to offer him a promotion to the military Order of Christ as a reward for his latest services to the crown (fols. 22r–26r). Pereira indicated that he had started on his journey to the capital when he heard that the Order had concluded its requisite screening procedures and compiled documents known as pruebas (literally, “tests” or “proofs”). Pruebas were the means by which the military orders of Spain, as well as other exclusive Ibero-Christian societies such as religious confraternities, enforced their statutes of purity of blood. The “tests” were records of internal investigations as to the “cleanliness” of the lineage of prospective members. Such documents often contained additional information concerning the personal character and professional conduct of the applicants.97 Pereira did not say whether the Order of Christ had determined that his family tree was sufficiently “pure,” yet he clearly anticipated that it had or would soon do so—at least that is what the content and tenor of his testimony implies (fol. 26v).
As the interrogation continued, Pereira gave rather halting responses to standard questions regarding his religious education, thereby substantiating Mártir’s claim that he (Pereira) had not been properly instructed in the Catholic faith. The defendant said that he had been baptized and confirmed in Portugal, and that he confessed his sins regularly in church. When his interrogator98 prompted him to recite the Paternoster and Ave Maria prayers, he did so without any difficulty. Nevertheless, Pereira “stumbled considerably” when reciting the credo (dijo el credo con algunos tropezones considerables, fol. 25v). Furthermore, he “did not know the commandments of the Catholic church, or the sacraments, or the articles of the faith, or any articles of Christian doctrine” (fol. 25v).
The rest of Pereira’s testimony concerned his fateful voyage from Andalucía to Toledo. Pereira’s reconstruction of that journey contrasted sharply with that of his accusers. Regarding the alleged hiding incident, for example, the record of Pereira’s deposition reads as follows:
Realizing that he was Portuguese, the people with whom he had been traveling started to say many things to him … that he was a so-and-so, and in particular … [when] the [inn’s] hostess realized that he was Portuguese, she started to say, “Portuguese, Portuguese[!]“ and other things, to which this witness replied, “[I am] a nobleman, a very honorable one, as are all my relatives …” And they also told him many other [insulting] things, so he became angry and did not wish to eat with them.… [Another person in the group], seeing what they were telling him, started saying that [the suspect’s] mother was a Jewess, and a whore, and that his relatives were also Jews. In the same manner, while traveling on the road, they told him many things, and in particular they asked him if he was a prophet, to which he responded ironically [enchança] that yes, he was a prophet of the king of Spain (fol. 27r–27v).
Like all inquisitorial defendants, Pereira was asked if he knew or presumed why the Holy Office had arrested him. As the above citation suggests, he suspected that his erstwhile companions were the ones who had denounced him. However, Pereira chose to speculate about other possible accusers. In so doing he digressed considerably from the matter of his recent voyage. Toward the end of his deposition, Pereira went so far as to blame some Judeoconversos for his incarceration, referring to them by the popular euphemism “people of the Nation”—gente de la nación:99
[The defendant] says he presumes that maybe some persons who are called “of the Nation,” [had denounced him to the Inquisition] … [H]e had asked [those persons] for alms at the time that he was in Cadiz, in Seville, and in Madrid…when he found himself poor and with nothing to eat. [T]hey did not want to give him [the alms] he asked for, and he treated them badly, saying that they were Jewish pícaros and that if he were one of their own they would help him, and that the reason they did not want to give him anything was that he was a nobleman, and that if they were in Portugal they would not dare to stand in front of him with their hats on. [T]hat is why he presumes that some of these persons had denounced him with false testimony, for which he may have been incarcerated [by] the Inquisition. (fol. 27V)
Engaging this spontaneous indictment of Luso-conversos, Pereira’s questioner prompted him to identify his presumed accusers by name and to explain why he had called them “Jewish pícaros.” The inquisitorial notary who assisted Inquisitor Paniagua in the case recorded Pereira’s response as follows:
In Cadiz [the defendant] begged Andrés Gómez and Manuel Díaz for alms … and [he begged] other people whom he does not remember … [yet] he remembers these two because they are very rich merchants. Andrés Gómez [is in charge of] the [Royal] Sugar Monopoly, of spice shops, and of many other things, and … Manuel Díaz is the administrator of His Majesty’s millones.100 … [I]n Seville he remembers having asked [one] Dr. Messa for alms—he is a doctor—and [Messa] did not want to give him any, so [the defendant] also called [Messa] a Jew. He also remembers having begged for alms in Madrid from Antonio Henríquez, Portuguese, who is a businessman, who is of the Nation too.… [After Henríquez refused, the defendant] told him that he [meaning Henríquez] was a Jew of the [Hebrew] nation. And the same occurred with Antonio Váez de Guzmán, who [the defendant] understands is a businessman as well. (Emphasis added, fol. 27v)
Pereira’s interlocutor was not satisfied by this response. How, he asked, did Pereira know that the merchants, the doctor, and the businessman were “Jewish” if (as the questioner put it) “all the Portuguese appear to be of the same nation”? (fol. 28r). Pereira answered,
In Portugal those who are merchants are held in low esteem; there they live mistreated [ahajados] and vituperated by the rest; and that is why they move to Castile, because [in Portugal] they are not considered well-born.… [T]his [attitude] is very common in Portugal.… And since the [aforementioned individuals] are Portuguese and they have come to live in Castile, he [the defendant] called them Jews, [although] he has not seen them do anything against our holy Catholic faith. (Emphasis added; ibid.)
It was common knowledge in Portugal, Pereira continued, that merchants disliked nobles and disparaged them (fol. 29r). Furthermore, the persons in question had probably testified against him “because they had seen him outside his homeland and impoverished” (ibid.). Here Pereira’s implication was that the supposed accusers felt superior to him because of their wealth and their relative comfort in exile. In Spain, Pereira was hinting, such men could not only amass power and property, but they could do so while feeding their bloated commoners’ egos and escaping a well-deserved popular backlash.
The final portion of the Pereira dossier records the deposition of the defendant’s brother-in-law, Antonio Páez de Santi (or Sandi), a resident of Madrid and knight of the Order of Christ. It is not necessary to rehearse the details of Páez’s testimony. Suffice it to say that the information he provided concurred fully with Pereira’s declarations. The witness confirmed his prior acquaintance with the prisoner by accurately describing Pereira’s physical appearance. Crucially, Páez verified Pereira’s statements concerning the latter’s identity, his genealogy, and the purpose of his trip to Madrid. Indeed, the witness intimated that he was expecting Pereira’s arrival in the capital at the time of the arrest (fols. 36r–37v).
It is disappointing that the Pereira dossier has no formal conclusion; rather, it ends with the narrative record of Páez’s testimony. Only one document follows that record, effectively closing out the inquisitorial file. That document is a brief letter written in the defendant’s own hand and dated December 15, 1661. In the letter Pereira acknowledges receiving some personal effects, presumably the ones that the Holy Office had confiscated at the moment of his arrest. Thus it appears that, in the end, Inquisitor Paniagua and his assistants set Pereira free. Had the inquisitors realized, on the basis of Páez’s deposition, that Pereira had been a victim of libel? Unfortunately, there is no way to answer this question with certainty because the case file does not preserve any document indicating that the process against Pereira had been or would be dismissed, much less suggesting why Pereira had been released. Similarly there
