The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-21

LdNeddOo-or, IN OUn9r WOru9, bhoeo VINO
from various motives spontaneously 40
cused themselves. Out Of 1,177 cases 90
curing in Toledo between 1878 and 1910.
about one in seven was the outcome OF
s~elf-accusation. The phenomenon Was, OF
course, attributable to the assumption
that self-accusation was evidence OF con-
triton which merited benignity. In the
earlier period OF the Spanish Inquisition.
however, voluntary confession did no
avail to safeguard from punishment. But
after the subsistence Of the first fury OF
persecution. when spontaneous self-de-
nunication might be considered az arising
from contrition. and not from fear Of accu-
sation by others. IL was regarded more
merciHully. Thus In 1858 the Supreme
Council OF the InQuisition sharply rebuked
the tribunal OF Barcelona for having con-
demned to confscation a French girl and
a French man, both Of whom had spon-
~taneously confessed to Professionalism, and
against whom there was no other evidences;
the confscated property was to be returned
TO them within nine days. Naturally, the
influence OF self-aocusation on the sentence
would at all times vary with the motives
to which the Inquisitors attributed 1t. In
ACVA NVChNO ShAAAV " V@AN W
accuse themselves and implicate twelve
others; all t~wenty-fonr received the penalty
Of coniscation and perpetual imprison-
ment. On the other hand, in 1885. n
Andres de Palaoios presented himself and
confessed that when sailing in the galleys,
some ak years before, he had made the
acquaintance Of an English captain, who
had converted him to the Lutheran heresy.
He now begged for mercy and for re-
admission to the church. He was put on
trial. and was reconciled with only some
spiritual penances. A little later occurred
the curiously complicated case OF a French
nun in a Spanish convent who voluntarily
confessed that she had imbibed some Of
the errors current in her native land. Thrice
did she confess, and thrice was she absolved.
When finally she accused herself a fourth
time OF the same errors, her case was sent
up to the Supreme Council and the order
came TO relax" her to the secular arm;
~whereupon she was duly burned.
The confession Of acts open to suspicion
was often accompanied by a denial OF in
tention. The Inquisition relied for proof
on acts or words from which heretical be-
lief might be inferred, 1t being assumed
that after baptism any one practising
Judaio or Moslem rites or customs was an
apostate. Many of these customs were
wholly indifferent in themselves, and their
significance depended on the Intention
with which they were performed, so that
it was not unusual for the accused to admit
the acts while disclaiming knowledge OF
their religious character. Thus he might
confess avoidance Of pork, but allege that
e ltao nth hspo. ~ vofrhN nIoaI H,,i1t-
to washing his hands or changing his linen,
but assert that it was for the sake Of cleanli-
ness; he might not deny uttering a hereti-
cal proposition, but say hat the utterance
was t~houghtless or ~jooular. In such cases,
as human intentions are inscrutable. resort
was made to the universal solvent OF judi
cial doubt, torture-at least in the later
periods OF the Inquisition. In the earlier
time it was more in consonance with the
swift justice then habitual to condemn
the accused forthwith; the acts confessed,
IL was argued, did not admit Of doubt;
they were in themselves sufficient proof.
Few Of those who fell into the hands Of the
Inquisition evinced the heroic courage Of
Manuel Diaz, a victim in the great Mexican
auto de fe Of December 8, 1893. Although
ten Of his fellow sufferers had testified against
him he steadily denied his guilt and was
proof against both the threats and the
Establishments Of the inquisitors. There
was nothing to do but to burn him as a
negative impeniente, except that he might
be used to inculpate others, and for this
purpose he was sentenced to torture. When
the sentence was read to him he simply
said that he was ready for them to do with
him as they pleased. He was in his thirty
eighth year, and a vigorous man; he endured
torture Of unusual severity and although
he shrieked and begged to be put to death
and called on his tormentors to have mercy
on his FIVE children he denied all knowledge
OF the Law OF Moses and went to the stake
without bearing witness against his fellows.
This refusal to testify against others was
held by the Inquisition to aggravate the
convict's guilt and in his sentence he was
stigmatized as a fautor and protector Of
Judaizing h~eretics. DR.. Lea goes on to
show that il the Inquisitorial records oc-
c~asionally ennobled human nature with
such examples Of self sacrifice they more
frequently exhibited it in its most despicable
aspect, through the eagerness with which
unfortunates, enfeebled and despairing
in their p~rotracted incarceration, sought
to gain the favor OF pitiless judges or to
render their confessions complete by be-
~traying the condolences Of cell companions
who had incautiOusly relieved their hearts
in careless talk with comrades in misery.
The stances are il seems innumerable
in which the recipient of such avowaIs at
once asked for In audience and undertook
to prove the sincerity Of his W conversion
by reciting what he had heard. Our author
feels, however, a grim satisfaction in re-
calling that such revelations, however
damaging to the victims, appear never to
AVE benefited the informer. They never
were accepted as alternating circum-
stances to diminish his own punishment.
IX.
We observe, lastly. that the negative,
or accused person who persistently denied
his guilt in the face Of competent testi-
mony, was universally held TO be a per-
tinacious, impenitent hereto, for whom
there was no alternative save burning alive,
although, as Simancas says, he might
protest a thousand times that he was a