1 The text of the Tridentine legislation reached Mexico City too late to be taken into consideration by the Second Mexican Council (1565); see my edition of the Ordenanzas para el coro de la catedral mexicana, 1570 (Madrid, 1964), p. 76, n. 2.

2 See Cuevas, M., S. J., , Historia de la Iglesia en Mexico (3rd ed.; El Paso, 1928), II, 100Google Scholar: “Digno es también de mencionarse el insigne P. Pedro Ortigosa … por haber puesto en latín el expresado Sínodo.” Older writers, such as Eguiara y Eguren, Vera, Alegre, Beristain, and many others had expressed the same opinion.

3 That Ortigosa’s Latin version is not a slavish translation of the Spanish original will be evident from the parallel passages cited in the notes of this article. In the Fourth Mexican Council (1771) the bishop of Puebla, Fabián y Fuero, called attention to the differences between the 1585 Spanish original and the Latin printed text; he did not, however, suggest that this discrepancy was due to the changes made by the Holy See. The Spanish original decrees of the 1585 Council are now in the Bancroft Library, M-M 267. I listed the key Vatican documents of the Third Mexican Council in my study, “Research Opportunities in Italian Archives and Manuscript Collections for Students of Hispanic American History,” in The Hispanic American Historical Review, XXIX (August, 1959), 445, n. 24. Consult also my article, “The Author of the Mexican Council Catechisms,” in The Americas, XV (October, 1958), 171–182.

4 On the outer front cover the following title is given: Archivum /S. Congregationis Concilii / Concilium Provinc. Mexicanum / A. D. 1585. The volume is stamped on the dorso: Archivum / S. Cong. Concil.

5 Inked on the dorso the volume is designated: 1585 / 1588 / Liber VI LITERARUM CON.

6 See below, notes 30–34.

7 Consult below, notes 36–37.

8 F. Zubillaga and the present writer are preparing a critical text of the enactments of the three Mexican Councils (1555,1565, and 1585); the texts merely alluded to here are to be published in full in our edition.

9 Consult passim Garmendia, José Olarra and Larramendi, Maria Luisa, Indices de la nunciatura en España y la Santa Sede, durante el reinado de Felipe (2 t.; Madrid, 1948-1949)Google Scholar. The meaningless office and empty title of “Patriarca de las Indias” was the only concession which the Spanish kings would make towards a papal representative.

10 The words in italics are underscored in the original.

11 In this matter the Third Council seems to be extending the legislation of the Second (1565) regarding the Cathedral prebends to those to receive major Orders; see my edition of the Ordenanzas para el coro, pp. 60–61.

12 See the text in the Lorenzana, edition, Concilium Mexicanum Provinciale III celebratum Mexici anno MDLXXXV … (Mexico City, 1772), p. 32 Google Scholar: “Synodus … decernit ut qui linguam aliquam Indorum noverint ad Sacros Ordines promoveantur etiamsi beneficium, patrimonium vel. pensio ab eis obtenta, talia non sint.”

13 Compare infra the section “Economic Factors.”

14 On other changes demanded by the Commission in behalf of the natives, see infra the section “The Indians.”

15 See infra the section “Excessive Severity of the Mexican Council.”

16 This was directed more directly against the priests of the religious Orders, who claimed a privilege commonly conceded at the time. This consisted in having the faculty of hearing confessions and preaching in all dioceses if such authorization had been obtained in any one diocese; see Alegre, F.J., S. J., , Historia de la Provincia de la Compañía de Jesús de Nueva España … (4 vols.; Rome, 1956-1960), III, 85–88, 163, 421–422.Google Scholar

17 See infra notes 35–37.

18 I have not succeeded in finding the text of the ceremonial alluded to here. The 1585 Council sent a ritual to Spain in October of that same year; sea Richard Stafford Poole, M., C., “Research Possibilities of the Third Mexican Council,” in Manuscripta, V (October, 1961), 162, n. 47Google Scholar. Quite likely the “ritual” and the “ceremonial” are identical.

19 The Commission may not have been aware that the Spanish kings before and after the 1585 Council forbade the ordination of the Indians. Native-born Spaniards and mestizos were ordained to the priesthood in considerable numbers for both the diocesan and regular clergy; the mestizos were to be ordained only after very careful selection. As for the 1585 decree much still remains to be done to establish a reliable critical text. The original Spanish text (Bancroft M-M 267, f. 16), signed by all the members of the Mexican hierarchy and the secretary of the Mexican Council, Juan de Salcedo, reads as follows: “Tan poco se admitirán a hórdenes yndios ni mestizos así desendientes de yndios como de moros. En el Primer grado. Ni mulatos en el mesmo grado.” The passage studied by the Commission is cited by its members as follows: “… non admittendos esse ad ordines Indos et Janizaros tam ex descendentibus ab Indis quam a Mauris in primo gradu nee etiam Moreti in eodem gradu.” The first printed edition (Mexico City, 1622), p. 10, reads: “Inde etiam & Mexici, tarn ab Indis quam a Mauris; necnon ab illis qui ex altero parente Aetiope nascuntur descendentes in primo gradu, ne ad ordines sine magno delectu non admittantur.” The Lorenzana edition (complete title supra in note 12), p. 31, introduces new key variants: “Inde etiam, nee mixti, tarn ab Indis quam a Mauris, necnon ab illis qui ex altero parente Aetiope nascuntur, descendentes in primo gradu, ad Ordines sine magno delectu admittantur.” Basilio Arrillaga, J., S., Concilio III Provincial Mexicano … (2 ed.; Barcelona, 1870), pp. 56-59Google Scholar, discusses this passage with great acumen, although he had before him only printed editions. Referring to the Lorenzana edition, he observes: “Se puede presumir que en lugar de inde debería leerse indi … mayor dificultad es la que ofrece la variedad de textos sobre las palabras nec mixti, usados en la edición que ahora seguimos del citado Señor Lorenzana. En la antigua hecha … el año de 1622, en lugar de ellas se encuentran: et Mexici, y más abajo: Ne ad ordines sine magno delectu non admittantur.” The puzzling “Janizaros” of Ortigosa’s Latin text was the common term at the time to designate those of mixed blood.

20 The great defender of the Mexican natives, the Augustinian Friar Alonso de la Veracruz, died a few months before the opening of the Third Mexican Council. In his first series of lectures at the University of Mexico (1553–1554) he had insisted on this same exemption; his opinion may well have inspired this decree.

21 See supra the text corresponding to note 13.

22 Consult supra the section “Matrimony.”

23 From the text as published in the Lorenzana edition, pp. 179–180, we learn that Pius V had forbidden under pain of excommunication all princes and rulers to allow bull fights in the territory of their jurisdiction, and had forbidden under the same penalty all clerics to attend. Gregory XIII had modified the prohibition of Puis V to this extent: he allowed bull fighting to take place on any day not a feast day and if care were taken that no death occur; furthermore, non-clerics who attended bull fights were not excommunicated. Nonetheless, the decree of the Mexican Council ends with the discouraging phrase: “This Synod forbids the attendance of clerics,” without specifying the penalty. See also the text corresponding to the next note.

24 See the text corresponding to the preceding note.

25 See supra note 5.

26 This message is found on folio 342.

27 The document is preserved on folios 216–218v.

28 The letter is found on folios 66–66v.

29 The complete text of the enactments of the Third Mexican Council received papal approbation on October 27, 1589. It is signed by the Prefect of the Congregation of the Council, Cardinal A. “Carafa,” not “Carrafa,” as given in the Spanish editions.

30 This letter is in the section of the Nunziature, in the subdivision Spagna, vol. 38, folios 506–507 (old 981–982). Olarra G.-Larramendi (complete title in note 9 supra), II, 127–128, thus list the message: “Prelados de México, reunidos en Sínodo, al P. Saludos. Darán cuenta de la reunión.”

31 This letter is found in Nunziature, Spagna, vol. 19, folios 150–151 (old 104–105). Olarra G.-Larramendi, op. cit., II, 174, summarize the document as follows: “Remite cartas de los obispos reunidos en concilio en México, y otra de un padre descalzo de S. Francisco.” The compilers list it under October 13th; both the text itself and the note of the filing secretary date it as October 15th, which is undoubtedly correct.

32 The message is preserved in Nunziature, Spagna, vol. 34, folios 220–224 (old 428–431v). Olarra G.-Larramendi, op. cit., II, 221, list it thus: “N. Spacciani a card. Montako. Entrega de los dos breves al arz. de México. Canónigo venido de Indias a traer al P. el concilio provincial. Pide el arz. no se haga nada contra el concilio sin oir a dicho canónigo.”

33 The archbishop’s letter is found in Nunziature, Spagna, vol. 37, folio 231 (old 449). Olarra G.-Larramendi, op. cit., II, 235, summarize it as follows: “Arz. de Mexico a card. Montalto. Pide confirmación del concilio provincial de México, 1585. Se remite a información de Francisco de Veteta, maestrescuela de Tlaxcala, que va a Roma en nombre de los prelados.” “Beteta” is the more usual spelling.

34 This important message is preserved in Nunziature, Spagna, vol. 38, folio 515 (old 999). Olarra G.-Larramendi, op. cit., II, 264, list it thus: “Arz. de México a card. Montalto. S. concilio provincial de Indias. Elogio del N. Spacciani.”

35 See my article, “The Author of the Mexican Council Catechisms,” especially p. 171, n. 1. The original text of the Council catechism, preserved at one time in M-M 266, folios 20–33 (Bancroft Library) is now in a private collection. Fish, C.R., Guide to the Materials for American History in Roman and other Italian Archives (Washington, D. C., 1911), p. 217 Google Scholar, saw the Roman Latin text of the catechism but failed to understand the observations and consequently gives the wrong foliation to the entire document (252–256 instead of 252–277). See also supra, the text corresponding to note 7.

36 Consult supra the text corresponding to note 17.

37 See my study, “The Author of the Mexican Council Catechism,” passim.

38 This aspect is being investigated by Richard Stafford Poole, C. M., in a forthcoming study, “Opposition to the Third Mexican Council, 1585.”

39 Recopilación de leyes de los reynos de las Indias (4 tomos; Madrid, 1681), I, folios 42–43v (“De los Concilios Provinciales y synodales”) notes under Ley VII (of Libro I, título VIII) that the Third Mexican Council had been approved by three cédulas reales: “D. Felipe Segundo en S. Lorenzo a 18 de setiembre de 1591 … y en Madrid a 2 de Febrero de 1593 … D. Felipe Tercero en Madrid a 9 de Febrero de 1621.” Actually there was a fourth royal approval of the same Council, that by Philip IV on April 2, 1621, from Madrid. The complete text of the last two cédulas is reproduced at the beginning of the 1622 Mexican edition of the enactments of the 1585 Mexican Council.