² Immediately after the conquest, any person or animal born in Peru was called criollo. Later usage restricted the meaning to signify the children born in Peru of European parents. Chapetón was an early synomyn for tender-foot, and it was used to signify anyone who had recently arrived from Europe. Thus, de Oviedo y Valdês, Gonzalo Fernández, Historia General y Natural de las Indias (14 vols.; Asuncion del Paraguay, 1944–1945), IX, 266 Google Scholar. Also de Arona, Juan, Diccionario de Peruanismos (París, 1938), p. 163 Google Scholar.

³ Tibesar, Antonine, Franciscan Beginnings in Colonial Peru (Washington, D. C, 1953), pp. 6–12 Google Scholar.

⁴ The Augustinians arrived in Peru in May, 1551, as an organized group, but single members were present there as early as 1535. See “Carta de poder de Fray Gaspar de Espinosa de la Orden de San Agustin a Juan Tello, en el puerto de Lima, 5 de Enero de 1535,” Revista del Archivo Nacional del Perú (RANP), XIII (1940), 53.

⁵ This conclusion is based on negative evidence. The author encountered no statement to this effect in Meléndez, but all the sixteenth-century Dominicans of prominence whose biographical details are known, with the exception of Bl. Martin de Porres, were either creoles or Spaniards.

⁶ Barriga, Victor M., >Los Mercedarios en el Perú en el Siglo XVI (3 vols.; I, Rome, 1933; II and III, Arequipa, 1939–1942), II, 181 Google Scholar.

⁷ This may have been done as early as 1547. Schafer, Ernesto, El Consejo Real y Supremo de las Indias, II (Sevilla, 1947), 270, n. 7Google Scholar.

⁸ Calancha, Antonio de la, Coranica Moralizada del Orden de San Agustin en el Peru, I (Barcelona, 1639), libro I, capítulo 23Google Scholar.

⁹ Lopetegui, León, El Padre José de Acosta y las Misiones (Madrid, 1942), pp. 391–404 Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Vargas Ugarte, Rubén, Manuscritos Peruanos en las Bibliotecas y Archivos de Europa y América, (Biblioteca Peruana, V [Buenos Aires, 1947]), 16f.Google Scholar, reprints portions of several letters written by the highest Jesuit superiors in Peru at the beginning of the seventeenth century. From these it is clear that these superiors did not favor the entrance of Creoles into the Jesuit society and some wished to prevent their entrance altogether. The decision to limit the number of creole Jesuits seems to have been a compromise. See Vargas Ugarte, Rubén, Manuscritos Peruanos del Archivo de Indias, (Biblioteca Peruana, II [Lima, 1938]), 144 Google Scholar.

¹¹ Cuevas, Mariano, Historia de la Iglesia en México (5 vols.; Mexico, 1946–1947), IV, 182 Google Scholar. Cuevas does not give the proportion of Creoles to Spaniards. He says merely: “… se levantó la orden generalicia que existía de limitar a un número, cortísimo por cierto, el de novicios que cada año podían admitirse.” From this it would seem that the creole proportion was very small.

¹² Castro to the king. Lima, April 26, 1565, in Levillier, Roberto, Gobernantes del Perú. Cartas y Papeles, Siglo XVI (14 vols.; Madrid, 1921–1926), III, 73 Google Scholar.

¹³ Villar to the king. Lima, April 25, 1588, in Levillier, op. cit., XI, 121.

¹⁴ Cañete to the king. Lima, May 2, 1592, in Levillier, op. cit., XII, 269 f. This prohibition must have been modified soon thereafter, though perhaps the attitude which fostered it had not changed.

¹⁵ Cañete to the king. Lima, January 19, 1593, in Levillier, op. cit., XII, 345.

¹⁶ Scháfer, op. cit., II, 229, quotes a letter from Philip II to his ambassador in Rome. In this communication, the king shares with his Roman representative his worry for the future of the Church in Peru. The creoles there have now assumed control of the religious orders and these were not as well trained as the Spanish friars. At the same time, Spanish religious were reluctant to go to the Indies and place themselves under creole control.

¹⁷ Santa Rosa, Santo Toribio, San Francisco Solano, Bl. Martin de Porres, and Bl. Juan Masias.

¹⁸ Rubén Vargas Ugarte, Manuscritos Peruanos en las Bibliotecas del Extranjero, (Biblioteca Peruana, I [Lima, 1935]), 357, cites a memorial of P. Alonso Messia, S.J. addressed to the king on June 2, 1639, in which he requests the monarch to forbid foreign Jesuits to come to Peru since these come “not to work in the missions but to occupy the offices of command.” A little later, Viceroy Conde de Santísteban in a letter to the Queen of March 20, 1668 (AGI, Lima 62) states “… rare is the religious of importance who comes to Peru. Only restless friars come and those who do not fit over there.” Of the Spaniards who entered the Orders in Peru, he says “… they are men who have been soldiers and they come here to seek their fortunes [buscar la vida], as they say in Spain. Behold, Your Majesty, what fine provincials they will make.” A very similar opinion is expressed in a letter of January 10, 1681 of the Jesuit Provincial, P. Francisco del Quadro to the king. (AGI, Lima, 338).

¹⁹ In 1600 it was reported that Father Juan Quijada, who had been sent to Spain by his Peruvian superiors as Franciscan Procurator to the Court, refused to take a Spanish friar with him on his return to Peru. His reason was, “that such a friar would not be welcome there, and was not needed.” Thus, “Informe de Fray Pedro de Arbulú, año de 1600,” in AGI, Lima 321.

²⁰ This point is discussed at some length in Tibesar, op. cit., pp. 38 f.

²¹ Viceroy Toledo suggested that the Generals of those Orders which had members in the Indies should always be Spaniards. Thus, Toledo to the king. Cuzco, March 1, 1572, in Levillier, op. cit., IV, 17. Viceroy Velasco, a little later, urged that the Provincials of the Peruvian Dominicans should be chosen by the crown. Thus, Velasco to the king. Callao, May 5, 1600. AGI, Lima 34. Both suggestions seem to have been ignored at the time.

²² Thus in the General Chapter of Toledo in 1606, the Franciscans expressly forbade that any distinction should be made between Spaniards and creoles either in the reception of the habit or in the elections to office. The original Latin text of this decree is found in de Neapoli, Michael Angelus, Chronologia Historico-Legalis Seraphici Ordinis Fratrum Minorum Sancti Patris Francisci, I (Neapoli, 16??), 532 Google Scholar. A Spanish version is found in Joseph Parras, Pedro, Gobierno de los Regulares de la América (2 vols.; Madrid, 1783), II, 257 Google Scholar.

²³ Solórzano y Pereyra, Juan de, Política Indiana (2 vols.; Madrid, 1776), libro iv, capítulo xxvi, número 52Google Scholar.

²⁴ Ibid., número 53.

²⁵ Ibid., libro iv, capítulo xix.

²⁶ Ibid., número 56.

²⁷ The papers referring to this petition together with complete lists of the personnel of the Province of the Holy Gospel at that time are found in AGI, Indiferente General 3051. Fray Juan de Torquemada attested to the authenticity of the lists.

²⁸ This decree is found in AGI, Lima 338.

²⁹ In AGI, Lima 338, there is a paper entitled simply “Alternativa” which was possibly prepared by Juan de Solorzano. It lists these dates for the granting of the alternativa: September 2, 1622, to the Augustinians of Mexico; 1629 to the Augustinians of Mechoacan; September, 1642, to the Dominicans of Mexico and Puebla; March 11, 1629, to the Augustinians of Lima and Quito; December 17, 1645, to the Franciscans of Mechoacan; August 1, 1633, to the Augustinians of the Philippines; February 7, 1643, to the Dominicans of Guatemala.

³⁰ Archbishop Ocampo of Lima in a letter to the king (Lima, November 4, 1625, in AGI, Lima 301) speaks of the division then existing between the creoles and the Spaniards in the Quito Dominican province. In a report of the Quito audiencia of May 25, 1645, these officials inform the king that a Spanish Dominican is bringing a group of fourteen friars from Spain “so that the alternativa may not cease.” Thus Vargas Ugarte, Rubén, Manuscritos Peruanos en las Bibliotecas de América, (Biblioteca Peruana, IV [Buenos Aires, 1945]), 166 Google Scholar.

³¹ See Informe a Rmo, N.. P. General de el Orden de Predicadores Fr. Jhoan Baptista de Marinis; le ofrece el Presentado Fr. Antonio Gonzalez de Acuña Difflnidor de la Provincia de San Jhoan Baptista de el Peru (Madrid, 1654), fol. 167 Google Scholar.

³² See the long note on this matter of Domingo Angulo, P. in RANP, VIII (1930), 76–81, note 143Google Scholar.

³³ As a result of this policy there was certainly less occasion for the rivalry between the creoles and the Europeans to manifest itself. However, it is also certain that the rivalry did exist. See note 10 above.

³⁴ Tibesar, op. cit., pp. 30–34.

³⁵ Ibid., p. 33.

³⁶ Cañete to the king. Lima, January 19, 1593, in Levillier, op. cit., XII, 345.

³⁷ Memorial de las Historias del Nuevo Mundo: Piru: Meritos y Excelencias de la Ciudad de Lima, Cabeça de sus ricos y estendidos Reynos, y el Estado en que al presente se hallan (Lima, 1630). The make-up of this volume is quite unusual. One of the introductory letters is dated May 20, 1631, despite the publication date of 1630. Also, the pagination is frequently irregular and, finally, the text suddenly breaks off in the middle of the word mineros on what should be page 304, but actually has no number at all.

³⁸ In the Papeles de la Inquisición in the Archivo Histórico Nacional (Madrid), there are several papers dealing with the genealogy of this friar and his brother, Fray Diego de Cordova y Salinas. In legajo 1575, no. 114, there is the genealogy as given by Fray Buenaventura; in legajo 1575, no. 169, that furnished by Fray Diego. The two are identical except that Diego stated that his maternal grandmother, Doña Mencia de Silva, was born in Jerez de Badajoz, while Buenaventura asserted that she was born in Lisbon. This slight discrepancy was sufficient to alert the suspicions of the Inquisition in Madrid and to cause a query to be directed to their fellows in Lima. On May 15, 1638, D. Martin Diego de Contreras answered from Lima that the maternal grandmother in question was not Mencia de Silva but María Gutíerez, who had been married to a Portuguese Jew. The name of this Portuguese man is not given but it is stated that he was condemned as an obstinate Jew and had fled to the lands of the Moors.

Genealogy according to the Inquisition informant. The only change is to be found in the parents and grandparents of Juana de Silva, the mother of Fray Buenaventura and Fray Diego. Thus:

³⁹ Fray Diego in his deposition addressed to the Inquisition in 1637, says that his grandparents came to Lima ninety years ago, or in 1547. Fray Buenaventura in his deposition, offered in the same year, states that they came in 1542.

⁴⁰ There is no record where Buenaventura made his studies. He himself states that he studied with the Jesuits and grew up in the shadow of their college. However, his name does not appear in the list of students of the Jesuit school in Lima (Catàlogo Martiniano in the Archivo Historico Nacional [Madrid], Códice 164). It is possible that Buenaventura was tutored privately by the Jesuits, since his father’s house was “en el barrio de la Compañía de Jesús” and the home of his grandfather, Lope de Salinas, stood “en frente de la Compañía,” according to the testimony of Hernando de Santa Cruz, head of the Tribunal de Cuentas. The home of his maternal grandfather, D. Diego Fernández de Cordova, was located “junto al convento de la Encarnación,” according to the witnesses cited in the Papeles de la Inquisición.

⁴¹ These details are found in another work by Buenaventura, Fray, Memorial, Informe y Manifiesto del P. Fray Buenaventura de Salinas y Córdova (Madrid [?], 1646 [?]), fols. 25 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴² Fray Buenaventura entered the Franciscan Order in September, 1616, when he was twenty-one years old. He had been previously known as Sancho. Registro 19 in the Archivo de San Francisco de Lima (ASFL) should contain in document 14, according to the index, “Ynformacion de Fray Sancho de Cordova que agora se llama Frai Buenaventura de Cordova.” The folios referred to in the index have been cut out of the registro.

⁴³ Fray Diego is the chronicler of the Franciscan Province of Lima. He was the full brother of Fray Buenaventura and also his older brother. Buenaventura was born in 1594 and Diego, according to an article kindly called to my attention by Fr.Gento Sanz, Benjamin O.F.M., was born in 1591. Cf.Lohman Villena, Guillermo, “Fray Diego de Córdoba Salinas,” Revista de Indias, XII (1952), 343–345.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Vida del Padre Fray Francisco Solano (Lima: Geronimo de Contreras, 1630). Some seem to doubt the existence of this edition. There is a copy in the library of the Spanish Franciscans (Padres Descalzos) in Lima.

⁴⁵ On the back of the title page, there is this sentence, possibly added by the printer: “A la ultima deste volumen va un memorial de las historias del nuevo mundo Piru por el Padre Fray Buenaventura de Salinas hermano del autor deste libro que por aver crecido su volumen no se pone al principio.” Indeed, the size of this intended foreword had increased so substantially that it was published as an independent volume.

⁴⁶ Salinas, Memorial de las Historias, Discurso II, capítulo vi.

⁴⁷ Buenaventura de Salinas was honored with these offices: procurator general of the city of Lima, delegate of his province to the Franciscan General Chapter of Rome, personal delegate of the archbishop of Lima to the Pope. Later the Crown entrusted him with several special commissions in Rome. Thus, Memorial y Manifiesto, fols. 44, f.

⁴⁸ “Memorias Eclesiasticas de la Santa Iglesia Metropolitana de Lima. Las escribia E. C. D. C, año de 1786,” fol. 150v. Biblioteca Nacional (Madrid), MSS 4395.

⁴⁹ One of the reasons why Fray Buenaventura went to Spain was his desire to print there his works on theology and philosophy. However, there is no record that he actually carried out this plan. Instead, he did publish there at least three memorials. One of these is the Memorial y Manifiesto already referred to. Another is a short Memorial of only ten folios printed in 1645 on behalf of Fray José de Maldonado, a native of Ecuador, then Commissary General of the Indies. The third Memorial is mentioned by no bibliographer, but Buenaventura himself says: “But hardly had I arrived in Madrid (1638)… I published in this Court, a memorial concerning the grave problems of those countries of the Indies…,” Memorial y Manifiesto, fol. 46. It is quite possible that this memorial is referred to by Manuel Groot, José, Historia Eclesiástica y Civil de Nueva Granada (5 vols.; Bogotá, 1889–1893), I, 260 Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ This decree was issued by Urban, Pope VIII on August 2, 1642, in a brief Ex incumbenti Nobis and is published in Minorum, Annales, XXIX (Rome, 1945), 88–90 Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Letter of Pedro Marino Sormano to the Pope. Milan, 1683. AGI, Lima 338. Fray Pedro Marino Sormano at the time was Minister General of the Franciscans.

⁵² This is seen also in another work written in 1640 by Fray Balthasar de Bustamante, Primicias del Peru en Santidad, Letras, Armas, Govierno y Nobleza. Bustamante emphasizes the work of distinguished creoles. See Tibesar, op. cit., pp. 127–142.

⁵³ All the provincials are listed in Memoriale alla Sac. Congregationi de Regolari per li Padri Minori Spagnoli (Rome, 1683), fols. 5–9. This pamphlet is found in “Instrumenta Provinciae Limanae,” Archivum Generale Ordinis Minoram (AGOM).

⁵⁴ The officially certified lists and figures are found in “Autos que se han seguido entre los religiosos Peruanos y Castellanos del orden de San Francisco de las siete Provincias del Peru,” in AGI, Escribania de Cámara 517 A, fols. 65v-96. This document will be referred to frequently hereafter simply as “Autos.”

⁵⁵ See, Letter of the lay brothers of Lima to the king. Lima, October 26, 1648. AGI, Lima 338. This letter seems to contain the earliest explicit information concerning Peruvian-Spanish difficulties among the Franciscans. After this date, there are many letters which deal with this same topic.

⁵⁶ Fray Irraraga was born in the villa de Asceitia in the province of Guipúzcoa of D. Diego de Irraraga and Doña Catalina de Yraita. He entered the Franciscan Order in Lima on June 15, 1639. ASFL, “Bezerro del habito,” fol. 39.

⁵⁷ Fray Francisco Rúiz de Andrade was born in lea in 1614 of Marcos Rúiz de Andrade, a native of Toledo in Spain, and Doña Mariana de Rivera, a native of lea. He entered the Franciscan Order in Lima on May 9, 1632. ASFL, loc. cit., fol. 10.

⁵⁸ Peruntina Nullitatis Alternativae Provinciis Sanctorum Duodecim Apostolorum de Lima et Sancti Antonii de las Charcas in Regno Peruntino contra aliquos Patres natos in Hispânia (Rome, 1683), fol. 3. This pamphlet is also found in AGOM, “Instrumenta Provinciae Limanae.” Hereafter it will be referred to as Peruntina Nullitatis Alternativae.

⁵⁹ Thus “Supplicatio Patris Ignatii a Iraraga Custodis Provinciae Duodecim Apostolorum porrecta Capitulo Generali Romae 1664,” in Informatio Facti et Juris in Causa Peruana Alternativae (Rome, 1683), fol. 17 Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ The signers were: Fray Ignacio de Irraraga, for Lima; Fray Benito de Jesús, for Quito; Fray Bartolomé de Luque, for Colombia; Fray Gabriel Alfiani, of Quito; Fray Francisco Pérez de Ybieta, for Charcas; Fray Juan Guttierez (sic), of Colombia; Fray Diego de Coronado, for Chile. The signers, none of whom were creoles, state that they are empowered to sign for all seven Franciscan provinces of South America. The delegates for the provinces of Buenos Aires and Caracas are missing from this list and hence it is probable that Alfiani and Guttierez signed for those provinces. Ibid., fol. 17v.

⁶¹ The only creole delegate present in Rome seems to have been Fray Andrade. He was never informed what his fellow delegates were up to, until the alternativa was signed on June 5. Immediately after his arrival in Rome he was taken sick and was confined to his room for some weeks as a result of this attack. Thus Peruntina Nullitatis Alternativae, fol. 4.

⁶² This charge is made by the Peruvians. See, for example, “Autos,” fol. 98v. AGI, Escribanía 517 A. The Spaniards, on the other hand, freely admitted that this was true but they maintained that such authorization was not needed. See “Memorial del P. Fray Miguel Serrano de Alvarracin,” Madrid, June 22, 1677. AGI, Lima 338. Alvarracin at that time was the official delegate of the Spanish friars in Madrid.

⁶³ “… supposita petitione provinciarum, conceditur alternativa.” Thus “Memorial al M. R. Padre.” AGI, Lima 338. This unsigned document was evidently written by a Spanish friar. It is an excellent summary of the entire dispute and incorporates numerous documents.

⁶⁴ Ibid.

⁶⁵ This brief is printed in Peruntina Nullitatis Alternativae Provinciis Sanctorum Duodecim Apostolorum de Lima et Sancti Antonii de las Charcas in Regno Peruntino Contra Patres Criollos (Rome, 1683), fol. 10v.-11 Google Scholar. Hereafter referred to as Contra Patres Criollos.

⁶⁶ “Salva semper Sacrae Congregationis Regularium facultate” is the phrase in Contra Patres Criollos, fol. 11. Another wording slightly more favorable to the creoles, though certified by the royal secretary, D. Pedro López de Echaburu, is found in “Autos,” fol. 9. AGI, Escribanía 517 A.

⁶⁷ “Scribatur Comissario Generali de Indiis pro suspensione executionis decreti.” “Memorial al M. R. Padre.” AGI, Lima 338. Irraraga had hurried from Rome before this decree was issued. Later, the decree was officially announced to both parties, though the date is not known. Thus, “Relacion del Relator Lie. Angulo.” AGI, Lima 338.

⁶⁸ “Memorial de Fr. Nicolas Lainez y Fr. Esteban Romo.” AGI, Lima 338. These friars were creole delegates at the Court.

⁶⁹ “Memorial del P. Fray Ignacio de Irraraga al Rey, año de 1664.” AGI, Lima, 338. Irraraga informed the king that the alternativa had been voted by the full General Chapter. He says nothing of the manner whereby the favorable vote was obtained nor of the suspension of the decree. On the back of this document, Fray Andres de Guadalupe, then Commissary General of the Indies, denies explicitly that the full General Chapter had voted for the alternativa. He says that it was granted “by a special decree of the council of the General.” Spanish influence was much more powerful in this council than in the full chapter. The decision of the Consejo de Indias to approve the execution of the alternativa is also noted on the back of this document.

⁷⁰ “Relación del Relator, Lie. Angulo.” AGI, Lima 338.

⁷¹ This decree is included in “Autos,” fol. 8v. AGI, Escribanía 517 A.

⁷² These were Father Francisco de León, then Provincial, and Father Cristóval de Berrú. Berrú had been bom in Lepe in Spain. On January 29, 1606, he had enrolled in the Jesuit Colegio de San Martín in Lima and left the school on May 16, 1609, to enter the Franciscan Order in that city. Thus “Catàlogo Martíniano,” no. 465. AHN, Códice 164.

⁷³ The authentic record of these deliberations is found in “Autos,” fols. 37v.-40. AGI, Escribanía, 517 A.

⁷⁴ This is admitted by the Spanish friars themselves in their “Respuesta de los Padres españoles al escripto e informe que hicieron los Padres criollos, año de 1675” in “Autos,” loc. cit. fol. 122. They refer to the alternativa in brief as a “remedio preservativo.” Parras, also a Spaniard, later states the same. See Parras, op. cit., II, 270.

⁷⁵ Manuel Joseph de Villegas, Question Politica y Legal que se induce del Informe Juridico que se ha escrito por los Padres Españoles de las Provincias de Lima y Charcas de el Reyno de el Peru (Madrid [?], 1682 [?]), fol. 16. Fray Villegas was a member of the Province of the Holy Gospel of Mexico appointed in 1682 to defend the alternativa by the Commissary General of the Indies, Father Cristóbal de Viso.

⁷⁶ Cf. note 18 above. The Jesuit Provincial of Lima, P. Francisco del Quadro, writes of the Spaniards who enter the orders in Peru “… generalmente son ya adultos quando piden el havito y no se inclinan al estudio de facultades mayores, sino muy pocos.” Thus Quadro to the king. Lima, January 10, 1681. AGI, Lima 338.

⁷⁷ Villegas, op. cit., passim. Also, Fray Alonso de Prado to the king. Lima, 1653. AGI, Lima 338. Prado objects especially to the “criollos portugueses.” Apparently this term is not to be taken literally but in the sense of disloyal creoles, although possibly it may be a reference to Fray Francisco Delgado, the leader of the creole friars, whose father was Portuguese.

⁷⁸ “Informe del P. Fray Pedro de la Encarnación. Cuzco, 26 de Abril de 1675.” AGI, Lima 338. Encarnación was evidently a Spanish friar. He wrote this document for the confidential information of some oidor. Hereafter it will be referred to as “Encarnación.”

⁷⁹ This problem is discussed more at length in Tibesar, op. cit., p. 38.

⁸⁰ The first Spanish friar to impugn the loyalty of the creoles seems to have been Fray Alonso de Prado in 1653 (cf. note 77). As the situation grew increasingly tense, these charges became stronger and more insistent. Thus, Fray Miguel de Alvarracín to the Conde de Medellín. Portobelo, November 17, 1678. Also the letters of the bishop of Cuzco and the archbishop of Lima of August 5, 1678, and of January 14, 1681. All are found in AGI, Lima 338.

⁸¹ For example, see the letter of Fray Cristóbal de Viso to the Duque de Medina Celi. Madrid, October 15, 1682. AGI, Lima 338. Viso, at that time, was the Franciscan Commissary General of the Indies. He insisted that because of the tumults in Lima and Cuzco and the “riesgo de la sedición,” all doctrinas of the Peruvian friars should be removed from their care. The opinions of others similar to that of Viso will be mentioned elsewhere in this paper.

⁸² This statement is from the “memorial” of Fray Alvarracin. Cf. note 62 above.

⁸³ Parras, op. cit., II, 270.

⁸⁴ This charge is stated bluntly by Fray Villegas, op. cit., fol. 15v. Villegas had never been in Peru and it is difficult to evaluate his statement correctly.

⁸⁵ In Viso’s letter already referred to (cf. note 81 above), he asked permission to send eighty Spanish friars to Lima and Cuzco to bolster the Spanish cause in those regions. Actually, a group of sixty-seven friars was sent as a result of Viso’s efforts. The leader of this large group was Fray Basilio Pons, who was in Seville awaiting a ship for the Mission College of Querétaro in Mexico. See AGI, Contratación 5547. Pons’ efforts on behalf of the missions in Peru deserve more than a note. However, the link between the alternativa and the Mission Colleges proved most unhappy in South America and may be one important reason why these institutions were never as successful there as they were in Mexico.

⁸⁶ Thus “Encarnación.” Villegas, op. cit., fol. 15v., expresses the same sentiment.

⁸⁷ Thus “Encarnación.”

⁸⁸ The ship carrying the creole friar delegates ran aground as it was leaving the harbor of Havana.

⁸⁹ Fray Luis Zervela was one of the outstanding Commissaries General of Peru. Learned, pious, and prudent, he knew how to govern men by kindness and the power of his own personal example. During his term (1668–1674), the modern church of San Francisco was completed in Lima. His attitude in the alternativa controversy won for him the esteem and confidence of the sober friars of both sides and all were reluctant to see him return to his province of Santiago in Galicia. See Benavides, Fray Juan de, Visita y Declaracion que hizo el P. Fr. Juan de Benavides en la Residencia del P. Fr. Luis de Zervela (Lima, 1674)Google Scholar, passim.

⁹⁰ The decrees suspending the alternativa in 1673 are found in “Autos,” fols. 61–64. AGI, Escribania 517 A.

⁹¹ The documents presented in this appeal to the audiencia were later sent to Spain and compose, for the most part, the “Autos,” cited so frequently.

⁹² Castellar to the king. Lima, July 4, 1675. AGI, Lima 338.

⁹³ This letter was also cited by the king as one of the reasons which persuaded him to order the alternativa. Thus “Real Cédula al Conde de Castellar. Zaragoza, 22 de mayo de 1677,” in Contra Patres Criollos, fol. 25v.-26.

⁹⁴ Fray Francisco Delgado was the leader of the creoles against the alternativa. Delgado was born in 1611 in Cartagena (in modern Colombia) of Juan Delgado, a Portuguese, and Doña María de Padilla, a native of the Canary Islands. On September 26, 1633, he entered the Franciscan Order in Lima (ASFL, Bezerro del habito, fol. 18v.). In the Order, Delgado spent much of his life as a professor and later as an administrator. In recognition of his services, he was named lector jubilado and elected provincial on June 4, 1672. As provincial, he materially aided Fray Luis Zervela complete the church of San Francisco in Lima. At the close of his term in June, 167S, he was named guardian of the friary in Lima. While serving in this capacity, he was elected Vice-Commissary General of Peru in June, 1676, to succeed Fray Alonso Garrido Melgar, who had died while conducting his official inspection of the Quito Province. Delgado was now in a position to aid the creoles for he was the highest Franciscan superior in all of South America, until the Crown should send another friar to take the place of the deceased Garrido Melgar. Delgado used the power of his new position and thereby aroused the anger of the royal officials and of some of the Spanish friars. He was exiled to Chile on August 14, 1680, and he died there in 1685. Apparently the dead Delgado no longer caused any fear to the chagrined Spanish officials and friars for the body was returned to Lima where it was given solemn burial on May 17, 1685. These biographical notes are found in Mugaburu, Josephe de, Diario de Lima, II (Lima, 1936), 196, 204–205, 242 and in “Autos,” fol. 74vGoogle Scholar. AGI, Escribanía 517 A.

⁹⁵ A copy of this letter with the date of March 18, 1675, is found in “Autos,” fols. l-4v. AGI, Escribanía 517 A. Another is found in AGI, Lima 338 with the date of March 25, 1675. Three Spanish friars who were then members of the provincial’s council also signed the letter but they added a note to the effect that they did not agree with the suspension of the alternativa. These were: Fray Francisco Franco, Gerónimo de Orosco, and Julian Gutierrez Vallejo.

⁹⁶ Conde de Santísteban and Conde de Lemos.

⁹⁷ Molina and Zervela.

⁹⁸ Among the letter writers were the cabildo eclesiástico y secular of Chuquisaca, the Augustinian, Dominican, and Jesuit superiors of Cuzco and Lima and some individuals of those Orders, as well as six Spanish Franciscans of Cuzco and three of Lima. Among the Cuzco Franciscans who wrote was Fray Francisco Pérez de Ybieta. In his letter, dated in Cuzco on July 30, 1678, Ybieta states that he had signed the petition of 1664 asking for the alternativa. Now he wishes to withdraw that petition since he sees that the alternativa can not be imposed without destroying the harmony between the friars of the two nations. Thus Summarium pro Provinciis Sanctorum Duodecim Apostolorum de Lima et Sancti Antonii de Charcas (Rome, 1683), fols. 14v-29 Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ They are substantially the same as those mentioned in note 54 above.

¹⁰⁰ Alvarracín was born in Huesca in Aragon in 1631. He entered the Jesuit Colegio de San Martín in Lima on October 24, 1646 (Catálogo Martiniano, no. 2211). He entered the Franciscan Order in Lima in 1648. In 1675, he was a professor of theology in the Franciscan seminary in Lima. “Autos,” fol. 91 v. AGI, Escribanía 517 A.

¹⁰¹ Romo had been born in Callao of alférez Pablo Romo, native of Fuensalida in Spain, and Doña Catalina Díaz de Torralba of Callao (ASFL, Bezerro del habito, fol. 80). As a Franciscan he was superior in Chancay, Mito, Panama, and Magdalena. In 1689, he was approved as a calificador of the Inquisition. Thus, AHN (Madrid), Papeles de la Inquisición.

¹⁰² “Memorial de Fr. Nicolas Lainez y Fr. Esteban Romo al Muy Rev. P. Fr. Joseph Ximenez Samaniego.” AGI, Lima 338. Both Lainez and Romo were present in Rome in 1676. See also the memorial of Fray Esteban Romo to the king. Madrid, December 27, 1677. AGI, Lima 338.

¹⁰³ Ibid.

¹⁰⁴ Contra Patres Criollos, fol. 12.

¹⁰⁵ This decree is found in AGI, Lima 338. This decree also specified the offices which had to be occupied alternately by Spanish and creole friars. In the Lima province these offices were: provincial, at least two members of the provincial’s council, the guardian of San Francisco in Lima, and at least ten other guardians. In the Cuzco province: provincial, at least two members of the provincial’s council, the guardian of the principal convent (i. e., either Cuzco or La Paz, since the provincial alternated his residence between these two cities), and at least six other guardians. Other officials could be chosen from either party. Practically, however, the alternativa gave the power of appointing these officials to whichever party happened to occupy the office of provincial.

¹⁰⁶ The certified copy is found in AGI, Lima 338.

¹⁰⁷ “Breve Resolucion por el R. P. Fr. Nicolas Lainez.” AGI, Lima 338. All signatures were obtained between May 12 and June 1, 1677.

¹⁰⁸ Luengo to the Consejo. Madrid, March 12, 1678. AGI, Lima 338. This communication of Fray Juan Luengo is quite long and it would seem that its author was a little out of sorts. He had not answered until he had been ordered to do so twice by the Consejo.

¹⁰⁹ Thus decrees of the Consejo on this date to both Alvarracin and to the viceroy of Lima in AGI, Lima 338.

¹¹⁰ Both petitions are found in AGI, Lima 338. Printed copies were formerly also found in the Biblioteca Nacional of Lima.

¹¹¹ Thus, decree of the Consejo on this date in AGI, Lima 338.

¹¹² I was unable to locate the papers of the Congregation of Religious in the Vatican Archives which deal with this point; neither could I find the papers referred to of Nuncio Savo. However, the statements made in the text are clear from the Nuncio’s letter to Cardinal Colonna of September 11, 1681, as found in Summarium, fol. 30, and in the testimony of the Peruvians. Ibid., fol. 7.

¹¹³ The Peruvian delegates in Madrid petitioned Cardinal Colonna on July 3, 1681, to request the Nuncio officially to demand authentic copies of all pertinent documents from the archivist of the Commissary General of the Indies, since the functionary had refused them. Contra Patres Criollos, fol. 16v-17. Actually the Nuncio had presented such a request on May 23, 1681, on the urging of Cardinal Colonna. See note 112.

¹¹⁴ Summarium, fol. 6v.

¹¹⁵ The Franciscan chapter was to have merely a consultive vote. The Roman Congregation was to have the decisive vote. According to the decree of the Congregation, the alternativa was to be discussed by the full chapter. This was not done. Again the matter was submitted only to the General’s Council, which voted on September 12, 1682, in Madrid to sustain the alternativa. Both the decree and the vote is found in Contra Patres Criollos, fol. 17v-18.

¹¹⁶ Cf. note 94 above.

¹¹⁷ This information is contained in a letter of Castellar to the king. Lima, July 5, 1678. AGI, Lima 338.

¹¹⁸ A certified copy of the decree in question is contained in “Autos,” fol. 3v. AGI, Escribanía 517 A. The decree annulled any distinction between friars of different races in the Indies whether in the entrance to the Order or in election to office. According to this decree, promotion to office was to be based on merit alone.

¹¹⁹ This argument is developed at some length in the official petition of the creole Franciscans to the court of the archbishop of Lima. It is repeated several times in other documents (See, “Nullidad puesta por los Religiosos de señor San Francisco.” Archivo Arzobispal de Lima (AAL), Sección Franciscanos, Siglo XVII). The writer has consulted several canonists regarding the validity of this argument. None would state that the argument is valid. All agreed, however, that the change effected in the status of the creoles by the alternativa was sufficient to justify the creole friars in seeking a dispensation from their vows, if they so desired.

¹²⁰ Ibid. This is the original document with all the signatures.

¹²¹ Viceroy Castellar had ordered the execution of the decree on June 1, 1678. Delgado appealed to the audiencia against this action, but on July 8, the new viceroy, D. Melchor de Liñán y Cisneros, voted to disregard the appeal and on July 9 ordered Delgado to execute the decree. Delgado maintained that the viceroy’s action was illegal and hence refused to obey the command until the appeal had run its normal course, which meant a hearing first of all by the audiencia and then, if its decision was unfavorable, by the Consejo in Madrid. See the original papers of this pleito in AGI, Lima 338.

¹²² Thus the city council of Cuzco to the king. Cuzco, August 24, 1678. AGI, Lima 338. This creole-Spanish dispute of the canons of Cuzco is also discussed in the report of Viceroy Liñán as found in Manuel A. Fuentes (ed.), Memorias de los Vireyes que ban gobernado el Perú (6 vols.; Lima, 1859), I, 276. In 1673, while in Lima enroute to Cuzco to take possession of his see, Bishop Mollinedo had consecrated the newly completed church of San Francisco.

¹²³ Fray Antonio de Vera, guardian of San Antonio, commonly known today in Cuzco as La Recoleta.

¹²⁴ A long circumstantial account is given by the bishop in his letter of August 3, 1678, to the king (AGI, Lima 338). According to the bishop the creoles shouted: “Votad por vuestra patria! Muerte a los Vascos y que no aya alternativa!” No violence was done but the friars refused to permit the decree to be inscribed into the official books of the province. Finally, when the prelate attempted to read the decree aloud, the creoles shouted so that no one, not even the notary, could understand a word. Apparently these were considered legalistic technicalities to prevent promulgation.

¹²⁵ Under date of August 30, 1678. AGI, Lima 338. From a reading of these reports this writer received the impression that the prelates were more surprised than angered at the action of the creoles. They just did not seem to be able to comprehend why the creoles should resent the alternativa.

¹²⁶ Thus, letter to the king. Lima, March 5, 1679. In an earlier letter from Portobelo, this same friar had warned: “Provea del mas necesario; porque inobedientes los criollos, no se pierdan las Indias.” Both letters are found in AGI, Lima 338.

¹²⁷ Herbas really was not a creole. He had been born in Seville in 1615 of D. Balthasar de Herbas of Madrid and Doña Angela de Luna of Cádiz. His parents had come to Lima when he was a small boy and there he entered the Franciscan Order on July 24, 1633 (ASFL, Bezerro del habito, fol. 18v). However no one seems to have adverted to his Spanish origin. He was known as a creole and even the Spanish friars, who strove to include every possible Spanish subject to increase their numbers, did not claim him. Thus “Autos,” fol. 48. AGI, Escribanía 517 A. Herbas had been secretary general of the province of Lima and superior in five monasteries of that province.

¹²⁸ Vivero, Domingo de, Gobernadores y Virreyes del Perú (Barcelona, 1909), pp. 102–104 Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ In a letter of April 24, 1680 (AGI, Lima 338), Liñán advised the Consejo that the alternativa should be suspended for a time to quiet the aroused creoles. The Consejo answered this letter in a dispatch of March 28, 1681 (also AGI, Lima 338) which ordered that the alternativa should be observed in the province of Lima “since it is very important.” By the time this dispatch arrived, Duque de la Palata had replaced Liñán.

¹³⁰ Thus Fray Juan Luengo to the Consejo.

¹³¹ Biographical references concerning Terán are extremely rare. He was appointed Commissary General on March 12, 1678, received his avío from the Crown on May 25, and landed in Cartagena on September 14, 1678. Thus, AGI, Lima 1606.

¹³² The exact instructions given to Terán were the subject of frequent inquiry by the Consejo. In all there are five notes written as answers to such queries (dated November 24, 1679, June 9, 1681, June 13, 1681, June 25, 1681, and June 28, 1681. All are in Lima 338). From these notes it is evident that Terán was sent to Peru with instructions to enforce the alternativa. If the Peruvian friars continued to oppose it, Terán was told to send them to Spain and to prepare a complete judicial process against each one, except the final sentence. The sentence was reserved for the Commissary General of the Indies. At the same time, the viceroy of Peru had been instructed to give the new Commissary the necessary aid. It should be noted that these instructions for the imposition of the alternativa with the aid of the viceroy were issued at a time when the Peruvians had done no more than appeal against the new decree of alternativa. Also, it should be noted that Terán did not fulfill these instructions. He sent Delgado and his companions to Chile, which was regarded in Peru, at that time, as the place of exile of criminals and he never sent the processes to Spain.

¹³³ Thus letter to the king of June 4, 1680. AGI, Lima 338.

¹³⁴ The Jesuit Provincial, P. Francisco del Quadro, the Mercedarian Provincial, Fray Francisco de Saavedra, and the Augustinian Prior, Fray Pedro de Mendoza, who wrote in the name of his province. All praise the condition of the Franciscan Order in Peru at that time and condemn the alternativa as not necessary and as liable to foment discord. See their letters in AGI, Lima 338.

¹³⁵ City Council of Lima to the king. Lima, January 16, 1681. This letter was delivered to the Consejo by a special messenger sent by the council. The council had written an earlier letter which was delivered through ordinary channels but the council stated that “their pen could not flow freely” in that earlier letter.

¹³⁶ Liñán was replaced as viceroy on November 22, 1681. He did remain as archbishop of Lima until his death in 1708. Vivero, op. cit., p. 107.

¹³⁷ Mugaburu, op. cit., II, 201.

¹³⁸ This decision was confirmed by Fray Juan Luengo on September 10, 1680; AGI, Lima 338. Delgado was also included in this sentence. The reason given by Luengo was their opposition to the alternativa.

¹³⁹ ASFL, Registro 6, fols. 183 ff.

¹⁴⁰ Letter of D. Francisco de la Cueva y Guzmán to the king. Lima, January 10, 1681. AGI, Lima 338. Cueva says he had been maestro de campo of Lima for twenty years. This is confirmed by Mugaburu (op. cit., II, 42) who says that Cueva received the bastón of this office on September 22, 1661.

¹⁴¹ Letter of D. Francisco González de Pereira to the king. Lima, July 4, 1680. AGI, Lima 338. This correspondent was certainly a Spaniard. He claims that the creole friars had paid 12,000 pesos to Canon Vallejo, secretary of the viceroy, and in return had received a promise that the viceroy would prevent Terán from introducing the alternativa. Mugaburu, op. cit., II, 204, may possibly substantiate this charge. It is certainly true that both creole and Spanish friars must have had some rich supporters in this struggle because the fees for the copyists alone must have run into the thousands of pesos, not to mention the cost of sending so many delegates to Madrid and Rome.

¹⁴² Terán went first of all to San Pedro, a home for aged and infirm priests “because no other monastery would receive him, since all the orders have the same division of emotions.” Thus Archbishop Liñán to the king. Lima, January 14, 1681. AGI, Lima 338. Later, Terán felt that he was not safe in San Pedro and he went to the viceregal palace upon the invitation of the viceroy.

¹⁴³ Fray Cristóval de Contreras was born in Chachapoyas of Juan de Contreras and Doña Isabel de Castro Angulo and entered the Franciscan Order in Lima on May 29, 1637 (ASFL, Bezerro del habito, fol. 30v). As a friar, Contreras occupied important posts. He taught theology in the Colegio de Guadalupe and for a time governed that institution (“Autos,” fol. 76. AGI, Escribanía 517 A). In 1665, he became the secretary of Fray Miguel de Molina, Commissary General of Peru, and upon the death of that official in 1667, Contreras was elected to complete the term with the title of Vice-Commissary General. Thus Mugaburu, op. cit., II, 84.

¹⁴⁴ Letter of the audiencia to the king. Lima, n. d. AGI, Lima 338. The oidores report that this action aroused “rumblings among the people, which might have been serious if the majority of the vassals of this kingdom were not so noble and so loyal.” These would seem to be fine phrases to describe the lack of spirit of the inhabitants of Lima.

¹⁴⁵ See the document cited in note 119. The letter of Fray Pedro de Mendoza cited in note 134 also refers to this action and the effect it caused among the people.

¹⁴⁶ Mugaburu, op. cit., II, 205.

¹⁴⁷ See note 140.

¹⁴⁸ Thus City Council of Lima to the king. Lima, January 16, 1681.

¹⁴⁹ This letter is reprinted in Memoriale . . per li Padri Minori Spagnoli, fol. 9v.

¹⁵⁰ There are several printed accounts of the happenings of these days. Thus Mugaburu, op. cit., II, 208–209, has a brief account. Viceroy Liñán’s official account is published in Fuentes (ed.), op. cit., I, 271–276. This is almost a verbatim copy of his letter to the king of January 14, 1681. Manuscript accounts are numerous. These vary in sentiment from that of the creole apologist, Fray Martín de Ulloa, to that written by Terán himself. I have followed in the main the reports of the City Council of Lima and of D. Gaspar de la Cueva. (The report of the City Council is contained in its letter of January 16, 1681, and that of Cueva in his letter of January 10, 1681. Hereafter they will be referred to simply as City Council and Cueva respectively.) I have preferred these reports because the authors seemed to have maintained a more objective point of view, they were eyewitnesses, and they seem to have been almost the only ones who made some sort of investigation.

¹⁵¹ Thus City Council. Cueva suspects that the fire was set by Fray Fernando Ramirez de Arellano. I tend to agree, although there is no strict proof that this is true. This friar had come with Terán from Spain and whenever he was present in Lima, the creole-Spanish tension increased; when he was absent, it diminished. Ramirez was born in Oran and had been captured by the Moslems when a young boy. For a number of years he had served as a soldier on their pirate ships. Later he was captured by the Spaniards, abjured the religion of the Prophet and eventually became a friar in Seville. He had come from Spain in the same convoy as Terán, though not in his company, with royal permission to beg alms with which to ransom a brother still held by the Turks. He parted company with Terán in Cartagena but rejoined him in Lima in June, 1680. From the first, he showed the greatest contempt for the creoles of that city, called them mestizos, weaklings, and even pushed them aside on the streets. Despite such conduct, this friar was sent by the viceroy on October 2, 1680, as cabo of the ship San Lorenzo of 20 guns and 150 men to hunt for the English pirate, Bartholomew Sharpe. Two days after his departure, Terán returned from his residence in the viceroy’s palace to the monastery of San Francisco. Ramirez returned from his trip, without even sighting the pirate, on December 15. By the twentieth, Terán reports that he has been told (by whom?) that his life is in danger and he again leaves San Francisco for a few days. On the twenty-ninth, a small fire is found outside Terán’s door, although the fully armed Ramirez was on guard inside. Surely the perpetrators must have been very quiet while bringing the needed wood and the like not to have been detected, unless the perpetrator was Fray Ramirez himself.

¹⁵² Thus, the letter of the audiencia to the king, loc. cit. Terán says that the smoke woke up Ramirez.

¹⁵³ Fray Fernando Ramírez de Arellano.

¹⁵⁴ Others say three. The audiencia gives the figure five.

¹⁵⁵ Thus, audiencia to the king. The oidores also inform the king that these armed men roamed the cloisters and encountered no one until they came upon the student friars who had gathered in preparation to go to the choir for their usual midnight prayers. Fray Ramirez shouted insults at these young men and even cut at one of them with his sword. The student thereupon pinioned Ramirez’ arms, while others took away his weapons. In the excitement, some one hit Ramirez with a brick or tile. Three days later Ramirez had recovered his strength, though apparently not his old custom of calling the creoles weaklings.

¹⁵⁶ Thus Cueva.

¹⁵⁷ Thus Fray Martin de Ulloa to the king. Lima, January 7, 1681. AGI, Lima 338.

¹⁵⁸ Cueva estimates that there were more than 2,400 soldiers on duty that afternoon in Lima. The old soldier repeatedly mentions that he was ordered to arm only the Spanish militia. Cueva protested against this choice because “these irritated the friars by their dislike for the créoles, but my objection was overruled because it was said that these knew how to defend themselves.”

¹⁵⁹ No one ever claimed to have actually found any weapons in the monastery, except those which were uncovered on the first night in the quarters of Terán. Terán and Liñán merely claim that arms were hidden there. Certainly if the alcaldes had located some, there would be a record of this discovery, duly notarized and witnessed. It is remarkable that although the bundle Lima 338 so often cited in this paper contains a report from almost every possible official, there is not a word from the man who conducted both searches of the monastery, D. Gaspar de Cuba. Why not? Certainly, if he had found some weapons, that would have been testimony of capital importance. Likewise, if he did not find any that too would have been testimony of equal value.

¹⁶⁰ According to Mugaburu, op. cit., II, 209, the nine friars were: Fray Cristóval de Contreras, Fray Juan Garrido, guardian of Lima, Fray Juan de Cáceres, secretary of the province of Lima, Fray Joseph Contreras, brother of Fray Cristóval, Fray Joseph de Guadalupe, and the four members of the provincial’s council, whose names are not known at this time.

¹⁶¹ Mugaburu, ibid., says fifteen minutes after the nine priests had been taken away.

¹⁶² Fray Francisco Manrique was the son of Isidro Manrique and Doña Damiana de Avendaño. Both were natives of Lima. Francisco had entered the Franciscan Order in Lima on October 28, 1675. ASFL, Bezerro del habito, fol. 173.

¹⁶³ The Jesuit Provincial, Francisco del Quadro, says that Manrique was shot “maliciosamente” by Spanish soldiers, who “subiendo por los techos algunos soldados con ojeriza nacional dispararon al moton balasos y fue milagro no quedar muertos muchos religiosos.” Thus his letter to the king. Lima, January 10, 1681. There can be no question that both the friars and the soldiers must have been under considerable strain after three days of siege. This is seen at the time of Manrique’s death. When the friar student fell, the master of novices called out to the soldiers: “Evil men, why have you done this?” One of the overwrought sergeants struck him down with his halberd. Thus, Fray Martin de Ulloa, loc. cit. The viceroy reported “one friar happened to drop dead and despite a careful examination, it was impossible to learn by what hand or what kind of weapon.” Thus Liñán’s letter to the king of January 14, 1681. Seven correspondents, who mention the death of Manrique, agree that he was shot in the chest.

¹⁶⁴ Captain Joseph de Ortega. The other captains refused to yield.

¹⁶⁵ Thus Cueva. The last sentence occurs frequently in the documents at this time and hence may be indicative that it was a widely held opinion.

¹⁶⁶ See note 134.

¹⁶⁷ Thus P. Francisco del Quadro, loc. cit.

¹⁶⁸ Terán to the king. Lima, January 4, 1681. AGI, Lima 338. The audiencia on the other hand, informed the Crown that Terán still wished to have the six student friars exiled even after the murder of Fray Manrique, but the oidores “agreed that your viceroy should see to it that Fray Terán should not take any action whatsoever.”

¹⁶⁹ Terán had not appointed any one to take Fray Contreras’ place as late as November, 1681. Archbishop Liñán complained that this was harming the friars, since they had had no regular superiors for almost a year. Thus, Fuentes (ed.), op. cit., I, 276. Fray Felipe de Cuellar had been appointed temporary superior by March 9, 1682.

¹⁷⁰ The viceroy witnessed the counting of the votes in the election of the alcaldes on January 1, 1681. At that time, he is supposed to have said to some members of the city council “that he had not agreed with the Commissary General that soldiers would be required to achieve his wishes.” Thus City Council of Lima to the king. Yet the viceroy was the only official who could authorize the calling out of the militia and soldiers in Lima.

¹⁷¹ Letter of D. Melchor Liñán y Cisneros to the king. Lima, January 14, 1681. AGI, Lima 338. In an earlier letter (Callao, August 30, 1678), Liñán had also suggested that the doctrinas should be taken away from the Franciscans. At that time, the removal was recommended as a policy matter; now it is recommended as a punishment. Both recommendations were turned over to D. Mathias de los Ríos to be filed with the other papers concerning the removal of the friars from the doctrinas throughout the Americas.

¹⁷² Thus Cueva, loc. cit.

¹⁷³ It is interesting to note just what effect these accounts produced on the minds of the officials in Madrid. On the back of the report of the audiencia, there is this note of the fiscal: “… the creoles are disobedient friars, who have stubbornly refused to yield to the orders of either king, pope or general… attacking one another with weapons and even using these against the soldiers, so that one friar was killed and his body paraded through the streets. The only result has been to suspend the alternativa, so that the creoles have gained their point.”

¹⁷⁴ Fray Rosellón had been born in Madrid. In 1675, he was apparently still a very young friar, who had not as yet occupied any offices.

¹⁷⁵ Fray Marin, a native of Lima, had entered the Franciscan Order as a lay brother. On October 22, 1655, he began to study for the priesthood (ASFL, Bezerro del habito, fol. 110v). In 1675, he was professor of Sacred Scripture in the Colegio de Guadalupe of Lima. While in Spain, the Nuncio intervened on his behalf, but without avail. He was exiled and nothing more is known of him.

¹⁷⁶ Fray Fernández was born June 13, 1640, and entered the Franciscan Order in Lima in June, 1655. Because there was some unclearness in his baptismal certificate, his entry was much discussed. Strangely enough, Fray Cristóval Berrú, a Spanish friar who strongly favored the alternativa, was the most devoted defender of Fernández’ right to enter the Order, although he was a creole (ASFL, Bezerro del habito, fol. 107). Later, Fernández was professor of theology in Lima and regent of studies for the entire Lima province.

¹⁷⁷ Viso to the Duque de Medina Celi. Madrid, September 14, 1682. AGI, Lima 338. It is not known who was representing the creoles in Rome at this time, since Moreno and Fernández were still in Madrid. Viso was also worried because the Franciscan General wished to send a Father Arroyo to Peru as Commissary General, although he favored the creoles. Viso naturally opposed this appointment and Arroyo did not go.

¹⁷⁸ The minutes of this meeting are found in AGI, Lima 338.

¹⁷⁹ The royal dispatch was written on October 3, 1682. It is found in the Archives of the Spanish Embassy (ASE), Legajo 140, fol. 128. At the time I used these archives they were still preserved in Rome. They have since been transferred to Madrid.

¹⁸⁰ Quirós to the king. Rome, November 8, 1682. AGI, Lima 338.

¹⁸¹ Thus the letter dated Madrid, October 15, 1682. AGI, Lima 338. On the back of this letter there is a note in which the Consejo speaks of the “danger of rebellion.”

¹⁸² This is the term used by the Consejo. They do not explain it.

¹⁸³ ASE, Legajo 140, fol. 126.

¹⁸⁴ These letters were sent to Quirós who was to deliver them in person to the respective cardinals. See his letter from Rome, December 20, 1682, in AGI, Lima 338. A copy of the letter to Cardinal Cybo is found in the same place.

¹⁸⁵ At that time, Cardinal Pio apparently did not consider the alternativa justified. See his letter in AGI, Lima 338.

¹⁸⁶ Thus Quirós’ letter of December 20, 1682. Cardinal Alderano Cybo (1613–1700) is usually called the secretary of state of Pope Innocent XI.

¹⁸⁷ These agents were: Fray Carlos de la Concepción (letter from Rome of December 6, 1682) and Fray Angel de Cevallos (Letter from Rome of December 5, 1682). Both letters are found in AGI, Lima 338.

¹⁸⁸ Fray Carlos de la Concepción.

¹⁸⁹ These developments were considered by the Consejo on January 9, 1683. The Lima happenings of December, 1680, are found described in ASE, Legajo 140, fols. 66–96.

¹⁹⁰ ASE, Legajo 140, fol. 98.

¹⁹¹ Quirós to the Consejo. Rome, February 14, 1683. AGI, Lima 338.

¹⁹² This Colonna can not be located in any of the usual lists of cardinals furnished in reference works. In the documents he is called John and he signs himself as John Cardinal Colonna. He played a most important role in the alternativa case in Rome, because he was the ponens for the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.

¹⁹³ I have not seen the letter of the king to the cardinal, but Colonna’s answer of May 8, 1683, gives a brief summary of the king’s earlier message. Colonna’s letter produced a bad impression on the royal council and Quirós was advised, as a consequence, to emphasize more energetically to the other cardinals the armed excesses of the creoles. Thus AGI, Lima 338.

¹⁹⁴ Almost a third of these cardinals can not be identified from their Spanish names.

¹⁹⁵ At the meeting of May 7, the cardinals refrained from a final vote out of deference for the wishes of Cardinal Colonna and also because they wanted two points clarified:

• 1. Did Irraraga have the authorization of the provinces to request the alternativa in 1664?

• 2. Were all the recent provincials of Lima and Charcas creoles? On June 19, the Consejo asked Fray Cristóbal de Viso, Commissary General of the Indies, for an answer to these two questions. Viso submitted his answer on June 25. In answer to the first question, Viso maintained that Irraraga did not need special authorization. To the second, Viso stated that creoles had been provincials without interruption for the past forty years in Lima and in Cuzco for the past five terms, or roughly for the past fifteen years. In neither instance was Viso correct. The last Spanish provincial of Lima had been Fray Francisco Franco, who had governed from August 5, 1669, to June 4, 1672. The last Spanish provincial of Cuzco had been Fray Francisco Bergado, 1653–1656. It may be noted that Viso’s denial that Irraraga needed special authorization from the province to broach the question of the alternativa was the nub of the entire case. The creoles maintained that the alternativa was invalid from its very inception just because Irraraga lacked this special authorization. Viso offered no proof for his assertion, but his view prevailed.

¹⁹⁶ “… Cardinal Colonna… has desired to use his office as relator to defer the introduction of this case before the Congregation; but I have given him to understand that I am alert to this maneuver and that I expect him to introduce the matter at the next meeting of the Congregation at the end of this month.” Thus Quirós to D. Francisco Madrigal. Rome, June 6, 1683. Madrigal was the secretary of the Consejo. AGI, Lima 338.

¹⁹⁷ Printed announcements of the vote are found in AGOM, “Instrumenta Provinciae Limanae.”

¹⁹⁸ Cristóbal de Viso to the king Madrid, December, 1683. AGI, Lima 338. From the documents now known, it would seem rather certain that Viso’s suspicions were completely justified. Fray Martin de Moreno especially seems to have had a definite plan to use this brief to reopen the entire question.

¹⁹⁹ Copies of the orders to these officials as well as their answers are in AGI, Lima 338.

²⁰⁰ “Fray Martin Moreno de Leon es lector jubilado, custodio de la Provincia de las Charcas. Su persona es de mediana estatura, pocas carnes, entrecano, algo rosado en el color, boca y dientes grande, habla con alguna pausa, y abriendo la boca y poco verboso. Lleba en su compañia un donado mulato de color muy moreno, delgado de rostro, alto de cuerpo, el pelo comun de negros y mulatos, llamase Nicolas. [This was Fray Nicolas de Oleaga, a native of Arequipa.]

“Fray Antonio Fernandez, lector jubilado de la provincia de los doze Apostoles de Lima, alto de cuerpo, delgado, pelo liso, con pocas canas, rostro abultado y picado de viruelas, ojos pequeños, suele usar de antojos y quando no los tiene, por ser corto de vista, la recoje para ver, cerrando casi del todo los ojos, es de color algo moreno, manos largas y delgadas, boca pequeña, dientes iguales y blancos, habla de espacio y con verbosidad.” Viso to the Consejo. Madrid, December 7, 1683. AGI, Lima 338.

²⁰¹ In the several letters from Fray Moreno, there is no mention of the location of his domicile. He certainly was not in the same friary as Fernández.

²⁰² Consejo under this date. AGI, Lima 338.

²⁰³ Thus Fr. Julián de Chumillas to the Consejo. Madrid, March 10, 1688. AGI, Lima 338. Chumillas was the Commissary General of the Indies at that time.

²⁰⁴ The files on the young men who became Franciscans in Lima are almost complete from about 1625. Detailed figures are omitted here because the author hopes to publish them in a separate study in the near future.