Souls in Dispute. David L. Graizbord

Trinity[;] and then the Portuguese [man], as if under duress, said that God was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, (fol. 9v)

      The record of Pan y Agua’s deposition (written, as was customary, in the third person) also contains information about another heated confrontation between the voyagers and their victim:

      Having arrived this morning to [the] city [of Toledo] to [a] meson … and presuming this witness and the others from [Silva’s] actions [of the preceding days] that the … Portuguese [man] was a Jew, this witness [Pan y Agua] and … Fray P[edr]o took a cross that is attached to the wall of said inn and brought it to the face of [the suspect] so that he would kiss it[;] [the] Portuguese [man] not only refused to kiss it, but he stood up from the stool on which he was sitting, and fled … to the [inn’s] hall.” (fols. 9v–10r)

      Friar Mártir later admitted that the altercation at the Toledan inn had indeed occurred; he also revealed that he had asked Torre to give him a dagger to threaten Silva when Silva had (allegedly) averted his face from the cross (fol. 12V).

      Fernando de la Torre, the young French traveler, corroborated the main outlines of Pan y Agua’s account. Among other things, he confirmed that Silva had inquired if any Jews lived in France. Torre also claimed that Silva had asked him if Jews were at liberty to pursue their religion in that country. When Torre answered that they were, Silva allegedly said that he wanted to go to France with him. To this Torre responded that if he found out that Silva was Jewish, he would kill him, “as would any other [Frenchman] who found out that that was what he was” (fol. 11r).

      Another traveler, Don Diego Manuel de Castilla, a Knight of the Order of Santiago (the most prestigious military order in Spain), concurred with the other witnesses’ suspicions that Silva was “Jewish” (a echo concepto de q el dho portugues es judio, fol. 5v). Notably, Castilla seconded his comrades’ allegations that the suspect had at first given his name as “Diego de Silva,” but had later surprised them by identifying himself as “Diego Pereira de Castro y Moscoso” (fol. 5r).

      The last witness to testify about the conflict-ridden voyage was Magdalena Martinez. She was the innkeeper in whose mesón Silva/Pereira and the informers were staying at the time of the depositions. Martinez was the only one among the witnesses who claimed to have had no contact whatsoever with the suspect; by all appearances at least, she had no reason to be prejudiced against him.⁹⁵ In her testimony, Martinez merely acknowledged that three people had altercated in the patio of her inn, among them a friar who was holding a small wooden cross that had been nailed to a wall. However, Martinez said she had not investigated who the persons were and what they were arguing about (fol. 13v).

      On the basis of this and the other depositions, Inquisitor Cebada and his colleagues issued an order to arrest Diego de Silva (alias Pereira). Lay assistants of the Holy Office detained the suspect in Toledo and brought him to testify before Inquisitor Joseph Paniagua (no relation to the Flemish witness) in October 17, 1661.

      In his first audiencia with the Holy Tribunal the defendant identified himself not as “Diego de Silva” but as “Diego Pereira de Castro y Moscoso.” He testified that he was an hidalgo (nobleman), a soldier by profession, and a war veteran. Specifically, he claimed to have fought in the war of Portuguese independence on the Spanish side (1640), and to have attained the rank of captain in the Royal Spanish Armada in 1654. The defendant noted without shame that he was of Portuguese parentage, and provided a long and detailed personal genealogy. Among his claims were that his paternal grandfather had been an hidalgo; that three of his uncles were captains in the Spanish and Portuguese armies, two of whom were knights of the military Order of Christ; and that another uncle was a Jesuit preacher in Lisbon. To the best of his knowledge, all his forbears had been Old Christians, or as he put it, “limpios” (“clean ones,” namely persons of “clean” blood). He further claimed that none had been the subject of any inquisitorial investigation. Pereira said nothing about his supposed use of the name Silva because, surprisingly, his interrogators did not raise the matter of his alias.

      When asked to give an account of his life, Pereira testified that he had spent much of his childhood in Estremoz and Borba, Portugal, but more recently had resided in various Spanish cities, including Madrid, Seville, and Cadiz.⁹⁶ From Cadiz, he explained, he had set out alone for Madrid a few days ago because he expected the king to offer him a promotion to the military Order of Christ as a reward for his latest services to the crown (fols. 22r–26r). Pereira indicated that he had started on his journey to the capital when he heard that the Order had concluded its requisite screening procedures and compiled documents known as pruebas (literally, “tests” or “proofs”). Pruebas were the means by which the military orders of Spain, as well as other exclusive Ibero-Christian societies such as religious confraternities, enforced their statutes of purity of blood. The “tests” were records of internal investigations as to the “cleanliness” of the lineage of prospective members. Such documents often contained additional information concerning the personal character and professional conduct of the applicants.⁹⁷ Pereira did not say whether the Order of Christ had determined that his family tree was sufficiently “pure,” yet he clearly anticipated that it had or would soon do so—at least that is what the content and tenor of his testimony implies (fol. 26v).

      As the interrogation continued, Pereira gave rather halting responses to standard questions regarding his religious education, thereby substantiating Mártir’s claim that he (Pereira) had not been properly instructed in the Catholic faith. The defendant said that he had been baptized and confirmed in Portugal, and that he confessed his sins regularly in church. When his interrogator⁹⁸ prompted him to recite the Paternoster and Ave Maria prayers, he did so without any difficulty. Nevertheless, Pereira “stumbled considerably” when reciting the credo (dijo el credo con algunos tropezones considerables, fol. 25v). Furthermore, he “did not know the commandments of the Catholic church, or the sacraments, or the articles of the faith, or any articles of Christian doctrine” (fol. 25v).

      The rest of Pereira’s testimony concerned his fateful voyage from Andalucía to Toledo. Pereira’s reconstruction of that journey contrasted sharply with that of his accusers. Regarding the alleged hiding incident, for example, the record of Pereira’s deposition reads as follows:

      Realizing that he was Portuguese, the people with whom he had been traveling started to say many things to him … that he was a so-and-so, and in particular … [when] the [inn’s] hostess realized that he was Portuguese, she started to say, “Portuguese, Portuguese[!]“ and other things, to which this witness replied, “[I am] a nobleman, a very honorable one, as are all my relatives …” And they also told him many other [insulting] things, so he became angry and did not wish to eat with them.… [Another person in the group], seeing what they were telling him, started saying that [the suspect’s] mother was a Jewess, and a whore, and that his relatives were also Jews. In the same manner, while traveling on the road, they told him many things, and in particular they asked him if he was a prophet, to which he responded ironically [enchança] that yes, he was a prophet of the king of Spain (fol. 27r–27v).

      Like all inquisitorial defendants, Pereira was asked if he knew or presumed why the Holy Office had arrested him. As the above citation suggests, he suspected that his erstwhile companions were the ones who had denounced him. However, Pereira chose to speculate about other possible accusers. In so doing he digressed considerably from the matter of his recent voyage. Toward the end of his deposition, Pereira went so far as to blame some Judeoconversos for his incarceration, referring to them by the popular euphemism “people of the Nation”—gente de la nación:⁹⁹

      [The defendant] says he presumes that maybe some persons who are called “of the Nation,” [had denounced him to the Inquisition] … [H]e had asked [those persons] for alms at the time that he was in Cadiz, in Seville, and in Madrid…when he found himself poor and with nothing to eat. [T]hey did not want to give him [the alms] he asked for, and he treated them badly, saying that they were Jewish pícaros and that if he were one of their own they would help him, and that the reason they did not want to give him anything was that he was a nobleman, and that if they were in Portugal they would not dare to stand in front of him with their hats on. [T]hat is why he presumes