¹ For studies done prior to 1990, consult Lavrín, Asunción (ed.). Sexuality and Marriage in Colonial Latin America (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989).Google Scholar Some of the more recent studies are reviewed in McCaa, Robert, “Familias y género en México. Crítica metodológica y desafío investigativo para el fin del milenio” in Uribe, Víctor Manuel and Ortiz Mesa, Luis Javier (eds.), Naciones, gentes y territorios (Medellín: Universidad de Antioquia, 2000).Google Scholar

² The 1776 Pragmática Sanción is found for instance i Konetzke, Richard, Colección de documentos para la Historia de la Formación Social de Hispanoamérica 1493–1810 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1962), vol. 3, tomo 1, pp. 406–413.Google Scholar

³ Anonymous and undated manuscript titled “Motibos que hubo para expedir la Pragmatica sobre prohibicion de matrimonios desiguales” in Biblioteca Nacional (Madrid), Manuscripts [hereafter BNM], Mss 11043 “Varios papeles,” fol. 57–59.

⁴ Letter from Luis Antonio de Borbón to Charles III, 15 Apr. 1776 in BNM, Mss 10733, Papeles varios, fols. 247–251 : “Copia de las Reales Ordenes de S. M. sobre la Licencia para el matrimonio del señor Ynfante Dn Luis.”

⁵ See letter from Charles III to Luis Antonio de Borbón, 24 Apr. 1776 in BNM, Mss 10733, Papeles varios, fols. 247–251: “Copia de las Reales Ordenes de S. M. sobre la Licencia para el matrimonio del señor Ynfante Dn Luis.”

⁶ Sanción, Pragmática in Konetzke, Colección de documentos, pp. 407–408.Google Scholar

⁷ Ardanáz, Daisy Ripodas, El Matrimonio en Indias. Realidad social y regulación jurídica (Buenos Aires: FECIC, 1977), pp. 259–315.Google Scholar See also Twinam, Ann, Public Lives, Private Secrets: Gender, Honor, Sexuality and Illegitimacy in Colonial Spanish America (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), pp. 308–309.Google Scholar

⁸ See for instance Socolow, Susan, The Women of Colonial Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 173–174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Lavrín, , “Introduction” in Lavrín, (ed.), Sexuality and Marriage, p. 18.Google Scholar

⁹ For discussions on the Catholic enlightenment see Miller, Samuel J., “Portugal and Utrecht: A Phase of the Catholic Enlightenment,” The Catholic Historical Review 43 (1977), pp. 225–248;Google Scholar Miller, Samuel J., Portugal and Rome c. 1748–1830. An Aspect of the Catholic Enlightenment (Rome: Università Gregoriana Editrice, 1978);Google Scholar Brading, David, “Tridentine Catholisism and Enlightened Despotism in Bourbon Mexico” Journal of Latin American Studies 15 (1983), pp. 1–22;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Maruü, Santoni, Teologia e politica nel giansenismo lombardo (Milano: NED, 1998);Google Scholar Sagnieux, Jöel, Les jansénistes et le renouveau de la prédication dans l'Espagne de la seconde moitié du XVllIe siècle (Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 1976);Google Scholar Gongora, Mario, “Enlightenment, Enlightened Despotism and Ideological Crisis” in Gongora, , Studies in the Colonial History of Spanish America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975)Google Scholar and Ambrasi, Domenico, Riformatori e ribelli a Napoli nella seconda metà del settecento: Richerche sul giansenismo napoletano (Napoli: Luigi Regiina, 1979).Google Scholar

¹⁰ An excellent account of the one of the most significant of the enlightened reformers in late eigh-teenth century Spain and the context in which he worked is Castro, Concepción de, Campomanes: Estado y reformismo ilustrado (Madrid: Alianza editorial, 1996).Google Scholar

¹¹ Castro, , Campomanes, pp. 128–129.Google Scholar

¹² On the expulsion of the Jesuits from Spain, see for instance Castro, , Campomanes, pp. 127–165 Google Scholar and on the reform of universities pp. 319–347. For the expulsion of the Jesuits from Spanish America, see Mörner, Magnus (ed.), The Expulsion of the Jesuits from Latin America (New York: Alfred E. Knopf, 1967).Google Scholar On the partial confiscation of Church property, see Prien, Hans Jürgen and de Codes, Rosa María Martínez (eds.), El proceso desvinculador y desamortizador de bienes eclesiásticos y comunales en la América española siglos XVIII y XIX (AHILA, Cuadernos de historia latinoamericana no 7, 1999).Google Scholar

¹³ Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, vol. 3, tomol, pp. 406–413.Google Scholar For the English translation of the Tridentine provisions on marriage see Schroeder, H.J., O.P., Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1941), pp. 180–189.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Twinam, Ann, Public Lives, Private Secrets, p. 307.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For a discussion of the laws concerning marriages of officers and the implication of these laws on -marriage practices in late colonial Venezuela, see Miller, Gary M., “Bourban Social Engineering: Women and Conditions of Marriage in Eighteenth-Century Venezuela,” The Americas 46 (July 1989–April 1990), pp. 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ “… la Pragmatica indicada no contiene otra novedad que poner en un metodo acomodado al los tiempos presentes la observancia de las Leyes fundamentales de el Reyno en esta materia…” in “El Consejo pleno 29 de febrero de 1776. Consulta del Consejo hecha a S M en virtud de Real Orden en razón de evitar los matrimonios desiguales” in Archivo Histórico Nacional (Madrid) [hereafter AHN], Consejos, leg. 6003, nr. 17.

¹⁷ See Seed, Patricia, To Love, Honor and Obey in Colonial Mexico. Conflicts over Marriage Choice, 1574–1821 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988)Google Scholar and Lavrín, Asunción, “Introduction“ in Lavrín, (ed.), Sexuality and Marriage, p. 18.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, pp. 401–402.Google Scholar

¹⁹ McManners, John, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) vol. 2, p. 22.Google Scholar In England The Marriage Act of 1753 required paternal consent for minors who wanted to marry, see Bannet, Eva Tavor, “The Marriage Act of 1753: “A Most Cruel Law for the Fair Sex,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 30:3 (1997), pp. 233–254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Stone, Lawrence, Uncertain Unions. Marriage in England 1660–1753 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ A summary of the report from the Arcipreste of Ager is found in the Real Cedula of 1 February 1785, BNM, VE/1261-55 and in AHN, Diversos, Reales cedulas 2821, The catechism, part two, chapter eight, article 32, titled “That paternal consent should be sought” stated that “… se ha de amonestar muy encarecidamente a los hijos de familias que honren a sus padres y a aquellos bajo cuya carga y potestad están, no contrayendo matrimonio sin darles noticia, y mucho menos contra su voluntad....” See, Catecismo del Santo Concilio de Trento para los parrocos ordenado por disposición de San Pio V (Madrid: Compañia de Impresores y libreros, 1905), p. 366.

²¹ The text of the fourth Mexican provincial council is published in Peñafort, Luisa Zahino (ed.), El Cardenal Lorenzana y el IV Concilio Provincial Mexicano (Mexico: UNAM, 1999).Google Scholar On marriage and betrothals see libro IV, titulos 1 and 2, pp. 253–259. The author thanks David Brading for pointing out the existence of this source. This emphasis on the duty of obedience to ones superiors were not common to all ecclesiastical provincial councils held in Spanish America in the 1770s. As late as 1773, the provincial synod of the archbishopric of La Plata instructed parish priests to ensure that no one were forced into unwanted marriages and that all persons who were about to be married should be interviewed separately and secretly by the priest to guarantee that they had not been forced or seduced into marriage against their own will in accordance with the regulations decreed by the Council of Trent. Parish priests should be particularly careful to insure that encomenderos or Spanish offials did not force Indians to marry against their will. See Constituciones sinodales del arzobispado de la Plata 1773 (Cuernavaca: CIDOC, 1971) Fuentes para la historia de la iglesia de América Latina no. 5, pp. 488–490.

²² His objection can be found in: “El Consejo pleno 29 de febrero de 1776. Consulta del Consejo hecha a S M en virtud de Real Orden en razón de evitar los matrimonios desiguales” in AHN, Consejos, leg. 6003, nr. 17.

²³ The encyclical “Satis Vobis” was issued on 17 Nov. 1741. See Sanctissimi domini nostri Benedictí XIV, Bullarium (Venice: 1778) 1 vol., pp 40–42. The Spanish Crown swiftly reacted to the Encyclical by issuing a cédula where it was explained that secret marriages would not affect the civil legislation on inheritance. The cédula of 30 March 1742 is published in Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, p. 401.Google Scholar

²⁴ Charles III was informed by his minister in Naples, Tanucci, about the promulgation of the law there in 1769. See letters from Tanucci to Charles III, dated 1. Aug., 24. Oct., 31. Oct., and 23 Nov. 1769 in Lettere di Bernardo Tanucci a Carlo III di Borbone (1759–1776) (Rome: Instituto per la storia del risorgimento italiano, 1969) Serie II: Fonti. Vol. LIX, pp. 542-563 and p. 854. Some of these letters are also found in AHN, Estado leg. 3712. On the reforms in Naples more generally, see Ambrasi, Riformatori e ribelli and for a good study of the role of Tanucci see Mincuzzi, Rosa, Bernardo Tanucci, ministro di Ferdinando di Borbone 1759–1776 (Bari: Dedalo libri, 1967).Google Scholar

²⁵ On the constitution of Francesco III of Modena and the provisions on paternal consent for marriages to be valid, see Ungari, Paolo, Il diritto di famiglia in Italia dalle Constitizioni “giacobine” al Codice civile del 1942 (Bologna: Il Mutino, 1970), p. 40.Google Scholar

²⁶ The Portuguese law is cited in de Elizondo, Francisco Antonio y Alvarez, , Practica universal forense de los tribunales de España y de las Indias (Madrid: 1796) vol. 7, pp. 376–391 and pp. 418–426.Google Scholar

²⁷ It is possible that indirectly the 1776 Pragmática Sanción was also inspired by the quite radical treatises on marriages written by jansenist theologians such as Zeger-Bernard van Espen, Nicolas de Honthein (commonly known by his pseudonym Febronius), Robert J. Pothier and Pietro Tamburini. The works of these authors were known in Spain and read in the regalist circles. But these treatises were written in response to the situation in France and Holland particularly, where the governments needed theological and legal justifications for validating marriages contracted between protestants and Catholics, although these were invalid by Canon Law. In Spain there was no need in 1776 to introduce civil marriages, and the 1776 Pragmática Sanción was a much more moderate piece of legislation than those promoted by the jansenists. For a thorough discussion of the eighteenth-century theological disputes on civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction over marriages, see Olmos, Salvador Carrión, Historia y futuro del matrimonio civil en España (Madrid: Editorial revista de derecho privado, 1977), pp. 3–63.Google Scholar

²⁸ Why was the law called a Pragmática sanción and not simply a cédula or decreto? A Pragmática sanción was not an every-day occurrence in eighteenth century Spain, but the meaning of the term and its usage in the Spanish context is unclear. The pragmatic sanction derives from antiquity. They were used by the Romans for issues concerning jurisdiction especially when one prince succeeded another. In France, a Pragmatique Sanction was an ‘èdit d'un soverain, statuant dèfinivement en une matière fondamentale (succesion, rapports de l’Èglise et de l’Ètat); rescrit impèrial’ (Larousse). These were the kind of decrees French kings had used from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century to mark the French Church's autonomy from Rome. According to the Diccionario de autoridades of the Real Academia Española (published between 1726 and 1737), a pragmática is “la ley o estatuto que se promulga o publica para remediar algun excesso, abuso o daño que se experimenta en la república” Cf Pragmática of 26 November 1691, “contra el abuso de trajes y otros gastos superfluos.” When the Jesuits were expelled from Spanish America, it was done with a pragmática sanción.

²⁹ Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, pp. 406–413.Google Scholar

³⁰ For a discussion of the late Roman legislation on marriages see Grubbs, Judith Evan; Law and Family in Late Antiquity: The Emperor Constantine's Marriage Legislation (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar

³¹ This was stated in the first chapter of the Pragmática sanción.

³² See Grubbs, Evans, Law and Family, p. 95 and 141.Google Scholar

³³ Pragmática sanción, Chapter VII in Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, p. 409.Google Scholar

³⁴ The cédula of 24 Oct. 1775 is reproduced in Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, pp. 401–404.Google Scholar

³⁵ Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, p. 401.Google Scholar

³⁶ For the teachings of Bossuet, see Riley, Patrick (ed.), Bossuet. Politics drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

³⁷ Anthony McFarlane: “Representaciones políticas y políticas de representación en Hispanoamérica a finales del período colonial.” Paper presented at the XII International Congress of the Asociación de historioadores europeos latinoamericanistas (AHILA), 1999.

³⁸ Cited by McFarlane, : “Representaciones políticas,” pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

³⁹ There are many studies on the opposition to Bourbon reforms in Spanish America. Various histo-rians have seen the opposition as expression of an older Habsburgian “pactist” notion of monarchy. See for instance, Phelan, John, The People and the King. The Comunero Revolution in Colombia, 1781 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1976);Google Scholar McFarlane, Anthony, “Rebellions in Late Colonial Spanish America: A Comparative Perspective,” Bulletin of Latin American Research 14 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Guerra, François-Xavier, Modernidad e independencias. Ensayos sobre las revoluciones hispánicas (Madrid: MAPFRE, 1992).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ “Carta tercera. De la libertad civil en cuanto es competible con la felicidad y quietud publica” in Vila, Antonio Rodríguez (ed.): Cartas político-económicas escritas por el Conde de Campomanes al Conde de Lerena (Madrid: M. Murillo, 1878), pp. 113–146.Google Scholar

⁴¹ These changes were probably suggested by the Council of Indies in their consulta of 7 Jan. 1778. The cédula also refer specifically to the aforementioned Fourth Provincial Council of Mexico. According to Seed, , To Love, Honor, and Obey, pp. 194–200,Google Scholar the fourth Mexican council agreed on the requirement of parental consent in marriages. But its decrees were never sent to Rome for approval. See also Barnadas, Josep M., “The Catholic Church in Colonial Spanish America” in Bethell, Leslie (ed.), Cambridge History of Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) vol 2, pp. 537–538.Google Scholar

⁴² “Exemplar de la Pragmatica de Matrimonio del año de 1776 inserta en cédula declaratoria del de 78 que se cita” in Archivo General de Indias, Seville, (hereafter AGI), Audiencia de Santa Fe (hereafter Sta Fe), leg. 727, fol. 14

⁴³ For comparisons between Spain and Spanish America, see for instance McCaa, Robert, “Marriageways in Mexico and Spain, 1500–1900” Continuity and Change 9:1 (1994), pp. 11–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Pérez Moreda, Vicente, “Del mosáico al calidoscopio: componentes culturales en los sistemas de nupcialidad, fecundidad y familia de España y América hispana (ss. XVI-XIX)” in Rowland, Robert and Blanc, Isabel Mott (eds.). La demografia y la historia de la familia (Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, 1997).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Larquié, C., “Amours légitimes, amours illégitimes en Madrid au XVII^e siècle (une approche quan-titative)” in Redondo, A. (ed.), Amours légitimes, amours illégitimes en Espagne (XVI^e XVII^e siècles) (Paris: Sorbonne, 1985), p. 80 Google Scholar cited in McCaa, , “Marriageways,” p. 19.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ All these figures are from Vargas, Dueñas, Los hijos del pecado: Ilegimitdad y vida familias en la, Santafé de Bogotá colonial (Bogotá, Editorial Universidad Nacional, 1997), pp. 205–243.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Calvo, Thomas, “Concubinato y mestizaje en el medio urbano: el caso de Guadalajara en el siglo XVII” Revista de Indias 44:173 (1984), pp. 203–212.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ For more examples from New Spain see McCaa, , “Marriageways,” pp. 24–25;Google Scholar Rabell, Cecilia Andrea, La población novohispana a la luz (Mexico: Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad National Autónoma de México, 1990);Google Scholar Juan Javier Pescador, C, “La nupcialidad preindustrial y los límites del mestizaje: característica y evolución de los patrones de nupcialidad en la Ciudad de México, 1700–1850 Estudios demográficos y urbanos 7:1 (1992), pp. 137–168;CrossRefGoogle Scholar McCaa, Robert, “Gustos de los padres, inclinaciones de los novios y reglas de una feria nupcial colonial: Parral, 1770–1814” Historia mexicana 40:4 (1991), pp. 579–614.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ McCaa, , “Marriageways,” p. 24.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Although all the Audiencias had been asked to make them, I have been able to find the reglamen-tos only from Chile, Peru, Mexico and Cuba. The Audiencia of Santa Fe explained in 1794 that they had not made one because the oidores were in doubt about how the Pragmática sanción should be understood and they had preferred to wait until they had some more experience in using it. See “La Audiencia de Santa Fe da cuenta a V M con testimonio de dos consultas que le hizo la curia eclesiástica de la ciudad de Cartagena sobre la Pragmatica de matrimonios” in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁵⁰ Ibid., fol. 15.

⁵¹ “Copia de los autos obrados en la Audiencia de Chile… ,” Santiago de Chile, 30 April 1779, fol. 18v in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁵² Ibid., fol. 20r.

⁵³ “Copia de los autos obrados en la Audiencia de Chile…,” Santiago de Chile, 30 April 1779, fol. 27r in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁵⁴ Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, vol 3, p. 476:Google Scholar “… atendiendo a que los Mestizos hijos de Españoles, e India, y por el contrario, y los Castizos merezen distinguirse de las otras razas, como lo hacen por varias consideraciones las Leyes, y la común estimación se declara que quedan igualmente sugetos a las formalidades, y penas, que prescribe la Real Pragmática….”

⁵⁵ Ibid. fol. 25r-25v.

⁵⁶ “Consulta del Consejo de Indias sobre el reglamento formado por la Audiencia de Chile para eje-cutar la Real Pragmática de matrimonios” in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁵⁷ It is perhaps worth noting that the only regulations which did not modify the wording of the 1778 cédula about which groups were exempted, was the one written by the bishop of Cuba. See Reglamento que el ilustrísimo señor Dr Dn Santiago Joseph de Hechavarría, obispo de Cuba, ha formado para los ministros de su curia, y párrocos de su diócesis con motivo de la Pragmática, Real cédula de S M e instrucción de la Real Audiencia del distrito sobre matrimonios (Printed in the press of the Colegio Seminario de San Carlos in 1780) in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁵⁸ “Copia de los autos obrados en la Audiencia de Chile… ,” Santiago de Chile, 30 April 1779, fol. 27 v in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁵⁹ “Reglamento formado por la Real Audiencia de Lima a consequencia de lo prevenido en el Artículo octavo de la Real Pragmatica…,” 12 July 1784. Chapter 7 in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁶⁰ Socolow, Susan: “Acceptable Partners: Marriage Choice in Colonial Argentina, 1778–1810” in Lavrín, (ed.): Sexuality and Marriage, p. 210 Google Scholar claims that the law only applied to whites. So does Lavrín, Asuncion in “Introduction” in Lavrín, (ed.): Sexuality and Marriage, p. 18.Google Scholar In her more recent The Women, p. 174, Socolow claims that the Pragmàtica was “… specifically targeted to protect elite Spaniards….”

⁶¹ Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, vol 3 “Consulta del Consejo de Indias sobre el reglamento formado por la Audiencia de Chile para ejecutar la Real Pragmática de matrimonios.”Google Scholar

⁶² See for instance Seed, , To Love, Honor and Obey, pp. 205–225;Google Scholar McCaa, , “Marriageways,” p. 27;Google Scholar Gutiérrez, , When Jesus Came, p. 315.Google Scholar

⁶³ “Copia de los autos obrados en la Audiencia de Chile en Conseqüència de la Real cédula dada el siete de abril de 1778, y Real Pragmática en ella inserta, sobre matrimonios” Santiago de Chile, 30 April 1779, fol. 24v in AGI, Santa Fe 727.

⁶⁴ Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, vol. 3, p. 477:Google Scholar “Consulta del Consejo de Indias sobre las reglas establecidas de la Audiencia de Mejico en cumplimiento de la Real Pragmática del año de 1778 referente a los matrimonios.”

⁶⁵ Seed, , To Love, Honor and Obey, p. 207.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Vial, Gonzalo, “Aplicación en Chile de la Pragmatica sobre matrionio de los hijos de familia,” Revista chilena de historia del derecho 6 (1970), pp. 335–362.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Robert McCaa has analysed cases of parental consent and dissent to marriages in the parish of Parral in Northern Mexico in his “Gustos de los padres.” For La Plata, see Porro, Nelly R., “Los juicios de disenso en al Río de la Plata: nuevos aportes sobre la aplicación de la pragmática de hijos de familia” Anuario Histórico Jurídico Ecuatoriano 5 (1980), pp. 193–228.Google Scholar Some cases of parental dissent from the province of Antioquia in New Granada are analysed in Rodríguez, Pablo, “Elección matrimonial y conflicto inter-étnico en Antioquia” in Rodríguez, , Seducción, amancabamiento y abandono en la colonia (Bogotá: Fundación Simón y Lola Guberek, 1991).Google Scholar In quantitative terms, perhaps the most comprehensive study of parental dissent is done by Almecíja, Juan, La familia en la provincia de Venezuela (Madrid: MAPFRE, 1992).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Real cédula 31 May 1783 “Declarando que los hijos de familia mayores de veinte y cinco años, para contraher matrimonio, deben pedir, y obtener el consejo paterno…” in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁶⁹ Real cédula 26 May 1783 “Declarando que siempre que qualquiera hijo de familia intentase contraher matrimonio, y examinado en justicia, quedase executoriado ser justo, y racional el disenso del padre, viviendo este, y permaneciendo en su disenso, no pueda la madre instruir por heredero al hijo inobediciente, ni hacerle donación alguna,” in AGI, Sta Fe 727. This is also found in Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, pp. 527–529.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ For the problems of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, see for instance the case over broken betrothals of a cadet from the Naples regiment stationed in Puerto Rico. Letter from Juan Dabán, governor of Puerto Rico, 4 Oct. 1786 and statement by the fiscal of the Council of Indies, 25 February 1787, both in AGI, Sta Fe 727. On the marriage of soldiers, see for instance royal cédula of 10 July 1783 in Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, p. 529 Google Scholar and Miller, “Bourban Social Engineering.”

⁷¹ “Carta del theniente governador y Auditor de Guerra de la Ciudad de Santiago de Leon de Cara-cas en que informa a V M las dificultades que se presentan a cerca de el articulo 3° de la Real Pragmática sanción de matrimonios, y pide la Real declaratoria” 31 March 1784 in AGI, Sta Fe 727. The letter included copies of 12 letters from men and women asking for the governor's permission to marry despite parental dissent.

⁷² “Expediente del Cavildo Secular de Mérida de Yucatan, sobre los matrimonios que se executaban por los Menores sin el consejo Paterno” in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁷³ Ibid. No pagination.

⁷⁴ Cited in “Real cédula para que se observe lo determinado sobre unas dudas acerca de la pragmática sobre matrimonios de los hijos de familia” in Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, pp. 623–625.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ibid., pp. 624–625.

⁷⁶ “Carta del obispo de Cartagena de Indias, Dn Joseph Díaz de la Madrid, del 29 de octubre 1784” in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁷⁷ Ibid., “… aprobechan de la ocasión, no solo sacándoles la palabra de que han de ser sus esposos, sino también haciendo que la manifiesten con alguna señal exterior, que sea conocida bastantemente por uno y otro; y verificado; los hacen dueños de su virginidad, cooperando ellas mismas en su deshonra, y teniendo sino toda, la mayor culpa de su desfloro.”

⁷⁸ Ibid., “las infaman por parte de los costumbres, creyendo que quanto expongan contra ellas conduce a su defensa, faltan a las Leyes de la caridad, se descubren defectos bien ocultos, y escándalos, se exitan odios, se aumenta el numero de los Juramentos falsos; y las mugeres que debieran estar recogidas en sus casas, andan de una en otra en solicitud de Abogado, del Notario, o de quien las dispense su protección….”

⁷⁹ According to the Bishop of Cartagena, this view was presented in Theologia Moral. Libro 3. Tract. 5 cp.2, Dub. 6 Art. 4 §Hic obiter adnotare juvat, which was written by Alfonso María de Ligouri (1697–1787), bishop of Sancta Agatha de Goti in the archbishopric of Benevento in the Kingdom of Naples.

⁸⁰ The Bishop referred to “Letras Apostólicas expedidas en 15 de julio de 1755.”

⁸¹ “Copia de Carta de Don Manuel Reyna al gobernador y capitan general de Caracas” 15 December 1783 in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁸² Reglamento que el ilustrísimo señor Dr Dn Santiago Joseph de Hechavarría, obispo de Cuba, ha formado para los ministros de su curia, y párrocos de su diócesis con motivo de la Pragmática, Real cédula de S M e instrucción de la Real Audiencia del distrito sobre matrimonios (Printed in the press of the Colegio Seminario de San Carlos in 1780) in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁸³ “Consulta del Consejo de Indias del 29 de agosto 1788” in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁸⁴ “Consulta del Consejo de Indias del 29 de agosto 1788” in AGI, Sta Fe 727 and “Consulta del Consejo de Indias sobre las dificultades y dudas que se promueven en cumplir la Real Pragmática sobre matrimonios” in Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, pp. 759–766.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ The Real cédula was issued on 11 June 1792 and is reproduced in Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, pp. 706–707.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ “Carta de la Real Audiencia de Santa Fe a V M del 19 de abril de 1794” in AGI, Santa Fe 727.

⁸⁷ “Copia de autos relativo a la petición de licencia para contraer matrimonio entre Jose María Sanchez y de Movellan y Maria Ignacia Mier” in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁸⁸ Ibid.

⁸⁹ “Consejo de tres salas. Expediente sobre varias dudas que ocurren a la Real Audiencia de Santa Fe acerca de si por caso de conciencia y evitar perjuicio espiritual podra conceder licencia para casarse a aquellos entre quienes se halle executoriado por desigual el Matrionio en contravención de lo prevenido en la Real Pragmática del año de 1776, y posterior declaración del año de 1787” in AGI, Sta Fe 727.

⁹⁰ Ibid.

⁹¹ The Consulta of 17 February 1798 is reproduced in Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, pp. 759–766.Google Scholar

⁹² “Consulta del Consejo de Indias sobre las dificultades y dudas que se promueven en cumplir la Real Pragmática sobre matrimonios,” 17 February 1798 in Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, pp. 759–766.Google Scholar

⁹³ The Real cédula of 1803 is reproduced in Konetzke, , Colección de documentos, 794–796.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ In 1835 the Sección de Gracia y Justicia of the Consejo Real de España e Indias was preparing a new law on marriages and asked for all the old documents on unequal marriages from the archive of the extinguished Consejo de Castilla. A total of 87 expedientes from 1775 to 1803 were compiled from various legajos in the old archive and sent to aforementioned agency. But Consejo Real de España e Indias only existed for two years, and its archives were dispersed. A list of the expedientes sent from the old arhive can be found in AHN, Consejos, leg. 2425, exp. 4 “Matrimonios. Imbentario de los expedientes sobre Matrimonios desiguales que a virtud de oficio de las sección de Gracia y Justicia del Consejo Real de España e Indias su fecha 10 de Marzo de 1835 se remitieron a la misma con oficio de 27 del propio mes y año.” Part of the archive of the Consejo de España e Indias (1834–1836) is located in the Archivo General de Simancas, but according to the index and information provided by an archivist there, the expedientes on marriages are not present. See de la Plaza Bores, Angel, Archivo General de Simancas. Guia del investigador 4. ed. (Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura, 1992), pp. 335–340.Google Scholar More information on the Consejo Real de España e Indias and the documents Simancas is provided by Arvizu, Fernando y Galarraga, , “El Consejo Real de España e Indias (1834–1836)” Actas III Symposium de la Administración (Madrid: 1974), pp. 385–406.Google Scholar If the 87 expedientes on marriages still exist, they will no doubt be of great use for the historian who is able to locate them.

⁹⁵ See Ungari, Paolo, 11 diritto di famiglia, p. 40.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ The Spanish translations of the Austrian codes may be found in AHN, Estado, leg. 3027.

⁹⁷ For a disucssion of marriage in the French Code Civil and its influence on Spanish legislation, see for instance Laina Gallego, José María, “Libertad y consentimiento paterno para el matrimonio en la legislación española (de la pragmática de Carlos III al proyecto de Codigo Civil de 1851)” (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1991), pp. 179–194.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ See Martínez-Alier, Verena, Marriage, Class and Colour in Nineteenth-Century Cuba. A study of Racial Attitudes and Sexual Values in a Slave Society 2.ed. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1989), pp. 11–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar