"In order to obtain a place to stable the horses, a space was opened in the walls; when the workmen discovered an aperture. The ardent curiosity which had always, up to that time, surrounded every thing related to the Holy Office, and the hatred against the government of the priests, suspended their labors. The rubbish was removed, they descended into a small subterranean place, damp, without light or passage out, with no floor but a black oleaginous earth resembling that of a cemetery. Here and there were scattered about pieces of garments, of ancient fashions -- the clothes of unfortunate persons, who had been thrown from above, and died of wounds, fear or hunger. A baiocco (or penny) of Pius 7th, was picked up, which probably denotes the epoch when that abode of darkness and despair was walled up. The rich soil had hardly begun to be removed, before human bones were uncovered in some places, with some very long locks of hair, which had doubtless ornamented the heads of females. The hands trembled, as well as the hearts of those who went on to uncover and collect those funeral reliques. What temples had been shaded by those tresses? What opinions had been their crime? Who had sent spies to seize these victims? Who can answer the question? Who will ever be able? Poor martyrs of ignorance and fanaticism, torn perhaps from the mother's arms, to be thrown into a cloister, and from the cloister into such a dungeon, without light or door; still young and beautiful! These locks of hair were disheveled in their agonies of death, and there they expired, disconsolate, forgotten by the world, without a kiss from a friend, without receiving a sigh or a tear, or even a handful of dust upon their corpses.Notice that the above quote regards discoveries made in a much later time than the events which transpired in Languedoc under Raymond VI -- a much more circumspect time (1851), a time in which the RC Church was hiding the evidence of the Inquisition.Many of the spectators carried away pieces of the earth and hair, as amulets against the tyranny of the Pope. It is certain that the "Trap-door" swallowed victims of whom it was important to the Holy Office to destroy all traces, because the Foro, or Judgment-hall is over it, in the second story of the first edifice, and it is exactly under the vestibule of the chamber of the "Second Father Companion," which adjoined the Hall of the Tribunal. . . .
"The walls of all the cells were covered with inscriptions, some of which expressed despairing grief, but most of them resignation, even in that abode, and under the sufferings inflicted there, so well fitted to becloud the mind, to terrify the boldest heart and to bend the most iron-will.
Under the two courts subterranean apartments abounded, communicating with each other. A few only were solitary; and to those there was only one way of access, viz. a trap-door, which denoted death! Some of them were prisons at first, and afterwards converted into store-rooms. To their ceilings were still fastened iron rings, which formerly served to give to the Question, (torture!) and afterwards to suspend provisions. In one cell on the ground floor, in the second building, a square piece of marble was observed in the floor, which looked like the cover of a hole. It was raised, and beneath was a vault, which proved to be a Vade in pace, (go in peace, that is, a place of silent death.) Not a ray of light ever could have entered, except when that funeral marble was lifted for a moment, and then it was soon again fell, over the head of the condemned person, who was left to die of hunger, in the cold and darkness, and amidst a stillness unbroken unless by his own cries or prayers.
A portion of those subterraneous apartments were closed in the present century, or near the close of the last, as was plainly discovered by a careful examination of the walls, that had shut them in, which had been artificially colored with a grayish hue, to make them look old. This artifice was accidentally discovered.
The rubbish having been removed in one place, indications of a stone staircase were observed, which was cleared, and persons went down thirty steps. At the bottom was found a small chamber, filled up with a mixture of earth and lime, and which proved to be but the first of many others like it. The prisons of Pope Pius V were now at last discovered. Along the walls were recesses, hollowed out, so formed and arranged as to bring to mind the ancient Columbari, or dovecotes. There, it appeared, from what was observed, the condemned were buried alive, being immersed in a kind of mortar up to their shoulders. In some instances it was evident, they had died slowly and of hunger. This was inferred from the position of the bodies, which people, in great numbers that most horrible abode: and marks were seen in the earth of movements made, in the convulsive agonies of the last moments, to free themselves from the tenacious mortar, while it was closing round their limbs. The bodies were placed in lines, opposite each other. The skulls were all gone; but these were afterwards found in another place.
Of these victims of religious fury we know nothing.
The rest of the edifice has nothing remarkable. The hall of the dreaded tribunal, over which presided the Dominican Commissary of the Holy Inquisition, was in the interior of the first fabric. This was very simple, adorned only with a colossal figure of Pius V at the end. Above the seat of the Father Inquisitor was a crucifix, with the image of the church beneath it, trampling upon heresy; and near by was the terrible Dominican Gusman. On the sides opened two doors. That on the right led to into the room of the first Father Companion, and that on the left to the room of the second Father Companion. These two magistrates of ancient times assisted the High Procurator of the Inquisition, in discovering offenses, and in converting the condemned offenders; to which latter office they devoted themselves in the following manner. When a trial was finished, and it was important to the Holy Office, to dispose of a condemned person without giving a public spectacle, he came in, conducted by the first Father Companion, who exhorted him to repent, to consign everything to the hands of divine compassion, which punished him on earth to glorify, and purify him in heaven; he pressed him with insidious interrogations, in order to discover more of his offenses, and to find traces of other offenders; and, finally, blessing him, if he confessed and was contrite, he pretended to send him to the second Father Companion. The guard, who awaited him on the occasion, well knowing the arrangements, conducted him towards the apartment on the other side, opened the door, and stopped short without passing it. As soon as the miserable prisoner touched the spot near the threshold, the floor gave way, and he fell through the trap-door into his tomb.
These words are still written over that door: "Chamber of the second Father Companion." 1"
Theodore Dwight, The Roman Republic of 1849: With Accounts of The Inquisition, and The Siege of Rome, and Biographical Sketches with Original Portraits [New York: R. Van Dien, 1851] pp. 102-107
Trial for Heresy, the Process of the Inquisition, the Inquisitors
Possibly the "worst body of jurisprudence invented by man,2" every thing concerning the trial, all laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, and evidence, were always constructed and interpreted "for the benefit of the faith," often discarding centuries of established jurisprudence. One-by-one, age old protections which had become part of common law or the inherited Roman law, were transformed, ignored, or discarded until the accused had virtually no protection against his accuser and no means of defense while the accuser, the church, was unrestrained in either the here or the hereafter by either man or God. Self-defense against an accusation was often interpreted against the accused, proving his obstinate attachment to his heresy, while the lack of a sufficiently vigorous seeking out of heresy was considered a lack of devotion to the one true faith.
For example, under the civil jurisprudence established before the Inquisition, a woman was not permitted to testify against her husband; children were not permitted to testify against their parents; and slaves were not permitted to testify against their masters. Under ecclesiastical law established during the Inquisition, a woman and her children could not testify in favor of her husband or their father, but they could testify against him -- in which case the evidence was considered particularly damning because of the nature of the witness(es)3 In another example, Lea writes, "Although the evidence of a heretic was not receivable in court, yet as exception was made in favor of the faith, and it was to be held good against another heretic.4"
Lex talionis, which under Roman law protected an accused from the unjust accusation of an accuser, was replaced by a system in which the accuser was not permitted to learn the identity of his accuser in order to protect the accuser. Indeed, the accused was never permitted to learn the identity of any of the witnesses against him5
Until the trial itself, the accused was not permitted to know the exact charges against him, making it impossible to prepare an adequate defense. If the accused insisted on mounting a defense, he could hire the services of any lawyer he desired, but the lawyer understood that presenting a vigorous defense of the accused could result in a charge of defending heresy against the lawyer himself.
One particular incident in the accused's life could be expanded into multiple accusations of heresy. If one witness described the incident one way and a second witness described the incident another way, the accused was accused of two separate crimes, not one. If there were five or six witnesses, then the defendant would be accused of five or six different crimes. Since the accused was not allowed to see the accusations against him before appearing in court, only the sharpest defendants were able to sort out the multiple accusations into a single incident on a moments notice.
The burden of proof was on the accused to prove his innocence - the church was always right until proven wrong. If some one protested his innocence too vigorously or maintained his innocence too long, he became an unrepentant heretic.
Torture was routinely used to extract a confession from the accused or to force the accused to implicate others in his crime.
In theory, the church, whose mission was to save souls, not to punish the guilty, had no power to inflict punishment although it could inflict salutary penance for the repentant. The judge in an ecclesiastical court, then, did not view himself as a seeker after justice. His penances were not, like those of a secular judge, for the retaliation of society against a wrong-doer or for the prevention of the spread of crime by their deterrent power. Rather, in his role of judge, he viewed the accused as someone already tried and found guilty of a crime for which he was avenging God for the wrongs inflicted on him and vindicating the faith6. In his role of father-confessor, he determined the best method for saving the accused's immortal soul and bringing him back into the bosom of mother church by assigning the appropriate penance for the absolution of his sin. In his sacred roles of God's avenger and savior of souls from perdition, his methods mattered little to him. No action was too extreme to avenge God or to save wretched souls perversely bent on perdition - only unconditional submission to his spiritual father would save the condemned from eternal torment in hell. Only the penitent who confessed his crime and abjured his heresy came before the court to determine what penances were required of him to win himself back into favor of holy mother church; all others were left to the secular arm7. As Lea writes, "The sin of heresy was too grave to be expiated simply by contrition and amendment. While the Church professed to welcome back to her bosom all her erring and repentant children, the way of the transgressor was made hard, and his offense could only be washed away by penances severe enough to prove the robustness of his convictions.8" Once the procedure of the Holy Office was systematized, rather than sentence the condemned to life-long imprisonment on bread and water, the condemned was simply told to take himself to jail and confine himself there, performing penance on bread and water, under pain of excommunication. Lea writes, "If he broke jail and escaped, the requisition for his recapture under a foreign jurisdiction describes him, with a singular lack of humor, as one insanely led to reject the salutary medicine offered for his cure, and to spurn the wine and oil which were soothing his wounds.9"
To save a man's soul from perdition became the basis for some otherwise inexplicable policies of the Inquisition. For example, the relatively prolonged pain of burning at the stake was considered to be more merciful than simply hanging or strangling a man. As the heretic slowly burned to death, he would contemplate his eternal torment. Perhaps at the last moment, too late to save his physical body, he would recant his heresy to save his eternal soul from perdition. As the priest accompanied the condemned to the stake, he urged the penitent to endure as long as possible in an attempt to save the sinner's soul.
Either to rid Christendom of the scourge of heresy, a deep affront to God for which the whole community might be made to suffer by a vengeful God, or to protect themselves from an accusation of aiding heresy, the entire orthodox population acted as informers to the Inquisition.10 No man was either high-borne or low-borne enough to escape the surveillance of the Inquisition: the most exalted king and the humblest commoner alike were spied upon by those in their midst.
The church, technically, had no authority to put a man to death. Rather, the ecclesiastical court merely found him guilty of a capital crime and withdrew its protection from the impenitent or relapsed sinner. The heretic was relaxed or turned over to the secular arm for punishment. Secular authorities knew that if they failed to impose the death penalty in a short period of time (usually within about two weeks), they themselves would be accused of being favorers of heresy for it was the duty of every secular official to lend what ever aid the Holy Office required when called upon to do so. In essence, then, the organization of the Inquisition included all offices of the State whose resources were always placed at its disposal11. So even though the ecclesiastical courts could, in theory at most, legally impose a fine, along with other penances such as long, expensive pilgrimages to far-away shrines, scourging, confiscation, loss of benefice, or outlawry, they could in fact impose the death penalty.12
Inquisitors were not accountable to any one except the Pope. Only the Pope could interfere in the duties of an Inquisitor - no priest, bishop, or even Papal Legate had the authority to intervene in the affairs of an Inquisitor. Only the Pope had the authority to remove an Inquisitor from his position, to overturn a decision by an Inquisitor, or to excommunicate an Inquisitor. By 1245 Inquisitors heard the confession of their familiars and by 1261 they could absolve one another from any sin. Both other Inquisitors and their subordinates imposed the lightest of penances for absolution from excommunication for any cause.13 Since ecclesiastical officials were exempt from civil law, the actions of Inquisitors were unrestrained by fear of retribution in either the here or the hereafter, making the Inquisitors and their familiars virtually invulnerable to both ecclesiastical and civil authorities.
The Mendicant orders from which the inquisitors were taken were formed in such a fashion that its members could be posted anywhere their services were required on a moments notice. Consequently, the Inquisitorial process became fairly uniform throughout Christendom where ever it was introduced. By hearing aural confession, the Mendicant orders created an international network of spies with informers in every household, no matter how humble or exalted. A condemned heretic had nowhere to hide; his description would be circulated throughout Europe and he would, sooner or later, be captured.14 An international bureaucracy kept meticulous records of the trials of heretics, many of which exist to this day. Inquisitors used those records to uncover information about the accused's grandparents or great-grandparents; information was freely exchanged between various localities. "The record of every heretical family for generations could be traced out from the papers of one tribunal or another.15"
About these archives, Lea writes, "The temptation to falsify the records when an enemy was to be struck down was exceedingly strong, and the opponents of the Inquisition had no hesitation in declaring that it was freely yielded to. Friar Bernard Délicieux, speaking for the whole Franciscan Order of Languedoc, in a formal document of the year 1300, not only declared that the records were unworthy of trust, but that they were generally believed to be so. We shall see hereafter facts which fully justified this assertion, and the popular mistrust was intensified by the jealous secrecy which rendered it an offense punishable with excommunication for any one to possess any papers relating to the proceedings of the Inquisition or to prosecutions against heretics.16"
As an example of the effectiveness of the trial rules for ensuring the guilt of the accused, Lea notes that "In the register of Carcassonne from 1249 to 1258, comprising about two hundred cases, there does not occur a single instance of a prisoner discharged as innocent.17"
The Trial Procedure
Llorente gives a detailed explanation of the Inquisitorial process in fifteenth- through nineteenth- century Spain. Lea indicates that the Inquisition used similar methods throughout Europe. What follows is taken from Llorente's work18.
When a priest was initially appointed to the post of Inquisitor by the Pope or his delegated authority, the priest wrote the king, who in turn issued royal proclamations to all towns ordering them to comply with any and all requests of the Inquisitor. When the Inquisitor arrived in a new town, he immediately informed the leading magistrate of his arrival and told the magistrate when his presence would be required. If the magistrate failed to present himself at the appointed hour, he was excommunicated. If the magistrate duly presented himself before the Inquisitor at the appointed time, he took an oath to support the Inquisitor in all endeavors and to enforce all laws against heretics. The inquisitor appointed a day for the people to meet in the church where he read an edict commanding the people to report all knowledge of heresy within a specified period of time, usually about 30 days. He also declared that all heretics who voluntarily came forward and confessed their sins would be absolved after being subjected to a slight penance, but those who waited to be denounced would be proceeded against with severity.
The accusations were registered as the citizenry came forward to report on the heretics in their midst. After the grace period expired, the accuser was summoned; he was informed that there were two ways of proceeding and asked for his preference (1) He could accuse the denounced individual, in which case he was subject to the lex talionis, (2) He could remain silent about his part in the trial, in which case he was free to go about his business without fear of retribution in the event that the accused was deemed innocent. Needless to say, the vast majority of accusers choose the second course.
The inquisitor interrogated the witnesses, while a recorder recorded the proceedings, and two priests observed the proceedings to ensure that the witnesses statements were faithfully taken down. If heresy or suspicion of heresy was proved, the accused was arrested and taken to an ecclesiastical prison where he was interrogated and his responses were compared with the testimony of witnesses.
If the accused confessed to any single count of the heresy charge, his crime was proved and it was in vain that he attempted to defend himself against the other counts. He was only asked if he abjured his heresy. If he abjured his heresy, he was reconciled and the appropriate penance was imposed on him. If he refused to abjure his heresy, he was declared an obstinate heretic and was relaxed to secular justice with a copy of his sentence and a plea for mercy.
If the accused denied all heresy and attempted to defend himself, he was given a copy of the indictment against him after the name of his accuser and all information which could be used to identify his accuser was removed. .
The accused was asked if he had enemies or if he knew of any particular person who desired his ruin. He was also asked if he knew their motives for hating him. The evidence of such people was admitted as evidence, but the inquisitor was to consider the accused's opinion when passing judgment. At times, the inquisition asked the accused if he knew certain persons, usually accusers and witnesses, and if the accused replied no, he could not challenge them later in the investigation. The accused was permitted to appeal to the Pope, an appeal that would prove to be very lucrative for the papacy. If the accused denied the charges, he was tortured to force him to confess his crime.
In the extremely rare instances in which the accused was acquitted, a copy of the declaration, with the name of his accuser omitted, was given to him. If, in the future, he should be charged again with the crime, his innocence would be used against him. If he was found guilty, he was required to do due penance in the town where his crime was committed and he was required to abjure all heresy for which he received absolution.
All people who were suspected of heresy of any degree (slight, violent, or vehemently were required to renounce all heresies, especially the heresy of which he was suspected. If he agreed, he was reconciled to the church, but was subject to punishments and penances. If he refused, he was excommunicated. If he remained excommunicated for a year without demanding absolution, or promising to abjure his heresy, he was considered as an obstinate heretic, and proceeded against as such. If the accused was a formal heretic willing to abjure, and not guilty of having relapsed, he was reconciled with penances. If the accused was a relapsed heretic, he was shown no mercy and relaxed to the secular arm for due punishment. A relapsed heretic was someone who had already been either condemned or violently suspected of the same errors.
If the person was only slightly suspected of heresy, the abjuration took place in a location convenient for the inquisitor, usually in a church, but sometimes in the episcopal palace, Dominican monastery, or Inquisitor's house. On the Sunday before the ceremony, an announcement was made in all the churches of the town detailing when and where the ceremony would be held, and all inhabitants were exhorted to attend. On the day of the ceremony, the clergy and the people assembled around a scaffold, the now-condemned suspect stood bare-headed, so that every one in the crowd could see him better. After mass was performed, the inquisitor preached against the particular heresy of which the now-condemned suspect was guilty of committing, declared that the person on the scaffold was slightly suspected of having fallen into that heresy, and finished by saying that the culprit was ready to renounce his heresy. The offender, who read his abjuration, was given a cross and the Bible. If he could write, he also signed his abjuration. The inquisitor gave him absolution and imposed penances upon him.
If the person was violently suspected of heresy, the auto-da-fé took place on a Sunday or festival-day; all the other churches were closed to increase turn-out at the ceremony of the local townsfolk. The offender was warned to be a good Catholic in the future and to conduct himself in such a manner as not to be accused a second time, for if he was accused a second time, he would be treated as a relapsed heretic and would suffer capital punishment, even if he once again abjured and was reconciled to the church.
If the offender was suspected in the highest degree, he was treated as an heretic and wore the habit of a penitent, a scapulary with two yellow crosses on it, during the ceremony.
During the early phase of the Inquisition, the suspect could clear himself through the use of compurgators. In traditional secular law, compurgators, usually close family of the accused, swore an oath to the validity of the claims of the accused19. Possibly derived from the legal system in which close family members fought for one another on the field of battle, the compurgators now fought for one another in a court of law, in which some number of his neighbors took an oath that the accused was not a heretic. If the accused choose to clear himself through the use of compurgators, at the appointed ceremony, the accused swore that he was not an heretic and produced twelve witnesses who had known him for at least ten years and who swore that they believed his affirmation to be true. The accused then abjured all heresies. During the later phases of the Inquisition, the use of compurgators fell out of use for if the now-condemned man was once again accused he and all of his compurgators were treated as relapsed heretics. The compurgators were condemned for swearing falsely. Since most men understood that few persons escaped from the grasp of the inquisition, they feared being treated as heretics if they stood up for a member of their family or one of their neighbors and few men dared to swear for another.
If the accused was a repentant relapsed heretic, he was speedily relaxed to the secular arm for justice with an admonition to the secular authorities to treat him with mercy and humanity. If the accused was an impenitent relapsed heretic, like the repentant relapsed heretic, he was condemned, but the auto-da-fé was not celebrated until every means, including torture, was used to try to convert him. If he was obstinate, he was delivered up to the justice of the king, and burnt.
Relapsed heretics sought in vain to return to the true faith; they could not avoid death, but as an act of mercy, the repentant heretic was first strangled before being burned. Those who escaped from the prisons, or fled to avoid being arrested, were burnt in effigy.
Later in his work20, Llorente give additional details of the procedure.
After arrest, those accused of suspicion of heresy or heresy were sent to a secret prison and were allowed to communicate only with trial officials. Those prisons were not the damp, dirty, unhealthy cells they are reputed to be; rather, they had high, vaulted chambers and are well-lighted, dry, and large enough for a person to walk around in. What made the prisons notorious is that any person who entered them became infamous in public opinion and was condemned to solitude and, in the winter months, to fifteen hours a day of darkness.
Shortly after his imprisonment, the accused was three times urged to speak without concealing anything which either he or others had done or said which is contrary to the faith; and was told that if he cooperates, he would be treated leniently, but if he does not cooperate, he would be treated with severity. He was told that only people who have been proven to have spoken against the Catholic faith were taken to the prisons. At this point, some prisoners confessed their guilt; others acknowledged more, others less, of their guilt; but, generally, the accused declared themselves innocent, but promised to endeavor to recollect the events which could have lead to the accusations.
Both the prosecutor and the accused were aided by a confession: for the prosecutor, the trial was shortened; for the accused, his punishments were less severe. However, a confessed heretic could not avoid the disgrace of the auto-da-fé or preserve either his honor or his property.
The Inquisition examined the genealogy of the prisoner and searched its records to determine if any of the accused's ancestors were heretics. Presuming that one who knew the Pater Noster, the Creed and other forms of Christian doctrine had a stronger faith than one who had forgotten them or who made mistakes in their repetition, the accused was required to recite the Pater Noster and the Creed.
After these first three audiences, the procurator-fiscal wrote his accusation against the prisoner. Each description of each witness formed a separate charge, even if all of the witnesses described the same event using different words. In this way, the accused was made to appear to have advanced heretical opinions on many occasions when only one incident was in reality under consideration. Unless the prisoner was very sharp-witted, he could easily become confused. If he used different words to respond to the various articles with which he was charged, when they were describing the same incident, he could at times contradict himself, which lead to a fresh accusation against him for not being truthful in his replies.
Even if the prisoner confessed to all the charges against him, the fiscal usually determined that he was concealing something and ordered the prisoner to be tortured. Although ecclesiastical law allowed a prisoner to be tortured only one time, it was the practice of the inquisition to continue the torture at a later time, essentially enabling the inquisition to torture the accused whenever it desired. Although by Llorente's time, the use of torture had been suspended, the prisoners were nonetheless told that they would be tortured, giving them much mental anguish. Llorente does not describe any of the methods of torture that were used, for, like Lea, he knew that the subject had been adequately covered elsewhere, but he does note that none of the descriptions are exaggerations. When torture was used, the accused was tortured until he agreed to whatever the inquisition wanted him to agree to. The law did not allow confessions to be used that were given under torture. Consequently, later, after the torture was completed, the accused was asked to affirm the statements he made under torture. If he retracted his confession, he was tortured once again.
The prisoner was never given a written copy of the accusations against him. The first time the prisoner was appraised of the charges against him, he was taken to the audience-chamber where, in the presence of the inquisitors and the fiscal, a secretary read the charges. Between each article the prisoner was called upon to answer the charge against him. Obviously, the prisoner was given no opportunity to prepare a defense against himself.
The prisoners was asked if he wished to make a defense. If he responded positively, a copy of the accusation and his replies was made. He selected an attorney from the list provided by the holy office. Prisoners were not permitted to engage a lawyer who is not on the approved list. (Which is different from what Lea found in other parts of Europe at different times.) That was of little consequence, since the lawyer was not allowed to see the original indictment against the accused, to communicate with his client, to learn the identity of his client's accusers, or to be informed of any statements made by any of the witnesses which might clear his client, although he was permitted to see a heavily censored copy of the proceedings in the audience chamber. The inquisitors commanded him to defend his client if he thinks it is just, but if he thinks justice is in the contrary case, he was to use his power to persuade his client to confess, to be reconciled to the church, and to do penance for his sins.
At this point in the trial, proof does not exist that the accused committed the alleged crime. Without the knowledge of the prisoner and without the assistance of counsel, the original statements of the witnesses were separated from the rest of the trial proceedings to receive ratification. The witnesses were asked to verify their statements. If the witness, for example, gave his original testimony in Madrid then went to the Philippines, the Inquisition would send to the Philippines for a response, necessitating quite a delay in the trial proceedings. The prisoner was never informed of the reason for the delay in his trial.
When the proof (such as it was) of the heresy was established, while in the presence of the inquisitors, the secretary again read to the prisoner each article in the accusation against him. If his answers contradicted the answers made at his first appearance before the inquisitors, he was now considered guilty of duplicity, concealment, or a false confession, permitting the tribunal to refuse to grant his request for reconciliation and to enable them to relax him to the secular authorities.
Finally, the qualifiers were summoned and were given a copy of the original accusation against the accused with the extract of the accused's replies at his last examination along with the declarations of the witnesses. They, usually hastily, examined the documents before declaring the prisoner guilty or innocent. With this action, the trial was considered finished; only the sentencing of the guilty prisoners remained. In the rare instance in which the prisoner was acquitted, he was not informed of the names of his denouncers or the witnesses against him. Furthermore, no public statement was made regarding the outcome of his case, which did nothing to restore his now tarnished reputation. He usually returned quietly home with his certificate of absolution.
Not until shortly before his auto-da-fé did the accused find out the nature of his punishment - whether he would be reconciled to the church or relaxed to the secular arm. On the day of the ceremony, the inquisitor's assistants came to his cell and dressed him in his san-benito. With the inquisitor's assistants, the prisoner left his cell dressed in the sans-benito, with a paper miter on his head, a cord wrapped around his neck and a wax taper in his hand. Arriving at the place of execution, the prisoner's sentence was read, and he was either reconciled or relaxed to the secular arm, which means that he was turned over to secular officials to be burned according to secular law
The san-benito was a type of scapulary, which only descended to the knees, so that it would not be confused with those worn by some monks. To further eliminate confusion with monkish garb, the sans-benito were generally made of common wool dyed yellow with red crosses. Eventually, each class of penitent had his own type of san-benito. The repentant who was slightly suspected of heresy wore a yellow scapulary without the cross; the violently suspected wore half the cross; the formal heretic wore an entire cross. Three different sans-benito were worn by those condemned to death. Those who repented before they were sentenced wore a simple yellow scapulary with a red cross, those who repented after they were condemned to be burned, but before being conducted to the auto-da-fé, wore the same san-benito as in the previous case, but with a bust in the midst of a fire with the flames of the fire pointing downward painted on the lower part of the garment. The downward pointing flames indicated that the victim should be strangled before being burned. The impenitent wore a san-benito similar to the previous case except the flames pointed in their normal direction; he would be burned alive.
End Notes
References
Theodore Dwight, The Roman Republic of 1849: With Accounts of The Inquisition, and The Siege of Rome, and Biographical Sketches with Original Portraits [New York: R. Van Dien, 1851]
Henry Charles Lea, History of Inquisition of Middle Ages vol 1, (1888) [New York: Harbor Press 1955]
Henry Charles Lea, Superstition and Force: Torture, Ordeal, and Trial by Combat in Medieval Law (1870) [New York: Barnes and Noble, 1996]
Juan Antonio Llorente, A Critical History of the Inquisition of Spain (John Lilburne 1823 abridged English edition) [Williamstown, Mass: John Lilburne Company, 1967]