16th century AD

Past & Present, Nov, 1995 by Maureen Flynn

Among the most common interjections in the vernacular languages of the West are those that take the name of the Lord in vain. "O God!", "!Por Dios!" and "Par Dieu!" are some of the simplest, and they are heard in every society with a Christian heritage. For centuries Spaniards have hurled maledictions like "!Pese a Dios!" and "Digo mas verdad que el Evangelio",(1) challenging the hierarchical order of religion by placing the creature in a position of authority over the creator. In moments of frustration and wrath, Frenchmen have been known to mutter the credulously defiant wish "Le diable m'emport!", or to formulate, in language memorialized by Rabelais, oaths upon the Lord's incorporeal body like "Par la vertu du sang, de la chair, du ventre, de la tete de Dieu".(2)

Although these expressions may appear to be meaningless patter today, sliced into our conversations for spice and momentary release from thought, they have not always been regarded as innocuous forms of speech. For hundreds of years the Christian church took seriously the facile use of "blasphemies" such as these and tried strenuously to prevent people from violating the third commandment.(3)

Punishments for individuals who offended public religious sentiment through language, could be as severe as those meted out to thieves, heretics and sorcerers, including flogging, banishment, branding the lips with hot iron and mutilation of the tongue.(4) Another common technique used by the church to punish such infractions was to muzzle the person's mouth as one might a dog, and force him to ride backwards through the streets on a donkey.(5) Even the relatively mild ejaculation "O God!" was reprimanded, for this expression "disparaged the divine goodness", the standard medieval definition of blasphemy.(6) In common parlance, "O God!" was employed to express horror or delight at some startling moment in the course of a day's events. In this context, it appeared to religious authorities to indicate doubt about the validity or the judgement of divine providence. In other words, it seemed to mark the limit of people's confidence in divine causality.(7)

The reasons why these vanities of expression evoked such considered analysis in the past were articulated by one of the sixteenth century's most prominent spiritual advisers, the Spanish Dominican Luis de Granada. In his widely read devotional manual Guia de pecadores (A Sinner's Guide), Fray Luis observed that blasphemy, which is "the greatest temptation confronting Christians in the course of life's inevitable disappointments and hardships", constitutes a peculiar form of rebellion against God.(8) "At the slightest frustration", he commented, "peasants are ready to scream at their beasts of burden, at their mules, and mares, and asses, and commend their souls to the Devil". Fray Luis pointed out that the ill will that they direct into speech betrays, not only disrespect for God and his creatures, but also a refusal to accept the lot destined for them in life.(9)

How readily people in this age of faith were willing to disregard such advice, dropping from their lips verbal profanities of the most colourful sort, is plainly revealed to us by the case of an adolescent boy from Naples in 1526. The boy had left his homeland to work as a servant in Toledo, a cathedral city in the heart of New Castile. There he was known by his Spanish companions as "Angelo el sancto", an ironic appellation in light of the fact that he was overheard to have muttered the phrase "Reniego de Diu e de nuestra dona puta fututa en el culo cornuda". In defence of these remarks, which rang scandalously in the ears of the Castilian public, Angelo boldly announced that there was nothing particularly unusual about his comment. "Back in Italy", he said, "one hears people in the streets utter foul proclamations like this for whatever frustration they might feel".(10)

But it was Angelo's misfortune to have spoken such language in Castile, where the Spanish Inquisition was intent on rooting out blasphemy among the public. He was taken before the tribunal of Toledo and forced to repent under threat of severe physical punishment, a fate that awaited thousands of people in similar situations in this region of the country. Some of their experiences were carefully recorded in case records of the Holy Office's district tribunals, and they offer a rich and detailed description of the nature and frequency of blasphemy in this Catholic kingdom. Close examination of trial-books reveals, in fact, that blasphemy was the most frequently censured religious offence of the Spanish people in the early modern period, far outnumbering convictions on charges of Judaism, Lutheranism, Illuminism, sexual immorality or witchcraft. Jean-Pierre Dedieu has discovered that an astounding fifty per cent of all trials heard by the tribunal of Toledo in the sixteenth century, for example, concerned errors of language or palabras against the faith.(11) According to Henry Charles Lea, "there was no function of the Inquisition which brought it more fully in contact with the mass of the Old Christian population" than the pursuit of imprecations that were derogatory or insulting to the divinity. "Trivial as this portion of inquisitorial activity may seem to us", Lea says, "we may feel sure that in no other way was the influence of the Holy Office more keenly felt or more dreaded by [the] great body of the nation". (12)