From an early period the Church assumed jurisdiction over marriage, derived from the function of the priest for its due celebration, and when, in the twelfth century, matrimony was erected into a sacrament, its control became absolute. Monogamy was a distinguishing feature of Christianity, and marriage was declared to be insoluble. The sacrament could be enjoyed but once during the life of both spouses, and its repetition was invalid, all of which naturally came within the province of the episcopal courts. The infraction of the ecclesiastical law, however, considered as an offence against society, was subject to secular penal statutes and, under the Partidas, it was punishable with relegation to an island for five years and confiscation for the benefit of children, to which penalties Juan I, in the Córtes of Briviesca, in 1387, added branding in the face. (1) In 1532, the Córtes of Segovia petitioned to have it made a capital offence, which Charles V refused, but added half confiscation and, in 1548, the Córtes of Valladolid substituted the galleys, the term for which Philip II, in 1566, defined as ten years, with public vergüenza. (2)
Thus there was ample provision for the trial and punishment of the offence by the spiritual and secular authorities, and there was no necessity for the assumption of jurisdiction by the Inquisition. Presumably it obtained a foothold through the laxity of the marriage tie among Moors and Jews, so that bigamy, like abstinence from pork and wine and change of linen on Saturday, created suspicion of heresy. This showed itself first in Aragon. As early as 1486, the Saragossa tribunal burnt in effigy the fugitive Dionis Ginot, a notary, for marrying a second wife during the lifetime of  the first, and a number of other cases followed in which bigamy is conjoined with Judaic practices. For simple bigamy the penalty seems to have been perpetual prison, the punishment indicated for two culprits in the auto of February 10, 1488. (3) It also involved confiscation, for a letter of Ferdinand, October 22, 1502, to his receiver at Saragossa, orders him to deliver to certain parties ninety-four head of cattle confiscated on the bigamist Dornan Morrell. (4) In some way bigamy was construed as heresy for, in the Barcelona auto of February 3, 1503, Pere de Sentillana was required to abjure for marrying two wives, and in that of July 2, of the same year, Pere Ubach abjured for marrying in Rhodes and in Barcelona. (5)
This was one of the grievances of the Catalans, which they thought to remove in the Concordia of 1512, where it was agreed that bigamists, male and female, should be tried by the Ordinaries and not by the Inquisition, but they unwarily allowed the insertion of a provision "unless they believe erroneously as to the sacrament of matrimony or are suspect in the faith." (6) As this practically left it to the discretion of the inquisitors, Inquisitor-general Mercader, in his Instructions of 1514, was safe in telling the tribunals that they were not to try cases of bigamy unless there was presumption of erroneous belief as to the sacrament, and this was the answer sent, in 1515, to the Sicilians, when they made complaint of inquisitorial abuses. (7) Leo X, when, in 1516, confirming the Concordia of 1512, in the bull Pastoralis officii, was careful to make the same reservation, (8) but in this, as in everything else ostensibly gained by the Concordia, the subjects of the crown of Aragon found themselves deceived and when the Córtes, about 1530, complained that the inquisitors assumed jurisdiction over bigamy, the curt answer was that they observed the provisions of the law. (9)
A case occurring in 1513 suggests ample justification for this struggle to prevent the Inquisition from acquiring cognizance of bigamy. In 1477, Don Jorje de Bardaxí betrothed himself by  words de prúsenti to Leonor Olzina but, learning that she was pregnant or had borne a child, he never married her in the face of the Church or consummated the marriage. He remained single, but she, in 1497, married Antonio Ferrer. In some way the Saragossa tribunal got wind of the betrothal twenty years previous and prosecuted her in 1513. In her defence she alleged that Bardaxí had previously been married to Doña Juana de Luna, whereupon the tribunal commenced proceedings against him for the betrothal in 1477 and would have thrown him into the secret prison had he not been too infirm. He was a man of consideration and appealed for protection to Ferdinand, who ordered that he should not be arrested, that every care be taken to eliminate perjured testimony and that, on conclusion of the case, the papers be sent to Inquisitor-general Mercader. (10) The result is unknown, but Bardaxí was at least exposed to the terrors of an inquisitorial trial on a vague assertion of an indiscretion committed thirty-six years before.
Whether there was any formal opposition in Castile it would be impossible to say. There was a decided assertion of episcopal jurisdiction in the Council of Seville, held in 1512 by Archbishop Deza, the former inquisitor-general, which imposed a fine of two thousand maravedís on bigamists, in addition to the penalties provided by law; long absence of a missing spouse was not to be accepted as an excuse, and the death must be notorious or be duly proved before the Ordinary, before he could permit a second marriage. (11) Still, there was no special reclamation on the subject by the Córtes of Valladolid in 1518, nor any provision in the reform attempted through the Chancellor Jean le Sauvage. As in Aragon, the question turned theoretically upon the presumable heresy of the bigamist. About 1534, Arnaldo Albertino devoted an elaborate discussion to the matter, (12) but all this was academical rather than practical. In 1537, Dr. Giron de Loaysa, in his inspection of Toledo, reported that he had found everywhere many bigamists; they were so numerous that the inquisitors prosecuted them without distinction as to belief, and he suggested  that special orders should be accordingly issued as the offence was so evil and so frequent.(13) This would have been superfluous. Simancas admits that, if the culprit says that he knew that he could not have two wives and thus did not err in the faith, it would seem that the Inquisition was estopped from proceeding, but custom has prevailed, though it would appear wiser to leave them to the episcopal courts. In a later work, however, he says that the Inquisition prosecutes them as thinking wrongly of the sacrament and impiously abusing it. (14) Thus it became settled, and otherwise the Inquisition would have been obliged to abandon its jurisdiction, for about 1640 an experienced inquisitor tells us that the accused never admitted heresy, but always professed consciousness of guilt. He was always asked whether he regarded a bigamous marriage as lawful and, if he answered in the affirmative, he was to be punished as a heretic. (15)
To keep up this fiction, the formal accusation by the fiscal asserted heresy or at least suspicion, at first in a simple form but subsequently with much amplification, stigmatizing the accused as an apostate heretic, or at least gravely suspect in the faith, for "thinking ill of the holy sacrament of matrimony and its institution and adopting the error of the heretics against the prohibition of polygamy." (16) With the same view he was always required to abjure for suspicion of heresy, in the earlier time de vehementi, but later de levi. (17) The flimsiness of the pretext, however, is exposed by the fact that, in the Suprema, bigamy cases were always considered in the afternoon sessions, at which assisted the two lay members of the Council of Castile, and where public pleas and other secular matters were discussed. (18) Still, when the jurisdiction once was acquired, it was asserted to be exclusive and was defended with customary aggressiveness. The civil magistrates were unwilling to surrender their immemorial cognizance of the crime, and assumed that it was mixti fori, leading to frequent  collisions. The tenacity with which these contests were conducted is illustrated in a Sardinia case, in 1658, where the royal court arrested Miquel Fiori for bigamy. When the inquisitors heard of this, they demanded the accused and the papers but, three hours after the demand was made, Fiori was paraded through the streets of Cagliari, receiving two hundred lashes, and was sent to the galleys. The indignant tribunal refused conference and competencia, and promptly excommunicated the veguer and his assessor. Then the quarrel was transferred to Madrid, where the Suprema and the Council of Aragon alternately for two years pelted the king with consultas, the former assuming that the crime was purely one of faith and that the jurisdiction of the Inquisition was exclusive; there could be no competencia, because the inquisitor-general was the sole judge of what constituted cases of faith. In October, 1659, the king ordered the excommunication of his judges to be lifted; the Suprema replied that it had commanded this in the previous February, but the inquisitors had given reasons for not obeying; it had repeated the order in August and presumed that it had been complied with, but it had not been and, in November the king reiterated his commands. He decided, however, as usual, in favor of the Inquisition, and the judges were summoned to surrender the prisoner and the papers, but they replied that Fiori had escaped from the galleys and that the papers had been sent to Spain. The Suprema regarded this as an evasion and the utmost it would do was to suspend the excommunications for six months at a time, especially as the offending judges refused to present themselves before the tribunal and beg for absolution. (19)
The time-honored episcopal jurisdiction over bigamy was treated with similar imperiousness. In 1650 the Suprema ordered the Valencia tribunal to demand from the Ordinary the case of Joana Arais, charged with bigamy, because it was a matter of faith, pertaining exclusively to the Inquisition. So, in 1658, when the Bishop of Salamanca arrested Domingo Moreno on the same charge, as soon as the Valladolid inquisitors heard of it, they claimed and obtained and tried him. (20) Yet, notwithstanding this,  the episcopal authority over the sacrament of matrimony was acknowledged and, in all sentences, there was a clause referring to the Ordinary the question as to the validity of the marriages.
The Roman Inquisition was less aggressive than the Spanish for, while it claimed jurisdiction, it was willing that bigamy should be regarded as mixti fori between the secular, the spiritual and the inquisitorial tribunals. If the civil magistrate was the first to take action he could carry a case to its conclusion, and punish the delinquent according to the municipal law, but the episcopal Ordinary, or the inquisitor, ought to demand the culprit for examination as to his belief in the sacrament and then, after making him abjure and imposing appropriate penance, return him to the secular court. (21) Offenders were treated with somewhat greater severity than in Spain. The abjuration was always de vehementi and torture was freely employed for intention. The penalty was the galleys--five years in ordinary cases and seven or more when justified by circumstances. (22)
In Spain, as we have seen, the secular laws provided penalties, but these were disregarded by the Inquisition, when it secured exclusive jurisdiction, and in practice the tribunals exercised a wide discretion. Ordinarily men were punished with one or two hundred lashes and from three to five years of galleys at the oar, though those of gentle blood were exempt from scourging and were sent to presidios or to military service in the galleys. (23) The Seville auto of May 13, 1565, may be taken as an example, where there were fourteen bigamists. Ten of them were scourged with an aggregate of seventeen hundred lashes, and five, in addition, were sent to the galleys, with an aggregate of twenty-nine years. A woman had two hundred lashes, with prohibition to leave Seville for ten years, and two others were paraded in vergüenza. The heaviest punishment was that of the Bachiller Cristóbal de Ordaz, a physician, who was fined in two hundred ducats, provided that this did not exceed half his property, he suffered two hundred lashes and was sent to the galleys for six years irremissibly, after  which he was banished for life, with a threat of perpetual galleys in case of infraction. (24)
Full allowance was made for extenuating circumstances. If husband or wife had been absent for years and reasonable effort had been made to ascertain their fate, or false news of death had been received, the accused was acquitted or the penalty reduced. (25) This is illustrated in the case of Anton de Cueba, a peasant of Cienpozuelos, before the Toledo tribunal in 1606. Both his wives were of his native place. He left it for awhile and on his return found his first wife absent. Then news came of her death in the hospital of Anton Martin in Madrid. He went there and verified it, returning with a certificate, on the strength of which and of public notoriety, four years afterwards, a licence for a second marriage was granted. Then the first wife returned and he was placed on trial. All this was carefully verified and the case was suspended. (26) There can, indeed, be little doubt that honestly misguided bigamists fared better at the hands of the Inquisition than they would have done in the secular courts, while the thorough organization of the tribunals enabled it to collect evidence throughout the land, whether for severity or mercy, in a manner impossible to either the civil or episcopal authorities. Its unwearied perseverance was sometimes severely taxed in the case of soldiers, removed from post to post, and is fairly illustrated in that of Joseph Antonio Ferro, a private in the regiment of Castile, accused, in 1763, to the Barcelona tribunal. His corps shifted its quarters and he was transferred to the regiment del Rey; his movements were followed up for years, the tribunals of Barcelona, Seville and Valladolid were successively employed on the case and, in 1769, that of Madrid was charged with its conduct. (27)
Discretion could be used to sharpen as well as to mitigate penalties,
as may be seen in the case of the most accomplished bigamist in the records,
Antonio ----, who appeared in the Valladolid auto of October 4, 1579. He
confessed promptly and freely that within ten years he had married fifteen
wives. It was the profession by which he earned a livelihood, for he wandered
through the land marrying and running away with whatever he  could
secure. He must have been a most plausible scamp, for his favorite device
was to personate some one who had disappeared, after gathering information
sufficient to enable him to maintain the deception. This plan he repeated
eleven times, in some cases establishing claims to considerable property.
His sentence was to appear in the auto with a mitre bearing the insignia
of all the fifteen marriages (usually the figure of a woman for each),
two hundred lashes and the galleys for life. In view of the latter clause
it seemed slightly superfluous to remit to the Ordinary, as usual, the
question as to which of the women he should live with.
As the eighteenth century advanced, the inquisitorial claim to exclusive jurisdiction was called in question. In the New Granadan case of Alberto Maldonado, of Santafé de Bogotá, the alcalde resisted the interference of the Inquisition with his prosecution of the culprit; the matter was brought before the royal Audiencia, which decided in favor of the tribunal, on grounds of expediency. Appeal was made to the home government, resulting in a decree, February 18, 1754, to the effect that bigamy was mixti fori and that cognizance belonged to the jurisdiction taking first action. Against this the Suprema presented a consulta, March 18th, but to no purpose. The decree was enclosed to all viceroys in a royal cédula, commanding that, in no case, should a competencia be admitted, for no custom could prevail against the regalías, without the royal consent. If the Inquisition desired to take action for the suspicion of heresy involved, it could do so after the culprit had served out the punishment imposed by the royal courts. (29)
The Inquisition was irrepressible and, in spite of these positive commands, a competencia arose in New Granada, which induced Carlos III to reconsider the questions. Consultas were called for and were presented, by the Suprema in April, 1765, and by the Council of Indies in April, 1766, resulting in a decree of July 21, 1766, by which Carlos restored the exclusive jurisdiction of the Inquisition. This was sent to the viceroys, September 8th and we find it ordered to be duly obeyed in Mexico by the Marquis de  Croix, February 26, 1767. (30) Carlos soon saw reason to change his views. The Auditor de la Guerra had tried and sentenced an invalid soldier, when the Inquisition interposed and demanded the papers. This aroused him to a sense of the incongruity of the position, and he ordered the Royal Council to consider the matter. It presented a unanimous report, January 10, 1770, in conformity with which he decreed, February 5th, that the case belonged exclusively to the Auditoria de la Guerra. He utilized the occasion, moreover, by adding that he had ordered the inquisitor-general to instruct inquisitors that, in cases of this kind, they must observe the laws of the kingdom and not embarrass the royal judges in matters appertaining to them, but must limit the use of their faculties strictly to heresy and apostasy and not dishonor the royal vassals by arrests without manifest preliminary proof. All the royal tribunals were ordered to try and punish bigamists, according to the laws and to be zealous in preventing any contravention of the decree. (31)
This was a bitter rebuke, sullenly resented by the Inquisition. There were many pending cases in the tribunals and they forthwith suspended proceedings. This led to a royal letter of September 30, 1771, in which authority was granted to proceed with all cases not on trial in the royal courts, and all that might be denounced to the Inquisition, but subject to the condition that, when the culprit was not reo de fe, through belief that bigamy is lawful, sentence should not be rendered or punishment be inflicted but that the case should then be handed over to the courts having jurisdiction. (32)
Although this conceded only the power of trying without convicting, it was an entering wedge, which the Suprema lost no time in turning to advantage, by stimulating denunciations and making the people believe that it still held jurisdiction. In the Edict of Faith for 1772, therefore, bigamy was included, with the cautious formula " so that the Holy Office may prevent the offences against God committed in this crime." (33) The royal decree was sent around to the tribunals, with instructions that, when denunciations were received, care was to be taken to see that the accused was not on trial elsewhere. In that case he was to be regularly tried and  convicted and made to appear in an auto particular, with the insignia of bigamy and double-knotted halter indicating scourging; he was to be made to abjure and be remanded to prison for two or three weeks of penance and then be handed over to the secular court, so that his subsequent punishment might have the appearance of being merely the execution of a sentence by the tribunal. (34)
While these devices doubtless had the effect designed, the offensive decree of 1770 remained in force and was a standing humiliation which the Suprema strove earnestly to remove. In 1777 it presented a memorial representing that the decree was printed and sold and published in the journals, causing infinite prejudice to religion and giving immense impulse to profligacy and infidelity. It debarred the Inquisition from acting in any cases save those of heresy and apostasy, and even in these it could make no arrests unless guilt was conclusively proved. Since that year, it says, how many have abandoned themselves to solicitation, sorcery and other crimes, believing themselves secure from the Inquisition! How many have allowed themselves to utter propositions impious or heretical, believing that, even when denounced, they could not be arrested until their offences were fully proved--a thing which could rarely or never happen! It is in vain that the Inquisition publishes its yearly Edict of Faith; the impression produced by the cédula is uneffaced and it ought to be called in and suppressed. (35)
This appeal led to a royal declaration of September 6, 1777, to the effect that the cédula of 1770 did not impede the jurisdiction of the Inquisition in cases of which cognizance was reserved to it. As to bigamy, the offence was partitioned between three jurisdictions; the deceit of the woman and the injury of offspring were subjected to the secular courts; the validity or invalidity of the marriage, to the episcopal courts; and heresy as to the sacrament, when it existed, to the Inquisition. The three jurisdictions should cooperate, by each imposing the penalties belonging to it and delivering the culprit from one to another in order that his offences might be verified. (36) This subdivision of a crime into three was too clumsily scientific to be reduced to practice. In appearance it  only defined the existing method, but in a shape which enabled the Inquisition to encroach on the secular jurisdiction. As early as 1781, we find that the bigamist, after trial, was handed over to the royal court with a certificate designating him not merely as a convict but expressing the punishment of exile and presidio, thus showing that the tribunal presumed to sentence him to temporal as well as to spiritual penance. In 1791 a case indicates that it even went further, for the Toledo tribunal held an auto particular for Gabriel Delgado, in which his sentence was read, prescribing not only abjuration de levi and spiritual penance, but exile for eight years from Toledo, Madrid and royal residences. The only difference between this and the practice of a century earlier, was a clause that his person was to be delivered to the secular justice. (37)
Under the Restoration the Inquisition assumed full jurisdiction over
bigamy; the tribunal sentenced the culprit as of old, usually to scourging
and presidio or exile, and the Suprema, in confirming the sentence, ordered
the scourging omitted on some pretext. Nothing was said about handing the
culprit over to the secular courts. They might, if they saw fit, exercise
cumulative jurisdiction, and entertain cases that came to them, but, after
they rendered judgement, the Inquisition tried the culprits over again
and modified the sentence at its pleasure, either to increase or diminish
the penalties. Thus, in 1818, the Granada criminal court sentenced Eusebio
Reulin to six years of presidio of which one was to be in Africa. Then
the tribunal took hold of him, adding spiritual penances and perpetual
exile from certain places, and increasing the presidio to ten years, but,
when this went for confirmation to the Suprema, it cut down the exile to
eight years and the presidio to two. The sentence of the criminal court
was treated with the utmost contempt. An exception to this seems to have
been made when the army was concerned. In 1817, Eladio de Aragon was tried
by the Madrid tribunal and convicted of having three wives; his sentence
comprised only abjuration and spiritual penances, after the performance
of which he was to be handed over to the captain-general with a copy of
his sentence and a recommendation to mercy, in view of his long imprisonment,
his confession and the hopes entertained of his amendment.
(38)  Evidently, in dealing with the army, the Inquisition
felt constrained to obey the laws.
Bigamy formed a portion by no means inconsiderable of the current business
of the Inquisition. In the Toledo record, from 1575 to 1610, the number
of cases is fifty-four, ranking next to those of Moriscos. In the same
tribunal, from 1648 to 1794, there were sixty-two cases, being next in
number to solicitation. In the sixty-four autos held in Spain from 1721
to 1727, there were thirty-four cases, the only crimes exceeding this being
Judaism and sorcery. In the later period, owing doubtless to the interference
of the secular jurisdiction and the decadence of the Inquisition, the number
falls off, the total in all tribunals from 1780 to 1820 being one hundred
and five. (39)
1. Partidas, P. VII, Tit. xvii, ley 16.--Córtes de Leon y de Castilla, II, 378. In the middle of the sixteenth century, branding with the letter "q" was still in force in Castile.--Rojas de Hæret., P. I, n. 544.
2. Colmeiro, Córtes de Leon y de Castilla, II, 160, 219.--Nueva Recop., Lib. v, Tit. i, leyes 6, 7.--Novís. Recop., Lib. xii, Tit. xxviii, leyes 8, 9.
3. Memoria de diversos Autos (See Appendix to Vol. I).
4. Archivo de Simancas, Inq., Lib. 2, fol. 21.
5. Carbonell de Gestis Hæret. (Doc. de la C. de Aragon, XXVIII, 154).
6. Pragmaticas y altres Drets de Cathalunya, Lib. I, Tit. viii, cap. 1, § 4.
7. Archivo de Simancas, Inq., Lib. 933; Lib. 918, fol. 381.
8. Pragmaticas etc. de Cathalunya, Lib. I, Tit. viii, cap. 2.
9. Archivo de Simancas, Patronato Real, Inq., leg. único, fol. 38.
10. Archivo de Simancas, Inq., Lib. 3, fol. 241.
11. Concil. Hispalens., ann. 1512, cap. xxxvii (Aguirre, V, 374).
12. In the 1534 edition of his Repetitionem novam (Col. 363) Albertino says that he has treated the question extensively in his "Speculum Inquisitorum"--subsequently embodied in his "Tractatus de agnoscendis Assertionibus" as Q. xxiii (Romæ, 1572).
13. Bibl. pública de Toledo, Sala v, Est. 11, Tab. 3.
14. Simancæ de Cath. Instt., Tit. XL, n. 3; Enchirid., Tit. xii, n. 4-6.
15. Bibl. nacional, MSS., V, 377, cap. xvii.--Elucidationes S. Officii, § 33 (Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 544², Lib. 4).
16. Archivo hist. nacional, Inq. de Valencia, Leg. 361, fol. 7.--MSS. of Royal Library of Copenhagen, 218b, p. 418.
17. Peña, Comment. LXXXI in Eymerici Direct., P. II.--Bibl. nacional, ubi sup.-- Archivo de Simancas, Inq., Lib. 921, fol. 231.
18. Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 544²; Lib. 10.
19. Bibl. nacional, MSS., Mm, X, 157, p. 190.
20. Archivo hist. nacional, Inq. de Valencia, Leg. 9, n. 3, fol. 313.--Archivo de Simancas, Inq., Leg. 552, fol. 42.
It was the same in Portugal, where the bishops had to yield. The question was carried to Rome and, in 1612, the Archbishop of Lisbon was commanded to hand bigamists over to the Inquisition.--Collect. Decret. S. Congr. S. Inquis., p. 361 (MS. penes me).
21. Decreta S. Congr. S. Officii, pp. 461, 466 (Bibl. del R. Archivio di Stato in Roma, Fondo Camerale, Congr. del. S. Officio, Vol. 3).
22. Archivo de Simancas, Inq,, Lib. 54, fol. 117.--Ristretto cerca 1i Delitti più frequenti, pp. 113-141 (MS. penes me).
23. Miguel Calvo (Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 544,² Lib. 4).--Archivo hist. nacional, Inq. de Valencia, Leg. 299, fol. 80; Inq. de Toledo, Leg. 1.
24. Archivo de Simancas, Inq., Leg. 787.
25. Elucidationes S. Officii, § 33 (Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 544², Lib. 4)-- Bibl. nacional, MSS., V, 377, cap. xvii, § 1.
26. MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Yc, 20, T. 1.
27. Proceso contra Jos. Ant. Ferro (MSS. of Am. Phil. Society).
28. Bibliothèque nationale, fonds espagnol, No. 354, fol. 242.
29. Memorias de los Vireyes del Perú, III, 38.--Archivo de Simancas, Inq., Lib. 28, fol. 115.
30. MS. penes me.
31. Novis. Recop., Lib. XII, Tit. xxviii, ley 10.
32. Bibl. nacional, MSS., Mm, 93.
33. Archivo hist. nacional, Inq. de Valencia, Leg. 15, n. 11 fol. 7; n. 10, fol. 92
34. Archivo hist. nacional, Inq. de Valencia, Leg. 15, n. 11, fol. 1-6; Inq. de Toledo, Leg. 1.
35. Ibidem, Inq. de Valencia, Leg. 15, n. 11, fol. 5.--Archivo de Alcalá, Estado, Leg. 2843.
36. Alcubilla, Códigos antiguos, II, 1908.
37. Archivo hist. nacional, Inq. de Valencia, Leg. 16, n. 5, fol. 50; Inq. de Toledo, Leg. 1, fol. 286.
38. Archivo de Simancas, Inq., Lib. 890.
39. MSS. of Library of Univ. of Halle, Yc, 20, T. I.--Archivo hist. nacional, Inq. de Toledo, Leg. 1; Inq. de Valencia, Leg. 100.--Royal Library of Berlin, Qt. 9548.