Chapter Three
Gathering the Evidence

Testimony of Alonso Sanchez (181r-v)

Alcala, February 12, 1532 (1)

     He said that at the time of the discussion among the doctors of theology of this city of Alcala, for the purpose of clarifying and examining a book of Christian doctrine written by a student named (Juan de) Valdes, who they say is a native of Cuenca, which book was printed (in 1529) with the title "Libro de doctrina cristiana hecho por un religioso," this witness saw how Doctor Hernan Vazquez, brother of Friar Dionisio (Vazquez), was present, and taking part in the said examination, the said Hernan Vazquez, in the presence of all the theologians who were there, said that he had had and read the said book in Toledo many days before it was printed, and although he had had some things taken out of it because they did not seem proper to him, this witness recognized that Hernan Vazquez was distressed because the book was being impugned, and he (Vazquez) tried and worked to defend and gloss over and excuse the book as much as he could.

1. This statement was ratified in Alcala on December 15, 1533. A marginal note to the ratification, and in the same hand, reads, "Taken from the trial of Mateo Pascual, folio 86." Very likely the original testimony reproduced above was taken from the trial of Juan de Valdes, as is the case with the testimony of Juan de Medina, which follows this.



     Asked who were the doctors and letrados who saw and examined the said book of Christian doctrine, he said that for many days they gathered together to examine the said book in Alcala in the college (of San Ildefonso) in the chambers of maestro (Mateo) Pascual, who was rector at that time, and that sometimes there came (to these meetings) Pedro de Lerma, abbot of Santiuste and Doctor (Juan de) Medina and this witness (Alonso Sanchez) and Hernan Vazquez and Doctor (Hernando de) Balvas and Doctor Francisco de la Fuente and Doctor Diego de la Puente and Doctor (Cristobal) de Loaysa sometimes, and Doctor Bernardino Alonso, and Doctor (Francisco de) Vargas. Sometimes they all came and other times just some of them came. In regard to the examination made there by the said doctors, a certain statement was drawn up in Spanish and sent, signed by some of the doctors - although this witness does not recall having signed it himself - and sent to the archbishop (Alonso Manrique) of Seville, this witness believes about three years ago, although this witness does not know in whose hands that statement in Spanish remains (today).
     Asked If he knows whether the said doctors or any of them were importuned or begged, by channels of negotiation, not to impugn any propositions in the said book of Christian doctrine, but rather to defend and uphold it '" he replied that at the time they were examining the book '" Doctor Vergara' sent a message to this witness asking him to come to his (Vergara'sj house here in AlcaM because he (Vergara) was on the road, and Doctor Vergara asked this witness that in the examination of this book of Christian doctrine he (this witness) show moderation, because the Valdes who wrote this book was a friend of his (Vergara's). This witness replied that moderation would be observed. Doctor (Juan de) Medina also told this witness that Doctor Vergara and other persons had spoken to him on this matter.


Testimony of Juan de Medina

Alcala, February 14, 1532 (2)

I     n reply to the fourth section of the said memorial read to him, which speaks about whether at the time the said book (of Christian doctrine) was being examined by the faculty of theology (of Alcala), if any negotiations were being pushed on the part of (the author, Juan de) Valdes or Tovar or other persons, urging that the said propositions not be censured, but rather that some of them be removed and others be corrected in order that the book might remain Catholic and be printed, he said ... that at the time the said faculty of theologians submitted this book of Christian doctrine to this witness for his review or examination, this witness discussed some propositions with Valdes to find out what he meant by them. The said Valdes urgently begged this witness to take no note of such propositions nor bring them to light, Valdes swearing he had never meant them in such a sense. This happened at the time the said faculty was examining the said book and was to send its opinion to the Council of the Inquisition.
     Later, before the opinion was sent to the council, Doctor (Sancho Carranza de) Miranda, canon of Seville - may he be with God came to this city and to the faculty of theologians and told the said theologians how (he had come) on behalf of (Alonso Manrique) the archbishop of Seville and Inquisitor General, to persuade them that in the opinion they were to send (to the Council), they not censure the said propositions in the said book of Christian doctrine but rather that they handle the matter in such a way that the said book may stand corrected and be reprinted in satisfactory form. It was for this reason that the said theologians gave an opinion as soft as the one they gave in the report they sent to the Council of the Inquisition.

2. A marginal note to this testimony reads, "Taken from the trial of Juan de Valdes." A marginal note to the ratification on December 14, 1533, reads, "Taken from the trial of Mateo Pascual."



     Also, at the same time, Doctor Vergara ... spoke to this witness about the said book of Christian doctrine. This witness does not recall clearly the exact words Vergara spoke, except that he clearly remembers that Vergara told him this witness should take it as an order or give an order that the said book of Christian doctrine be reprinted, correcting what could be corrected in it. And Doctor Vergara expressly told this witness he was not suggesting that any errors in the book or any heresies be covered up but rather that they be declared. Doctor Vergara said all this in his house ... and this witness got the impression that Vergara was a friend of Valdes and would be distressed by any injury Valdes might receive.

Toledo, March 11, 1532

     He was asked if his brother (Juan del Castillo) has written him any letters from where he is now. He replied that (Castillo) wrote him from Paris five or six times and that in Madrid Doctor Vergara gave him two letters of his brother (Castillo j .., and a peddler (who presumably came to Spain from Paris) gave him another one, and he believes that Miguel de Eguia or his servants gave him two or three others.
     Asked if Doctor Vergara and Miguel de Eguia were in the habit of writing to his brother (Castillo j, he said he does not know, although he suspects that Doctor Vergara wrote to Castillo after the latter left Paris, but he does not know for certain.

Testimony of Diego Hernandez

Testimonies of Gaspar de Lucena

Toledo, March 9, 1532

     There appeared before the most reverend senor licentiate Alonso Mejia, in the audience chamber of the Holy Of/ice, a man who was being held prisoner ... whose name is Gaspar de Lucena, citizen of the city of Alcala. Asked if he knows where (his brother) maestro (Juan del) Castillo is now, he replied he has heard that Castillo is in Rome with (Francisco de Quinones), the cardinal of Santa Cruz.

     He was asked if some person told him that the said maestro Castillo had gone from Paris to Rome for fear he would be seized (in Paris) and because he had seen what steps were being taken to seize him, having learned that an informacion in Latin had been drawn up (by the Inquisition) and sent to Paris so that he might be seized. He said that Doctor Vergara asked this witness about his brother (Juan del Castillo) and he replied (to Vergara) that he believed Castillo was in Rome because that was what he had heard. Doctor Vergara told him, "Well, they told me that an informacion in Latin had been prepared against him to be sent to Paris," and that was all (Vergara) told him. Asked if he told him who had prepared the said informacion, he replied that it seems to him Vergara said it had been prepared by the Inquisition.

Toledo, May 27, 1532

I      conclude that Tovar is a "grandfather" to Garzon, and this is how I arrive at such a very Christian conclusion. When I was a colegial in the theological college of la madre de Dios (at Alcala), I saw Tovar, on a multitude of occasions, come to visit Garzon in the chambers of the Portuguese maestro (Manuel de) Miona. Every day (Garzon) acts as a server at mass (for Miona) and he used to go around with him all the time. This maestro Miona had no acquaintances except Tovar and the two of them used to converse frequently. When I used to confess to Tovar, or visit him, he praised maestro Miona as a good man and maestro Miona used to say the same things about Tovar, when I confessed with him (Miona), and these two even gave (me) the same kind of penance. I imagine Tovar taught Miona and Miona taught Garzon. A nd (Miguel de j Torres, the one who went to Paris, used to go around with maestro Miona and with Tovar, and more with Tovar than with maestro Miona, since Torres was already a Greek specialist and a great Latinist.

     One day Garzon came to see maestro Miona. I was sitting on a bench in the college (of la madre de Dios at Alcala) and I heard


     Garzon praise maestro Miana to the colegiales, calling Miona a good man. Sometimes Miona got drunk on wine and became very giddy and Garzon tried to cover up for him from the colegiales who were making fun of Miona. This Miona had no money, so one Sebastian BIas, chaplain in the college, when he was given the curacy of Villavilla, took maestro Miona with him and gave him room and board, Miona helping him with confession.... The colegiales wanted Sebastian BIas to return to the colegio mayor to take an office for which they needed him, and because they liked maestro Miona so much they gave him the (now vacant) benefice of the curacy of Villavilla.

     Miona left this latter post a year ago and went to Paris with another pretty student from Alcala. I believe he did so because of what happened to Tovar and because of the burning (at the stake) of ( Alonso 1 Garzon, or because of his imprisonment. I believe it was Doctor Vergara who urged Miona to go (to Paris) and that Vergara helped him to leave, giving him the wherewithal to do so, since Miona had nothing. The story of Miana's departure was told to me by Beatriz Ramirez in Alcala. (3) Miona knows the name of the student he took with him, and by chance it may be that this student told Beatriz Ramirez of Miona's departure.... Sebastian BIas... may know (also) about maestro Miona's departure, and the reason for it, and what prompted Miona to give up the peace and security he had just acquired (with the curacy of Villavilla). This Sebastian BIas was so full of scruples that they almost tortured him to death. When praying a psalm he would kick up the bricks in the floor in his pain and anguish, and all the doctors of Alcala were not enough to cure him. But maestro Miona cured him and quieted him down by saying to him, "Know then how this virtue was given you, which is the road to truth. " I heard the bachiller Francisco (Osorio) Gutierrez praise maestro Miona, but the fact of the matter is that Miona and Francisco Gutierrez are nothing but satellites and disciples of Tovar, although

3. This "pretty student" is one Gascon, or Manuel Dlaz, "for he had two names," says Diego Hernandez.


     Gutierrez is an ignoramus and a fool. I saw him make fun of confession and on two occasions when Gutierrez dropped the sacrament, he showed very little remorse over it.

T     he student who went to Paris with Miona is called Gascon (4) or Manuel Diaz, for he has two names.

     The followers of Bernardino de Tovar, whose names I know from what was told me by maestro (Juan del) Castillo, all of whom are danados or dolientes or enfermos or confesados or conversantes are the following:(5)

Juan de Valdes, danado
The archpriest of Santa Maria, danado
Mosen MATEO Pascal, danado
Maestro MANUEL DE Miona, danado
MIGUEL DE Torres, the rhetorician, danado
Juan de Tapia, danado
Alonso de Frias, doliente
Francisco OSORNO Gutierrez, enfermo
The bachiller Olmedilla, enfermo
MARTIN LASO DE Oropesa, danado or enfermo
Juan Lopez DE CALAIN, danado
Doctor Vergara, danado
Isabel DE Vergara, enferma
Francisco de Vergara, indiferente
Miguel de Eguia, enfermo
Diego del Castillo, conversante
ALONSO Garzon, grandson (of Tovar through Miona) or derivado danado Bachiller
Francisco Torres, conversante antiguo
Friar Dionisio VAZQUEZ, tratante

4. Marcel Bataillon, Erasmo y Espana, Mexico, 1950, vol. ii, p. 58, n. 1, reads it as "Gasion," which is also possible.
5. Instead of brackets, I am using capital letters to complete the names on Diego's list. To give English equivalents of the bizarre language ("danado, enfermo" and the like) of Diego Hernandez would be like translating Gongora - beyond my capabilities.


Alfonso de Valdes, secretary (to Charles V), danado
GASPAR DE Lucena, tratante of Tovar
GASPAR DE Villafana, danado
Doctor Hernan Vazquez, confesado
Doctor DIEGO DE Albornoz, confesado
Beatriz Ramirez
Luisa Velazquez
Arenas and his wife LUISA
and FRANCISCO DE(?) Mora, servant of the above mentioned Tovar, enfermo. Bachiller Geronimo de Ayllon, chaplain of the colegio mayor (of Alcahi), told me that when he was vice rector in the College 0/ Santo Eugenio, he heard Mora say to Doctor (Alonso) Sanchez that the credo was not written by the apostles (6) and he said some other things, I don't know what.
     (This witness also stated that .Juan del Castillo told him that) Doc/or Vergara does not hear mass nor pray and that If the archbishop (of Toledo, Alonso Fonseca) listened to Vergara, he would not spend one maravedi in chapel, and that Vergara maintains there is no God, and he does nothing but play and eat ... and that Vergara is a fino luterano.

6. A marginal notation reads, "Alonso Garzon, condemned (to the stake? J, confessed to making this same remark about the Credo."


Examination of Francisca Hernandez by the Council of the Inquisition
April-July, 1532
(70v- 75v; 26r-27r)

B     y order of the Council of the General Inquisition, Francisca Hernandez and her maid Maria Ramirez were transferred in February 1532 from Toledo to the Inquisition jail at Valladolid, in order that the Council might cross-examine them both in regard to their extensive testimonies given in 1530. On April 18, Francisca was brought from Valladolid to Medina del Campo, where the Council began its cross-examination. (7)

Medina del Campo, April 20, 1532

     Asked against what persons she spoke and testified (in Toledo), she replied that she told what she knew against Bernardino de Tovar and his brother Doctor Vergara, against Miguel de Eguia and against Maria de Cazalla, sister of Bishop (Juan de) Cazalla, and her (Maria's) husband, whose name is (Lope de) Rueda, and against Bishop Cazalla and against Pedro de Cazalla and against Diego del Castillo, citizen of Burgos, and against the clerics Diego Lopez (Husillo) and Juan Lopez (de Calain). She also remembers that she

7. During their cross-examinations of Francisca Hernandez and Maria Ramirez, the members of the Council sought further opinions on the orthodoxy of the propositions testified against Vergara by the two ladies in question. On May 11, 1532, two Dominican friars from the Monastery of San Andres in Medina del Campo, submitted their written report to the Council, in which they expressed their opinions that Vergara had committed many heresies (35r-39r). Two days later the Council received a report by six theologians from the University of Valladolid, in which the same view was upheld, namely, that virtually all the propositions attributed to Vergara contained heresy of some sort (29r-32r). The Valladolid opinion was also dated May 11, 1532, and not May 6, as Bataillon indicates in Erasmo y Espana (note 4 above), vol. ii, p. 22, n. 29).


spoke against (Isabel de Vergara), the sister of Bernardino de Tovar. She also spoke against the canon Francisco and the canon Pero Gutierrez, canons of Palencia. Likewise she told of certain things she had heard against a Flemish girl (Ana del Valle) who was in Burgos and who they say is married, although she does not know to whom.

She also spoke against one Catalina Alonso of Salamanca and against one Alonso Hernandez, ( also) from Salamanca. She likewise spoke against a little cleric (8) named (Gaspar de) Villafana and against other persons whom she does not recall at the moment.

Medina del Campo, April 23, 1532

S     he said ... she rebuked Tovar ... because what Tovar said and did seemed wrong to her, and not to make him think he should correct himself on this point (of doctrine). Nor did this witness think she was qualified to rebuke him because Tovar had such a high opinion of himself that ... he would not give up his opinion.

     In the seventh part of the same deposition ... where she says that Doctor Vergara said that except for his (Luther's) rejection of confession, which (rejection) seemed wrong to him (Vergara), that these words "which seemed wrong to him" should be stricken from the record, because Doctor Vergara did not say them. (In regard to her statement) that Tovar had a book entitled "El Ramo," she said she does not remember if that was the title or If it was called something else, but she thinks it was something like that. And in regard to her statement that it seems to her she heard that Tovar and his brother Doctor Vergara had certain works of Luther's, the statement should not read "it seems to her she heard, " but "she remembers that she heard. " In the same section, where she says that Miguel de Eguia expressed doubt there was a Hell, she said he said this between his teeth and did not pronounce the word (Hell) as clearly as he did Purgatory. Asked how she knew then that Miguel de Eguia was expressing doubt about

8. "Clerigo chiquito." Could it mean a "clerigo de menores," a cleric in minor orders? Apparently not; elsewhere she describes him as "pequeno."


the existence of Hell, and what words he said on this point, she replied that he said to her, "You believe what you like, you won't change my mind about this," and added under his breath "or about Hell either. " Asked about her testimony that she believes Tovar's opinion stuck to Miguel de Eguia, she was asked which opinion she meant - that about Hell or Purgatory? She replied that she meant the opinion about Purgatory, for she never heard Tovar express this opinion about Hell.

     (Asked about that) same section where she says she knew and understood from them that they wanted to go and form that apostolate they were speaking of in order to go and join Luther there (in Germany), she replied that she did not hear them say this, but she presumed that this was the case because of the efforts they were making to gather people as she has stated. In her statement ... about bad thoughts, she was asked if Tovar said that one did not need to confess bad thoughts which were mortal sins, or bad thoughts which were venial sins. She replied that Tovar spoke about bad sins in general but he did not specify mortal or venial ones.

     (Asked about) the same section where she says that the reason Tovar gave was that the end is greater than the means, and that the sacrament was the means and the spirit the end, she replied that she did not hear Tovar say that the sacrament was the means, (but) only that (God) came more fully into the spirit of the just than He did into the Host.

     She was asked ... how she knew that Tovar was sending those people with messages to her in order to attract her to their (erroneous) opinions. She replied that she ... recognized that some of those whom Tovar sent to her were not Christians and Tovar, in his letters, praised them as though they were Saint Jerome. He also said that they held and had received favor ("buen marco") from God ... and those who gave up the errors they brought with them from Tovar re/used to go back to him, while those to whom this witness refused to talk, did go back to Tovar.


     The members of the Council were curious to know why it was that Francisca Hernandez was now denouncing so many people, especially since she had presumably known of their heresies for such a long time before.

     She said that one day in the audience chamber, when Inquisitor Mejia was reading to her certain things dealing with her case, she said that greater service to God would be done if they would examine the lives of Tovar and Diego Lopez (Husillo) and the others, rather than hers. The said inquisitor told her if she knew anything to speak up.

     She replied that she would not say anything and would not be a party to such, that there were others who could do so and could investigate these things, since that was their job and they were obligated to do so. Then they admonished her and censured her and made her take an oath to tell all she knew, and told her that if she did not, she would go to Hell. And so in that audience and in others she told of some things that she knew.

Medina del Campo, July 11, 1532

S     he was asked in what way she heard the remark about Purgatory - whether it was that there was no determined place for Purgatory or that there was no Purgatory at all. She replied that the exact words she heard are the words to which she has already testified and that she knows no more than this and that everything she has said on this point is true. Then there were read to her the statements she had made (on this point) against Tovar. She replied that what she had just said above she said thinking they were asking her about Miguel de Eguia and not about Tovar. Now that she knows they are asking her about Tovar she says she does not know anything more than she has already stated, except that Tovar's mocking works about bulls disturbed this witness with the thought that Tovar did not believe there was a Purgatory. However, she did not actually hear Tovar say, "I doubt that there is a Purgatory," and this witness did not understand, from what Tovar said, whether he meant to say that there was no determined place for Purgatory (or that there was no Purgatory at all) .


S     he was asked ... which of her two statements is true: the one she gave before Inquisitor Mejia, in which she said that she was to instruct (Gaspar de) Villafana, or the one she gave before licentiate (Hernando) Nino, that Villafana was to teach this witness. She replied that the correct statement is the one she gave before licentiate Nino, (namely) that Villafana was to teach this witness, and that (in fact) that is what she said before Inquisitor Mejia. However, since so many words were spoken on that occasion, some were recorded and others were not, and when this witness heard her testimony before Inquisitor Mejia (read back to her) in this incorrect form, she explained that it was Villafana who was supposed to teach her, and not vice versa, and that this was what Tovar had written her in his letter. Inquisitor Mejia replied by assuring her that it was six of one and a half dozen of the other, but that the record would be corrected. This witness ... begged him to do so and asked the notary many times to note down her ( exact) words. (Finally) Inquisitor Vaguer said to her, "Keep quiet, I will have it noted down as you want it to read. "

     Asked it her testimony (on this point) had been read to her again, she replied that it had not, except that in the second audience when she was telling about Tovar, she asked them to read her previous testimony... and it was then read to her by the secular notary in the presence of Inquisitor Vaguer ... and that (this time) it ... was a correct recording of her testimony.

     Asked it at the time she ratified her testimony before the Inquisitors (of Toledo), if they read her testimony to her, and in whose presence, she replied that they read to her everything she had said before Inquisitor Vaguer (this time) in the presence of Inquisitor Vaguer and two friars of the Dominican order ... and what she had said before Inquisitor Mejia they read to her in the presence of Inquisitor Mejia and two Dominican friars.... Some of the things read to her were recorded in a way different from the way she had said them, and she said to the notary, "I did not say it that way" and the notary, who was (Pedro de) Hermosilla, became angry and taking his eyeglasses in his hand he said, "Well, I have written down nothing except what you have told me."


S     he was asked, since she says that those whom Tovar sent to her and who gave up the errors they brought with them refused to return to Tovar, to state who those persons are who gave up the errors they brought with them (from Tovar), and which persons did not give up their errors, but returned (instead) to Tovar. She replied that those who did not give up their errors ... are Diego Lopez (HusilIo), cleric, and (Gaspar de) Villafana, cleric, and maestro (Juan del) Castillo, native of Alcala, but that this Castillo did not hold such notorious errors as the others. (9) Others who returned to Tovar were Pero Nunez, a little cleric from Toledo, and a cleric from Pastrana whose name this witness does not recall (10) '" and a cleric from Toledo named (Luis de) Beleta.... Those who gave up their errors and did not re turn to Tovar were a cleric named (Fernando de) Santo Domingo, native of Toledo and a student named Francisco de Leon, son of a silversmith of Toledo.

     Asked what errors were held by those who returned to Tovar and how she knows that they returned to Tovar still holding those errors, she replied that Diego Lopez was a heretic and ... returned to Tovar because from Alcala Tovar and Diego Lopez wrote many letters to maestro (Juan dell Castillo, who was in Valladolid, and to (Diego del) Castillo, the one from Burgos, and to other persons. This witness saw those letters and recognized Tovar's handwriting and signature, although all the letters were not signed. And in some of the letters which Diego Lopez wrote, he said, "Tovar and I wrote this; give him the credit."

     She said she knew Villafana returned to Tovar because dona Mencia and dona Juana de Baeza, sister(s) of Antonio de Baeza, at the lime Villafana was planning to leave (Valladolid), sent word to this witness asking her i( she wished to send a letter to Tovar through Villafana. A (terwards, Villafana and Diego Lopez wrote (rom Alcala to dona Mencia. Diego Lopez, in his letter, told them they should take care to serve God with a free spirit and to subject themselves to (the authority of) nobody, and that they should note how (un)char-

9. This same Castillo was burned at the stake. 10. Geronimo de Olivares. See next note.


itably this witness had received Diego Lopez' blessed brother Villafana. Also, Tovar wrote to (Alonso Perez de) Bivero, brother o( (Leonor de Bivero J, the wife o( Pedro de Cazalla, and to Francisco Diaz (de Olmedilla), who is dead, son o( Doctor Olmedilla. In his letters Tovar asked them what they thought about the (lack of J charity of this witness, who had rejected Villafana, that servant of God who was such a saintly and simple man, and that she must not have had license (to do this) from her father (confessor? ) (Antonio de) Medrano. He said this in a mocking way and giving one to understand that this witness was far from the good road and the brotherhood which they had.

     Asked how she knows that the letters written to ( Alonso Perez de) Elvera and Francisco Diaz were from Tovar, and that the letter to dona Mencia was from Diego Lopez, she replied that she knows this because Bivero and Francisco Diaz and dona Mencia gave her the letters in question and ... she tore them up. Asked what errors were held by maestro (Juan del) Castillo, she said he was on very good terms with Tovar and she never saw him pray, but only read in the Bible. Also he would often say "Ay mi Dios" ... by which this witness understood Castillo to mean that nothing was necessary except that pasmo which prevailed among the persons about whom she has deposed, and that other works were not necessary. Castillo went to Medina de Rioseco to be one o( the (group of) apostles which Juan Lopez (de Calain), Diego Lopez and Miguel de Eguia were hoping to form, but because they did not want to accept him, Castillo returned to Tovar at Alcala. From there Castillo wrote to dona Juana de Baeza and sent this witness some handkerchiefs and greetings from Tovar.... This witness considered Castillo to be more simple than pertinacious and it seems to this witness that Castillo was well disposed to go along with Tovar and the other persons about whom she has deposed.

     She said that Castillo told her how he had gone to Medina de Rioseco to be one o( the twelve (apostles) which Juan Lopez and Diego Lopez were to form but that it had not been to his liking. He told this to her when he returned (to Valladolid) (rom Medina de Rioseco. A few days after this he went back to Alcala.


     Asked if she has recalled (the name of) the cleric from Pastrana who she says held (heretical) errors, she replied that she does not recall his name (11) but it can easily be ascertained because he came to (visit) this witness along with (Fernando de) Santo Domingo, cleric, and the errors which she knows were held by this cleric from Pastrana were that he was very much addicted to what they called recogimiento, which consisted of leaving oneself entirely to God, because this cleric used to say that (one should put himself in the proper state) ... so that God might work in him whatever He might wish ... and he said he would give everything he had to reach (a state of) such complete dejamiento as Tovar had. She knows nothing else about this cleric (except that) he returned to Tovar at Alcala, because he wrote this witness from there.

     She was asked what errors were held by those whom she says did not return to Tovar and who gave up those errors. She replied that Santo Domingo was on very good terms with Tovar and called him his senor because he thought so well of Tovar's teachings.... Afterward he said he did not like Tovar any longer and never wanted to see or talk with him again, so he stayed in Valladolid until he was ordained and sang mass. From Valladolid he went to Toledo without going back to Tovar again.
     She said that Santo Domingo did not state any of the particular errors held by Tovar, except that he said he was very attached to Tovar and his teachings. This witness told him to separate from Tovar, without telling him of any of Tovar's errors in particular.

     After Santo Domingo went to Toledo he often wrote to this witness, telling her, "These blessed ones, Tovar and Diego Lopez, go around here, and ( avoid talking to them" ... and in the half year that Santo Domingo spent in Valladolid in communication with this witness, when this witness talked to him about the Evangel, Santo Domingo used to say, "( want to follow this doctrine and not the doctrine which Tovar and all his clan taught me."

11. A marginal notation reads, "This must be bachiller Olivares." And without doubt it is, because Francisca identified him by name in her testimony of September 24, 1530. In her present testimony she describes Olivares as a "clerigo chiquito" (75r).


     Asked what errors were held by Francisco de Leon, she replied that he was closely connected with the Illuminists and especially with Tovar, and he used to talk with (Pedro Ruiz de) Alcaraz and others, but she does not recall hearing him utter any particular errors at all....

     One day when Leon told this witness he had written a letter to Tovar, she told him he need not come to see her any more, since he had written to Tovar. Leon went that same night in search of the messenger to whom he had given the letter for Tovar, and he brought it back to this witness, who tore it up without opening it.... Leon never again had any contact with Tovar, and he also told this witness he would never again write to anyone at Pastrana. She also said that Leon told her how he refused to talk with Tovar and Diego Lopez... and how sometimes in Toledo he ran into Tovar and Diego Lopez in the streets and refused to speak with them.... He also told her how sometimes when he found himself in the same place with Tovar and Diego Lopez, listening to a sermon in which the Evangel was being preached, Tovar and Diego Lopez would laugh and poke fun at it.

Examination of Maria Ramirez
by the Council of the Inquisition
April-July, 1532
(79v-84r; 23r-25v)

Medina del Campo, April 9, 1532

     She was asked her name. She said her name is Maria Ramirez and that she is the daughter of Diego del Castillo, citizen of Nitjera and of Maria Ramirez his wife, and that she is the niece of the bachiller (Antonio de) Medrano, who is the brother of this witness' mother.
     Asked with whom she has lived and with whom she was raised, she replied that from birth her mother raised her until ten or eleven years ago, since which time she has been in the service of her mistress Francisca Hernandez. She entered the latter's service in the city of Valladolid, when her mistress was living at the home of Pedro de Cazalla. They remained there about seven years. After that she went with her mistress to Castrillo Tejeriego where they stayed a year and a half with dona Catalina de Guevara, who is the wife of don Bernar-


dino de Velasco. From there she went with Francisca Hernandez to Toledo, by order of his most reverend lordship (Alonso Manrique) the archbishop of Seville and Inquisitor General, where she has been with her mistress until they came to Valladolid about a month and a half ago. In Toledo she spent seven weeks without her mistress, and then they put her with her mistress in the Inquisition jail. When she first came to Valladolid to be with her mistress this witness must have been about thirteen years old. She is now about twenty four.

     She was asked if she has spoken, in the Holy Office of the Inquisition, about anything which she has seen said or done by any person or persons against our holy Catholic faith. She said that in the Inquisition of Toledo she stated before licentiate Mejia and licentiate Vaguer, each one separately, certain things against certain persons, because licentiate Vaguer ordered her, under pain of excommunication ... and under pain of Hell ... to think carefully of all the things she had heard said before her mistress Francisca Hernandez and to come forth and state them before the Inquisitors.

     She was directed to state in substance what she said and deposed before Inquisitor Vaguer and licentiate Mejia, Inquisitors at Toledo. She replied that the first time she was called by Inquisitor Vaguer... the said inquisitor asked her about the practices of her mistress Francisca Hernandez and this witness told what she knew about it....

     Some days later Inquisitor Vaguer called for her again and ... asked her it she knew anything that Doctor Vergara might have said before Francisca Hernandez.... This witness stated and deposed that she had heard Doctor Vergara say in Valladolid, in the presence of her mistress Francisca Hernandez, that nobody could make him believe that in giving two reales for a bull anybody was absolved ... and also that she had heard Doctor Vergara say what was the point in praying a hundred Ave Marias or even one Ave Maria to the saints.

     Some days after that, she went on, she asked tar an audience ... in which she told Inquisitor Mejia that she never had met Tovar, but that she had heard two clerics from Guadalajara and another named (Fernando de) Santo Domingo, who is from Toledo, say that Tovar was in very deep with the Illuminists, and this Santo Domingo said he foreswore Tovar as he would the devil. Diego Lopez (Husillo), cleric


from Toledo, told Francisca Hernandez in the presence of this witness that a man called (Diego del) Castillo, a merchant from Burgos, had given Diego Lopez twelve ducats and a mule so that he might travel about to round up twelve apostles, and that (so far) he had rounded up Juan Lopez (de Calain), Miguel de Eguia and (Juan dell Castillo, a cleric from Toledo, and that they went to Medina de Rioseco where the Admiral (of Castile, Fadrique Enriquez) put them up because they told him they wanted to form twelve apostles and that Tovar was to come and be their god and that they were to preach to convert the world. The admiral (finally) saw that it was a matter of the devil and he ordered them all to go to the devil and get out of there. It was Miguel de Eguia who told this to her mistress Francisca Hernandez and to everybody else, and the word got around Valladolid about how the admiral had thrown them out of Medina de Rioseco.

     She was asked if she has heard it said that Luther celebrated (mass) after eating. She said she recalls that she heard Doctor Vergara say one time to her mistress Francisca Hernandez that Luther spoke the truth when he said one could celebrate mass after eating, and when her mistress rebuked him for this, Doctor Vergara replied that our Lord had ordained the sacrament after dining ... and that Luther's teachings were all good and that Luther was a servant of God. Asked if she knows of any person or persons who had books or works of Luther's, she replied that she does not clearly recall if Doctor Vergara had a small book of Luther's, and then she said she believes Vergara said he carried with him this small book of Luther's but she does not recall this clearly because it happened a long time ago. Asked if she saw this book of Luther's in the possession at Doctor Vergara or anyone else, she said she did not.

Medina de! Campo, April 13, 1532

     She was told that in the first audience which was held with her (at Medina de! Campo on April 9, 15321 ... she began to tell how the second time she was called before Inquisitor Vaguer in Toledo, he asked her if she knew certain things and she began to tell about


Doctor Vergara, and she said that the said inquisitor then read to her from a paper when he questioned her. She was asked to state and declare just what happened on this occasion.

     She replied that the said inquisitor on that occasion read from a paper (12) when he questioned her, but that he read in such a low voice this witness did not understand him, and he asked her if she knew anything about Doctor Vergara, and this witness replied what she has already stated.
     She was told that at the first audience (four days ago) she began to say certain words, saying that the inquisitor had asked them of her. It was ordered that her testimony be read to her as recorded and attested, so that she might tell what happened on this occasion. She said that Inquisitor Vaguer asked her if she had heard Doctor Vergara say anything about bulls ... and this witness told him who were present and what she knew about this question.

     She was asked if her statement on this subject before the Inquisition at Toledo is read to her, will she be able to remember what transpired? She replied in the affirmative. So it was ordered that her testimony be read to her and she was directed to pay close attention to what was read so that she might tell the whole truth about all she knows of this, and not add to or omit anything of what actually happened.... And there was read to her all that she stated and deposed in the Inquisition of Toledo before the inquisitors there, from August 3, 1530 to October 19 of the same year.

     She said that everything read to her is the truth as it is stated therein and that she did thus declare and depose and she recalls that it happened thus ... and she affirms and ratifies it, with the following exception ... (namely), she does not recall having said ... that she heard Doctor Vergara say Luther spoke truthfully when he described as a joke the bulls conceded by our holy father to faithful Christians alive as well as dead. She also said, in reply to a question, that she does not recall having heard Doctor Vergara say such words except for what she has stated before their lordships about the two reales....

12. The paper in question must be the edict of 1525 against the Illuminists, which was also read to Francisca Hernandez.


(Nor) does she recall having said that Doctor Vergara made the statement about the two (superfluous) saints (inquisicion and cruzada), nor does she recall having heard anyone except Pedro de Cazalla speak of the three saints, as she has stated.

     In the audience of September 22, 1530, in the first chapter ... where she says she used to hear them (the apostles of Medina de Rioseco) say to each other, "You are God and God is you," she said that dona Juana de Baeza told her she (Juana) had heard them say this, but this witness (personally) did not hear them say it ... nor does this witness recall having made the statement that all the persons she has named praised Luther, saying he was a servant of God and that everything he did and said was good. Asked if she saw these persons together in the house of Francisca Hernandez, she replied that she does not recall having seen them together there, and she said also that (in her testimony at Toledo) she did not name (Fernando de) Santo Domingo, cleric from Toledo (as one of this group).

     Asked how she knows that Santo Domingo was not with the others named herein, she replied because Santo Domingo had previously renounced Tovar as a creature of the devil because he was mixed up with the Illuminists.

Medina del Campo, April 15, 1532

     She said that her statement in the ninth section should be stricken from the record, because she recalls that what she said about the cleric Santo Domingo she did not say as it is written there. (What she did say was that) when Santo Domingo saw her mistress Francisca Hernandez he said he was renouncing Tovar as a creature of the devil, and (therefore) this witness' (corrected statement should read) that many clerics used to come (to see Francisca(, many of them with letters from Tovar, and others without, and that Francisca Hernandez refused to see them whether they had such letters or not.

     Asked if she knows whether the inquisitors at Toledo who examined her, or the notaries before whom she made her statements, or any of them, induced her to say anything that was not true, or anything that she did not know (to be a fact), she replied that they did not. Rather they told her to state all she knew about the Illumi-


nists ... and they also told her to tell all she knew about anything opposed to our holy Catholic faith. And this witness has always said and says now that the inquisitors are guiltless, only the false witnesses are guilty, and that for all the time she has been in jail in company with Francisca Hernandez she has never cast guilt except on the false witnesses. Asked why she cast guilt on the false witnesses, she replied because her mistress Francisca Hernandez was in prison and this witness believed this was because of false witnesses, for she never saw or heard Francisca Hernandez do or say anything that was not good and Christian.

     The following day (April 16, 1532) their lordships of the Council held a consultation to exchange opinions on the reliability of Maria Ramirez as a witness. They all agreed (364r) that Maria Ramirez seemed to be a simple but honest girl, without malice, who sincerely believed she was telling the truth in her many depositions. The only question that apparently bothered the members of the Council was to what extent Maria might have been prompted either by her mistress Francisca Hernandez or by the inquisitors of Toledo. Not until July did the Council seek to ascertain the truth of the matter.

Medina del Campo, July 12, 1532

     Asked if she has communicated with anyone about any part of the questions asked her by their lordships of the Council, she replied that she has not. Asked if she has told her mistress Francisca Hernandez of her statements and depositions, or if Francisca Hernandez asked her about them, she replied in the negative. She was told that in her deposition she stated that her mistress Francisca Hernandez told her that the inquisitors said they (Francisca and Maria) were obligated to tell all they knew and had heard about those teachings and heresies about which this witness has deposed and which were discussed in the home of Francisca Hernandez; and (this witness further stated) that Francisca told her to recollect carefully what she knew and to unburden her conscience and tell what happened. (This witness was then asked) if between them, (she and Francisca Hernandez) discussed any particulars of these heresies that they had heard, and to state just what happened.


     She said that her mistress Francisca Hernandez told this witness how the inquisitors had said they were obligated to tell what they knew and this witness should unburden her conscience, to which this witness replied that she never had heard about excommunication (for those who fail to testify to heresy) ... and that Francisca Hernandez told her ... "They ordered me to tell you that you are excommunicated if you do not tell what you know. " Under (further) questioning, this witness said that nothing else in particular transpired (between herself and Francisca), nor did Francisca Hernandez tell her, "You must recall such and such, " or "so and so said such and such. " She was asked, since she says she had heard that people who knew of heretical things and did not unburden their consciences by testifying about them could not be absolved, then what is the reason she did not depose and declare previously, since it was so many years ago that she had heard this said, according to her own statement in her deposition. She replied that she did not know one was supposed to tell the Inquisition about anything except about Indians who had never been baptized.

     Asked if Inquisitor Vaguer told her what particular things she was to say, she replied that he did not. Asked if the said inquisitor, in his questioning of her, indicated against what persons she was to depose, she replied that he did not. Asked again if she understood this (previous) question, she said yes and stated that she understood it to mean did they ask her about so and so, and she said they did not ask her about particular persons, except that Inquisitor Vaguer asked her if she knew of anything against Doctor Vergara. The other times when they called her to testify they said only, "Do you recall anything? " without naming any names.

     Asked if she made a statement about Doctor Vergara when they asked her (specifically) about him, she replied that she had not, nor had she spoken about anyone else. Asked if she knew anything against Doctor Vergara when they asked her about him, she replied that she knew about (his attitude toward) bulls and mass and Luther and the other things which she has declared against him in her deposition. Asked why she did not state these things then I when they specifically asked her about Vergara, instead of telling them later


on), she replied because she had never been before judges until she was questioned about her mistress Francisca Hernandez (and therefore did not quite know how she was supposed to behave).