Miguel de Quintana’s coloquios in which God gave personal counsel to a character named Miguel fall under the Roman Catholic church’s rubric of private revelation. There was nothing inherently heretical about such revelations, but they were extremely difficult to establish as valid.
Augustin Poulain said in 1912 that, before one could judge the legitimacy of such claims, one needed to know something about the person in order to establish "that neither the demon nor the ecstatic’s own ideas have interfered (at least on important points) with God's action."
More specifically, one needed to establish the individual’s mental capabilities, needed to know if the person had "made progress in holiness and especially in humility," and needed to know if he had been "subjected to heavy trials," since it was "almost impossible for extraordinary favours to be conferred without heavy crosses."
The Holy Office in Ciudad de México had a similar understanding of such revelations in 1734. When the tribunal sent the denunciations back to Santa Fé, Diego Mangado y Clavijo specifically asked about "Quintana’s life and habits, his abilities and talents."
That was the point when the Santa Fé Inquisition office deviated from standard legal procedures, as described by Charles Cutter. If you remember the case of Leonor Domínguez, described in March and April 2015 posts, the governor couldn’t accept her claims that she’d been bewitched by women at San Juan. His representative had to find evidence by interviewing other witnesses.
In the case of Quintana, the local commissary of the Holy Office, José Antonio Guerrero, only took evidence from the two men who already had denounced him. Neither gave any indication that Quintana was telling anyone, other than the friars, he was receiving heavenly inspirations. In the case of Francisco Gómez Robledo, discussed in entries posted between March 21 and March 28 of 2014, the necessity for secrecy did not stop the Inquisition from taking testimony from a number of individuals.
The carefully constructed historical record from the Inquisition archives in Ciudad de México thus provides little information on what was happening in Santa Cruz. What follows is an attempt to provide the missing details that lead to a climax in 1737.
1694
José Manuel Giltoméy, notarizes a diligencia matrimoniale in Santa Fé. [Roots]
1695
April: first surviving DM is done in Santa Cruz. Angélico Chávez didn’t identify the notary. [Roots]
1696
José Trujillo becomes alcalde in Santa Cruz. [1 February 2015]
November: Giltoméy notarizes a DM in Santa Cruz. He continues to sign ecclesiastical documents both there and in Santa Fé. He marries in Santa Cruz in 1697, and probably moves to Santa Fé sometime after. [Roots]
1701
Juan de Tagle is assigned to the mission at San Ildefonso. [Archives]
1704
October: Juan de Paz Bustillos notarizes one DM in Santa Cruz. Giltoméy continues as the church notary in Santa Fé. [Roots]
October: Quintana begins notarizing DMs in Santa Cruz. [Roots]
1710
June: Quintana is licenced as a scribe with the kingdom. The first document that survives with his notarization is from 1712. [Lomelí]
Juan Mínguez begins filling in at the mission at San Ildefonso. His name also begins appearing in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz sacramental books. [Archives]
At some time, Quintana gives Mínguez some verses on a sheet of paper. He uses the word versitos. [Quintana]
1712
July: an Apache ransomed by Tagle escapes on a horse owned by Quintana. He goes to the ranch of José Trujillo where he’s joined by two other Apaches. Andrés is a captive owned by Trujillo. Cristóbal had been a servant to Diego Martín and is now freed. One takes a horse belonging to Quintana that is kept there. [Lomelí]
August-October: after Andrés and Cristóbal return to Trujillo, Quintana sues Trujillo for the value of the two animals they didn’t bring back. He says "those two horses provided me some relief by carrying a few supplies and firewood and allowing me to run errands." Trujillo tells him to go recover them himself. [Lomelí]
I’ve found no hidden ties or animosities between the people whose names appear in this case. It’s a small community and people meet often. It may be like the dispute between José Antonio Naranjo and Diego de Torres described in the post for 28 February 2016, when the two men exaggerated their claims and left it to the judge to determine a just solution. [Comment]
The record found by Ralph Twitchell gives no outcome. [Twitchell v2]
1713
Juana de Carras, wife of José Velásquez, sues Antonia Sedano, wife of Juan Lorenzo de Medina, over land Micaela de Velasco, widow of Miguel García de la Riva, sold to Velásquez. Proceedings in Santa Fé. [Twitchell v1]
Jacinto Sánchez de Iñigo replaces José Trujillo as alcalde in Santa Cruz. [1 February 2015]
1719
In 1734, Manul de Sopeña says Quintana is remembered to have been throwing stones 15 years before. [Sopeña 1734]
Notes: Dates in brackets refer to earlier postings. Comments are those of the author.
Chávez, Angélico. Archives of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, 1678-1900, 1957.
_____. New Mexico Roots, Ltd, 1982.
Cutter, Charles R. The Legal Culture of Northern New Spain, 1700-1810, 1995.
Lomelí, Francisco A. and Clark A. Colahan. Defying the Inquisition in Colonial New Mexico, 2006.
Mangado y Clavijo, Diego. Instructions from the Inquisition to José Antonio Guerrero, 22 May 1734, Mexico City; in Lomelí.
Poulain, Augustin. "Private Revelations," The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 13, 1912.
Quintana, Miguel de. Interrogation by José Antonio Guerrero in the Inquisition office, Santa Fé, 8 November 1734; in Lomelí.
Sopeña, Manuel de. Statement to José Antonio Guerrero in the Inquisition office, Santa Fé, 4 November 1734; in Lomelí.
Twitchell, Ralph Emerson. Spanish Archives of New Mexico, two volumes, 1914.
No comments:
Post a Comment