2 missible perpetual prison.1 Somewhat similar was the report, in 1769, of the Inquisition to Carlos III., that it had verified the existence of a mosque in Cartagena, maintained by the New Christians. What was the result of this does not appear, but if there were prosecutions and convictions they may safely be assumed to be the last suffered by Moriscos. There exists a complete record of all cases decided by all the tribunals of Spain, from 1780 to the suppression of the Inquisition in 1820, and in this voluminous catalogue there is not a single Morisco. Renegades still occasionally made their appearance; when forced labor in the African presidios took the place of the galleys as a punishment, there were opportunities afforded for escape to the Moors which inferred apostasy, and there was still the capture and enslavement by corsairs. Sometimes these were recaptured and handed over to the Inquisition; sometimes they presented themselves voluntarily for reconciliation; of the former class there were five cases in the decade 1780-89; four between 1790 and 1799, and none subsequently; of the latter there were four in 1788, seven between 1790 and 1799, and two after 1800.3 1 Matute y Luquin, p. 268. 2 Danvila, p. 318. 3 Archivo Hist. Nacional, InqD de Valencia, Legajo 100. In 1727 the gloomy piety of Philip V. awoke to the scandal of tolerating Mahometanism among the Moron de paz of his territory of Oran. November 7, 1727, the inquisitor-general wrote to the tribunal of Valencia that the king has been reflecting upon this; these Moors reside on the frontier, some of them maintain as many women as they can and redeem female slaves, others even ride on horseback, and bear arms, and conversions among them are rare, while their numbers may be very injurious to religion and the State. The inquisitors were, therefore, asked to suggest remedies for these evils, and they in their turn handed over the inquiry to the commissioners at the sea-ports.— Archivo Hist. Nacional, Inqn de Valencia, Legajo 14, No. 1, fol. 121. The judgments rendered by modern Spanish authorities on the tragedy of the expulsion and its effects naturally vary with the conservatism or liberalism of the writer. The a priori view of the independent rcasoner necessarily must be that the sudden ejectment of half a million of industrious workers from a population rapidly diminishing, and in a land that was ever sinking deeper into poverty and inertia, could not but inflict a virtually immedicable wound, which though in time it might heal over superficially, yet would leave the sufferer weakened and lowered in vitality. Whether this was so in reality is a plain question of fact about which there ought not to be a dispute among those who have studied the abundant sources of information and can exercise their powers of observation on the existing situation, but the answer to the question involves such deep-rooted convictions in religion and politics that the diversity of opinion expressed affords an instructive illustration of the subjectivity from which so few historians can emancipate themselves. One with ecclesiastical sympathies, like Vicente de la Fuente, ridicules the notion that the expulsion was a cause of the decadence of Spain; a nation, he says, will lose 150,000 men in an epidemic or a civil war, and he scornfully asks why there should be such clamor against Philip III.1 A conservative such as Menendez y Pelayo contents himself with declaring it to have been the inevitable result of an historical law, in which the only source of regret is that if was so long delayed; Valencia was rapidly repopulated, the new settlers soon learned the arts of agriculture, and the admirable system of irrigation has been pre 1 V. de la Fuente, Historia eclesiastica de España, III. 230. served to the present day; it is a mistake to ascribe to it the decadence of manufactures which had never been largely in the hands of the Moriscos; that decadence had set in half a century earlier. caused by the discovery of America, which converted Spain first into a land of adventurers and then into one of beggared hidalgos.1 Danvila y Collado, from whose researches I have quoted so largely, sums up the philosophy of the event in saying that humanity and religion had a struggle in which the latter was victorious; there was no mercy for the Moriscos, but religious unity shone with radiant splendor in the Spanish heavens, and that country is happy which is as one in its great sentiments; it is only an historical ophthalmia which regards the Moriscos as industrially useful to Spain; had they been so they would have carried prosperity to Barbary, whither they went.2 Janer, who rates highly the industry and skill of the Moriscos in the arts and crafts as well as in agriculture, agrees with Campomanes in assigning to the expulsion the point of decadence of Spanish manufactures. Arabia Felix, he says, was converted into Arabia Dcserta; famine speedily made itself felt everywhere; to the active movement of the people succeeded the mournful silence of the despoblades; to the travel on the roads succeeded the highwaymen who infested them, and who found refuge in the deserted villages. Yet he adds that the expulsion was only one of the canoes of depopulation and decadence; these had already made alarming progress when the expulsion made them more manifest and precipitated the 1 Menendez y Pelayo, Heterodoxos españoles, III. 632, 634. ruin, for the proscribed race was the most agricultural, industrious, and productive in the land, but, notwithstanding this, expulsion was a religious and political necessity, and to-day religious unity is the most precious jewel of the Spanish people.1 Modesto Lafuente, the liberal historian of Spain, has no hesitation in characterizing the expulsion as the most calamitous measure that can be conceived from an economical point of view, inflicting a blow on the public wealth from which it is not too much to say that it has not yet recovered.2 Picatoste, whose researches into the history of the period are minute, presents what, in some respects, is the most reasonable view of the situation. The expulsion he holds to have been the greatest of calamities, and the responsibility of Philip III. and his predecessors lies, on the one hand, in not guarding the material interests which would have satisfied the industrious Moriscos, and, on the other, in not having strength to repress their rebellious tendencies. The reduplication of imposts, the contempt for labor, religious persecution, the oppression of the Inquisition, inflamed them against a weak and short-sighted government till this extreme remedy became a necessity. The historians and publicists who have defended it commit the gravest of errors in looking only to the necessity of the moment, for, in admitting its political necessity, we cannot forget that this deplorable relation was created by the faults of the government. As for its results, the loss of their labors in agriculture and many arts and crafts, the contempt with which not only the race but its 1 Janer, pp. 95-109, 113. 2 Lafuente, Historia general de España, XV. 393-4. industry was regarded, the improvidence of the government, which made no effort to replace that industry, the increase of taxation to make good the deficit arising from their absence, were the most efficient causes of the misery which overtook Spain—a misery which reached a point incomparably beyond that of the most downtrodden races of the earth, while the court was rioting in the most extravagant festivities. The procurador, Lobon, declared that one-half of the Spanish people were feeding on the herbs of the field which they disputed with the herds of cattle.1 If, as Menendez y Pelayo asserts, the expulsion was but the inevitable outcome of an historieal law, that law can only be that retribution follows wrong. If it was a necessity under Philip III., that necessity was a purely artificial one, created by the fanaticism and infatuation of the Sp sixteenth century. If, from the times of the Kings of Leon and Counts of Castile and Barcelona, it was safe to intellia. keep Mudejares in the land, while the Christian chiefs was the were involved in almost constant strife with each other key and making head against the powerful Arabs and Almoravides and Almohades—if during these tumultuous ages they could rely upon their Moorish subjects during war and profit by their industry during peace, the political necessity of uniformity of faith when Spain had become a united and powerful State and the Moors were scattered subjects, was self-evidently the merest illusion, born of intolerance. That intolerance was the result of the assiduous teachings of the Chureh, listened to and respected 1 Picatoste, La Grandeza y Decadencia de España, III. 101-2 (Madrid, 1887). |