A History of the Inquisition of Spain; vol. 1Lea, Henry Charles
History
A History of the Inquisition of Spain; vol. 1
Lea, Henry Charles
Inquisition -- Spain
While thus the three briefs were not revoked they were practically
annulled. The indignation of the Aragonese at finding themselves thus
juggled was warm and found expression, January 30, 1520, in
discontinuing the collection of the servicio. Charles was now at Coruña,
preparing for his voyage to Flanders and thither, on February 3d, the
Diputados sent Azor Zapata and Iñigo de Mendoza to procure the
liberation of Prat and to urge Charles to obtain the confirmation of the
Concordia. To liberate Prat without a trial was tacitly to admit the
correctness of his record, yet, on April 21st, Cardinal Adrian issued an
order for the fiscal to discontinue the prosecution and for the
inquisitors to "relax" Prat. This order was presented May 1st to the
inquisitors, but the word "relaxation" was that used in the delivery of
convicts to the secular arm for burning; Prat stoutly refused to accept
it and remained in prison.
Charles embarked May 21st and the rest of the year 1520 was spent in
endeavors by each side to obtain the confirmation of their respective
formulas of the Concordia and in fruitless attempts by Charles to have
the three briefs revoked. Though unpublished and virtually annulled they
were the source of great anxiety to the Inquisition. The correspondence
between Charles and his Roman agents shows perpetual insistance on his
part and perpetual promises and evasions by the pope, sometimes on the
flimsiest pretexts for postponement, the secret of which is probably to
be found in a report by Juan Manuel, the Spanish ambassador, on October
12th, that the pope was promised 46,000 or 47,000 ducats if he could
induce the king to let the briefs stand. Thus it went on throughout the
year and, when Leo died, December 1, 1521, the briefs were still
unrevoked.
A year earlier, however, December 1, 1520, he had confirmed the
Concordia, in a bull so carefully drawn as not to commit the Holy See to
either of the contesting versions. It was limited to the promises
embraced in Charles's oath and, as regards the articles, it merely said
that the canons and ordinances and papal decrees should be inviolably
observed, under pain of _ipso facto_ excommunication, dismissal from
office and disability for re-appointment. Either side was consequently
at liberty to put what construction it pleased on the papal utterance.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account