Spanish Marranism Re-examined

My next long excursus concerns the second proceso of Elvira del Campo, which is thought lost. The introductory denunciations in the proceso of her sister Inés del Campo (ADC leg. 320, no. 4620) include a sizeable extract (23 ff., in part a summary), which I paraphrase here. This, her second proceso, culminating in her execution on 16 August 1592, must have been voluminous, for the extract lists nine sessions in 1591, dated June 7, June 21, July 4, July 5, August 22, October 3, October 30, December 4, December 11. Three of these were conducted by the Cuenca Inquisitors Francisco de Arganda and Francisco Velarde de la Concha; six by Arganda alone. Sessions 3-5, based on the Prosecutor’s Bill of Accusation, not reproduced verbatim, number at least 14 counts (chapters), only eight of which (4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,14) are present in the extract. Three of these (11, 12, 14) are but


369
Upon her brother Alonso del Campo's arrest in July 1590, she and her sister moved into Alonso's house, where his wife Isabel Romero continued to live. After 2 months, she fell ill with fever. When from her bed she heard Alonso's children Jerónimo, Alonso and Pedro, her sister Inés and the maid Ana de Mora (Juan de Mora's illegitimate daughter) setting the table for the meal and discuss-ing the details, she understood they were preparing for the September fast.

Chapter 4 of the Accusation
Together with her relatives she reverted to sabbath observance beginning at sundown on Friday, putting on clean, festive clothing, tidying the house on Friday afternoon, lighting candles with clean wicks and a special oil to burn all night. She had complained about someone who was extinguishing them that he was not allowing her to serve God.
REPLY: True, about 10 years after her reconciliation at Toledo she kept some sabbaths with siblings Rodrigo and Inés and did some little things with them upon occasion. Yes, they started the sabbath Friday at sundown; yes, occasion-ally they swept and tidied the house of a Friday afternoon. Yes, Inés del Campo sometimes cleaned and readied the lamp on Friday afternoon but didn't let it burn longer that night than others. The person who put out the lamp on Fridays and other nights while she and Inés were supping, did so in order to harm them. If the Inquisitors knew all the things Pedro did and said during the month and a half to two months that she and Inés were in Alonso's house after Rodrigo del Campo's arrest, they wouldn't believe anything he said.

Chapter 6 of the accusation
Observed three feasts of the Jews: one in Holy Week called of the Lamb, pre-sumably sacrificing the lamb and eating unleavened bread; in May the Booths; another on the 15th of September, refraining from work 7 or 8 days, wearing better clothing. With much caution and secrecy they would give [these feasts] for relatives who kept the Law and be invited by them for these feasts. 159 REPLY: Inés and Rodrigo kept the feast of the Lamb in Holy Week while she lived with them and she would sometimes join them after the onset of her own Judaizing. 372 REPLY: She does not eat bacon, milt and black pudding. Neither she nor her siblings eat trefe meat or meat from animals that died a natural death. After her reconciliation, she went along with her siblings on that score. She ate beheaded and choked poultry, paying no heed to method of slaughtering. She has no recol-lection concerning the rest.

Chapter 11 of the Accusation (not supplied, but briefly paraphrased)
She ate meat ritually slaughtered, cleansed it of sinews (porged) and removed the landrecilla (sciatic nerve) from the leg of the trefes. 166 REPLY: She knows that Mosaic Law prohibits fowl that did not have its throat cut, but was not aware of a precept that prohibits women from doing the slaughtering and did not take account of this. 167 Before she was reconciled she would porge [purgaba], rinse the blood, remove the fat [desebaba] from meat, and take out the landrecilla from the legs of the trefes, but since she is with her siblings, she does not do it. Her sister Inés does not allow her access to the cooking pot.

Chapter 12 of the Accusation (not supplied, but briefly paraphrased)
People would gather for discussions of Bible passages in her house. A cer-tain relative would read these to them.
REPLY: Some of her relatives in Quintanar came to her and her siblings' house to visit, but not for that purpose. She did not see Rodrigo read or comment on anything to anyone. She knows he has a book, which she understands to be the Bible, out of which he sometimes read to himself. He made no comment nor did he read aloud, although she asked him to. 166 The idea that animals unfit for consumption (trefes) are the ones from which the landre-cilla is removed deomonstrates the absurdity of the denunciation and the reply it prompted. On the landrecilla and trefes, see below # 13.2. 167 Lope de la Vega, son of Elvira de Mora, asseverates the existence of such a precept, no doubt culled from a book. See  She hid the fact that she received some money. REPLY: Rodrigo gave her and Inés many gold coins, she does not know how many, some single some doublets, in order to buy food, bed linen and clothes. She spent it all except for what she had on her upon her arrest. She said other things, which were not denunciations of Inés [so not recorded!].

Third chapter of first witness 168
A certain person, close to Elvira, taught another person that Judaizers might fast anytime except on the sabbath, and that the most religiously suitable days for fasting during the week were Monday and Thursday. This other person ob-served fasts, some of 2 or 3 days duration. The latter are called doble and tres-doble, and one should not drink on them.
REPLY: She does not know who this person may be. She remarked on Inés' fasting a couple of times two days straight from sunrise to sunset, when the stars come out, since 1574 or 1573. The double one she fasted rarely, namely the last days of the fast of September, the times when she did fast them.

Fifth chapter of first witness
The ten-day fast in September starts from the first of the moon, which was a holiday on which one abstained from work. The nine next ones were fasts ex-cept the sabbath, which was in the count. Three prayers a day preceded by hand washing, etc.
REPLY: Rodrigo, Inés, Alonso, Ana de Mora from 1574 or 1573 kept the first day of the moon of September and the 10 day fast, etc. She did some of it to comply with siblings. All these are Mosaic ceremonies.

Ninth chapter of first witness
A close relative of hers had read and commented on Mosaic things from a Latin book she believes to be the Bible, in his own house and in another relative's house. 374 REPLY: Rodrigo read to himself and to Alonso out of a Bible, mornings and at other times. She doesn't know what he explained and is not aware of Rodrigo having read it to anyone else. He read it in his own house and also sometimes read other books.

Third chapter of fourth witness
A close acquaintance of Elvira had a Bible; in Elvira's house elderly rela-tives gathered to hear Mosaic topics read, translated and expounded upon.
REPLY: Rodrigo read the Bible to Alonso and the latter's son Diego. She does not know what was read or whether it was commented upon.

Fourth chapter of fourth witness
When someone died in Elvira's and her relatives' houses the residents did not eat meat for 9 days and those outside the house for one day.
REPLY: Doesn't know of this, at least not in her own house, but she heard of the one day abstention.
INTERROGATION: From whom did she hear this? REPLY: From older folks and that it is a Mosaic precept.

Seventh chapter of fourth witness
Upon the arrest of Elvira's close relatives in July 1590, they [Elvira and Inés] moved to another house. People had seen them for two months and some days fasting from sunrise to sunset except on sabbath and New Moon. The observer is sure that since they arrested Diego de Mora's children in 1588, Elvira, Inés and their relatives fasted. Certain persons warned them against fasting but they did so anyhow. The observer heard someone comment that Elvira and Inés had claimed they were arrested for having cursed a certain person who did not let them fast.
REPLY: At the end of July when they arrested Rodrigo, she and Inés moved to Alonso's house where they stayed with Isabel Romero. Since she was in good health, she fasted a couple of successive days to comply with Inés and Isabel. When she and Isabel were not well, they stopped. Inés fasted a small number of days, she doesn't know how many they or she fasted. 375 9.16. Fourth chapter of fourteenth witness Elvira and siblings sometimes didn't work, ate better on and dressed up for sabbaths and festivals, REPLY: She and siblings sometimes did not work, ate better and dressed up on festivals and sabbaths.
The same goes for all relatives.

Fifth chapter of fourteenth witness
Since 1571 Elvira and other closely connected persons left the Friday night candles burning until they went out by themselves in honor of the sabbath. Also swept and tidied the house on Friday afternoons REPLY: Inés in honor of the sabbath swept and tidied the house on Friday af-ternoons and sometimes left the lamp on until it went out by itself. She (Elvira) helped along as with other household chores, well aware that this was Mosaic. Inés did it for the Law and she to comply.

Tenth chapter of fourteenth witness
Elvira and Inés salted the meat when they soaked it to rinse it of its blood and to porge it: Mosaic ceremonies like the rest.
REPLY: Her sister prepared the food in the pot and porged [purgaba] and removed the blood [desangraba] from the meat by rinsing it with salt and water. 169

Eleventh Chapter of fourteenth witness
Since 1571, Elvira and Inés would sometimes ask other kindred for the date of the festivals and the New Moon, which they celebrated.
REPLY: She and Inés would ask Rodrigo when the Moons and festivals fell and he told them. This she had done since 1571 until last year, in order to comply. 376 9.20. Tenth witness adds to deposition of November 1 In 1578 or 1579, when a certain person -daughter of Elvira's close relative -was seriously ill, Elvira, Inés and another relative went to her house. Elvira, in the sick person's room, asked someone to bestir herself so the sick person would not die in that room. If she did, one would have to wash all the bed linen and everything draped as well as other persons in that room. So that person got up and together with Elvira took the patient to another room. Elvira thereupon threw away all the water from the pots and took them out of the room, leaving only one with water and linen towels. Another connected person helped Elvira pour out the water. All those present agreed to this procedure.
REPLY: Her niece (daughter of Alonso del Campo) was very sick. Her name might be Isabel. They called her to Alonso's house and the little girl died that night. She recalls nothing of what is contained in the denunciation. Now she re-calls that Inés was with the dead Isabelica; she cannot remember if Rodrigo was there; at first blush: no.
Thus, as we saw above in connection with Hernando de Mora's condemnation, accusations did not derive from facts verified by a confrontation of depositions. The number of accusations did not correspond to facts, but to the number of de-nunciators. This characteristic feature of inquisitorial justice could raise a moun-tain of charges out of a molehill of testimony. One single «fact», if recounted by discrete witnesses alluding to different circumstances could multiply like a fragment of glass in a kaleidoscope. The Inquisitors did not always keep to the unwritten rule that the denunciations must be literally reproduced and when they made an exception it would always be to the detriment of the defendant, whence the subdivided depositions. The Inquisitors orchestrated accusations and indict-ments to elicit more confessions. The slight modifications introduced by Elvira in her confessions and replies represent a pathetic stratagem to avoid her ineluctable execution: if not as a negativa, then as a relapsed heretic. Francisco vainly tried to save. In addition, 9 deceased members of the family were executed in effigy (including Hernando de Mora, 1492-1577 and Francisco's fa-ther Diego de Mora), and two were reconciled in effigy (Juana and Ana de Mora, both having expired in prison -the former an octogenarian -in May 1592). Of those reconciled, 7 were, in addition to the regular penances, sentenced to the galleys for terms ranging from 3 to 8 years. 170 Having denounced more than 50 relatives to the Inquisitors' delight and confessed with seeming gusto an entire "Marrano religion," Francisco de Mora Molina was rewarded with the fate that the Inquisitors had in store for him from the start. The pretext, of course, was Judaizing and encouraging to Judaize in prison, denounced by cell-mates, his sec-ond cousins Juan del Campo II and Alonso del Campo the Younger and his first cousin Juan López de Armenia the Younger. 171 When apprised of this by one of them, he asked for a hearing at which he confessed prison fasts and more prison fasts. This, however, sealed his fate as a "relapsed heretic" and "justified" his execution. As a last ploy, Francisco asked for one more hearing. He explained that he had Judaized in his cell out of despair at not having been reconciled with his relatives on August 9, 1590, in which case he would have been once again a wholehearted Christian. Instead (he said), they returned him to prison where he was now going into his fifth year and made him share his cell with companions who forced him to Judaize. All wasted words for, as we have seen, the Inquisitors had already sealed his fate at the Cuenca Auto de Fe of August 12, 1590. He per-ished in Cuenca at the Auto of August 16, 1592. 172 One of the 30 reconciled penitents at this Auto was Francisco de Mora Molina's wife Leonor Enríquez, condemned to confiscation of goods and chattels, the wear-ing of the sanbenito, six years of forced residence. Then, around 1594, she remar-ried, aged 30, her husband's cousin and erstwhile cellmate and denouncer: Juan López de Armenia the Younger (aged c. 25). During this period she was joined by her two sons, Diego and Antonio, whose names she changed from Mora Enríquez to Enríquez Villanueva, i.e., her own and her husband's mother's name, to avoid the all 170 This punishment was usually meted out to those who confessed and denounced very late in their trial or who revoked and re-ratified earlier denunciations. AMIEL ("Marranisme" I, 227) points out the consanguinity of the penanced at this Auto de Fe: 11 siblings and nephews of Elvira de Mora; 9 children of Juan de Mora II; 4 children and one grandchild of Lope de Mora I. 171 The system of placing prisoners in cells with peep-holes for watching "Judaic acts" (such as fasting and washing hands) by inquisitorial observers, characteristic of the Portuguese Inquisition, was apparently not applied in Spain. 172 See CORDENTE MARTÍNEZ, Origen y genealogía, 34-37. Cordente claims that Francisco de Mora Molina "suffered a barbarous fate, similar to that of his uncle Francisco de Mora the Elder and his cousin Beatriz de Mora, at the hands of the fanatic mob." If he means that he was blud-geoned by the mob instead of executed, he provides no documentary evidence. 378 too recent inquisitorial onus. Diego was apprenticed to a weaver and in 1596, aged 15 married an Old Christian, Isabel Gómez. 173 On June 19, 1594, at an Auto de Fe in Toledo, a 17-year old Mora family member, María de Villanueva, who had voluntarily come forward and confessed, was reconciled and penanced. Her mother and three other relatives (including two brothers: Alonso and Juan de la Vega) were executed in effigy. 174 At a Cuenca Auto de Fe on December 13, 1598, seven Moras were executed in ef-figy, 6 deceased and one fugitive. 175 The next Auto de Fe to target Moras was the Toledo Auto of March 5, 1600. There Francisca de Mora, 42, wife of Hernando de Sauca, was reconciled a second time and Beatriz Gómez de Bedoya (de-ceased widow of Juan de Mora Carrillo) executed in effigy for the second time. 176 Francisca had already been reconciled at the Cuenca Auto of August 12, 1590. In October 1590 (no doubt in the hope of expediting her release from penitential prison) she denounced two first cousins. In October 1597 she was denounced for relapsing and re-imprisoned at Cuenca, sent to the Toledo Auto for sentencing and sent back to Cuenca for a 4-year term of sanbenito and forced residence. 177 In 1600 the widow of Francisco de Mora Molina, Leonor Enríquez, was re-leased from the penitential prison of Cuenca. She together with her second son Antonio moved to Seville, where she had a well off uncle. 178 Meanwhile, 375 miles away, in Cuenca, also around 1600, a son, Antonio Enríquez Gómez, was born to Diego and his wife Isabel Gómez. This grandson of Leonor was to acquire fame in adulthood as a novelist, playwright and bitter enemy of the Inquisition. 179 In 1613 Antonio Enríquez Villanueva went to visit his brother Diego and fam-ily in Cuenca. He ordered some fine clothes from a local tailor. The word spread 173 CORDENTE MARTÍNEZ, Origen y genealogía, 11, 38. The opposition to his marriage, on this account, of his father's cousin Alonso de Mora, of which Diego speaks in his later inquisitorial trial (1622), is no doubt fictitious, as will be shown further on. 174  that both grandsons of the executed Francisco de Mora Molina were in town and dressed to kill. On May 24 of that year jealous workers in the tailor shop, "to allevi-ate their conscience," denounced Diego and Antonio to the Inquisition for indulg-ing in luxury goods prohibited by statute to the offspring of those condemned by the Inquisition. 180 In 1614 or 1615, their mother died at Seville. 181 In 1618 Diego's son Antonio Enríquez Gómez, who often traveled on business with his father be-tween Cuenca and Seville, married Isabel Basurto, an Old Christian. The couple was to have three children: Diego Enríquez Basurto, Leonor and Catalina.
Diego Enríquez Villanueva and his wife moved from Cuenca to Madrid in December 1621, but continued visiting Cuenca on business (he had gone from linen weaving into wholesale wool). On July 3, 1622 he was denounced to the Cuenca Inquisition on the charge of having "mosaically" slaughtered a sheep through the back of the neck (between the horns) 10, 16 or 17 years earlier, where-upon he was said to have fainted. Each of six denouncers told the story differently; some said they had heard it from the grapevine, others said they had actually witnessed it. Still others claimed to have purchased the animal and were going to share it with him. Diego had performed the slaughter at their request, though they were surprised at the method. 182 Some opined he fainted because they caught him red-handed in a Mosaic act, performed at the behest of New Christians; others ventured that the fainting might have been due to the excessive blood spurting out of the animal in its protracted death throes. For good measure, one of the "wit-nesses" added that Diego's Old Christian wife was grieved because her husband would try and teach her "prayers" at night. 183 The Cuenca Inquisitors immediately put out a warrant for Diego's arrest in Madrid, had him hauled back to Cuenca and incarcerated on July 8, 1622. 180 Cordente Martínez transcribes the incomplete proceso in extenso (ADC leg. Proceso Fiscal, Inhábiles, ibid. 45-50). We are left in the dark as to the upshot: Imprisonment? Fines? Suspended sentence? Curiously, at one point in the proceedings Diego is described as "Portuguese" (ibid. 47). 181 CORDENTE MARTÍNEZ, Origen y genealogía, 61. 182 The first denouncer explained that animals were normally slaughtered by a cut across the throat and that he had often seen Diego slaughter by that method. Never before had he seen an ani-mal slaughtered through the neck. Paradoxically and unbeknown to the Inquisitors and the "witness-es" the "normal" cut across the throat is also precisely the "Mosaic" method. According to rabbinic interpretation of Dt 12, 21 (you shall slaughter as I command you) animals for consumption must be killed in the swiftest and most painless way by cutting horizontally across the throat, severing the windpipe, esophagus, jugular veins and cartotide arteries. The bizarre method purportedly employed by Diego is diametrically opposed to Jewish law and would of course render an animal so killed unfit for consumption by Jews. The fifth and sixth denouncers explained that Diego had volunteered to slaughter the animal for his two friends and himself after they could find no one else to do so (no teniendo quien lo matase). See

DIEGO'S TRIAL AND SUBSEQUENT EMIGRATION
Even the Cuenca Inquisitors must have felt that the grounds for a full-fledged Judaizing trial were meager, so that after Diego's incarceration three denounc-ers were produced with an additional accusation. They had shared some 20 months earlier a dish of game with Diego. Instead of larding his partridge, he had sprinkled it with olive oil, an "infallible" indication of Judaizing. The pro-ceso now meanders its bureaucratic course towards execution or reconciliation, producing 72 folios dated July 1622-August 1623. Diego, to emerge alive, con-fessed that he had "judaically" slaughtered a sheep 16 years earlier in a certain street of Cuenca for heretical motives. He further confessed to having repeated the act 2 or 3 times and to have failed to denounce a certain reconciled uncle (his father's first cousin, now a resident of Toledo) and his wife who had taught him this Mosaic ritual. He further confessed to having succored Melchor Fernández, Portuguese husband of his first cousin María de Villanueva, by giving him 1500 reals worth of merchandise after his reconciliation. He denounced his brother Antonio, his Portuguese sister-in-law Leonor Núñez and her brother Francisco Rodríguez. In addition to the Judaic slaughter, he admitted having eaten bacon on Catholic days of abstinence. 184 For all these Judaic offenses against the Holy Church of Rome, Jesus the Son of God and His glorious Mother ever Virgin he begged mercy and forgiveness. He steadfastly refused to recognize the Judaic nature of the partridge's olive oil seasoning, claiming it was a regional recipe picked up in Andalucía and devoid of heretical overtones. On 10 December 1623 he was sentenced at an Auto particular in Cuenca's Church of St. Peter to confiscation of goods and chattels, wearing of the sanbenito and forced resi-dence in the penitential prison for one year. The Inquisitors, meanwhile, put out warrants for the arrest of all those denounced by Diego. 185 Released

385
The dramatist Antonio Enríquez Gomez (Diego Enríquez de Villanueva's son by his first wife), continued living in Madrid where he frequented the house of a wealthy young Franco-Portuguese literator-merchant, Bartolomé Febos. The latter was arrested by the Inquisition in 1634, accused of Judaizing and of being in correspondence with the Portuguese community of Rouen, France. Antonio was on a list Febos gave the Inquisitors of friends who would testify on his behalf. Summoned to take the stand his testimony was hardly favorable to Febos. 187 Yet Antonio decided the better part of valor was to remove to France, where he first joined his father in Nantes, then his father's brother -Antonio Enríquez de Villanueva -in Bordeaux.

MARRANISM
How many of the "Judaic acts" for which the Moras were denounced, arrested and condemned coincide with the lists contained in the Edicts of Faith? These Edicts were solemnly read annually on a Lenten Sunday in a designated church of every Spanish city and town, in the obligatory presence of all inhabitants 12 and over. 188 The Edicts fulfilled a double pedagogic function. From the Inquisitors' point of view they taught potential delators the "crimes" of which to accuse their neighbors, i.e., they educated the general population to recognize Judaizers from among the New Christians. From the New Christians' point of view they taught the potential victims what they needed to confess to get out alive. The Inquisitors were aware of a third potential, namely to apprise judaically inclined New Christians of Jewish rites and ceremonies of which, without the Edicts of Faith, they would have been ignorant. Since we fathom so little of the inner workings of the inquisitorial mind, it is difficult to establish with certainty whether the Inquisitors were truly averse to such a side effect. Howbeit the Spanish Edicts of Faith were a manual of Judaic and pseudo-Judaic rites and customs.
The only surviving copy (defective in places) of the earliest Edict in Spanish is dated Las Palmas, Grand Canary Island, May 29, 1524. I am assuming that 187  it remained standard until a new version was proclaimed in 1604. In any case no intermediate version is available to me. I quote in Lucien Wolf's English translation the one-sentence recital of Jewish (or pseudo-Jewish) ceremonies and customs from the 1524 Edict: Keeping … days of the sabbaths … putting on clean and festive clothes, clean and washed shirts and head gears, arranging and cleaning their houses on Friday afternoons, and in the evening of Fridays lighting new candles with new tapers and torches earlier than on other evenings … of the week; cooking on the said Fridays such food as is required for the Saturdays and on the latter eating the food thus cooked on Fridays as is the manner of the Jews; keeping the Jewish fasts, not touching food the whole day until night-fall and especially the fast of Queen Esther and the chief fast they call the quippur and other Jewish fasts laid down by their law and keeping other fasts of the week especially Mondays and Thursdays kept by them as devotional fasts; eating on such fast days such meats and other viands as are customary with the Jews; and on the said fast days asking pardon one of the other in the Jewish manner, the younger ones of their elders, the latter placing their hands on the heads of the former but without putting on them the sign of the cross; the women bathing themselves the day before the said fast, which bath is called la tibila; keeping the feasts and festivals of the Jews, in particular the feast of unleavened bread, which falls in Holy Week, upon which festival they eat unleavened bread, beginning their meal with lettuce and celery; and keeping the feast of Tabernacles which falls in the month of September; say-ing Jewish prayers, especially the prayer beginning: sema yisrael Adonai and another prayer for the washing of hands and the prayer to be said standing and other Jewish prayers, reciting these with face turned to the wall, raising and lowering the head and working the body as the Jews do; cutting their nails and keeping, burning or burying parings; cleansing or causing meat to be cleansed, cutting away from it all fat or grease and cutting away the nerve or sinew from the leg; cutting the throats of fowl as is the manner of the Jews, reciting certain words during the process and passing the knife across the nail; and killing oxen in the same manner as the Jews do, covering the blood with cinders or earth; and giving the Jewish blessing before eating, called baraha; reciting certain words over the cup or glass of wine, after which each person sips a little after the custom of the Jews; not eating pork, hare, rabbit, strangled birds, conger-eel, cuttlefish, nor eels or other scale-less fish, as laid down in the Jewish law; and upon the death of parents and other persons, eat-ing on the floor or on very low tables such things as boiled eggs, olives and other viands, as do the Jews; and standing behind the door which they call cohuerzo as they do, pouring water from jars and pitchers while someone is dying, believing that the soul of such a person will come and bathe in this water; and who when kneading bread -which the Jews call la hala -will throw particles of dough into the fire; making hadas for the children born to them, on the seventh day; not baptizing them and when they have been baptized scraping off the chrism put on them in the sacrament of baptism; and performing many other rites and ceremonies of the said Law of of the Jews; blaspheming against God Our Lord and against the articles of His Holy Catholic Faith; and against the purity and virginity of Our Lady the Virgin Mary, and against other saints … 189 Amiel considers any "Judaic ceremony" confessed to by the Moras of Quintanar and Alcázar (he hardly deals with the latter, although the procesos are as interre-lated as the family branches) a reflection of reality, part of their Marrano religion, transmitted to them by their Jewish ancestors of yore. He especially entertains cer-emonies not listed in presently accessible Edicts of Faith and memorized Jewish prayers, which are known only from their transcription in the inquisitorial procesos here under consideration. From these, he reconstructs, as it were, their "marranism." He never considers the possibility that they may be further figments intended to satisfy the Inquisitors' insistence that the defendants -if they were to save their skin -elaborate extensively and specifically on their Judaizing, beyond the Judaic acts of which they were accused and those contained in the Edicts of Faith. Many de-fendants believed if they confessed to Judaizing practices over and above what they were accused of, that they stood a better chance of coming out alive. As it happened, in the episode under consideration, the most prolix defendant was executed.

Washing the hands
Amiel's case for a Judaic heresy transmitted from a remote Jewish past rests primarily upon the second trial of Francisco de Mora Molina (1591). It will be recalled that during his first trial, despite excruciating torture, he remained a diminuto and that at the Auto de Fe of August 12, 1590, when he was about to be executed, Chief Inquisitor Arganda devised a plan whereby this "eccentric" was remanded to his cell for a new trial. Now the inquisitors dangled before him the illusory hope of life, in order to coax out of him copi-- 189  ous denunciations and confessions. The second proceso allows us to see the condemned man, far from writhing and blubbering, authoritatively and calmly expounding to the Inquisitor the Moras' "Judaic" life-style "from the cradle to the grave." 190 Amiel considers the hand-washing ritual its foremost element. From the 36 inquisitorial procesos he identified of Mora family members who appeared be-fore the Cuenca tribunal, Amiel selected for a photographic reproduction the page in Francisco de Mora Molina's second proceso that contains his explana-tion to Inquisitor Arganda of "Judaic" washing of hands. In addition to provid-ing the page as an illustration, Amiel quotes the passage in the original Spanish and in French translation (this and all my subsequent English translations of accessible Spanish documents are from the original): Asked to say and declare how often and when those who live and profess the Law of Moses wash their hands in order to keep and observe it, he said: 'Yes, I shall say it, Sir, and very willingly'. And he said that [they do so] for praying and when they attend to their natural needs of passing water and relieving themselves and when they enter the privy and when they enter a place where there is a corpse. And that when his father came home from church he would wash his hands, because he said that there were corpses where he had been. And that among all his relatives it was a well-known ceremony to wash their hands when coming from church, for that reason; even though he himself never washed them with regard to that. Further, when no water is available, they wash with a bunch of grapes, or with juice from unripe grapes, or with soil, rubbing their hands with it, or with a citron or an orange. And he also understands that they can wash [their hands] with wine or vinegar when no water is available… 191 Amiel cites from Francisco's second proceso four references to Judaic hand ablutions continued by him in prison, providing for two of them the original Spanish and a French translation and for the third and fourth a para-phrase.

Dietary Customs
Among the denunciations collected by the Cuenca tribunal against Diego de Mora, María de Villanueva and their seven children in 1579, three originated in hearsay from one Juan Sánchez de la Serna (by then deceased), who had lived in Diego's house around 1575-1576. He had purportedly said that in Diego de Mora's house there were no images of saints or crucifixes (except for a wooden cross at the door). He said further that the family never purchased meat at the local butcher's but slaughtered its own cattle and poultry "facing the rising sun and observing the sun before cutting the throat." 193 Finally, he declared that at a certain dinner party, when apprised of the presence of pork in the stew, the fam-ily refused to eat, left in a huff and that Diego's eldest son Francisco de Mora Molina who had swallowed a small piece "vomited his inwards." 194 Amiel does not question the reliability of these specific charges, which ap-pear at the beginning of every proceso of the Moras sentenced at the Auto de Fe of August 12, 1590. 195 Amiel opines at the outset of his 5½-page section on the Moras' "dietary purity": We are first of all amazed to discover (nearly one hundred years after the sup-pression of the Jewish religion in Spain) that the Marranos of Quintanar were still practicing ritual slaughter. When tongues loosened at the time of the denunciations, which preceded the great roundup, it was indeed said that it had been noticed that they would never purchase meat at the butcher's. True some of them possessed cattle. The reason invoked by the accused at an early stage was that in order to save money they slaughtered their own cattle which they would then divide up among direct and collateral relatives. 196 However, during his second trial Francisco de Mora Molina recounts a chance meeting between himself and the "Familiar" of the Inquisition Damián Gallardo, which took place at the local Quintanar butcher shop. Why would Francisco have gone to the butcher if not to purchase meat? Amiel, who cites the proceso to this effect, does not note the contradiction. However, a num-ber of defendants asssert that they alternated ritual slaughter with the purchase of meat from the local By amalgamating the hearsay denunciation of the deceased Juan Sánchez de la Serna with an actual confession (the required two independent testimonies), the Inquisitors "proved" the ongoing practice of Jewish ritual slaughter to their own (and Amiel's) satisfaction.
It will be recalled that Francisco's six siblings had been incarcerated on April 25, 1588 and that by May 27, 1588 when Francisco joined them in prison, they had already confessed "nearly all they were accused of." 198 On August 29, 1589 his brother Juan states: Este confesante ha muerto una dozena de reses, cortándoles el gaznate y la cabeza toda […] atravesándoles su cuchillo hasta cortarles el gaznate, y asimismo degollaba éste las aves de la misma manera que las reses […]. Lo que toca a la sangre del degüello de las aves […] se echaba en el suelo y se perdía y la cubrían con tierra, y que de las reses hacían morcillas y las vendían y las daban a los criados o peones. 199 Amiel paraphrases Juan's unabridged declaration as follows: The animal had to face the east. 200 Then, with a knife, they proceeded to slaugh-ter it, without beheading it, in other words without cutting its throat and detach-ing the head. 201 […]. The slaughter was accompanied by a blessing: 'Bendito sea Aquel que te crió para la muerte y para el mantenimiento de la gente', which moreover did not correspond to the traditional formulation. 202 They let butcher, e.g., Juan López de Armenia the Elder (ADC leg. 283, no. 3946, August 20, 1590, after de-scribing his ritual slaughter, adds: Ordinariamente y lo más veces trazía carne de la carnicería. 198 AMIEL, "Marranisme" I, 216 reminds us that the Moras before their arrest had been ap-prised of the denunciations by the denunciators themselves, in order to know what to confess and get out alive. 199 (Yoma 3, 8). The confusion will undoubtedly derive from one of the erudite Spanish treatises consulted by the Moras at Quintanar. 201 Que degollaran la res atravesado el cuchillo dejando la nuca a la parte de la cabeza y po-niendo la rez cara al sol saliente, diciendo […]. I am not sure that Amiel's translation is correct. This one-line confession, identically worded, is found in a number of Quintanar procesos. 202  the blood pour out on the ground, discarded, to the great astonishment of the Old Christians; sometimes they saved it to make blackpudding, which they sold or kept, for servants and daylaborers. Poultry was slaughtered the same way, but in that case they immediately covered the blood with earth […] 203 Both Révah and Amiel overlooked, however, Juan's earlier confession of January 23, 1589, during which he recorded the same blessing and described further details of the slaughtering: Y les cortaba la cabeza y la sacaba afuera. Y lo hacían por que no acertaren a venir alguno de sus cuñados, Pedro y Hernando de Sauca 204 , o otra per-sona alguna que lo pudiesen entender. Y les echaba sal en las degolladuras después de muertas y no antes y que las palabras 'Bendito sea el que te dio para la muerte y para mantimiento de la gente' no las decían sus hermanos, sino este confesante, y no todas veces […]. 205 The blessing in the form "Blessed is He who created you for death and for human sustenance" recited by Juan is included in his father Diego de Mora's posthumous death sentence, identical with those of his uncle Juan and his aunt Inés. 206 From the initial denunciations common to all the procesos of Mora defen-dants sentenced on August 12, 1590 Amiel selects the "cutting away of the sciatic nerve or sinew from the leg" of animals destined for consumption. This was a stereotypical Judaic act well known from the Edicts of Faith. It was also an item of the interrogation in genere to which all New Christian prisoners of the Iberian Inquisitions were submitted at the outset of their trial. The in genere listed Judaic practices of which they were automatically suspected, in the same category as changing one's shirt on Saturdays, lighting fresh wicks on Friday nights and allowing them to burn out by themselves, etc. These practices then made their way into the confessions of thousands of bankers, lawyers and mer--392 chants. Amiel alleges verisimilitude in the original detail that the slimy sub-stance was said to have been fed to the cats.
Turning back to the second proceso of Francisco de Mora Molina, Révah (followed by Amiel) notes his definition of the word trefe to describe an animal unfit for consumption "according to the Law of Moses" because "the upper parts of its lungs adhere to the ribs." 207 Révah points out that the word trefe is perfect Castilian and that it denotes weakness and lung disease in humans. Still, Amiel considers its use by Francisco de Mora Molina to be true to one of the Talmud's definitions of the Hebrew term terefa. 208 Further on, in his second trial Francisco de Mora Molina states (in the past tense) that "it was a precept of the Law of Moses not to eat stillborn animals or newborn animals that had died before suckling or cheese made with animal rather than vegetable rennet." 209 Amiel does not ask whether Francisco (who, as we shall see, was well read) might not be speaking from theoretical knowl-edge of Jewish precepts rather than describing personal or family practice. The same question might be asked concerning Francisco's observation in his second proceso to the effect that "washing [soaking?] meat from one day to the next is a ceremony of the Law of Moses." 210 Yet, we might well ask, why should Francisco collect and confess esoteric Jewish rites and precepts, which neither he, nor anyone else in his milieu, actually performed?
The purported revulsion felt by the Moras when served pork and lard is de-rived by Amiel from the denunciation made by Francisco Sánchez, for 9 years (1573-1582) shepherd of Diego de Mora's livestock, and from the hearsay de-nunciations attributed to the deceased Juan Sánchez de la Serna. 211  ). The prohibition of cheese made with animal rennet (queso con coajo) is also mentioned by Diego del Campo (ADC leg. 324, no. 4653). 210 See AMIEL, "Marranisme" I, 251, from ADC leg. 328, no. 4704, f.
[75]. Amiel combines this observation with one deriving from de la Serna's hearsay denunciations of 1575-1576, that the Moras "drained their meat until it had lost all its color," "confirmed" by a two-word quotation from the posthumous sentence of Francisco's father Diego de Mora. Amiel further claims (but does not provide a documentary source) that the Moras besides washing and soaking also salted their meat and poultry and rejected the spleen as well as all fat and suet. 211 AMIEL, "Marranisme" I, 251-252. 393 Amiel adduces no confessions by the Moras themselves in support of these somewhat discredited denunciations. Waiting after a meat meal before eating dairy products is yet another Mora "Marrano practice" described by two confessant-informants: the "eru-dite" Francisco de Mora Molina and his equally "erudite" cousin, Rodrigo del Campo. 212 Juan del Campo II who shared Francisco's cell for two years stated that Francisco reprehended him for eating meat and dairy on the same day. 213 Isabel de Mora Carrillo declared that Rodrigo del Campo had told her that meat and dairy could be consumed simultaneously but that one should merely refrain from eating a kid cooked in its mother's milk. 214

Conjugal purity
Francisco de Mora Molina tells the Inquisitors in his second proceso that when his father, Diego de Mora, was on his deathbed he called him in and enjoined him to abstain from marital relations during his wife's periods. Not to abstain, his father said, was a mortal sin in respect of the blood. Francisco informed his wife who subsequently would let him know although he often took no account of it. 215 Israel S. Révah wonders why Diego de Mora should have waited so long to teach his son the lesson. He suggests that "this proves that [the practice] came to his knowledge only very belatedly." 216 Révah here introduces a novel concept, 394 namely two "marranisms": a "traditional" and a more recently acquired sort. I shall return to this seminal distinction anon. On the part of a believer in two centuries of inherited "crypto-Judaism" practiced by certain Spanish Catholic families -1391-1588 and from 1485 under the very eyes of the Inquisition -we seem to have here a dramatic concession indeed! However, as we shall see fur-ther on (15.10), according to Francisco his marriage to Leonor Enríquez was against his father's will. Only on his deathbed had his father acquiesced to it. Thus it stands to reason that he would only then have taught his son the pre-cept concerning ritual purity. In fact, the quiddity of Diego de Mora's Jewish knowledge can not be concluded from this episode, nor does it imply a duality of marranism. Révah's stricture against his own theory is -in this case at least -invalid. 217 Francisco further declares that his wife washed "Judaically" after her pe-riods 218 and that after the birth of a boy there were to be no marital relations for 40 days and after the birth of a girl for 80. Thereafter she had to wash be-fore their resumption. 219 Amiel found in the Encyclopaedia Judaica that this (non-scriptural: cf. Lv 12, 2-5) custom of abstaining for respectively 40 and 217 I owe this refutation of Révah's self-defeating argument to a personal communication from Dr. Carsten Wilke. 218 See AMIEL, "Marranisme" I, loc. cit. Amiel cites from the proceso of Francisco's wife Leonor Enríquez the sentence collectively pronounced against her and two other Mora women "for having bathed and washed their whole body for the Great Fast of the Ten Days and after divers intimate neces-sities." Another reference to the rite of total ablution is the denunciation of the domestic servant Juan de Buenaventura, when he reports that Francisco's five sisters "Judaically" plunged into the tub after menstruation. See AMIEL, "Marranisme" I, 231, 255 (o.S.p. in n. 115). The youngest, Isabel, confesses: Que se lavaban las piernas después de haberles pasado su regla (ADC leg. 317, no. 4585, July 8, 1589). Their cousin Isabel de Mora Carrillo confesses: Cuando la dejaba su regla se lavaba (after menstruation she would wash) (ADC leg. 327, no. 4689, April 20, 1592). See also AHN Inq., leg. 138, no. 8, 10r, deposition of Isabel de la Vega, daughter of Elvira de Mora. Torquemada's list of 31 hereti-cal Judaic practices to be denounced (Valladolid, 1484) has as no. 27: "If they know of any woman who when she has her period made tibula (sic, for 'tebilah') before her husband approached her." See SALOMON, "Monitorio," 63. On April 1, 1493, Doña Catalina, 82-year old widow of Gonzalo García, a butcher in Molina, was executed at a Sigüenza Auto, inter alia for having "made tivila with warm water" on the eve of her wedding c. 60 years earlier. Her attorney suggests she had been converted as an infant at the time of Vincent Ferrer's anti-Jewish campaign (c. 1412). He argues that her prenuptial tebilah was not jewishly motivated porque antigamente, y aun hoy en algunas partes se usaban mucho los baños e acostumbraban los cristianos bañarse en ciertos tempos; y como aquel tiempo que ella se casó estuviese costumbre que se bañaba al tiempo de casamiento, así se bañó ella. See

Sabbath
Keeping the sabbath is of course a Judaic action par excellence in the Iberian inquisitorial world. The Edict of Faith spelled it all out for the denunciator to denounce and the confessant to confess: [Keeping or having kept] the days of the sabbaths by putting on clean and festive clothes, clean and washed shirts and head gear; arranging and clean-ing their houses on Friday afternoons; and on the eve of Fridays lighting new candles with new tapers and torches earlier than on other evenings of the week […]; cooking on the said Fridays such food as is required for the Saturdays and on the latter eating the food thus cooked on Fridays … 221 Keeping the days of the sabbath in the Judaic way and form involves not doing anything or working on them at all; dressing up and adorning them-selves with festive dresses, clothes and jewelry; getting themselves ready and cleaning up on Fridays in front of their houses; cooking on the said Fridays for the sabbath; lighting on the afternoon of the said Fridays clean candlesticks with new tapers earlier than on other days, leaving them lit all night until they go out by themselves… 222 Francisco de Mora Molina, in his second proceso, adds the detail that his wife, Leonor Enríquez, would leave a sabbath candle burning in their bedroom. 223 Amiel claims, without furnishing documentation, that normative Judaism rec-ognizes only a bedroom candle as the true sabbath one. 224 In fact the room where one eats is the preferred location. Moreover, invalidating Amiel's assertion, no lighting is permitted in the bedroom during cohabitation, which Talmudic Judaism prescribes for the sabbath night. Amiel does not comment on the discrepancy with normative post-Talmudic Judaism's prescription of two sabbath candles.

396
The expression quebrantar la fiesta de él (to break its [i.e. the sabbath's] feast), occurring in Diego de Mora's (Francisco's father's) posthumous sen-tence to execution, Amiel considers "an evident transposition of the Hebrew expression lealel ha-šabbat (to profane the sabbath)." 225 Such a transposition, however, is far from ovious. The 1547 Constantinople Pentateuch 226 translates the Hebrew verb throughout by esbiblar (metathesis of *esviltar?), Ferrara 1553 227 by abiltar (= aviltar) and the version revised by Casiodoro de Reina (1569) has profanar. 228 230 Francisco's declaration that the hearth fire was allowed to burn itself out on Friday nights in order to emphasize their festive nature 231 does not seem pace Amiel -necessarily related to an atavistic taboo. Since Amiel believes 397 Francisco "confessions" implicitly, why not accept the latter's explanation at face value?
Francisco de Mora Molina's second proceso, after 11 months of proximity with his three relatives who shared his cell, contains 15 denunciations by them ultimately leading to his death sentence. From a bill of indictment dated July 5, 1591, Amiel selects as of particular "marranic" significance the following: on a certain Saturday one of them threw a stone from the dying embers of the hearth into the urinal. 232 Francisco reprimanded him for violating the sabbath. Confronted with this accusation, on the following August 28 Francisco explains to the Inquisitors that at home in Quintanar allowing liquid to spill on fire or ashes was called "doing the wash" and considered sinful on Saturdays. (Amiel connects this taboo with the Jewish prohibition of extinguishing fire on the sab-bath as well as with Passover purification of utensils.) While Francisco claims this to be family knowledge, shared with his parents and siblings, it is apparently absent, like so much of Quintanar and Alcázar Judaizing, from their and all the other Mora procesos studied by Amiel. 233 Significantly, it is again Francisco, the "scholar," who comes up with these exotic scraps.

New Moon
Francisco de Mora Molina confesses his family's celebration of the first day of every lunar month by dressing in clean clothes, perfumed with rosemary. 234 Although the Bible equates the New Moon with the festivals (Nm 10, 10), rab-binic Judaism does not. Roš odeš leaves but the faintest mark on the modern Jewish conscience at a certain remove from the synagogue. Amiel opines that the Moras had forgotten in the course of time the sporadic two-day New Moon celebrations prescribed by rabbinic Judaism. Révah contrasts the survival in Quintanar and Alcázar of one-day New Moon celebrations with their omission from the 1536 Portuguese Edict of Faith and from the 1000 or so Portuguese in-quisitorial trial-records he studied. He supposes them "to have been rapidly for-gotten in Portuguese marranism." 235 It is also absent from the 1524 Spanish Edict 232 One wonders what the stone was doing in the hearth. 233

398
of Faith. Levine Melammed, who studied two 16th-century Toledo procesos of the Alcázar New Christians at the Archivo Histórico Nacional in Madrid, com-ments on a 1590 reference to the New Moon celebration, attributed to Diego de Mora's sister Elvira de Mora, who died before 1573: Roš odeš is rarely mentioned in earlier trials and the observance seems to have re-emerged during this later period. 236 Elvira del Campo, as we have seen above, declared in her 1567 trial that she would inquire as to when the New Moon fell. Moreover, in her 1591 trial, she specifies that she would ask her brother Rodrigo for the date of Festivals and the New Moon and, in reply to interrogation, that "she kept and saw (sic) others keep the New Moon." Yet, except in Francisco de Mora Molina's second trial and those derived from or related to his denunciations, they are but rarely men-tioned in the Cuenca Mora trials. 237 Would the New Moon celebration qualify for Révah's category of "revivalist marranism"? If indeed it was commemorated in Quintanar, it could hardly qualify as a reminiscence of a Jewish past. It has all the trappings of a new discovery, gleaned from a book. Indeed, the 80-year old Juana de Mora, after the murder of her brother Francisco at the Auto of August 12, 1590 sole survivor of the 12 children of Juan de Mora and Mari López, interrogated on September 18, 1590, declared: Es verdad que de 5 o 6 años a esta parte que esta confesante y Juan López de Armenia su marido guardaban los primeros días de la luna, porque antes no lo habían sabido y que los hacía por guarda de la ley de Moisén.
Questioned as to: 236 LEVINE-MELAMMED, "Judaizers," 275. See also EAD., Heretics or Daughters, 153. Here the celebration is attributed to Diego de Mora. 237 Isabel de Mora Carrillo, on the other hand, claimed that Juan López de Armenia the Elder informed her and her siblings of the dates of the Feast of Esther, the festivals and the New Moons. See ADC leg. 327, no. 4689 (April 20, 1592). Whereas I have not been able to cross-reference this attribution in the latter's proceso itself (ADC leg. 283, no. 3946), a reference to it may be found in the copious extracts from his wife's proceso, included as part of the denunciations introducing his own: Juana de Mora, interrogated on December 12, 1591 as to whether ciertas personas iban a preguntar las personas del Quintanar […] cuándo se habían de guardar las lunas y pascuas y fiesta de la Reina Ester y que él lo decía, replied: que no se acuerda por cierto quién eran estas personas que a mi marido le preguntaban cuando eran el primero día de la luna y las pascuas […] y que él lo decía; y que estas le preguntaban y no sabía que otra persona se lo preguntase. See also ADC leg. 327, no. 4691 (Leonor Enríquez, excerpted in ADC leg. 328, no. 4703: Juan de Mora el albañir): acudían a preguntarlo y saberlo [las fechas de las pascuas y las lunas] de Juan López de Armenia el viejo y de la dicha Juana de Mora, su mujer y de cualesquiera de ellos y que ellos decían cuando estaban a tantas lunas las páscuas y las fiestas de la Reina Esther […] 399 ¿De quien ha sabido que se habían de guardar los primeros días de la luna?
Asked: ¿Que otras personas han guardado los dichos días primeros de la luna? She replied: Algunos de los suyos, sus sobrinos los habrán guardado, no sabe quien porque esta confesante no lo ha visto. 238 It is worth noting that Juan López de Armenia and his wife mention their ac-cess to such sources of Old Testament knowledge as Juan de Dueñas' Espejo de Consolación and to Hierónimo de Lemos' La Torre de David. 239

Festivals
The 1524 Spanish Edict of Faith, which we saw above, describes: […] The feasts and festivals of the Jews, in particular the feast of unleav-ened bread, which falls in Holy Week, upon which festival they eat unleav-ened bread, beginning their meal with lettuce and celery, and keeping the feast of Tabernacles which falls in the month of September […] Francisco de Mora Molina confesses his family's observance of three festi-vals (pascuas). The first is "that which they called of the Lamb (la que llamaban del Cordero), around Holy Week, to thank God for having freed the children of Israel from the power of Pharaoh and Egyptian captivity […]. The second is Tabernacles (Cabañuelas) around May, to render thanks to God for having led His people for 40 years through the desert without their clothes wearing out, providing them with manna, which had the taste of anything they fancied […]. The third is the September festival, of 7 or 8 days' duration, starting on the 15th or 16th day of the Moon […] to thank God for having permitted the reaping of 400 the fruits of the earth." 240 The celebration of all three consisted of putting on finery, eating well and refraining from work.
On the eve of the Lamb feast, so Francisco confesses to the Inquisitors, "in his father's house, all would eat standing 241 roast eggs, roast fish, everything roast, and unleavened bread although regular bread would also be put on the ta-ble to dissimulate in case anyone dropped in. They baked the unleavened bread with the doors closed. 242 The mysterious reason for roasting everything, said Francisco, "he did not know but the older folk would, nor did he know why they had to stand." 243 Let us take a critical look at these words. To paraphrase the Portuguese his-torian António J. Saraiva, the only thing they prove is that a defendant, fighting a loosing battle for his life, uttered them. We have here an authentic document, but not necessarily a veracious one. 244 How odd that a c. 37-year old "informant on crypto-Judaic practices" should never have inquired, year after year, of his unidentified "elders" why all the food had to be roasted and why they had to eat it standing! On the other hand, these words combine with Francisco's characteristic officiousness. For instance, as we have seen above, "asked to say and declare how often and when those who live and profess the Law of Moses wash their hands in order to keep and observe it," he replied: 'Yes, I shall say it, Sir, and very willingly." 245 Francisco presents us here and elsewhere with an artful mixture of pseudo-Judaic omniscience and pseudo-artless ignorance. I assume that his ploy 401 was inspired by his desire to anticipate any and all possible and imaginable decla-rations of his family members, thereby saving his life, yet at the same time avoid severe punishment as an heresiarch. Their training, of course, had conditioned the Inquisitors to fall for the tall story of the yearly Passover ceremony and the even taller story of two centuries' worth of "crypto-Judaism." While jubilantly saluting the Moras' "marranic" Feast of the Lamb as the continuation (mutatis mutandis) of "The Jewish Passover, Pesa" and revel-ing in its antiquity, Amiel also concedes some doubt as to the genuineness of Francisco's ignorance (I supply emphasis): Our man did not understandor pretended not to understand -that the Mora family had been playing for centuries the mimodrama of the Exodus from Egypt […] 246 Israel S. Révah, on the other hand, decided -based on his archival research -to classify the Mora feasts as "revivalist marranism" (I again supply emphasis): Our Marranos had also preserved (or, rather, found back) the three ancient pilgrimage festivals of Judaism. 247 Indeed, María de Mora, Francisco's older (?) sister, 248 married to the Old Christian Pedro de Sauca, confessed to the Inquisitors on May 5, 1589: Two years before her father Diego de Mora died [the family] began to observe the said festivals. The occasion was that her father had read about them in a book, entitled, she thinks, Las edades del mundo ["The Ages of the World"], belonging to one Orejón, who lives in Miguel Esteban. Thus, for about two years during her father's lifetime they kept them entirely. Since then she kept them, but carrying out some chores which couldn't be avoided, such as doing the wash, cooking and other things […] 249 246 "Marranisme" I, 260. Amiel's doubt apparently does not extend to the genuineness of Francisco's ignorance as to the why and wherefore of roasting all the food. Nor did it occur to Amiel to wonder why Francisco presents no script whatsoever for the family's purported yearly pantomime. 247  Haberá veinte y dos [años] que Hernando de Mora su padre desta confe-sante enseñó a esta que no comiese tocino, aunque -¡por Dios! que lo ha comido muchas y muchas vezes; y también que guardase los sábados con gran secreto, sin dar a entender a nadie que los guardaba y que algunos guardaba esta confesante y que otros no, por que no la entendiesen. Y que le enseñó las pascuas, dijo que le habían enseñado a guardar tres pascuas de la Lei de Moisén: una por la semana santa que cree que la llamaban del cordero; y otra por Maio, no sabe como se llamaba, y cree que se guardaba una semana antes de la pascua del Espíritu Santo; y otra por el mes de se-tiembre. Y que le enseñó también unas palabras que dicen "canto grado, mi socorro y mi vandeo." Y que las dichas pascuas su padre desta confitente no las sabía, que un tío suyo que se llamaba Diego de Mora se las ense-ñó en presencia desta confitente y que las mismas cosas enseñó el dicho Hernando de Mora su padre a su hermana desta confitente, que se llamaba Beatriz de Mora. Y las enseñaba juntas del dicho tiempo que tiene dicho a esta parte, hasta que murió, que puede haber once años. Y que las ense-ñaba a esta confesante y a la dicha Beatriz de Mora el dicho su padre con mucho recato, unas veces en la sala de su casa y otras veces en la cocina, sin que se hallase nadie presente más que estos: su padre desta confesante y esta y la dicha Beatriz de Mora, su hermana. 250 If María and Juana are to be believed, 251 these facets of Mora "marranism" do not go back to 1391 but to the close of Diego's life. Diego de Mora was born c. 1516 and died "before 1588." 252 But can his death be dated more precisely?
His daughter Francisca de Mora, born c. 1558, confesses on May 9, 1589 that her father, "who died eight years ago," taught her "core" Judaic prayers (of which she merely recalls a few scraps). Therefore, if Francisca was being ac-curate, he died in 1581. 253 Moreover: 250 See ADC leg. 314, no. 4554. It is worth noting that according to her testimony family abstention from pork and sabbath observance only began c. 1568 (when she was 30!), following the sanctions on the count of infringement of disqualification. 251 Sometime in July 1590 María de Mora was made to share Juana's cell. 252 RÉVAH & WILKE, Un écrivain, 103, 443. The earliest and only 16th-century baptism register extant in Quintanar covers 1520-1534 and the earliest extant burial register begins in the l7th-century. 253 This approximate year may be corroborated by the following considerations: Leonor Enríquez (born c. 1564) married his son Francisco de Mora Molina shortly before her father-inlaw's death. Her first child was born c. 1582 and her second c. 1583. Thus her marriage probably Dijo que dos años antes que Diego de Mora muriese, le enseñó a esta confesante las dichas oraciones y que habrá ocho años que murió. Luego dijo que dos años antes que muriese le enseñó las cosas que confesadas tiene de la ley de Moisén y que las oraciones que en esta audiencia y en otras tiene confesado se las enseñó Diego de Mora su padre un año antes que muriese, estando enfermo en la cama. Se las enseñó a María, Catalina, Luisa, Isabel, sus hermanas, que entiende que las saben tres palabras, mas o menos. Y que sabe claramente que las saben. Y que no se acuerda formalmente que se las oyó decir, porque el rezar se hace secreto. Dijo que no sabe que las enseñase a otra persona alguna de su casa ni de fuera de ella y que no sabe que las enseñase a, ni que las sepan Francisco de Mora, ni Juan de Mora, sus hermanos, porque el Francisco de Mora era casado y Juan de Mora andaba siempre en comisiones cu-ando su padre enseñó a este confesante las dichas oraciones y que no sabe de otra persona alguna. Que si lo supiera, lo dijera por descargar enteramente su consciencia. 254 His daughter Luisa, born c. 1566, similarly confesses ten days later, on May 19, 1589, that her father "who died eight years ago," taught her "core" Judaic prayers, of which she also only recalls a few scraps: Que se las enseñó a esta y a las sus hermanas cundo estaba en la cama […] que habrá 9 años y que sería un año antes que muriese y habrá 8 que murió. Y que antes que muriese las rezó. Luego dijo que pusiesen que las habría rezado algunas veces, aún que ella no se acordaba y que no las habría rezado. Preguntada si las oraciones se las enseñó a esta y a las sus hermanas por de la Ley de Moysés, dijo que sí, que por de la Ley de Moysés se las enseñó […] como lo demás que ha confesado. Y que no se las ha visto rezar a las sus hermanas. 255 Now, if Diego de Mora died in 1581 and instituted his family's celebration of the Biblical festivals in 1579 after reading a book that contained a description of them, we still face two unsolved problems. What is the identity of the book that had informed him of the festivals and what is the source (no doubt also a took place c. 1581. The shepherd Francisco Sánchez declared that he worked for Diego de Mora 1573-1582 (see above). I owe this note to Dr. Carsten Wilke. 254  Révah supposed the book that contained the Jewish festivals to be a poem entitled Las edades del mundo by Pablo de Santa María, written 1416-1418: re-vised with prose glosses c. 1460. 256 This identification is impossible, because 1) the poem was first printed in 1844 and 2) neither the poem itself nor the glosses mention Jewish festivals. 257 Carsten Wilke proposed "The Ages of the World" to be Alonso de Villegas' Flos Sanctorum, segunda parte […] Tratase de las seys edades del mundo […], first published in 1583. 258 Obviously Diego de Mora could not have been inspired in 1580 by read-ing a book that first appeared in 1583. On the other hand Part One appeared in 1578, three years before his death. It does not seem to defy the imagina-tion that Francisca confused the first and second parts, associating "Ages of the World" ocurring in the subtitle of the Second Part with the first, which had simi-lar contents. 259 I say "similar contents," because in comparing Villegas' Flos Sanctorum nuevo (1588 reprint of Part One) with his Flos Sanctorum Segunda Parte (1586 reprint of the Part Two) I found the parallels to be quite striking -down to such esoteric details as the manna: 256

406
Otra maravilla y obra famosa de Dios fue sustentar en el desierto a los Hebreos con el maná por espacio de quarenta años […] y su sabor fue en dos maneras, uno natural y otro sobrenatural, que era de todo lo que apetecía el que comía del (Sapientia 16: 'que el manna sabía a lo que quería que supiese el que le recebía'). 260 Sabía también, según dice el Libro de la Sabiduría (Sapientia 16) a todo aquello que era el gusto de quien lo comía. 261 The singular name Feast of the Lamb also occurs in both volumes, whereas the standard name in the Edicts of Faith is "Feast of the Unleavened Bread" (cf. scriptural ag ha-maot, or ag maot). In fact, the Flos Sanctorum (first part) may be the first book to use the word "lamb" in the feast's designation: […] las Pascuas, que eran tres, que así lo mandaba Dios en el Deuteronomio: una en el mes de Marzo que era el primero del año acerca de los Hebreos, y era esta la Pascua del Cordero y la principal de todas: y fue instituída en memoria de haberlos Dios sacado de Egipto y librado del poder de Faraón. Celebraban la segunda Pascua cinquenta días passados después de la primera y llamábanla Fiesta de Pentecostés […] porque Pentecostés significa número de cinquenta. Esta Pascua fue instituída por el beneficio que hizo Dios al pueblo dándoles Ley en el desierto por mano de Moisés. Celebraban la ter-cera Pascua por el mes de Setiembre que era a su cuenta el sétimo mes y llamábanla Fiesta de Tabernáculos o Chozas; y fue instituída en memoria de que los había Dios conservado en el desierto por espacio de quarenta años en tabernáculos o chozas, andando peregrinando por diversas partes […]. 262 Mandó Josías que se celebrase la Pascua del Cordero con todas las ceremo-nias que la Ley mandara, y fue la más solemne fiesta de aquel nombre que se celebró entre los judíos.

407
The Flos Sanctorum segunda parte reports the Israelites' 40 years in the desert without their clothes wearing out: En todos los quarenta años que estuvieron los Hebreos en el desierto dize la Escriptura que no se les rompió el vestido ni el calzado. 264 The confusion of Tabernacles with Pentecost is evidently Francisco's 265 , as well as the reference to roasted victuals eaten standing on Passover night. Do they derive, as Amiel would have it, from a "confusion produced during the passage from Judaism to marranism"? If nothing else, the manna-to-taste must surely (Occam's razor) have come to Francisco out of Flos Sanctorum rather than be a "perfectly transmitted Jewish tradition deriving from the Talmud." 266 If the Moras' inaugural celebration of the Feast of the Lamb indeed took place in 1579, Francisco de Mora Molina would then have been c. 26. He is (perhaps) putting one over on the Inquisitors and on Charles Amiel when he lets them infer by omission that the Feast of the Lamb is an old Mora tradition (emphasis supplied): What the mysterious reason for eating everything roasted, he does not know but the older folk would, nor does he know why they had to stand […] I add "(perhaps)" because the Cuenca Inquisitors come across too cynical to be so gullible and it seems almost incredible that Amiel heard the cautioning voices neither of María de Mora, of Juana de Mora, of Francisca de Mora nor Israel Révah's.

Fast Days
Let us remind ourselves of the pertinent passage in the 1524 Edict of Faith: […] Those who keep the Jewish fasts and do not touch food the whole day until nightfall, specifically the fast of Queen Esther and the chief fast [ayu--408 no mayor] they call the quippur and sundry Jewish fasts laid down by their law and observe other fasts of the week, especially Mondays and Thursdays which they keep as devotional fasts, who eat [at the close of] these fast days such meats and other viands as are customary among the Jews; and on the said fast days ask pardon one of the other in the Jewish manner […] Francisco de Mora Molina, asked to identify the fast days, replied: […] Any day they felt like it they could fast but not on the sabbath and the more devotional fasts are Mondays and Thursdays, so he was taught by his father Diego de Mora, who would fast on some days not eating food the whole day until nightfall. And at other times his father would fast two and three days, which fast they would call double and threefold 267 […]. They were not to drink on those fast days after having slept, for upon going to bed they could well have a drink but after having slept, they were not allowed to. […] Asked what other fast days there are in the Law of Moses and when they fall. He replied that around September there is a ten-day fast starting with the first of the Moon, on which one abstains from work and then the next ten days. Then he said that one fasts the nine following days, except for the Saturday in between, but that the first day of the Moon is also counted as a fast day. On those days they fast in the way he described, neither eating nor drinking the whole day until nightfall, reciting the said prayers thrice, preceded each time by the washing of the hands. He does not know the name of this fast; all he knows is that it is the usual one kept by those who observe the Law of Moses, something like the Lent of the Christians […]. He does not know for what reason the said fast is kept. Furthermore, those ten days put behind one, there is a five-day interval, hard upon which comes the September feast. 268 Throughout his second "trial" Francisco almost surreally seems to assume the role of an authority on comparative religion. To be sure he "denounces" specific practices taught him by his father but the latter's "teaching" leans towards the theoretical rather than the practical. The Inquisitors' questions do not elicit the defendant's sorrowful tale of deviance and regret, which, according to standard inquisitorial practice, could lead to reconciliation. Something odd is going on here 267 Ayuno doble y tresdoble; this curious expression is contained in Elvira del Campo's sec-ond proceso, June 17, 1591, preceding the proceso of Inés del Campo, ADC leg. 320, no. 4620, ff. 50v-61v (reproduced here as an appendix); also Rodrigo

409
-distinct from your standard inquisitorial procedure. One wonders whether it is related to Inquisitor Arganda's determination at the Cuenca Auto of August 12, 1590, to temporarily spare "this eccentric's life and squeeze him for information." Amiel faults Francisco's failure to name the tenth day of the unidentified 10-day fast. According to the inquisitorial sentence (in the third person plural) common to the procesos of his father and his siblings Juan and Inés (emphasis supplied): Before the said September festival, beginning on the first day of its Moon they fasted the Greatest Fast of ten days, not eating or drinking on any of them from the rising to the setting of the sun end keeping the last of them as a feast which they called Good and Chief Day. 269 An inquisitorial sentence, concocted by the Inquisitors, does not allow us to hear the voice of the defendant. This precise designation, albeit in reversed order (día mayor y bueno), I have found only in the interrogation of Elvira del Campo. A popular name for the Day of Atonement such as the Edict of Faith's ayuno mayor (chief fast) or, even better, the just quoted día mayor y bueno (chief and good day), had Francisco picked it up, might reflect current family practice rather than literary erudition. Better still, the Hebrew designation quipur, so common in 16th-century Portuguese pro-cesos. 270

Three-day Fasts or Feasts of Esther?
Amiel claims that "various testimonies" mention observance of the scrip-tural 3-day fast of Esther (Est 4, 16) but he only cites to that effect the posthu-mous collective sentence of Diego, Juan and Inés de Mora. 273 Significantly, Francisco de Mora Molina apparently forgot to mention it in his compendium of Quintanar Judaism. The Inquisitors asked Elvira del Campo about a 3-day fast of Esther and why it was observed, and Elvira cautiously professed her ignorance as to its nature and stated that she was aware of her sister Inés observing it but not her brother Rodrigo. The Inquisitors were of course in-tent on ensnaring her into "falsely denying an observance" for which they suggested she had been denounced (the inquisitorial labyrinth). 274 Rodrigo del Campo, however, in the course of his first session with the Inquisitor, states that por el mes de febrero guardaba las fiestas de la Reyna Ester. 275 Similarly, Isabel de Mora Carrillo declares she kept three-day festivities of Queen Esther: por el respecto que el capítulo dice de haber alcanzado del rei Asuero el pardón de los hijos de Israel. 276 The absence of Esther commemoration from Francisco de Mora's repertory; the uncertainty as to its nature, its date and whether it is celebrated by fasting or by feasting; the references to a "chapter" as its source and to the king's "pardon;" all these point to knowledge recently acquired in Quintanar from Villegas' work rather than from an inherited tradition or actual celebration.

Mourning
The 1524 Spanish Edict of Faith says that New Christians who Judaize: […] Upon the death of parents and other persons eat on the floor or on very low tables such things as boiled eggs, olives and other viands, as do the Jews. And they stand behind the door which they call cohuerzo as they do, pour water from jars and pitchers while someone is dying, believing that the soul of such a person will come and bathe in this water […] 278 See ADC leg. 323, no. 4645, 1589.

414
The bizarre pleonasm moría un difunto (a deceased person died) goes back to Torquemada's Instrucciones of 1484. It is repeated in the earliest presently known Edict of Faith, printed in Catalan in March 1512: […] si saben quant algun es mort que posen alli hon mori lo defunct una escudella e un ences e unes toualles […] The "Jewish custom of pouring out the water when someone dies" appears in a Toledo proceso of 1486 and, for the first time, in an Edict of Faith in the 1524 one quoted above. The only Edict of Faith known to me to mention an angel in connection with the water pouring is the Portuguese one of November 18, 1536, which explains that the Destroying Angel.would wash his sword in the water. 286 I surmise that between 1524 and 1591 there appeared a now no longer extant Spanish Edict of Faith combining jar, towels and angel and that from it derives Isabel's description of water pouring in connection with the angel's visit (un-known to her encyclopedic cousin Francisco).
Contrary to Amiel's undocumented claim, it is my impression that the pseu-do-Judaic death cult as confessed by Francisco de Mora Molina and Isabel de Mora Carrillo is described (with variant details) only by them among the "hun-dred voices" of Quintanar and Alcázar. 287 [Continuará] 286 See SALOMON, "Monitorio," 49-56. 287 Amiel sets out his section on "death rites" (p. 269) by claiming that "the testimonies con-cerning them are particularly numerous," but cites only "our privileged informant, Francisco de Mora Molina." Cf. RÉVAH & WILKE, Un écrivain, 151: "It is F. de M. M. who furnishes the most information on funeral practices […]." The Toledo proceso of Catalina Gómez is missing.