ious observances there was always the resource of torture to ascertain the intention, or skilful pressure and the despairing weariness of prolonged incarceration might lead to the admission of formal rites—the fasting of the Ramadan, the Guadoc, or bath accompanied with a ritual, or the Taor, another kind of bath prior to reciting the Zala, which was certain prayers uttered with the face to the East at sunrise, noon, sunset and night. The possession of books or papers in Arabic was almost conclusive proof. A general rule is enunciated that in such case, if the party denies intention, he is to be sent to the auto de fe with. or without scourging as the circumstances may indicate.1 That this was the practice is shown by the case of Nofre Blanch and his wife Angela Carroz, who appeared in the Saragossa auto of 1607. It appeared that officials, making a levy and execution in their house, found under the bed a book and some papers in Arabic, for which they were promptly imprisoned and tried. Each declared that the articles had belonged to an uncle of the husband and that they were ignorant of the contents. Both were tortured without confessing and were sentenced to abjure de vehementi, to 100 lashes apiece and a year's imprisonment, with the addition of a ten ducat fine on the woman. So in the case of Isabel Zacim; in searching her house (apparently for arms) the officials found a Koran in Arabic in a chest. She denied all knowledge of it and there was no other evidence against her. As she was ninety years old she was spared torture and scourging but appeared in a Valencia auto de fe of

1 Miguel Calvo (Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 5442, Libro 4). 2 Archivo Hist. Nac., Inqn de Valencia, Leg. 2, MS. 10, fol. 48-9.

1604, abjured de vehementi, was exposed to a verguenza publica-parading through the streets on an ass with an inscription setting forth her name and offence--imprisonment till she should be instructed in the faith, and the inevitable ten ducat fine.1 In fact, the presumption was always in favor of guilt, when a Morisco was concerned, and inquisitorial methods were well adapted to convert that presumption into certainty. Unfortunately the Spanish statesmen could not see that the inevitable result was aversion and not conversion.

The time-honored principle that baptism was necessary to subject any one to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition came to be violated in the eagerness of the Holy Office to extend its functions. Bishop Simancas represents the older doctrine when he says that it has no cognizance in the case of an unbaptized dogmatizer who performs circumcision on a Christian boy or seeks to make converts; they must be left to the secular courts and there are laws enough to punish such offences. Not long afterwards, however, Rojas controverts this and asserts that in Valencia the inquisitors can proceed against unbaptized Jews and Moors who dogmatize among Christians, and this became the established rule. It was even ex

tended to those who might defend or conceal heretics in general.2

Fautorship the favoring or defending of heretics by Christians had been from the first establishment of the Inquisition a crime subject to its jurisdiction and severely

1 Ibid. MS. 7, fol. 3.

2 Simancæ Enchiridion, Tit. XVII. n. 2.-Rojas de Hæreticis, P. I. n. 552-3.-Elucidationes Sancti Officii, 48 (Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 5442, Libro 4).

punished. It was capable of very extended definition and the struggle with the Moriscos gave to the Inquisition the opportunity of striking salutary terror in a class which did not often fall into its hands. It was not only fautors like butchers who slaughtered in Moorish fashion or permitted others to do so, alguaziles who for bribes overlooked Morisco apostates, or midwives who consented to perform their ceremonies, all of whom were to be punished with appearance in an auto de fe, scourging, deprivation of functions and banishment from Morisco communities.1 The feudal lords had antagonized the Inquisition in their repeated endeavors to secure for their own benefit the confiscations of their vassals; they deprecated the interference which inquisitorial raids were apt to cause with the industry of those from whom their revenues were derived and perhaps sometimes they manifested this with too little discretion. Rojas has no hesitation in blaming the bishops and nobles who permitted their vassals openly to practice Moorish rites to the opprobrium of the Christian name, and, in 1567, Gaspar Cocolla, who seemed intimately acquainted with the Morisco population, told the Inquisition that the best way to convert them was to begin by converting their lords. On being asked who were the lords, he answered the Duke of Segorbe, the Admiral and other barons; he knew nothing about them personally but the Moriscos had told him their lords desired them to remain Moors. Possibly some may have gone even further, for in an instruction of the Suprema to the tribunal of Valencia, in 1565, it is ordered to prosecute the lords and Old Christians who give aid and

1 Miguel Calvo (Archivo de Alcalá, loc. cit.).

favor or use coercion to compel the conversos to live as Moors.1

The earliest instance I have met of such action is against an ecclesiastic, Padre Juan Oliver, archdeacon of Albarracin, in 1538, as a fautor of the sect of Mahomet.2 In 1542 the Inquisition had a more distinguished victim in the person of Don Rodrigo de Beaumont, of the family of the constables of Navarre and akin to the Dukes of Alva and Segorbe, who was prosecuted as a great protector of the Moriscos, even of those who were in correspondence with Algiers. The most celebrated case however was that of Don Sancho de Cordova, Admiral of Aragon, who was condemned to abjuration de Ievi, to a fine of 2000 ducats and to reclusion at the pleasure of the Suprema. This proved perpetual, for at the age of 73 he was confined in a convent at Cuenca; falling sick he was transferred to one in Valencia where he lay till released by death. In an auto de fe of 1571 there appeared the Grand Master of the Order of Montesa and two nobles, Don Luis Pallas and Don Francisco Castellvi, and in 1578 evidence was taken against two brothers, Francisco and Ramon Carroz, lords of Ciral and Tega, for keeping the Moriscos excited by telling them that they had been forcibly baptized, that they were not subject to the Inquisition and that they should appeal to the pope.3 Such proceedings could not fail to strike terror throughout all ranks of the nobility, for public penance inflicted by the Inquisition not only brought incurable disgrace on all the kindred of the culprit but destroyed for his

1 Rojas de Hæreticis, P. 1. n. 12-13.--Danvila, pp. 172, 174-5. 2 Archivo Hist. Nacional, Inq" de Valencia, Leg. 390.

3 Danvila, p. 126, 129, 181, 183, 194.

descendants the limpieza, or purity of blood, which was a condition precedent to admission to the great Military Orders and to much valuable preferment. This rule was only becoming established at this period, but it was rapidly spreading, and, in time, inability to prove limpieza was one of the sorest misfortunes that could befall any man.

It was not often that the Moriscos mustered courage openly to resist the Inquisition, but when this occurred the tribunal visited the offence with exemplary severity. The Morisco town of Xea, near Teruel, was notorious for the turbulence of the population, and when, in 1589, the Inquisitor Pedro Pacheco was making a visitation of the district even his vicinity did not prevent their continuing openly the practice of their religion. From Teruel he issued a warrant for the arrest in Xea of Lope de la Paridera, which was executed by the alguazil Miguel de Alegria. The people rose in arms to the number, it is said, of a thousand, attacked the house in which Lope was confined and set him free. In the melee the alguazil was struck on the head with a stone, thrown by Luis Garan, who was seized and tried. He did not deny throwing the stone but asserted that he did not know Alegria to be an official of the Inquisition. For this he was sentenced to abjure de vehementi, to receive 200 lashes, to serve six years in the galleys and to be perpetually banished from Xea. This was not the first occurrence of the kind at Xea for only a few years before another prisoner had been similarly rescued.1

1 Archivo Hist. Nacional, Inqn de Valencia, Legajo 383. In the accounts for this visitation there is an item of sixty reales paid to the