"As I was always much occupied in composing poetry, even after I was appointed judge of the royal court of appeal, some of my colleagues harshly censured my conduct, saying that the composition of lyric and amatory verses was very unbecoming the dignity of the magistracy: one of them said maliciously, that I might perhaps know what a troubadour was, but not what a magistrate should be. I then composed this poem, and intended to publish it, but afterwards changed my mind, that it might not occasion a suspicion that I wished to revenge myself." This poem, in my opinion, has much merit, and I hope it will be included in the first edition of the poems of Melendez.

_Macanaz_, (Don Melchior de). See the following Chapter.

_Mariana_ (Juan de), Jesuit. He was a natural son of Juan Martinez de Mariana, afterwards canon and dean of the college of Talavera de la Reyna, where Mariana was born in 1536. When he had finished his studies at Alcala, and had become well skilled in the oriental tongues and in theology, he quitted Spain to travel in foreign countries: he professed theology in Rome, Sicily, and at Paris. When he returned he wrote his history of Spain, and was often consulted by the government in affairs of a difficult and delicate nature. He was chosen as an arbitrator in the great question concerning the royal Polyglott Bible of Antwerp, and, contrary to the wishes and intrigues of his brethren, he decided in favour of Benedict Arias Monta.n.u.s. In 1583 he was commissioned to form an Index, in which he left out the work of St. Francis Borgia. The Jesuits, who are not accustomed to forgive such conduct, did not afterwards treat him with the consideration to which he was ent.i.tled. He proved the vices of the government of their society in a work called, _Of the Maladies of the Society of Jesus_. This work was not published till after the death of the author; but his brethren were acquainted with some parts of it, which increased their hatred towards him. In 1599 he published and dedicated to Philip III. his treatise _de Rege et Regis inst.i.tutione_, which was burnt at Paris by the common executioner. He also published in 1609, seven treatises in one folio volume, one of them is on the _Exchange of Money_, and another on _Death and Immortality_.

These works exposed him to prosecutions from the government and the holy office. I have read his defence, and the doctrine he professed is so pure and solid, that I am persuaded it would be favourably received if it was printed. The sentence of the king was more lenient than he could have expected, after having, in his dedication to that monarch, shown himself the advocate of the _regicide_, disguised under the name of the _tyrannicide_. He did not escape so well from the inquisitors: they made some retrenchments in his work on the _Exchange of Money_, and it was prohibited until he had been punished. A penance was imposed on the author, and he was confined a long time in his college. He died at Toledo in 1623, at the age of eighty-seven. Nicholas Antonio mentions other works by the same author. In the _Dictionnaire_ of Peignot there are some details which might be interesting to a literary person.

_Medina_ (Fray Michel de). See Chapter 29.

_Meneses_ (Fray Philip de), Dominican, and professor of theology at Alcala de Henares; he gave a favourable opinion of the Catechism of Carranza. The Inquisition of Toledo received from that of Valladolid the writings of his trial, summoned Fray Philip, and condemned him to the same punishment as Fray Juan de Ludena.

_Merida_ (Pedro de), canon of Palencia: he was commissioned by Carranza to take possession of the see of Toledo in his name, and administer to the archbishopric. He was mentioned by Pedro Cazalla and others, as partaking their sentiments on the subject of _justification_. He corresponded with Carranza, and in his trial the Inquisition took advantage of several letters in which he spoke ill of the holy office.

He was arrested at Valladolid, abjured _de levi_, was subjected to a penance and a pecuniary penalty.

_Monino_ (Don Joseph). See the following Chapter.

_Molina_ (Don Michel de), bishop of Albaracin. See Chapter 29.

_Monta.n.u.s_ (Benedict Arias). _Ibid._

_Montemayor_ (Prudencio de), Jesuit, born at Ceniecros, in Rioja, and professor of theology at Salamanca. He composed several works, which are mentioned by Nicholas Antonio. The Inquisition of Valladolid tried him on suspicion of Pelagianism, arising from some theological conclusions which he maintained and printed in 1600. He defended himself, and explained what he had advanced like a true Catholic. The inquisitors ceased to prosecute him personally, but they prohibited his conclusions. The Jesuits have always been reproached with their adherence to the system of the heresiarch Pelagius, on the subject of grace and free-will. Montemayor afterwards endeavoured to vindicate his honour and that of his order, in a discourse, ent.i.tled _A Reply to the Five Calumnies invented against the Society of Jesus, and promulgated in the City of Salamanca_. He died in that city in 1641, at a very advanced age.

_Montijo_ (Donna Maria-Frances Portocarrero, Countess of), a grandee of Spain: she deserves a distinguished rank among the literati of Spain.

Her claims to celebrity are not only supported by her translation of the _Christian Instructions on the Sacrament of Marriage_, by M. Le Tourneux, but by her great love for good literature, and by her efforts to render the taste for it more common. Her amiable and benevolent character made her house a favourite resort for many virtuous and enlightened ecclesiastics: among these may be distinguished Don Antonio de Palafox, bishop of Cuenca, and brother-in-law to the Countess; Don Antonio de Tabira, bishop of Salamanca; Don Joseph de Jeregui, preceptor to the Infants of Spain; Don Juan Antonio Rodrigalvarez, archdeacon of Cuenca; Don Juaquin Ivarra, and Don Antonio de Posada, canon of St.

Isidore at Madrid. All these ecclesiastics, and the Countess herself, were the victims of the calumnies of fanatical priests and monks, who were the partisans of the Jesuits and of their maxims on discipline and morals; they were accused of Jansenism. The hatred of their enemies was so great, that Don Balthazar Calvo, Canon of St. Isidore, and Fray Antonio de Guerrero, a Dominican, declared in the pulpit, that there existed in one of the first houses in the capital a conventicle of Jansenists, protected by a lady of distinction: they took care to speak of her in such a manner that the person could not be mistaken. The nuncio of the Court of Rome informed the Pope of all these circ.u.mstances, and his Holiness immediately addressed letters of thanks to these two preachers and some other individuals, for the zeal they had shown in defending the faith. These letters were, in a manner, the signal for a denunciation against all persons suspected of Jansenism, and did not fail to produce that effect. Besides the suspicion of Jansenism, the Countess of Montijo was accused of holding a religious and literary correspondence with Monsignor Henri Gregoire, then bishop of Blois, and one of the most Catholic and learned men in France, a Member of the Inst.i.tute, and author of several works, one of which was a _Letter to the Inquisitor-general of Spain_, in which he invites him to propose the suppression of the Inquisition of which he is the head. The accusers supposed Monsignor Gregoire to be the head of the Jansenists in France; but they concealed the fact that this bishop had several times exposed himself to death to give the victims of the revolution the last spiritual aid, and to maintain the Catholic religion when Robespierre endeavoured to destroy it. The accusers, who dwelt upon the mention which had been made of the Countess in the national council of France, held by the bishops who had taken the oaths, and of which Monsignor Gregoire was a member. The inquisitors received secret informations of this affair; but no facts or heretical propositions were proved, and they had not courage to issue the orders for an arrest. The rank and birth of the accused gave them the means of putting an end to the persecution: a sort of court intrigue, however, caused the Countess to be sent from Madrid. She retired to Logrono, where she died in 1808, with the reputation of being virtuous, and charitable to the poor.

_Mur_ (Don Joseph de). See following Chapter.

_Olavide_ (Don Paul). _Ibid._

_Palafox y Mendoza_ (Don Juan de). See Chapter 30.

_Palafox_ (Don Antonio de), bishop of Cuenca. He was prosecuted by the Inquisition of Madrid on suspicion of Jansenism, but his trial did not proceed further than the _preparatory instruction_, as nothing but conjectures could be brought against him. He was tried at the same time with his sister-in-law, the Countess de Montijo. This prelate made a learned and energetic representation to the king, in which he proved that the ex-jesuits who had returned to Spain were the authors of the prosecutions against himself and his friends; and they left nothing undone to ruin those who were not of their party.

_Pedroche_ (Fray Thomas de), Dominican, and a professor at Toledo; he gave a favourable opinion of the Catechism of Carranza, and received the same treatment as Fray Juan de Ledesma.

_Pena_ (Fray Juan de la), Dominican, director of the studies of the college of St. Gregory at Valladolid, and a professor of Salamanca. In 1558 he gave a favourable opinion of the Catechism of Carranza. He was summoned by the inquisitors on the 15th of March, 1559, to qualify twenty propositions of an author whose name they concealed from him; on the 5th of April following, he gave his reply, containing nineteen pages of writing. He declared that the propositions were Catholic; that some of them were ambiguous, which might cause them to be considered as tending to Lutheranism, but that it did not appear that the author had advanced them with any bad intention. The Archbishop Carranza, being thrown into prison on the 22nd of August in the same year, De la Pena became alarmed, and wrote to the Inquisition, saying, that he had been intimate with that prelate, because he believed him to be a good Catholic; that this reason had also prevented him from denouncing a favourable opinion which he had expressed of one Don Carlos de Seso, one of the Lutherans who were tried in this year; that Carranza had not condemned him, because he did not think him an heretic, although he had advanced propositions which were tinctured with Lutheranism. De la Pena added, that, seeing the archbishop arrested, he had confessed this, lest his silence might be construed into a crime. His precaution was unavailing. De la Pena appeared guilty, from the opinion he had given of the Catechism, and two other accusations were brought against him: the first was, that he had said that there was no foundation for denouncing the proposition of Carranza, which states, _that it is not yet decided if faith was lost in committing a mortal sin_; the second, that he had a.s.serted when the archbishop was arrested, _that even if he was an heretic, the holy office ought to overlook it, lest the Lutherans in Holland should acknowledge him as a martyr, which they had already done to several individuals who had been punished_. De la Pena's reply displeased the inquisitors; they sharply reproved him, condemned him to several penances, and commanded him to be more cautious for the future.

_Perez_ (Antonio), secretary of state. See Chapter 35.

_Quiros_ (Don Joseph), priest, advocate to the king's council at Madrid.

Being informed of the persecution of Belando by the Inquisition, on account of his _Civil History of Spain_, he drew up a writing, in which he endeavoured to prove that the inquisitors ought to have examined the author before they condemned his work. This liberty cost him dear; although he was seventy years old, and his legs swelled continually, he was sent to the secret prisons, and as if this was not sufficient, he was kept during the months of February and March in a cold, damp chamber, where he was obliged to endure all the rigour of the season, and nearly sunk under it. Philip V. was at last informed of the state to which Quiros was reduced, and he obtained his liberty after forty-four days of suffering, on the condition of never again writing on the affairs of the Inquisition, unless he wished to experience greater severity.

_Ramos del Manzano_ (Don Francis). See following Chapter.

_Regla_ (Fray Juan de). See Chapter 29.

_Ricardos_ (Don Antonio), Count de Trullas in his own right, and of Torrepalma in that of his wife and cousin; captain-general of the royal armies, and commander-in-chief of that of Roussillon against the French republic in the years 1793 and 1794. He was suspected of being an _esprit fort_, or an incredulous philosopher, and the dean of the inquisitors invited him to attend the _auto-da-fe_ of Don Paul de Olavide; they thought that he might consider some of the declarations as relating to himself, though his name was not mentioned, particularly as he had been very intimate with Olavide, and their religious sentiments were very similar on some points. This was the only mortification which the Inquisition could inflict upon Ricardos, as they had not sufficient proof to authorize a prosecution.

_Ripalda_ (Jerome de), Jesuit, born at Teruel in Aragon towards the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth. He was one of the most learned theologians of his order; he professed theology, and wrote two Treatises, one mystic and the other on _Christian Doctrine_, which has been used by the schools for near a century, with the exception of some alterations which have been made in the new editions of his Catechism. Nicholas Antonio says that he died, with the reputation of being a saint, in 1618, aged eighty-four. He had been for some time director to St. Theresa de Jesus. It is possible that the forty-four last years of Ripalda's life may have been exemplary, but the impartiality of an historian compels me to say, that Jerome Ripalda was tried by the Inquisition of Valladolid as an _illuminati_, or _quietist_, and tinctured with the heresy of _Molinos_; that he confessed some of the charges, asked pardon, and implored his judges to be merciful; and that a penance was imposed on him in 1574, as being _suspected de vehementi_. The sincere repentance which he showed induced the inquisitor-general, Quiroga, to shorten the duration of his penance; I must add that the purity of Ripalda's faith and morals after this event were such as to render him worthy of the esteem and respect of mankind.

_Ribera_ (Don Juan de). See Chapter 30.

_Roda_ (Don Manuel de). See following Chapter.

_Rodrigalvarez_ (Don Juan Antonio), priest, canon of St. Isidore at Madrid, afterwards archdeacon of Cuenca, and provisor and vicar-general of that diocese; he wrote several historical works. Rodrigalvarez was implicated in the denunciation of Don Balthazar Calvo, his colleague, who, giving way to personal considerations, and instigated by the ex-jesuits lately arrived from Italy, inflicted such cruel mortifications on Rodrigalvarez and Posada his colleague, that they were obliged to complain to the Prince of Peace, and to implore his a.s.sistance. The trial begun by the Inquisition did not furnish sufficient proof of their guilt, and it was not continued. The trials of Don Antonio Posada, and Don Juaquin Ibarra, mentioned in the article _Montijo_, finished in the same manner.

_Roman_ (Fray Jerome), an Augustine, born at Logrono. He was very learned in the oriental languages, and directed his attention towards the study of sacred and profane history. In prosecuting this design, he travelled over a great part of Europe, examining the different archives, and making extracts of all that appeared likely to increase the success of the great works which he had projected. Being appointed historian to his order, he published the history of it from the year 1569; in it he gives an account of the lives of the saints and ill.u.s.trious men who had belonged to it, with many interesting details. His wish to publish the historical facts which he had collected during his travels, induced him to write a book called the _Republics of the World_; in this work he treats very learnedly of the ancient and modern republics: it was printed at Medina del Campo, in 1575, and again in 1595 at Salamanca.

Unfortunately for the author, it contained several truths which displeased some persons powerful enough to injure him; he experienced some persecution, and the Inquisition of Valladolid reprimanded him, and ordered his work to be corrected. He died in 1597, leaving some MSS.

which are mentioned by Nicholas Antonio.

_Salazar_ (Fray Ambrose de), Dominican, and professor of theology at Salamanca. The Inquisition of Valladolid tried him in 1559, on two accusations: the first was founded on the declarations of Fray Dominic de Roxas and Fray Louis de la Cruz, during their imprisonment: they imputed to Fray Ambrose some propositions which tended to Lutheranism; the second charge was founded on the favourable opinion which he had given of the Catechism of Carranza. The trial was not continued, on account of the death of Fray Ambrose in 1560, in the thirty-eighth year of his age: it was supposed that fear, and his imprisonment in the holy office, where Carranza was detained, hastened his death. He left, in order to be printed, some _Commentaries on the first part of the Sum of St. Thomas_.

_Salas_ (Don Ramon de), born at Belchite in Aragon, was a professor at Salamanca, and one of its greatest literati: he was prosecuted in 1796 by the Inquisition of Madrid, on suspicion of having adopted the principles of the modern philosophers, Voltaire, Rousseau, and others, whose works he had read. He acknowledged that he was acquainted with their works, but added that he had only read them in order to refute them, which he had done in several public theses, maintained at Salamanca by some of his pupils, under his direction. All these theses were introduced in the trial. He replied in a satisfactory manner to all the allegations, and the qualifiers did not find anything in his writings which deserved theological censure. The judges not only acquitted him, but on being informed that Father Poveda, a Dominican, had intrigued against him, thought that he had a right to a public reparation. On the 22nd of October, in the same year, they sent their sentence and the writings of the trial, together with the considerations and the points of doctrine on which they were founded, to the Supreme Council, at the same time expressing their opinion on the right of Salas to a reparation.

Father Poveda, by his intrigues, caused the trial to be sent back to the inquisitors, with an order to make fresh inquiries, which was done, but the qualifiers and judges persisted in their first sentence. The intrigues again began in the council, which returned the trial to the Inquisition a second time, with an order to make another inquest extraordinary: a third qualification, and a third sentence were the result, confirming the innocence of Salas. This was not what was intended; the accused had a powerful enemy in the council: this was Don Philip Vallejo, archbishop of Santiago, and governor of the Council of Castile; he had been inimical to Salas, from having had certain literary discussions with him at the university of Salamanca, when he was bishop of that see. The trial was suspended, to afford time for the archbishop to procure new denunciations, to add to those he had already obtained.

Salas requested that his imprisonment might be ameliorated, and that he might only be confined to the city of Madrid. The council refused this favour; he then demanded permission to apply to the king, but this was also refused. He was at last condemned to abjure _de levi_; received the absolution and censures _ad cautelam_; and was banished from the capital. He retired to Guadalaxara, and there complained to his sovereign of the injustice of the Council of the Inquisition. Charles IV. ordered the writings of the trial to be sent to his minister of justice. Cardinal de Lorenzana, inquisitor-general, endeavoured to prevent it, but his efforts were ineffectual. When the affair was examined by the minister, the intrigue was discovered, and a resolution was formed to expedite a royal ordinance, forbidding the inquisitors to arrest any individual for the future, without first informing the king of their intention. The decree was drawn up by Don Eugene Llaguno, minister of justice, and he presented it to his majesty for signature; the king told him that it must first be shown to the Prince of Peace, as he had taken part in the deliberation, and would see if it was properly drawn up. Unfortunately for mankind, this delay of one day gave Vallejo time to renew his intrigues, so that the Prince of Peace changed his mind, and the royal decree was so different from what was expected, that the affair was ordered to be left in the same state.

_San Ambrosio_ (Fray Ferdinand de), Dominican; he was a learned man, and well skilled in the conduct of affairs. The Inquisition of Valladolid tried him in 1559: he was accused of having taken measures in favour of Carranza; of having profited by his sojourn at Rome in the same year, to prejudice his Holiness against the tribunal, to engage him to cause the trial to be transferred to Rome, and not to allow the archbishop to be arrested. The prosecutions soon ceased, because the accused remained at Rome.

_Saloedo._ See following Chapter.

_Salgado._ _Ibid._

_Samaniego_ (Don Felix-Maria de), lord of the town of Arraya, and an inhabitant of Laguardia in the province of Alava. He composed some fables and lyric poems of great merit, and was one of the greatest Spanish literati, during the reign of Charles IV. The Inquisition of Logrono prosecuted him, on suspicion of having embraced the errors of the modern philosophers, and of having read prohibited books. He was on the point of being arrested, when, discovering it by chance, he immediately set off for Madrid, where Don Eugene Llaguno, the minister of justice, and his friend and countryman, privately arranged his affairs with the inquisitor-general.

_Samaniego_ (Don Philip). See following Chapter.

_Santo Domingo_ (Fray Antonio de), Dominican, rector of the college of St. Gregory at Valladolid, was prosecuted by the Inquisition of that city in 1559 and 1560. The proceeding was founded on several accusations; in 1558, he had approved of some reprehensible propositions in the Catechism of Carranza: he was also accused of having said in 1559, _that the arrest of this prelate was as unjust as that of Jesus Christ_; that the prosecutions of the tribunal were of the same character; that Fray Melchior Cano ought to die first, because he was the most guilty; and that his death would be as agreeable to G.o.d as the sacrifice of ma.s.s. The accused was imprisoned, and a penance was imposed on him.

_Santa Maria_ (Fray Juan de), barefooted Franciscan, and confessor to the Infanta Maria-Anne of Austria, Empress of Germany, and daughter to Philip IV. In 1616 he published a work called _Christian Republics and Politics_, which he dedicated to Philip III. Having occasion to say in this work that the Pope Zachariah had deposed Childeric, King of France, and crowned Pepin in his place, he added; "_It is from this time that we date the right which the Popes have arrogated to themselves of deposing and establishing kings_." The Inquisition receiving information of it, reprimanded the author, and altered the sentence as follows: "_It is from this time that the Popes have made use of their right of deposing and establishing kings_."

_Sese_ (Don Joseph de). See following Chapter.

_Siguenza_ (Fr. Joseph de), Jeronimite of the Convent of the Escurial; he was born in the town of that name. He was one of the most learned men of the reigns of Philip II., and Philip III., and well versed in history and the oriental languages. In 1595 he published the life of St.

Jerome, and in 1600, a history of his order. He experienced much persecution, because he was one of the best preachers of his time, and the most esteemed by the king. The other monks (whose sermons were not so well received) denounced him to the Inquisition of Toledo, as suspected of Lutheranism. He remained in seclusion for nearly a year, in the monastery of _La Sisla_, belonging to his order, and he was obliged to appear before the tribunal whenever he was summoned. He justified himself, was acquitted, and died the superior of the convent of the Escurial.

_Sobanos._ See Chapter 26.

_Solorzano._ See following Chapter.

_Soto_ (Fray Dominic). See Chapter 29.

_Soto_ (Fray Pedro). _Ibid._

_Sotomayor_ (Fray Pedro), Dominican; he was one of those who, in 1558, approved the Catechism of Carranza. The Inquisition of Valladolid tried him in 1559, on the suspicion that he was tinctured with some heretical sentiments attributed to the archbishop; he was confined in the Convent of St. Paul, and afterwards severely reprimanded. He did not suffer any other punishment, because he declared (like all the others), that his confidence in the virtue and great learning of the author of the Catechism had induced him to act without any bad intention.

_Tabira_ (Don Antonio), bishop of Salamanca, knight of the order of St.

James, almoner and preacher to the king, and the author of several unpublished works: his great virtue, his literary talent and exquisite judgment, made him the ornament of the church during the reigns of Charles III. and Charles IV. The government consulted him several times on affairs of the greatest importance, and his opinions deserved the approbation of enlightened men: his sermons pa.s.sed in Spain for the best which the age had produced. In 1809, I published the reply of this prelate to a consultation addressed to him in 1799, concerning the validity of marriages contracted before the civil authority, as in France. The piety and erudition of Tabira are displayed in this writing.

It was impossible that the ex-jesuits should not employ the influence of their party to persecute a prelate who gave the preference to a decision given by the church legally a.s.sembled in a general council, to a bull expedited by its chief. Calvo, Guerrero, and other _Jesuits of the short robe_, attacked Tabira as a Jansenist; they denounced him to the holy office, but did not succeed in their attempt, since they could not impute to him any fact tending to heresy.