No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
The story of fray pedro de aguado, O.F.M., and his work is not a happy one. He was a humble friar who had spent the best years of his life in the New Kingdom of Granada preaching to the Indians. He had also taken the pains of gathering material for the writing of a history of the area with which he was acquainted. Back in Spain in 1576 as a representative of his province, Aguado completed the writing, went through the endless protocols, submitted his work for the examination of cosmographers, and secured due licenses to print—only to see his books fail to appear for one reason or another. And as years went by and publication was not forthcoming, Fray Pedro, who apparently had given up hope, died in an unknown place at an unknown date. Spanish bibliographers thereafter were meticulous enough to include his name in their lists of authors. Aguado was even copied by other historians who were lucky or curious enough to look for and find the manuscripts. But apart from these bibliographers and historians, mice and moths became the ones to profit most from the perusal of the accounts that the friar had so carefully compiled.
The author wishes to express his appreciation to the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, New York, for a Fellowship which permitted him to do research on Aguado and to make other investigations in early Colombian history. Acknowledgment is also gratefully given to the officers of the Archivo Nacional de Colombia, especially to Dr. Enrique Ortega Ricaurte and Miss Carlota Bustos Losada for their cooperation in the transcript of Aguado’s Probanza de servicios; to the Academia Colombiana de la Historia for the use of the Aguado material in its library; to the friars of the Teologado Franciscano de Porciúncula at Bogotá for the perusal of their rare complete collection of the Archivo Ibero-Americano; and to Professor Lyle N. McAlister of the University of Florida, for his advice and encouragement.
1 According to certain early documents, our historian’s name was Fray Pedro Aguado, and he himself signed “Fr. Po. Aguado, Pr.” However, the licenses to print his books as well as the title page of the manuscripts referred to him as Fray Pedro de Aguado. General usage now dictates the latter to be preferred.
2 Nicolás Antonio, Bibliotheca hispana nova; sive, hispanorum scriptorum qui ab anno MD. ad MDCLXXXIV. fluorere notitia (Mattiti, apud viduam et heredes Joachimi de Ibarra Typographi Regii, MDCCLXXXVIII (1788), vol. 2), pp. 165, 487.
3 de Asensio, Fray Esteban, “Historia memorial,” in Provincia Franciscana de Colombia, las cuatro fuentes de su historia, Arcila Robledo, Fray Gregorio, editor (Bogotá: Editorial Renovación, 1950), p. 31.Google Scholar
4 The date of arrival of Aguado in the New Kingdom is based on his January 17, 1575 going-away declaration in his Probanza that “habrá catorce años que yo vine de los reinos de España a estas partes de Indias y tantos ha que estoy y resido en este nuevo reino de Granada” (Archivo Nacional de Colombia at Bogotá, Colonia, Historia Civil [hereinafter cited as A. N. C.], vol. 7, fol. 160). However, other declarations by Aguado himself differ from the one issued at Santa Fe. In the preface to the First Part of the Recopilación Aguado writes, “en el discurso de quince años, los mejores de mi vida, que me empleé en la predicación y conversión de los idólatras que como bestias vivían en el Nuevo Reino de aquellas Indias” ( de Aguado, Fray Pedro, Primera parte de la recopilación historial resolutoria de Sancta Marta y Nuevo Reino de Granada (Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1930), I, 5–6)Google Scholar. And in a letter dated in Spain on February 9, 1576, Aguado claims sixteen years: “Y por auer estado yo en aquel reyno más de diez y seis años empleado con mucho trabajo en conuertir aquellas gentes” ( López, Fray Atanasio, “Fray Pedro Aguado, historiador de Venezuela y Colombia,” Archivo Ibero-Americano, VIII [No. 46, julio-agosto 1921], 38 Google Scholar). Students of the Libro de asientos de pasajeros de España a Indias (Casa de Contratación, Archivo de Sevilla) have not made available the record of Aguado’s trip. There should be pertinent documents in Seville.
5 Aguado to Council of Indies, February 9, 1576, Archivo General de Indias, Seville, sign. 73-2-28. Most of the documents found by Fray Atanasio López in Seville were incorporated verbatim by him into his article on Aguado already cited. Hereinafter, references to these documents will carry the initials A. G. I. and the number of the page in Father Lopez’s article. Cartagena was a required stop for all the clerics destined to Peru and Terra Firme, according to Fray Pedro Simón, Noticias historiales (Bogotá: Editorial Kelly, 1953), IV, 160.
6 Luis López Ortiz, January 21, 1575, A. N. C, 7, fol. 168.
7 Aguado, op. cit., I, 417 [Book 5, chapter 3 of the First Part].
8 Gonzalo Mexia, chantre, January 18, 1575, A. N. C, 7, fol. 165; Pedro de Bolívar, January 21, 1575, A. N. C, 7, fol. 166 verso.
9 A. N. C, 7, fol. 160. According to the text of the Probanza, the names Cogua, Némeza and Peza stood for two towns of Indians. This is not unusual, as there were similar cases of double names such as Suta y Tausa, and Suta y Tenza, communities which in the course of time became the present towns of Sutatausa and Sutatenza. In the case of Aguado’s parish, it seems that Némeza and Peza formed one functional unit, the other being the town of Cogua itself. By 1587, Fray Francisco Gonzaga (based on Asensio’s report) recognized only two names in connection with Cogua’s doctrinal house, and these were Cogua and Némeza, thus-dropping the secondary name Peza ( Gonzaga, Fray Francisco, “Del origen de la Seràfica religión,” in Provincia Franciscana de Colombia …, cit., p. 120 Google Scholar). When Piedrahita was writing in 1666, the name Némeza had modulated to Nemza (Lucas Fernández de Piedrahita, Historia general de las conquistas del Nuevo Reino de Granada [Bogotá: Editorial ABC, 1942], I, 65. And by the time of the Comuneros revolt of 1781 the name had changed to a more pronounceable Neusa (Centenario de los Comuneros [Bogotá: Silvestre y Cia., 1881],
10 Luis López Ortiz, January 21, 1575, A. N. C, 7, fol. 168. López Ortiz was a latecomer. He had arrived from Plasencia, Spain, and started a profitable business as a merchant. By 1585 he was wealthy enough to help with the launching of a new convent for nuns at Santa Fe (Asensio, loc. cit., p. 45).
11 Pedro de Bolívar, January 21, 1575, A. N. C., 7, fol. 167.
12 Luis López Ortiz, January 21, 1575, A. N. C., 7, fols. 169–169 verso.
13 Aguado claimed that he built two churches in Cogua (A. N. C., 7, fol. 160), but López Ortiz’s testimony read “una iglesia de piedra y tapia que hoy día está acabada y tejada de teja” (Ibid., fol. 169 verso). Perhaps the other “church” that Aguado claimed he built was the humilladero, a small chapel used during Holy Week to lodge the body of Jesus after the Good Friday procession. This auxiliary religious building is also used at present to keep vigil on bodies before interment.
14 Fray Pedro Aguado, January 17, 1575, A. N. C., 7, fol. 160.
15 Luis López Ortiz, January 21, 1575, A. N. C., 7, fol. 170; Juan Xuarez de Cepeda, February 1, 1575, ibid., fol. 174; Asensio, loc. cit., p. 31. The good Franciscan was unaware of the lip service that many of his parishioners were actually paying Christianity. Not too long after the turn of the seventeenth century, the mask fell off one of the Coguan leaders, an old man who could well have been an Aguado convert. It is Fray Pedro Simon’s story that when the dying Coguan leader summoned a priest, the Indian went through the religious ceremony of bien morir with an image of the god Bochica hidden inside the crucifix that he held in his hand. The Coguan (who apparently was trying to make doubly sure on his chances in the other world) did not recant his paganism, to the dismay of the Christian minister. (Simón, op. cit., II, 253).
16 A. N. C, 7, fols. 176–179. For early encomiendas and encomenderos see de Quesada, Gonzalo Jiménez, “Memoria de los descubridores y conquistadores que entraron conmigo …,” in Acosta, Joaquín, Compendio histórico del descubrimiento y colonización de Nueva Granada (Paris, 1848).Google Scholar
17 Juan de Ortega, February 8, 1575, A. N. C, 7, fol. 179.
18 Andrés Vasquez de Molina, February 8, 1575, A. N. C, 7, fol. 178. The word días should not be interpreted literally as “days,” but rather in a biblical sense. López Ortiz also testified (Ibid., fol. 168 verso) that Aguado “estuvo y residió [en Cogua] … muchos días” and it is beyond a doubt that the friar stayed there more than one year. Perhaps “months” would be a better translation. Vásquez’s testimony would have been invalidated if he had not known Aguado at work at Chocontá for a longer period than just “a few days” interpreted literally.
19 The guardian’s term of office was not defined in the older Constitutions of the Franciscan Order. It was only in 1500 that a ruling was made stipulating that a guardian’s term of office must not exceed two terms ( Huber, Raphael M. O.F.M. Conv., A Documented History of the Franciscan Order (Milwaukee: Nowiny Publishing Apostolate, Inc., 1944), pp. 656–661)Google Scholar. The writer is working under the assumption that guardians of Friars Minor convents in America during the sixteenth century held office one year, subject to re-election. The guardians (guardiani), different from custodes, were the domestic superiors of convents, elected by their subjects according to Haymo of Faversham’s application of the Rule of 1223 ( Knowles, Dom D., The Religious Orders in England (Cambridge, 1950), pp. 172–174)Google Scholar. Custodes, on the other hand, were to be elected at the provincial chapters, and they held office for three years together with the minister provincial (The Catholic Encyclopedia [New York: Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1913], IV, 577–578). This is also the practice today, even for guardians, who are to be confirmed by definitors at the triennial chapters (Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana [Barcelona: Hijos de J. Espasa], vol. 26). One year conventual guardianships seemed to be the rule at the time in Florida and Cuba ( Fr.Geiger, Maynard O.F.M., Biographical Dictionary of the Franciscans in Spanish Florida and Cuba, 1525-1541 [Paterson, N. J., (Franciscan Studies vol. XXI), 1940], p. 58 Google Scholar et passim), and Mexico ( Gárate, Román Zulaica, Los Franciscanos y la imprenta en Mexico en el siglo XVI [Mexico: Pedro Robredo, 1939], p. 175 Google Scholar et passim). Father Asensio in New Granada mentions many guardians without specifying their tenure of office, except for Fray Andrés de San Antonio (three years), Fray Gaspar de Portoalegre (two years), and Fray Luis Corredor (two years), which seems to indicate that these were deviations from the general practice, or perhaps a result of consecutive annual reelections (Asensio, loc. cit., pp. 39–41).
20 A. N. C, 7, fols. 165, 170, 174, 174 verso.
21 Asensio, loc. cit., p. 31.
22 Simón, op. cit., IV, p. 124.
23 Asensio, loc. cit., p. 31.
24 Fray Pedro Aguado, January 17, 1575, A. N. C, 7, fol. 160 verso; Gonzalo Mejía, January 18, 1575, A. N. C, 7, fol. 166; Juan Xuárez de Cepeda, February 1, 1575, A. N. C., 7, fol. 174.
25 “… admodum Reuerendum Patrem fratrem Petrum Aguado has presentes literas portantem, esse Ministrum prouincialem huius sanete prouincie fuisseque electum die Sancti Petri anni millesimi quingentesimi septuagesimi tertii in capitulo rite et canonice celebrato in hac prouincia …” (Testimony of the Definitors, Sante Fe, November 2, 1574, A. G. I., sign. 73-2-27, loc. cit., pp. 27–28).
26 Simón, op. cit., IV, 120; Asensio, loc. cit., p. 27.
27 Fray Pedro Aguado, Memorial, (1576?), A. G. I., sign. 73-2-27, loc. cit., pp. 30–31.
28 Asensio, loc. cit., p. 31; Simón, op. cit., IV, 124.
29 Aguado, Memorial, (1576?), A. G. I., sign. 73-2-27, he. cit., pp. 30–31.
30 Ibid.
31 Aguado to Council, February 9, 1576, A. G. I., sign. 73-2-28, loc. cit., p. 40.. “[El sacerdote] no puede hazer el oficio … a gusto de Dios sino a gusto del encomendero, por miedo que no lo quite.”
32 Ibid., p. 41.
33 Ibid., p. 39.
34 Ibid., p. 43.
35 Aguado to King, Sante Fe, August 20, 1573, A. G. I., sign. 73-2-27, loc. cit., pp. 31–32.
36 Aguado and de la Peña to King, Santa Fe, September 10, 1573, A. G. I., sign. 73-2-27, loc. cit., p. 36.
37 Testimony of the Definitors, Santa Fe, November 2, 1574, A. G. I., sign. 73-2-27, loc. cit., pp. 27–28. It is, therefore, evident that Father Simón was in error when he wrote that Aguado had suddenly determined to return to Spain in 1576 in order to attend a meeting of the general chapter, leaving his province acephalous. Simón, op. cit., IV., 125–126.
38 López, loc. cit., pp. 44–45.
39 Licencia, Santa Fe, January 13, 1575, A. G. I., sign. 73-2-27, loc. cit., pp. 28–29. Don Francisco Briceño, who signed this document, entreated Aguado to examine his conscience as to the usefulness of his trip: “Primero que os partais della [de la Provincia] mireis mucha lo que mas conviniere asi en razon de si conviene que vais a los dichos nuestros rreynos despaña o os quedeis en la dicha prouincia a dar orden en lo que conviniere, sobre lo cual vos encargamos la conciencia, y bien y conserbacion de los religiosos y mas cosas que a vuestro cargo son.” As it developed later, Briceño was allied to the encomenderos. He sent to Spain separately some scathing letters about Aguado, letters which were to cause many difficulties to the minister provincial while he stayed in the peninsula.
40 Definitors to King, Santa Fe, February 17, 1575, A. G. I., sign. 73-2-27, loc. cit., p. 29.
41 Definitors to King, Santa Fe, n. d., A. G. I., sign. 73-2-28, loc. cit., pp. 29–30.
42 Asensio, loc. cit., pp. 23, 31. Father Asensio had been ten years before the last custodio at Santa Fe de Bogota (1563–1566). He wrote his Historia memorial, cited, in 1585 upon the request of Fray Francisco Gonzaga, general of the Franciscan Order at the time. Father Gonzaga used Asensio’s material on the Santa Fe Province in his own De origine Seraphicae Religionis, 1587, already cited Cf. Arcila Robledo, op. cit., pp. 7–8, 19.
43 This is based on Aguado’s own remark, dated February 9, 1576, that “yo vine en la flota pasada a dar noticia a V. M.” (A. G. I., sign. 73-2-28, loc. cit., p. 38).
44 Lopez, loc. cit., pp. 36–38.
45 Enrique Otero D’Costa, “Alabanza de Fray Pedro de Aguado,” Boletín de historia y antiguedades [Bogotá], XXXIII, Nos. 383 and 384 (September-October 1946), p. 585.
46 Ibid.
47 Aguado to Council, February 9, 1576, A. G. I., sign. 73-2-28, loc. cit., p. 38.
48 López, loc. cit., pp. 36–38. Written on the margin of Fray Francisco de Guzmán’s recommendation is a sentence, “El Consejo así las proveyó.” Aguado’s memorandum of February 9, 1576, is an interesting document in which he described the social situation of his province, giving advice on the solution of its many problems. Among other things, Aguado complained against the prejudiced attitude of judges toward friars; advised that the Indians be nucleated into towns; that judges should not give permission for Indians to hold borracheras or drunken feasts; that no more tributes from Indians to caciques or chiefs be allowed; that encomenderos should not hire missionaries nor overwork Indians; that orders be issued for all natives to cut their hair; that all pagan temples be destroyed; that the Christian doctrine should be taught only in one language, Spanish, not permitting Portuguese friars to work in the area; that the missionary field be divided among the Orders; that the friars’ syndic supply more elements for the convents; and that a new friary be built for friars at Cartagena. (A. G. I., sign. 73-2-28, loc. cit., pp. 39–44).
49 Aguado, Memorial, (1576?), A. G. I., sign. 73-2-27, loc. cit., p. 31.
50 Asensio, loc. cit., p. 31; Simón, op. cit., IV, 126–127. For some unexplained reason, Aguado’s term as minister was four years instead of the usual three.
51 Aguado, Memorial, (1576?), A. G. I., sign. 73-2-27, loc. cit., p. 31.
52 López, loc. cit., p. 33. Father López found this table of contents attached to the copy of the Probanza that Aguado carried from Santa Fe.
53 This was the final manuscript approved by Pedro Zapata del Mármol, the King’s chamber secretary, as it appears in the printing license of July 6, 1582. This is the manuscript reproduced in the Becker editions. Fray Pedro de Aguado, Historia de Santa Marta y Nuevo Reino de Granada (Madrid: Jaime Ratés, 1917), I, 10; II, 17–18; and Historia de Venezuela (Madrid: Jaime Ratés, 1918–1919), I, 5–6. The licenses were also reproduced in the Caracas edition of Historia de Venezuela (Imprenta Nacional, 1913), vol. I.
54 Aguado, Primera parte …, I, 13–14 (Prologue).
55 Ibid.
56 Otero D’Costa, loc. cit., p. 578. No source given.
57 Castellanos, Juan de, Historia del Nuevo Reino de Granada (Madrid: A. Pérez Dubrull, 1886), II, 221.Google Scholar
58 Simón, op. cit., IV, 241; preface to the First Part of Noticias historiales (Cuenca: Domingo de la Iglesia, 1627).
59 de Piedrahita, Lucas Fernández, Preface to Historia general de las conquistas del Nuevo Reino de Granada (Amberes: J. B. Verdussen, 1668)Google Scholar. The 1942 edition of Piedrahita at Bogotá omitted the important introduction that the author wrote.
60 Simón, op. cit., I, 61–62.
61 Aguado, Primera parte …, I, 6 (Dedication).
62 Ibid.
63 Otero D’Costa, loc. cit., p. 588. Boletín de historia y antiguedades, [Bogotá], XXXII, Nos. 363 and 364 (January-February 1945), pp. 107–108.
64 Aguado, Historia de Venezuela, I, 3–6.
65 Asensio, loc. cit., p. 31.
66 López, loc. cit., pp. 51–52.
67 For instance, when talking about the Pamplona gold mines Aguado stated: “Habrase sacado de todas estas vetas hasta este tiempo, ques el año de setentay cuatro, cien mill pesos de oro.” Aguado, Primera parte …, I, 443 (Book 6, chapter 6).
68 Ibid., I, 5, 6 (Dedication).
69 Ibid., II, 126 (Bk. 9, ch. 2).
70 Ibid., I, 208 (Bk. 3, ch. 9).
71 Aguado, Historia de Venezuela, I, 431 (Bk. 3, ch. 22).
72 Ibid., I, 345 (Bk. 3, ch. 11).
73 These relaciones probably were the raw material for the projected Third Part of the Recopilación which Aguado announced in the prologue: “Otras conquistas y poblazones que se han hecho y van haciendo en este Reino se dejan para la tercera parte desta historia, con otras muchas cosas no menos dignas de memoria que las aquí puestas.” Aguado, Primera parte …, I, 15 (Prologue).
74 Ynca Garcilasso de la Vega, La Florida del Ynca, historia del adelantado Hernando de Soto (Lisbona: Pedro Crasbeeck, 1605), p. 6.
75 Cross references abound in Aguado, usually such phrases as “como he dicho” and “como lo diremos,” but often the author also furnishes additional information. For instance, in Bk. 1, ch. 8 of the First Part he anticipates the discussion on taxes and tributes included in Bk. 4, chs. 16 to 19; in Bk. 1, ch. 11, when Aguado mentions Federmann, he hastens to announce that full details would be found in the Second Part (Bk. 2). These references are proof that the person who wrote the First Part was the same who prepared the Second Part. Cross references ar also common in the Second Part, e. g., Bk. 2, ch. 16 and Bk. 6, chs. 8 and 9.
76 Aguado, Primera parte …, I, 176 (Bk. 3, ch. 4).
77 Vásquez, Francisco, oRelación verdadera de todo lo que sucedió en la jornada de Omagua y Dorado … (Buenos Aires: Espasa-Calpe Argentina, 1945)Google Scholar. The originals of this manuscript are in the National Library at Madrid, sign. J-136 and J-142. Otero D’Costa stated that the author was Pedrarias de Almesto who, according to documents, went to live at Santa Fe de Bogota, and who very likely became acquainted with Aguado (Otero D’Costa, loc. cit., p. 588). But Feliciano Ramírez de Arellano, Marquis of Fuensanta del Valle, who analyzed the documents in Spain, claimed that Pedrarias simply copied (making some additions) the original relación written by Vásquez, Francisco. Introduction to Relación de todo lo que sucedió en la jornada de Omagua y Dorado (Madrid: Bibliófilos Españoles, Miguel Ginesta, 1881)Google Scholar. For our present disquisition it makes little difference who wrote the Relación, as both Vásquez and Almesto formed part of the Omagua expedition, therefore being reliable witnesses. Howver, after comparing texts (Ramírez de Arellano’s edition facilitates this task), the writer has come to believe that Aguado followed Vasquez and not Almesto. Among other things, Almesto’s own soft-pedaling remarks and self-praise which he added to Vasquez’s original are missing in Aguado.
78 Aguado, Historia de Venezuela, II, 572 (Bk. 10, ch. 85).
79 Vásquez, op. cit., pp. 166–167.
80 Aguado, Historia de Venezuela, II, 603–604 (Bk. 10, ch. 92).
81 Simón, Fray Pedro, Historial de la expedición de Pedro de Orsúa (Sexta Noticia de la Primera Parte) (Lima: Sanmarti y Cia., 1942), p. 180.Google Scholar
82 Markham, Clements R., Introduction in Fray Pedro Simón, The Expedition of Pedro de Ursúa and Lope de Aguirre. Translated by Bollaert, William (London: Hakluyt Society, 1861), p. XXX.Google Scholar
83 Simón, Noticias historiales, IV, 124–125.
84 Aguado, Primera parte …, I, 12–13 (Prologue).
85 For instance, the appointment of Bastidas as governor of Santa Marta was not in 1520 but in 1524, and the founding of Santa Marta was not in 1522 but in 1525 (Ibid., I, 22, 24 [Bk. 1, ch. 2]). Charles V commissioned Pedro Fernández de Lugo in 1535 and not in 1533 or 1534 as claimed by Aguado (Ibid., I, 81 [Bk. 2, ch. 1]). Aguado and Simón differ in the dates of founding of Vitoria, Mérida and San Cristobal. Pérez de Tolosa and Aguado differ on the date of arrival of Spira at Coro (1535) and on the date of founding of Burburata (Aguado, Historia de Venezuela, I, 124, 346 [Bk. 2, ch. 2; Bk. 3, ch. 11]).
86 Aguado, Primera parte …, I, 139 (Bk. 2, ch. 9).
87 Aguado, Historia de Venezuela, I, chs. 1–11.
88 Aguado, Primera parte …, I, 6 (Dedication), 83 (Bk. 2, ch. 1), 144 (Bk. 2, ch. 11), 384 (Bk. 4, ch. 21); II, 122–123 (Bk. 9, ch. 2); III, 255–256 (Bk. 15, ch. 2). Aguado, Historia de Venezuela, I, 396–397 (Bk. 3, ch. 18); II, 106 (Bk. 8, ch. 10).
89 Aguado, Primera parte …, I, 410 (Bk. 5, ch. 2). The Guayupe also impressed Aguado well (Ibid., II, 145–149 [Bk. 9, ch. 5]); Aguado, Historia de Venezuela, I, 291 [Bk. 3, ch. 4]).
90 Aguado, Primera parte …, I, 349–350 (Bk. 4, ch. 15). Aguado, Historia de Venezuela, I, 87–88 (Bk. 1, ch. 11), 224–225 (Bk. 2, ch. 17), 318–321 (Bk. 3, ch. 8).
91 Ibid., I, 364–365 (Bk. 3, ch. 14).
92 Ibid., I, 379 (Bk. 3, ch. 16).
93 Aguado, Frimera parte …, I, 129–131 (Bk. 2, ch. 9).
94 Ibid., I, 282–283 (Bk. 4, ch. 5), 433 (Bk. 6, ch. 4).
95 Ibid., I, 412 (Bk. 5, ch. 2).
96 Ibid., I, 55–58 (Bk. 1, ch. 8).
97 Ibid., I, 354–362 (Bk. 4, ch. 16).
98 Ibid., I, 371–375 (Bk. 4, ch. 19).
99 Ibid., II, 133 (Bk. 9, ch. 3).
100 Ibid., II, 172 (Bk. 9, ch. 9). Aguado, Historia de Venezuela, I, 378–385 (Bk. 3, ch. 16); II, 183–229 (Bk. 9, chs. 9–13).
101 Aguado, Primera parte …, I, 161–163 (Bk. 3, ch. 2), 179 (Bk. 3, ch. 4), 266 (Bk. 4, ch. 3), 326 (Bk. 4, ch. 12).
102 Ibid., I, 196–197 (Bk. 3, ch. 7); II, 13 (Bk. 7, ch. 2).
103 Ibid., I, 425 (Bk. 6, ch. 2).
104 Ibid., I, 143 (Bk. 2, ch. 11).
105 Ibid., I, 368 (Bk. 4, ch. 18).
106 Ibid., I, 250 (Bk. 4, ch. 1); II, 192 (Bk. 9, ch. 11), 20 (Bk. 7, ch. 3).
107 Ibid., II, 197 (Bk. 9, ch. 12).
108 Ibid., I, 168 (Bk. 3, ch. 3).
109 Aguado, Historia de Venezuela, I, 223 (Bk. 2, ch. 17).
110 Aguado, Primera parte …, II, 122–126 (Bk. 9, ch. 2).
111 Ibid., III, 256–258 (Bk. 15, ch. 2).
112 Ibid., I, 272 (Bk. 4, ch. 4).
113 Ibid., I, 280 (Bk. 4, ch. 4).
114 Ibid., II, 27 (Bk. 7, ch. 3), et passim.
115 Ibid., I, 236 (Bk. 4, ch. 13), et passim.
116 Ibid., I, 21 (Bk. 1, ch. 1).
117 Ibid., I, 41–42 (Bk. 1, ch. 5).
118 Ibid., I, 277–298 (Bk. 4, chs. 5–7).