Biographical Data on Antonio Enríquez Gómez in the Archives of the Inquisition

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. Marcelino Menéndez y Pelayo, Historia de los heterodoxos españoles (Santander: Aldus, 1947), Vol. IV, 315, 316, 319.

2. I. S. Révah, ‘Un Pamphlet contre l'Inquisition d'Antonio Enríquez Gómez: La Seconde Partie de la “Política Angélica” (Rouen, 1647)’, Revue des Études Juives (NS), IV, 1 (1962), 83–168.

3. In a later summary of his research in progress, published in the Annuaire of the École Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Sec. 4 (Paris: Sorbonne, 1966), Révah claimed that Mora was burned at the stake.

4. The fact that he brought her from Amsterdam does not prove that she was a crypto-Jew. The Spanish and Portuguese New Christian community in Amsterdam, like most others in seventeenth-century Europe, included both crypto-Jews and sincere Catholics who had fled the peninsula to avoid racial discrimination.

5. However, Révah disingenuously fails to mention that Enríquez's testimony was damaging to Febos. See Julio Caro Baroja, ‘El proceso de Bartolomé Febos o Febo’, Homenaje a don Ramón Carande (Madrid: Sociedad de Estudios y Publicaciones, 1963), 59–92.

6. That book, a revised version of Dialogues 3 and 4 of his Política angélica, is an idealistic proposal for a thorough reform of the Inquisition. Enríquez cites Fathers of the Church, Popes, Church Councils and other Christian authorities to demonstrate that many of the Inquisition's practices (e.g. confiscation of property, refusal to allow those arrested to confront their accusers, etc.) are in violation of Catholic doctrine and tradition.

7. For Révah's response to these arguments, see his article ‘Les Marranes’, Revue des Etudes Juives, CXVIII (1959–60), 29–77.

8. Antonio Enríquez Gómez, El siglo pitagórico y vida de don Gregorio Guadaña, ed. Charles Amiel (Paris: Ediciones Hispanoamericanas, 1977), ix.

9. Constance H. Rose, ‘Dos versiones de un texto de Antonio Enríquez Gómez: un caso de autocensura’, NRFH, XXX (1981), 534–45.

10. Antonio Enríquez Gómez, Romance al divin mártir, ]udá Creyente [don Lope de Vera y Alarcón] martirizado en Valladolid por la Inquisición, ed. Timothy Oelman (Rutherford, New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson U.P., 1986).

11. Antonio Enríquez Gómez, Loa sacramental de los siete planetas, ed. Constance H. Rose with Timothy Oelman, Exeter Hispanic Texts, 42 (Exeter: University of Exeter, 1987).

12. Glen F. Dille, Antonio Enríquez Gómez (Boston: Twayne, 1988).

13. Antonio Enríquez Gómez, La presumida y la hermosa (Brains or Beauty), ed. and trans. Glen F. Dille (San Antonio: Trinity U.P., 1988).

14. Ann L. Mackenzie, ‘Una comedia casi perdida y desconocida sobre El Gran Cardenal de España, don Gil de Albornoz’, El mundo del teatro español en su Siglo de Oro: ensayos ofrecidos a John E. Varey, ed. J. M. Ruano de la Haza (Ottawa: Dovehouse Editions, 1989), 373—93.

15. The document is actually dated 19 August, but ‘agosto’ must be a mistake for ‘abril’.

16. This proves that Diego Enríquez de Mora was arrested in 1622 at the latest, rather than ‘peu avant 1624’, as Révah stated (82).

17. This suggests that the young couple were living with Antonio's father at the time of his arrest.

18. This is the only reference in the entire dossier to Enríquez de Mora's ‘crime’. Constance Rose has recently located the records of his trial in the archives of the Inquisition of Cuenca, leg. 409, no. 5750: ‘Anriquez, Diego. Quintanar de la Orden, Madrid 1623. Judaismo. Reconciliado’. The transcript reveals that his alleged crimes were: (i) eating a partridge cooked in oil rather than lard, as was usual; and (ii) slaughtering a ram in the Jewish manner in 1606. To the latter, more serious charge, Diego replied that he had been pressured into doing it by his older brother, Antonio Enríquez de Mora, who was in fact a Judaizer, but that he himself had always wanted to be a good Christian, proof of which was that he had married an Old Christian. See Rose, ‘The Marranos of the Seventeenth Century and the Case of the Merchant Writer Antonio Enríquez Gómez’, The Spanish Inquisition and the Inquisitorial Mind, ed. Ángel Alcalá (Boulder, Colorado: Social Science Monographs, 1987), 53—71. We have no way of knowing whether the charges against Diego were true. We do know that his only hope of release from prison was to confess and implicate others. He knew that accusing his brother Antonio could do no harm, because Antonio was already living in France, safely out of the Inquisition's reach. Prisoners of the Inquisition often implicated relatives living abroad or the deceased, as happened when Antonio Enríquez's cousins gave testimony that compromised him after his death; if that failed to satisfy the Inquisitors, they sometimes accused relatives they disliked or envied of minor offences, as in the charges—brought by a cousin—against Diego Enríquez. It is clearly dangerous to give too much credence to such self-interested accusations.

19. ‘Portugués’ here is obviously being used as a euphemism for New Christian.

20. Not 1600, as Révah stated. The 1601 date is also supported by his statement in the prologue to the Academias morales de las musas, published in 1642, but written in 1641, that he was then forty years old.

21. Report of Dr Fabián de Cabrera, dated 28 September 1677.

22. Document signed by Fabián de Cabrera, 28 September 1677.

23. Document notarized by Francisco Collado on 10 November 1677.

24. Document notarized by Francisco Collado on 8 September 1677.

25. Personal letter from Carmen Crespo Nogueira to the author, dated 17 September 1987.