Marina Gonzalez: The Spanish Inquisition By Lu Ann Homza

In The Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1614, Lu Ann Homza successfully compiled and published records of the trial of Marina Gonzalez. Through these records, Homza was able to illustrate the antagonism directed towards the Jewish Community during the Spanish Inquisition. In 15th century Spain, an accusation of practicing Judaism was taken very seriously and could lead to the punishment of death. In 1484, without any explicit evidence, Marina Gonzalez was accused of heresy and apostate based on allegations that she was a secret Jew. According to Homza, “Diego Martinez de Ortega… announced that he intended to place an accusation against Marina Gonzalez… for the crime of heresy and apostasy” (Homza, 27). Whether true or not, Marina Gonzalez responded

Marina’s lawyer, Diego Tellez, submitted a list of question that he wanted the witnesses to answer. Included in the list were questions such as: How long had the witness known Marina? Did the witness know or hear that she had reconciled herself during the Edict of Grace? Did the witness know if Marina had received and completed her penance? Did the witness know if, after her reconciliation, Marina worked on Saturdays, ate pork and meat, prayed to the Cross of St. Anthony, etc.? (Homza, 32-33). Essentially, Tellez was asking the witnesses if they could vouch for Marina as a good Christian woman who properly followed the Holy Faith after her reconciliation. Alfonso de Zarza, Marina Ruiz, Leonor Fernandez, Catalina Lopez, and Francisco de Toledo were witnesses used to support Marina’s innocence (Homza, 33-36). However, in response to these questions, their answers were vague and seemed to contradict themselves. For example, Marina Ruiz said that she was friends with Marina Gonzalez and would converse with her often. She claimed that “she saw Marina go to Mass on Sundays, and last Easter, she heard her say that she had confessed and received the Eucharist” (Homza, 34). She also said that “on Saturdays she saw her working very continually, doing her household jobs, working just as on

But, according to a warden of her jail, she had admitted that she was not Catholic. Homza wrote that “she was transported to the place of torture… they continued to giver her water, and told her to speak the truth; she said nothing” (Homza, 45). If Marina would not admit to being a Jew during torture, it makes no sense that she would admit to a warden after the torture was finished that she was not Catholic. However, the chief prosecutor presented a witness named Pedro Gonzalez who was the warden of their lordships’ prison. Pedro recounted his conversations with Marina where he asked her “if she was a Christian; she said no. This witness asked her likewise if she believed what the Holy Mother Church holds and believes, and she said ‘If I believed it, I would not be here,’ or ‘I would not have come here’, he cannot remember which…” (Homza, 48). Even with the chief prosecutor personally bringing Pedro as a witness, there were many flaws in his testimony. For one, he did not state an exact date or time when Marina supposedly claimed that she was not Catholic. Marina was also not around to deny these claims and no one could refute them because no one else was around when this conversation happened. The basis of his testimony was his word against Marina’s, which the court would use against her because no one could claim otherwise. Also, within his statement, he clearly stated that he could not remember