Inquisition, the property of the conversos and their descendants entering into the arrangement shall not be subject to confiscation for heresy, including dogmatizers, alfaquies, circumcisers, relapsed and prisoners under trial but not sentenced, and no sequestration was to be made on arrest. Pecuniary penances moreover were limited to ten ducats, but the aljamas of the culprits were liable for them. Any aljama could decline to come into the arrangement, and in such case its members were liable to confiscation which should be computed as part of the 50,000 sueldos, but any one could come in at any time on agreeing to pay its share, and even individuals of outside aljamas were to be received on paying the proper assessment on their property. A grace of 500 or 600 ducats moreover was allowed in consideration of confiscations decreed but not covered in. To confirm this agreement papal briefs and privileges from the king and inquisitor-general were to be procured at the cost of the Moriscos and if they desired it to be included as a fuero in the next cortes the king promised to assent to it. So large a portion of the aljamas accepted this commutation that thereafter it is always spoken of as in force throughout Valencia, but a document of 1585 shows that there were still some which held aloof. This arrangement was mutually satisfactory from a financial point of view. The Holy Office was assured of an annual revenue of which it was in need, while the Moriscos felt that they were paying for insurance against the impoverishment of their families and the miseries of sequestration which was the invariable accom

1 Danvila, pp. 183–88.-Archivo Hist. Nacional, Inqn de Valencia, Cartas del Consejo, Leg. 5, No. 1, fol. 107.

paniment of arrest on charges however flimsy. The nobles and churches moreover were secured against the alienation of their lands and the disabling of their vassals from paying the customary tribute.

It was difficult however to compel the inquisitors to observe any limitations on their power to oppress. In 1595 the aljamas made complaint of infractions of the concordia.1 The power to impose fines of ten ducats also was a direct source of revenue which was naturally exploited. In the auto de fe of January 7, 1607 there were twenty fines of ten ducats on Moriscos of whom only eight were reconciled. To this the Suprema took exception saying that when there was not reconciliation the fine was uncalled for, unless there was some special offence deserving it. In the same auto, moreover, there was a fine of twenty ducats, one of thirty and one of fifty. The judges evidently took care that there should be funds. to pay their salaries.2

The comparative leniency of the concordia was displeasing to some of the more rigid churchmen. In 1595 Bishop Perez of Segorbe drew up by command an elaborate report of the situation in which he advocated its revocation, as under it he says that the Moriscos deemed themselves at liberty to live as they pleased and confiscation would be a restraint on their offences. That same year, however, the juntas of Madrid and Valencia, which had charge of the Morisco question, agreed that there was less apostasy in places where confiscation was not permitted under the

3

1 Archivo Hist. Nacional, Inqn de Valencia, Leg. 5, No. 2, fol. 14, 16.

2 Ibid. Leg. 2, MS. 10, fol. 79.

3 Archivo de Simancas, Inqn de Valencia, Leg. 205, fol. 3,

concordia and Philip II. resolved that it should be continued during the period agreed upon for instruction.1

The statistics of the Inquisition of Valencia subsequent to the concordia would indicate that that measure had no definite influence on its activity, although the numbers fluctuate from year to year in a manner not easy to explain. Towards the close of the century and during the opening years of the seventeenth its vigor seems to increase; at an auto de fe held September 5, 1604, there were twenty-eight abjurations de levi, forty-nine de vehementi, eight reconciliations and two relaxations--all Moriscos except a Frenchman penanced for blasphemy.3 In that of January 7, 1607, there were thirty-three Moriscos, of whom one was relaxed for relapse, besides six whose cases were suspended, and in their trials torture had been employed fifteen times. That there were not more was not for lack of material, for we are told that in the town of Carlet there were two hundred and forty

1 Danvila, p. 228.

4

2 From 1570 to 1592 the number of cases of heresy in the Inquisition of Valencia are (Arch. Hist. Nac. Inqn de Valencia, Leg. 98):

In 1591 the number of the reconciled was so great that Archbishop Ribera asked that on Sundays and feast-days they should not be allowed to come to the cathedral, as the crowd disturbed the services.— Arch. Hist. Nac. Inqn de Valencia, Leg. 5, No. 2, fol. 314.

3 Danvila, p. 263.

Archivo Hist. Nac. Inq" de Valencia, Leg. 2, MS. 10.

Morisco households in which the fast of Ramadan was kept.1

In fact the bungling and misguided efforts at conversion had been so complete a failure that one can only wonder that the whole Morisco population did not pass through the hands of the inquisitors. Evidence sufficient to warrant arrest and trial was easily obtainable, for it was impossible to eradicate ancestral customs, while any of these, even when not strictly connected with religion, was held to justify suspicion of heresy, which in itself was a crime requiring purgation and penance. In the case of Bartolomé Sanchez, who appeared in the Toledo auto de fe of 1597, cleanliness was regarded as a suspicious circumstance—doubtless from the Moorish habit of bathing—and though he overcame the torture he was finally brought to confess and was punished with three years in the galleys, perpetual prison and confiscation. Miguel Cañete, a gardener, for washing himself in the fields while at work, was tried in 1606; there was nothing else against him but he was tortured without success and his case was suspended. The same year Maria Roayne, with her daughter Mari Lopez, was tried because when her son was to be married she took to the bride's house some sweetmeats and cakes to be thrown in the mattresses according to an old Moorish custom, but as nothing else could be proved against them the cases were suspended. Putting clean linen on a corpse for burial was a highly suspicious practice which warranted prosecution, though if nothing else could be proved or

1 Ibid. Legajo 99.

obtained in confession it does not seem to be always regarded as punishable; still, in 1591, Isabel Ruiz for so treating her husband's body appeared in the auto de fe, abjured de levi and was fined in 10,000 maravedís.1 Abstinence from pork and wine was of course a highly suspicious circumstance, which frequently appears in the trials; nothing else seems to be recorded against Juan de Mediana, who appeared in a Saragossa auto de fe in 1585 and was sentenced to two hundred lashes. Refusal to eat of animals that had died a natural death was also a very compromising practice. In the Daimiel trials. of 1540-50 this was evidently a novel idea to the tribunal which inquired curiously into it, apparently regarding it as a remarkable custom. In the accusation of Mari Naranja one of the articles is that when one of their cattle died they gave it to the herdsman or threw it to the dogs, and in that of Mari Serrana it is charged that when one of her goats died she sold it to an Old Christian for what he would give. Apparently Old Christians had no such scruples. Staining the nails with henna also figures prominently in charges against women although Mari Gomez la Sazeda pleaded that it was not specially a Moorish custom, for Christian women frequently stained their nails and hair. If it was denied that these customs were relig

1 MS. of Library of University of Halle, Yc. 20, Tom. I.-Biblioteca Nacional, Seccion de MSS. D, 111, fol. 127.

* Biblioteca Nacional, Seccion de MSS. PV. 3, No. 20.

3 MSS. penes me. The Edict of Granada, in 1526, forbade the use of henna, but it was suspended and when, about 1530, Antonio de Guevara, then Bishop of Guadix, endeavored to prevent its use by the Morisco women, they complained to the chancillery of Granada and the Captain-general Mondéjar, who intervened and told him it had nothing to do with the faith (Marmol Carvajal, Rebelion y Castigo, p. 164).