over which the Inquisition had jurisdiction.143
The tribunal rarely took any action that was nakedly political, and its political views were usually subordinated to those of the other councils and of the king himself. The reverse was also true: if the other councils recommended a course of action not to its liking in matters of religion, the Inquisition could attempt to block the consensus.144 Philip II is said to have claimed on one occasion that “twenty clerics of the Inquisition keep my realms in peace.”145 The king never said it. The claim, moreover, has no meaning. There was no possible ground on which the tribunal could maintain that it had helped to keep the people of Spain subservient to the crown.
Although inquisitors habitually clashed with every other jurisdiction, both Church and secular, political conflict arose out of the way in which power was exercised in old-regime Europe, rather than out of any tendency on their part to quarrel. At town level the inquisitors found that local elites were their main protagonists. In the countryside, their biggest problem was always the authority of the local nobility. In the realm of Ar
agon they clashed repeatedly with the lords over familiars and over the question of Morisco vassals. In the mid-1550s the Inquisition in Aragon tried to press for the disarming of Moriscos, who had frequently used violence against its officers. The Aragonese lords tenaciously defended the Moriscos, provoking major incidents with the inquisitors. On both sides, the famous fueros were cited. The lords claimed that the fueros were threatened; the Inquisition claimed the fueros were an obstacle to good government. “If your Majesty does not bare your teeth,” the inquisitors of Saragossa wrote to the government in 1560, “you will have great trouble with them.”146 Troublemakers tried to make use of this conflict of authority by passing from one jurisdiction to the other. In Aragon a noble in 1581 claimed that some of his vassals “try to become familiars in order to avoid punishment by my officials.” In the same years other Aragonese vassals, reported the inquisitors, “want to become familiars to be free of the jurisdiction of the count of Ribagorza and his officials.”147