Manuel Anrriguez (Manuel Henríquez): English

Manuel Anrríguez of Portugal, who, changing his name, in this kingdom has called himself Manuel de Olivares, is a merchant native to Villa Flor.  Francisco Rodríguez proclaimed in his testimony that he is of Jewish cast and lineage, that certain relatives and relations of his had been imprisoned by the inquisition and received penance, and that the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez knew this well, being from his land and knowing his parents.  In order to verify this, he was called to this Holy Office and, under oath, reported, after having declared that he knew the parents and certain relations of the aforementioned Francisco Rodríguez, that he did not know whether they were New Christians or Old Christians, nor had he heard him speak of this.  Afterwards we received in this Holy Office a declaration made in the village of Potosí, written by a notary who handles the Holy Office’s business there, whereby it seems that the man who made this declaration in the form of a missive, called Francisco Rodríguez, who claims to be a native of the village of Villa Flor in Portugal, asked the aforementioned notary that he write it because at that time there was no commission to send a letter to this Holy Office.  It says in the letter that on the nineteenth of March of the year one thousand five-hundred and ninety-three, twenty days ago, Manuel Anrríguez—whom he had known for twenty eight or thirty years because he was a native of Villa Flor, where he had been born and had known his parents and grandparents and relatives that he names in the aforementioned letter, whom the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez and his relations knew to be of Jewish caste and lineage, both on the side of the father and mother—had come to him.  Among other things Francisco Rodríguez described how this Holy Office had imprisoned a son of Lanzarote de Acosta and named the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez as an exculpatory witness.  Francisco Rodríguez had previously appeared before us and we had asked him—under oath—if he knew the aforementioned Lanzarote de Acosta and if he knew that Lanzarote de Acosta was of the Jewish caste.  Francisco Rodríguez declared that he knew him, but that he did not know whether or not he was of the Jewish caste.  And the aforementioned Francisco Rodríguez also said that Manuel Anrríguez knew his father and his mother, as well as his paternal and maternal grandparents.  And Francisco Rodriguez named these relatives, all of whom were converts of the Jewish caste, and he affirmed that the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez knew both that he, Francisco Rodríguez, was of Jewish caste and lineage and that he made this declaration (furthermore, he had committed perjury because he knew this as well as Francisco Rodríguez did) because the relatives of Francisco Rodríguez and Manuel Anrríguez grew up together and were friends.  And Manuel Anrríguez told Francisco Rodríguez that we had asked him if he was of the Jewish caste and that he had said that he was not, and he also said that Francisco Rodríguez knew that Manuel Anrríguez knew that he was of Jewish caste and lineage.  Manuel Anrríguez claimed that if he had said anything else he would have committed perjury, and that he was now deposing Francisco Rodríguez for the absolution of his conscience; he swore to God and to the cross that he was not saying it out of hatred or enmity.  And Francisco Rodríguez’s name is signed, and below his signature a father of the Society of Jesus says, “Here you have the words that were written in my presence, the same words as were said by Francisco Rodríguez, who swore an oath under which he has said these things and under which he signs his name.”  And further down on the page the notary writes, “I wrote this letter in the presence of the father rector at the request of the aforementioned man who calls himself Francisco Rodríguez, and I witnessed him take the oath which he claims to take in the letter.”

The witness Francisco Rodríguez _______ that the aforementioned letter be received during the testimony of his trial.  The aforementioned Francisco Rodríguez had testified the following against the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez: that he met the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez in Villa Flor, his native village; that his father was a New Christian, but  that he did not know whether he was half-Old Christian because he had relatives in Villa Flor who are Old Christians; that he only knew of one brother, who was a New Christian, of his mother; that the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez knew well that the witness and his relatives were New Christians, and that he also know that the grandfather and grandmother of the witness, Bernardo López and María Álvarez, as well as Catalina de Silva, his aunt, had been imprisoned by the inquisition; that, in this city, the witness had seen Manuel Anrríguez observe the Sabbath in accordance with the Law of Moses; that the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez had told the witness that he had fasted the Great Fast, in observance of the Law of Moses, and that he had said that he knew the Psalms of David in Spanish and that he prayed them sin gloria patri; that the witness had seen the Manuel Anrríguez dress himself on the Sabbath in a clean shirt and that he had spoken these words in spite of Jesus Christ (straightening the neck of the shirt with his hand, having put it on already); that, in addition, he once saw that Manuel Anrríguez did not make the sign of the cross during the gospel, despite the fact that he, the witness, had told him that it appeared wrong to those who saw this, and that he should make the sign of the cross, and so the witness concluded that the fact that Manuel Anrríguez did not cross himself was because he was a Jew; and that Manuel Anrríguez and Duarte Méndez, living in a house in this city together, spoke of how the witness and all three of them together were Jews and kept the Law of Moses, and that the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez had said that he had observed various ceremonies of the Law of Moses, such as keeping the holy Sabbath, and that he knew the Psalms of David in Spanish and prayed them sin gloria patri.  Manuel Anrríguez told this to the witness when they were alone in his house, since the witness spent the month of November of the year fifteen ninety one, in the company of the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez; the witness lived with him and slept in his room, sometimes even in his bed.  One evening, in the aforementioned home in the aforementioned month of November in the aforementioned year of ninety one, being present the witness, Francisco Rodríguez, Manuel Anrríguez and a cleric from the Canary Islands that had come from Spain to Cartagena with the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez, the witness asked the cleric how the psalm “Qui habitat” began, if it began “Qui habitat in adjutorio altissimo” or “Qui habitat in adjutorium in altissimo” because the witness did not know, since he did not know Latin.  And the aforementioned cleric explained how to recite the psalm in Latin, ________ then said that it contained many maxims, which he explained in Spanish, both the aforementioned psalm “Qui habitat” and the psalm, “De profundis clamavi,” sin gloria patri, and afterwards they discussed whether or not it was possible to pray the penitential psalms.  And Manuel Anrríguez told them that when he was in Medina del Campo he had observed the Great Fast and the Fast of Queen Esther, prayed the Psalms of David sin gloria patri, and kept holy the Sabbath.  And the witness also said that during the forty days he spent in the company of Manuel Anrríguez he saw that on Friday evenings and on Saturday he would dress in clean clothes and wear a clean shirt, that from Friday evening throughout Saturday he would do nothing, and that on Sunday he would put on the dirty clothes that he would wear throughout the week.  And the witness said that, having asked the aforementioned cleric if he was licensed by the Archbishop to give confession, so that he may confess to him because he had not confessed since leaving the sea, the cleric said that he did have license to give confession and that he would do so.  After the cleric left, leaving the witness, Francisco Rodríguez, and Manuel Anrríguez alone, the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez asked the witness, “why do you want to confess to this cleric?  Seven years have passed since I’ve gone to confession” (the witness said that he had reproached Manuel Anrríguez for this and other things, such as not attending Mass).  And furthermore, the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez lived with one of the Portuguese from the complicity, and at times he would take the witness by the hand and say, “Go outside, leave us to discuss what we would like, we want to hide from of you.”  And when this happened, Francisco Mayado, Duarte Núñez de Çea, and Duarte Méndez were present.  Another time, before this had happened, they had also thrown him out; the other aforementioned men lived in a different home, which the witness visited on  various occasions, and both times the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez took him by the hand and threw him out.

The witness claimed the following: that he, Manuel Anrríguez, and Duarte Méndez together declared that they were Jews and kept the Law of Moses; that, when Duarte Méndez hesitated in front of the witness, Manuel Anrríguez said to him, “It’s all right, you can reveal yourself, he’s from Villa Flor,” and that with this the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez wanted to say that the witness would not report what happened there because he was from Villa Flor; and that if Duarte Méndez had committed some Jewish act, the witness would not report it.  And when one evening the witness was reading the second part of the book entitled Mirror of Consolation, the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez said that the author of this book must have been a good Lutheran.  The witness understood that Manuel Anrríguez’s intention in saying this was to say that the author was a good Lutheran who secretly kept the Laws of Moses and, in it thought save his soul.

With this information from the witness, Francisco Rodríguez, and his letter, which contained evidence of the fact that Manuel Anrríguez committed perjury and that he had earlier divulged the secret of this Holy Office that was entrusted to him when he was called to it (nevertheless the letter did not have more authority than the aforementioned witness because, having returned it to Potosí with the order that its author testify under oath before the commission, Francisco Rodríguez, the aforementioned author, had already died),  it appeared to the consul that the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez should be imprisoned with the suppression of his rights, and so he was.  And when he was placed in jail another witness, Duarte Nuñez de Çea, who was imprisoned in the jails and who had testified in November of the year ninety-four (having deposed others as Jews), came forth in support of Francisco Rodríguez and claimed that he also knew that Manuel Anrríguez—the Portuguese native of Villa Flor that was in Potosí and was a merchant, whom he had met both in Cartagena and in this city two years ago—was a Jew because Manuel Anrríguez himself had told him.  In this city two years ago, being in the plaza alone and wanting to go to Solonique, it seemed to the witness that Manuel Anrríguez was living publically as a Jew.  And being accused of this, the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez denied it entirely and claimed he was a Catholic Christian, that he had not celebrated any such ceremonies, and that he had never known of anyone who had.  Manuel Anrríguez responded in the same way to the letter that was shown him without articulating his defense.  His case was voted on by the Ordinary and consultants from the Church, taking into consideration torture—to which he was submitted and under which he began to confess after his third turn at the garrote, applied to the right thigh.  Under torture Manuel Anrríguez declared that it was true that he had lived as a Jew ever since he met a Portuguese in Cartagena de las Indias, whom he names and claims taught him certain Jewish things; that since then he had not read the Church’s own teachings; that it was true what the aforementioned Francisco Rodríguez had said of him, and that he had been imprisoned by the inquisition because he had done what Francisco Rodríguez had described in his letter; that he had prayed the psalms; that, after he and Francisco Rodríguez had lived as Jews, although he had confessed, he had not told the truth in confession, nor had he confessed that he was a Jew because he considered the confession superfluous and believed that one should confess only before God; that he had believed that the communion host was not the true body of Jesus Christ but that it was only a bit of bread, and that he considered the Eucharist a joke; that he had prayed the psalms of David in romance form, and that a Portuguese from Villa Flor had taught him to do so; and that he had kept holy the Sabbath in keeping and observation of the Law of Moses—under the instruction of this Portuguese from Cartagena—and that to keep the Sabbath meant not doing anything throughout that day and dressing in a clean shirt when he could.  Under torture Manuel Anrríguez had also deposed other Portuguese involved in the aforementioned complicity as Jews, distancing himself from them, and claimed that he had not said what the witness Francisco Rodríguez testified he had said, although it was true that he didn’t believe in Jesus Christ after what the Portuguese had told him in Cartagena: that he should only believe in God, that Jesus Christ was not God, that he should not believe in the Virgin, and that it was all a lie except to believe in the one powerful God who had delivered the Jews of Israel from Egypt and the Pharaoh—and in this Manuel Anrrígues believed.   And so, according to Manuel Anrríguez, there was no Jesus Christ Inmaomora, but rather Jesus Christ, who the Jews had crucified, was not God but a man who was crucified because he had committed acts against God.  Manuel Anrríguez believed all of these things, believing in his sins until he thought all of them were absolutely true.  He persevered in all of his claims and beliefs and confirmed them after 24 hours had passed, though he eventually renounced what he had said about himself and the other Portuguese involved in the complicity.

And finding himself in this state Manuel Anrríguez was overcome by a promise made by the Portuguese who were imprisoned by the Inquisition: Francisco Mayado and Jorge Núñez, brothers who in the testimonies of their cases claimed that the aforementioned Francisco Mayado had revealed himself as a Jew to the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez five or six years ago in Potosí.  And so one declared to the other how he was a Jew and kept the Laws of Moses and how they had travelled together to Cartagena in a large boat, and from there together to Juana, after which they returned to Cartagena.  The witness knew that Manuel Anrríguez was a Jew and lived according to Jewish customs because _______ that they followed the witness and the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez from Spain.   During the two or three months that they spent in the ports of San Lucar and Cádiz they came to know one another by means of relatives and so they revealed themselves to be Jews and to keep the Law of Moses.  From Cartagena, after arriving from Juana, they went to a port called Giba/Yiba on the same island.  There the witness saw the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez observe the fast of ___________, not eating until nightfall throughout all of September, in keeping and observation of the Law of Moses.  And the witness observed this fast with Manuel Anrríguez, abstaining from food throughout the day and eating dinner with him after nightfall.  And to observe this fast the witness and Manuel Anrríguez went to a mountain not far from the port, and sitting across from one another they began to pray and entrust themselves to God.  Afterwards they walked all day and returned to their aforementioned residence in the port.  And in this city the witness fasted and observed Manuel Anrríguez, who seemed ______.   And together the witness and the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez had no reason to reveal themselves as Jews to each other because they already knew this of one another.

The witness claimed that, while travelling through this city four years ago after first disembarking in the port of Paita, he stopped in a village along the way to eat meat.  Despite the fact that it was Lent, the meat was given to him.  And travelling together, along with his nephew, Duarte Méndez, Manuel Anrríguez ate meat twice without any need for it.  They went walking along the road, Manuel Anrríguez travelling on horseback, understanding that they had sinned by eating meat twice during Lent, and the witness understood that this was because they were Jews.

The aforementioned Jorge Núñez says in the testimony of his case that he had been lying before he was submitted to torture.  During torture, after confessing that he was a Jew, he admitted that he had lived as such with Manuel Anrríguez, who was witness to this fact, and that, in a residence where he and the rest of the Portuguese lived in this city, he saw Manuel Anrríguez and the rest of the Portuguese keep holy the Sabbath, wear a clean shirt on these days, and fast.  He confessed that in this residence he heard them discuss how they were Jews and how they sought to save their souls by following the Law of Moses, thus the witness knew that the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez and the remaining Portuguese were  Jews because they told him themselves.   The witness knew that Manuel Anrríguez and the others who lived according to the aforementioned Law of Moses were Jews, that they met one another in this city in the year ninety-one or ninety-two, and that they knew one another to be Jews because they met each other and revealed this to one another.  Manuel Anrríguez and the rest of the Portuguese lived together in the same residence, confessed to the witness that they were Jews, lived according to Jewish custom, and treated each other as Jews, explaining to the witness on various occasions that the Law of Moses was good. In particular, the witness considered the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez to be a Jew because he had told the witness that he was a Jew and that he kept the Law of Moses, through which he believed he would achieve salvation, though the witness never saw him wear a clean shirt on the Sabbath in keeping with the Laws of Moses.  Nevertheless he knew him and the rest of the Portuguese to be Jews because they themselves had said so.

The witness claimed that some of the things he had said previously, such as keeping the Law of Moses, he had communicated to the aforementioned Portuguese and Manuel Anrríguez—all of whom were Jews and had both confessed this to the witness and had known that the witness was also a Jew—and that, although he had not seen them observe Jewish rights and customs, he knew them to be Jews because they had told him that they were, and that they kept holy the Laws of Moses.  And this witness denounced everything he had said about Manuel Anrríguez and the rest of the Portuguese while under torture.  He claimed that it was all false—that he had seen them keep holy the Sabbath, wear a clean shirt on these days, and fast—because he had not seen these things and had said them under torture unwillingly.  And he ratified this after 24 hours had passed.

The witness, the aforementioned Antonio Nuñez, who gave testimony after having confessed under torture that he was a Jew, having theretofore denied that he, Manuel Anrríguez, and the rest of the Portuguese that had lived together in the aforementioned city all lived according to the Laws of Moses, kept holy the Sabbath, fasted in keeping with the Law of Moses, and knew that everyone in the aforementioned residence—including the aforementioned Manuel Anrríguez—was a Jew because they had communicated this amongst themselves.

And being accused of the contents of the testimony presented above, the accused affirmed what he had said about being a Jew and what he had said of the other accused, confessing to certain details of the accusation but denying others, with the appearance of this lawyer asked for reconciliation.  And given this consultation it appears that the accused will appear in the auto da fé as a reconciled Jew.  And he was sentenced to reconciliation with perpetual imprisonment and he was placed in a hospital.