diumenge, 2 d’agost de 2015

Beatriz Beltran, wife of the Juan de la Caballería, accused of complicity in the murder of San Pedro Arbues, who died in prison and was relaxed in effigy in the auto of July 8, 1491. She was put on trial for Judaism in 1489; the evidence against her was by no means decisive, while the defence discredited the witnesses and proved by abundant testimony her devotion to the Church, her regular attendance at mass and confession for more than twenty years, her liberality in the celebration of masses and her long hours{115} spent in daily prayer. She could not be tortured in view of her advanced age and severe infirmities and, on August 9, 1492, the consulta de fe voted unanimously that, as torture was out of the question, she be sentenced to canonical purgation, at the judgement of the inquisitors when, if she should purge herself, she should abjure publicly as vehemently suspect of heresy and of Judaizing, and should perform penance at the discretion of the tribunal. The next day the inquisitors pronounced that she was not convicted but vehemently suspect, wherefore she should purge herself with twelve conjurators. They were duly selected and a term of three days was assigned, within which the ceremony should be performed. They assembled in the Aljafería on August 23d, when the publication of evidence and the defence were read to them. She was sworn to tell the truth and was asked whether she had committed these crimes, to which she replied in the negative and was then removed from the room. The inquisitors again read the accusatory evidence and the defence, the compurgators were sworn to tell the truth, and the inquisitors polled them. The first one, Pedro Monterde, said that he believed Beatriz to have sworn truly, for he had known her for fifteen years and had always held her to be a good Christian, the rest unanimously concurred and the purgation was successful. Then, on September 8th, she appeared in an auto as a penitent and, on the 17th, she abjured all heresies and especially those of which she was vehemently suspected, after which the inquisitors rendered sentence, declaring her to be vehemently suspect of the crimes which she had abjured and, as these suspicions and crimes could not be left unpunished, they penanced her with forbidding her to commit these crimes, with the payment of all costs of her trial, the taxation of which they reserved to themselves, and with performing such penance as they might impose on her. The record fails to inform us what was that penance, but it probably transferred to the tribunal a large portion of the property that had escaped her husband’s confiscationThe indirect torture of especially harsh imprisonment was not unknown to the Inquisition, and was occasionally employed for the purpose of breaking down obstinacy. It was not, as in the medieval Inquisition, prescribed as an ordinary resource, but it was at the discretion of the tribunal and could at any time be brought into play, as in the case of a pertinacious heretic, in 1512, who was consigned to the most noisome part of the prison, and afflicted in various ways, in the hope of enlightening his understanding.[9] In the later period of leisurely action, protracted imprisonment was frequently resorted to, in the hope of inducing repentance and conversion, when wearing anxiety and despair weakened the will as effectually as the sharper agonies of the pulley and rack. There was also the ingenious device, frequently effective, by which the fiscal concluded his formal accusation with a demand that, if necessary, the accused should be tortured until he confessed. This was unknown in the earlier period, but the Instructions of 1561 recommend it, giving as a reason its good results, and also that torture requires a demand from the prosecutor and a notification to the defendant, who is unprepared for it at this stage of the trial.[10] After this it became the universal custom in all cases admitting of torture, and the profound impression produced on the unfortunate prisoner can be readily conceived. PRELIMINARIES Torture itself, however, was regarded as too serious to be left to the arbitrary temper of a baffled or angry inquisitor, and was preceded by formalities designed to prevent its abuse. It was the last resort when the result of a trial left doubts to be satisfied. After the prosecution and defence had closed, and the consulta de fe had assembled to consider the sentence, if the evidence was too weak for condemnation while the innocence of the accused was not clear, it could adopt a vote to torture and postpone the decision to await the outcome. Even in the ferocity of the early period this deliberateness was frequently observed, although in the reckless haste of procedure it was often omitted. Thus, in the case of Diego García, a priest accused of having said twenty years before, when a boy, that the sacrament was bread, the consulta held two meetings, January 18 and 19, 1490, and finally voted torture. There was no haste however and it was{5} not until February 11th that García was exposed to the very moderate water-torture of about a quart of water. No confession was obtained and he was untied, with the protest that he had not been sufficiently tortured, but it was not repeated and, on February 26th, he was acquitted and restored to his fame and honor, though, with the curiously perverse inquisitorial logic, he was made to abjure de vehementi and forbidden to celebrate mass for six months.[11] The vote of the consulta however was not universal and, in 1518, the Suprema ordered it to be always observed, but a clause in the Instructions of 1561, reminding inquisitors that they must not inflict torture until after hearing the defence shows how difficult it was to restrain their arbitrary action.[12] Even in the early eighteenth century, in reviewing a summary of cases of Valencia, from 1705 to 1726, the Suprema rebuked the tribunal for torturing Sebastian Antonio Rodríguez without previous consultation, but at this period the consulta de fe was becoming obsolete and everything was centering in the Suprema.[13] The vote of the consulta was still only preliminary. After it, the accused was brought into the audience-chamber, where all the inquisitors and the episcopal Ordinary were required to be present. He was notified of the decision of the consulta; if he was a diminuto, the points in which his confession had failed to satisfy the evidence were pointed out; if a negativo, no explanations were necessary; if it was on intention or in caput alienum he was made to understand it. He was adjured, in the name of God and the Blessed Virgin, to confess fully, without false evidence as to himself or others and, if this failed to move him, a formal sentence of torture was signed by all the judges and read to him. It recited that, in view of the suspicions arising against him from the evidence, they condemned him to be tortured for such length of time as they should see fit, in order that he might tell the truth of what had been testified against him, protesting that, if in the torture he should die or suffer effusion of blood or mutilation, it should not be attributed to them, but to him for not telling the truth. If the torture was to discover accomplices, care was taken to make no allusion to him and to give him no{6} chance of clearing himself, for he was assumed to be already convicted.[14] Even this sentence was not necessarily a finality for, if the accused offered a new defence, it had to be considered and acted upon before proceeding further.[15] Moreover he had theoretically a right to appeal to the inquisitor-general from this, as from all other interlocutory sentences. This right varied at different times. A ruling by the Suprema, in 1538, appears to indicate that it was granted as a matter of right, but the Instructions of 1561 tell inquisitors that, if they feel scruple, they should grant it, but if satisfied that the sentence is justified they should refuse the appeal as frivolous and dilatory.[16] Still the right to ask it was so fully recognized that, if the accused was not twenty-five years of age and thus a minor, his curador or guardian was required to be present, in order to interject an appeal if he saw fit, and I have met with an instance of this in the case of Angela Pérez, a Morisco slave, before the Toledo tribunal in 1575, where it was as usual unsuccessful, for the Suprema confirmed the sentence.[17] Tribunals seem not infrequently to have allowed appeals, but, with the growing centralization in the Suprema, they became superfluous and a formula, drawn up in 1690, directs that no attention be paid to them.[18] CONDITIONS When the indications of guilt were too slender to justify torture, the consulta de fe sometimes voted to threaten tortureA HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION OF SPAIN BY HENRY CHARLES LEA. LL.D. ——— IN FOUR VOLUMES

There was another kind of suspension, by far the most frequent of all. It often happened, especially in the later periods, that the sumaria, or collection of evidence against a presumed offender, proved insufficient to justify prosecution. In such cases it would be quietly voted to suspension; it was filed away in its place among the records, ready to be exhumed at any time, when further information might supply deficiencies and induce active proceedings. Thousands of these abortive processes reposed in the secreto of the tribunals, the subjects of which were unconscious of the dangers which had threatened them, or that their names were on the lists of suspects of the dreaded tribunal. That they were kept under surveillance is indicated by an occasional note, such as one respecting a certain Johann Wegelin, a Calvinist—“there is a sumaria which has been withdrawn because he became insane and returned to his own country,” or in another case “suspended because he died in 1802.

Yet, taking it as a whole, when we consider that the inquisitorial system was so framed as to put every temptation in the way of the judges to condemn, for the sake of confiscations, fines, penances, dispensations and commutations, it is rather creditable that acquittals and suspensions should occur in the records even as frequently as we find them there, though of course we have no means of knowing whether those who thus escaped were among the wealthy or the poor.

There was still another possible form of sentence. The Barbarians who overthrew the Roman Empire brought with them an ancestral custom, known as compurgation or, in England, as the Wager of Law, by which a defendant, in either a civil or criminal action, could maintain his title or his innocence by taking an oath and bringing a specified number of men who swore to their belief in its truth. They were known as conjurators{114} or compurgators and were in no sense witnesses; they pretended to no knowledge of the facts but only to their confidence in the veracity of their principal. This crude method of establishing the truth was maintained in all the lands occupied by the Teutonic tribes except in Spain, where the Wisigoths early yielded to the influence of the Roman law. It was eagerly adopted by the clergy, who found in it a convenient means of escaping from the harsher expedients of the ordeal or the wager of battle, so that it acquired the name of canonical purgation.In the thirteenth century, the Inquisition found it used in the trial of heretics and necessarily included it among the resources for doubtful cases, although inquisitorial methods were too thorough to call for its frequent employment.
The Spanish Inquisition naturally inherited compurgation among the other traditions of the institution. When conviction could not be had by evidence or torture, and yet the suspicion was too grave to justify acquittal, it could sentence the accused to undergo compurgation. He could not demand it, nor could he decline it, though he might appeal from the sentence; and failure in compurgation was equivalent to conviction, while success was not acquittal but required abjuration and penance at the discretion of the tribunal, because, although legally shown not to be a heretic, the accused had to be punished for “suspicion.”

1 comentari:

  1. Carlo Vendrelli É importante relembrar o passado. See Translation Like · Reply · 3 hrs Donald DA Costa Maduro É ó sexta-feira mas O V Governo Constitucional tomou posse a 7 de julho de 1979, tendo sido constituído por iniciativa do Presidente da República. Terminou o seu mandato a 3 de janeiro de 1980, na sequência das eleições intercalares realizadas após a dissolução da Assembleia da República. Composição A sua constituição era a seguinte:[1] Cargo Detentor Período Primeira-ministra Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo 1 de agosto de 1979[Nota 1] a 3 de janeiro de 1980[Nota 2] Ministro Adjunto para a Administração Interna Manuel da Costa Brás 1 de agosto de 1979 a 3 de janeiro de 1980 Ministro da Defesa Nacional José Loureiro dos Santos 1 de agosto de 1979 a 3 de janeiro de 1980 Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros João de Freitas Cruz 1 de agosto de 1979 a 3 de janeiro de 1980 Ministro da Justiça Pedro Sousa Macedo 1 de agosto de 1979 a 3 de janeiro de 1980 Ministro das Finanças António Sousa Franco 1 de agosto de 1979 a 3 de janeiro de 1980 Like · 19 mins Donald DA Costa Maduro sousa franco lembro-me deste gajo era o van gogh portuguez da AD? Like · 18 mins Donald DA Costa Maduro Write a reply... Maria Magalhães João Galamba onde andam os criativos do PS? http://www.dn.pt/politica/interior.aspx?content_id=4718568 See Translation Like · Reply · 2 hrs Donald DA Costa Maduro tão emigrados mas um dia destes voltam mais escurinhos Like · 15 mins Donald DA Costa Maduro voltam é durante o inverno que nenhum dos próximos aguentam mais que o syriza até à bancarrota final ...de resto a 4% ao ano ...faltam 5 anos ou cousa assis ...com sorte 3 Like · 5 mins Donald DA Costa Maduro já o for the more little ones é zézé camarinha puro ...este gajo certamente tirou 12 anos de inglês mais o curso de germânicas Like · Just now Donald DA Costa Maduro Write a reply... Nunes Da Silva Indiana os criativos do PS estavam nesta foto a fazer a folha ao Seguro... See Translation Nunes Da Silva Indiana's photo. Like · Reply · 50 mins Donald DA Costa Maduro silva indiana? essa nã conhecia ...o PS tem tantos cria activos como o santana lopes...é tudo brasuca ou bate no inglês técnico ...Pat ? formely known as AD ? annum domini Everybody wants to be heard. Everybody wants to be seen. Everybody wants to be FORMELY known, and everybody's got some BAD dreams...35% OF THEM Like · 12 mins Donald DA Costa Maduro Write a reply... Rui Manuel Amaro Marques Desde a invenção da barba postiça que não aparecia tanta criatividade. Como diria Salgado Zenha "estamos em boa companhia" ! See Translation Like · Reply · 36 mins Donald DA Costa Maduro Se bem me lembro em 1985 salgado zenha disse....dizem que estamos em boa companhia ...mas metade dela parece ser tão má como a dos restantes ...e era e era e se bem me lembro num m'alembro da ti Like · 9 mins Donald DA Costa Maduro Write a reply... Donald DA Costa Maduro O TIPO Deve ter tirado o curso de história nas novas oportunidades nã? O V Governo Constitucional tomou posse a 7 de julho de 1979, tendo sido constituído por iniciativa do Presidente da República. um tal de eanes ...da tribo de alcaíns ...os de alcaíns são cães já lá vem na etnografia portuguesa Ministro das Finanças António Sousa Franco 1 de agosto de 1979 a 3 de janeiro de 1980 este perigoso sá carneirista Like · Reply · 16 mins Donald DA Costa Maduro e metade de 1983 o país foi governado por um tal de soares com rui machete um perigoso direitista que destruiu o país ou cousa assis Like · Reply · 6 mins Donald DA Costa Maduro 1983 election had been an unmitigated disaster. The only consolation for leader Michael Foot and Mouth disease was that Labour had not lost6 d’agost de 2015 a les 15:36

    este gajo pra ministre dos negócios com os chinocas já ...e angolanos que com um for the more little ones é um especial ones de certeza ...o tino de rans com um curso superior ahn ...isto melhora