¹ The most convenient introduction to the Requerimiento is Hanke, Lewis The Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America (Philadelphia, 1949) 31–36.Google Scholar The text is in the Colección de documentos inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organización de las antiguas posesiones españolas de ultramar, second series (Madrid, 1885–19 ) XX, 311–314. The standard English translation is that of SirHelps, Arthur The Spanish Conquest in America and its Relation to the History of Slavery and to the Government of the Colonies 4 vols. (New York, 1856–1857) 1, 358–361.Google Scholar

² The value of studies dealing with the legal theories which were employed to justify or to condemn the Spanish Conquest has been criticized and defended in a series of exchanges between two of the leading students of the colonial period. See Hanke, Lewis “More Heat and Some Light on the Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America,” Hispanic American Historical Review 44(1964) 293–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “A Modest Proposal for a Moratorium on Grand Generalizations: Some Thoughts on the Black Legend,” Ibid., 51 (1971) 112–127. In response, see Keen, Benjamin “The Black Legend Revisited: Assumptions and Realities,” Ibid., 49(1969) 703–719 Google Scholar; and “The White Legend Revisited: A Reply to Professor Hanke’s ‘Modest Proposal’,”Ibid., 51(1971) 336–355. What is still lacking are studies which focus on the links between medieval legal theories about the rights of non-Christian peoples vis-à-vis Europeans and the theories (and the practice) of the sixteenth century. Such continuity was outlined in Tannenbaum, Frank Slave and Citizen (New York, 1947)Google Scholar and developed somewhat by Klein, Herbert S. Slavery in the Americas (Chicago, 1967).Google Scholar van Kleffens, E.N. Hispanic Law Until the End of the Middle Ages (Chicago, 1969)Google Scholar is suggestive of what could be done by beginning with medieval Spanish law. All three writers stressed the importance of the Spanish legal tradition in shaping the conquest. More attention has been generally paid to the philosophical and theological traditions, usually with heavy emphasis upon the influence of Thomas Aquinas. What scholars have tended to overlook is that the bureaucrats who administered the conquest were generally trained as lawyers and that their writings, when examined closely, indicate the major role which canon and civil law played in their intellectual formation.

³ Manuel Giménez Fernández, quoted in Friede, Juan “Las Casas and Indigenism in the Sixteenth Century,” Bartolomé de Las Casas in History, eds. Friede, Juan and Keen, Benjamin (DeKalb, Illinois, 1971) 127–234 Google Scholar at 149–150.

⁴ The links of Las Casas and Vitoria with the medieval canonistic tradition and their acceptance of the Innocentian position on the rights of the infidels are discussed in: Pennington, Kenneth J. “Bartolome de Las Casas and the Tradition of Medieval Law,” Church History 39(1970) 149–161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Muldoon, James “A Canonistic Contribution to the Formation of International Law,” The Jurist 18(1968) 265–279.Google Scholar

⁵ On Augustine and the Donatists, see Deane, Herbert A. The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine (New York, 1963)Google Scholar passim.

⁶ The extreme supporters of the Gregorian reform of the eleventh century are occasionally identified as being Donatist in orientation: see Dawson, Christopher Religion and the Rise of Western Culture (New York, 1950; reprinted, Garden City, N.Y., 1958) 205.Google Scholar Gregory himself has also been charged with Donatism: see Cantor, Norman Church, Kingship, and Lay Investiture in England, 1089–1135 (Princeton, 1958) 124,CrossRefGoogle Scholar 244.

⁷ The significance of Alanus was first stressed by Ullmann, Walter Medieval Papalism (London, 1949) 10,Google Scholar 14 and passim. See also Stickler, A.M. “Alanus Anglicus als Verteidiger des monarchischen Papsttums,” Salesianum 21(1959) 346–406.Google Scholar

⁸ “… possessiones et iurisdictiones licite sine peccato possunt esse apud infideles, haec. enim. non tamen pro fidelibus. sed pro omni rationabili creatura facta sunt, ut est praedictum. ipse.enim.solem suum oriri facit super bonos, et malos, ipse etiam volatilia pascit … et propter hoc dicimus, non licet Papae.vel fidelibus, auferre sua, sive dominia, sive iurisdictiones infidelibus, quia sine peccato possident. …” Innocent IV, Commentaria in quinque libros decretalium (Turin, 1581) ad 3.34.8., fol. 176. For a further discussion of Innocent’s views, see Muldoon, James “Extra ecclesiam non est imperium: The Canonists and the Legitimacy of Secular Power,” Studia Gratiana 9(1966) 553–580.Google Scholar

⁹ “Quod autem Papa facit indulgentias illis, qui vadunt ad recuperandam Terram sanctam, licet earn possideant Saraceni, et etiam inducere bellum, et dare indulgentias illis, qui occupant Terram sanctam: quam infideles illicite possident, hoc totum est ex causa, nam iuste motus est Papa, si intendit Terram sanctam,que consecrata est. … Item Terra sancta iusto bello victa fuit ab Imperatore Romano post mortem Christi, unde licitum est Papae ratione Imperii Romani, quod obtinet, illud ad suam iurisdictionem revocare, quam iniuste expoliatus. …” Innocent IV, Commentaria ad 3.34.8., fol. 176.

¹⁰ “… sic per praedicta apparet, quod Papa super omnes habet iurisdictionem, et potestatem de iure, licet non de facto unde per potestatem, quam habet Papa, credo, quod si gentilis, qui non habet legem nisi naturae, si contra legem naturae facit, potest licite puniri per Papam. … Item Iudaeos potest iudicari Papa, si contra legem evangelii faciunt in moralibus, si eorum prelati eos non puniant… ”Ibid.

¹¹ “… tamen mandare potest Papa infidelibus. quod admittant predicatores evangelii in terris suae iurisdictionis, nam cum omnis creatura rationabilis facta sit ad deum laudandum … si ipsi prohibent praedicatores praedicare, peccant, et ideo puniendi sunt.”Ibid., fol. 177.

¹² “… mihi tamen videtur quod in adventu Christi omnis honor et omnis principatus et omne dominium et iurisditio de iure et ex causa iusta, et per illum qui suppreman manum habet nec errare potest omni infideli subtracta fuerit ad fideles translata. …” Hostiensis, , Lettura quinque Decretalium, 2 vols. (Paris, 1512)Google Scholar ad 3.34.8., fol. 124.

^l3 “Concedimus tamen quod infideles qui dominium ecclesie recognoscunt sunt ab ecclesia tolerandi: quia nec ad fidem precise cogendi sunt. …”Ibid., fol. 125.

¹⁴ “Nullus est dominus civilis, nullus est prelatus, nullus est episcopus, dum est in peccato mortali.” Hefele, Charles-Joseph and Leclercq, H. Histoire des conciles, 10 vols. (Paris, 1916) 7, part 1, 517.Google Scholar Wyclif expressed this opinion in various places in his works. The following extract is representative of his views: “Nota tamen quod nullum est civile dominium, nisi in iusticia evangelica sit fundatum; ideo peccans mortaliter non habet dominium pocius quam virgo perpetua habet paternitatem carnalem. …” Wyclif, John De Civili Dominio, 4 vols., eds. Poole, R.L. and Loserth, J. (London, 1885–1904) 1, 21–22.Google Scholar Precisely what Wyclif meant by this statement is in dispute. One view is that he meant a man in the state of mortal sin “has neither political authority nor property in the full and proper spiritual sense, but he does not mean that he cannot have these in the ordinary or legal sense.” R.W. and Carlyle, A.J. A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, 6 vols. (London and Edinburgh, 1903–1936) 6, 60.Google Scholar The difficulty with accepting this argument is that Wyclif pairs civil and ecclesiastical dominium so that if, as he argues, mortal sin invalidates the sacraments administered by the sinful priest and he should therefore be removed, then secular power must likewise be invalidated by the sin of its possessor and he too should be removed from his office. On the other hand, it has been argued with equal firmness that his system places real value only on dominium which is based on grace. See, Daly, L.J. The Political Theory of John Wyclif (Chicago, 1962) 76.Google Scholar The difficulties involved in grasping the meaning of Wyclif’s arguments have been summed up thus: “So carefully did Wyclif obscure the logical consequences his theories on dominion would have meant for the nobility that the duke [John of Gaunt], the notoriously immoral son of an equally immoral father, together with the vicious Percy, appeared as his champions at St. Paul’s.” Dahmus, Joseph The Prosecution of John Wyclif (New Haven, 1952) 18.Google Scholar

¹⁵ “Confirmatur per hoc quod nullum civile dominium est iustum simpliciter, nisi in naturali dominio sit fundatum; sed nemo habet naturale dominium pro tempore quo peccat mortaliter; ergo nec civile dominium iustum simpliciter. Minor patet ex facto iudicis summe iusti, qui expulit primum hominem de paradiso post peccatum. …” Wyclif, , De Civili Dominio, 1, 37–38.Google Scholar

¹⁶ “Obiciunt nempe nobis infideles convertendi quod sumus prevaricatores manifestissimi legis nostre, cum predicamus despeccionem temporalium ac aspiracionem caritativam et pacificam ad eterna; et tamen de facto nulla gens insistit ardencius circa civile dominium vel pro temporalibus fratrem suum contra caritatem perturbando persequitur. … non ergo per rapinam temporalium sed instar Christi ac suorum discipulorum, per eorum renunciacionem sermone et opere convertimus infideles.”Ibid., II, 9–10.

¹⁷ “Licet ergo militantibus pugnare contra ferales qui nolunt exhortacionibus vel Christi legibus conparere, eciam contra infideles sectas, supposito quod sacerdotibus ecclesie revelatum sit quod eorum exhortacione neglecta sint per corporalem gladium castigandi.” Ibid II, 255.

¹⁸ “Rex igitur invadens regna extera si corpus rebellat anime, debet primo corpus suum subicere, cum sit hostis periculosissimus dampni maximi de proximo versimiliter illaturus. … Racio prima est quod rex ad beneficienciam sui et suorum est obligacior, secunda quia inpugnacio eorum de quibus rex habet curam specialem est periculosior…”Ibid., II, 244.

¹⁹ For example, Book II, ch. 17 of De Civili Dominio which deals with the just war cites Causa XXIII of the Decretum, the basic canonistic source for the just war, extensively, more extensively in fact than the editor's notes would indicate. Although Wyclif is said to share in the strong antipathy of theologians to lawyers, both canon and civil, nevertheless he cites their material a great deal. On Wyclif’s antipathy to lawyers, see Daly, , Political Theory of John Wyclif, 96.Google Scholar

²⁰ “Et videat quare per idem non sequitur quod cerimonialia et iudiciali veteris testamenti debent hodie observari. Consideret secundo quod patres veteris testamenti secundum legem singulariter eis datam in funiculo distribucionis conversantes habuerint infideles undique circumseptos, quos auctoritate Dei tanquam eius adversarios precepti sunt aggredi. In novo vero testamento cum preceptum est evangelium predican cuilibet creature et omnes homines diligi remittenda est iniuria cuilibet instar Christi, eum per hoc medium omnes gentes debent converti.” Wyclif, , De Civili Dominio, 2, 249.Google Scholar

²¹ Peter, of Mladonovice, “An Account of the Trial and Condemnation of Master John Hus in Constance,” John Hus at the Council of Constance, ed. Spinka, Matthew (New York and London, 1965.Google Scholar Records of Civilization: Sources and Studies, LXIII) 87–234 at 171–172.

²² Spinka, , John Hus at the Council of Constance, 171,Google Scholar note 25. See also, Spinka, Matthew John Hus, A Biography (Princeton, 1968) 248–249,Google Scholar where he argues that Gerson’s criticisms of the Church were essentially in agreement with those which Hus had expressed, but that Gerson simply accepted “the calumnies of Hus’ enemies for truth” and thus failed to see the areas in which he and Hus were in agreement.

²³ Spinka, , John Hus at the Council of Constance, 202–203.Google Scholar

²⁴ Vladimiri, Paulus “Articuli contra Cruciferos,” Belch, Stanislaus F. Paulus Vladimiri and his Doctrine Concerning International Law and Politics, 2 vols. (The Hague, 1965) 2, 905–988 Google Scholar at 917. Belch’s work is an aggressive attempt to demonstrate the significance of Vladimiri in the development of international law and the importance of the conflict between the Knights and the King of Poland in focusing his ideas on the subject. The position of the Knights has been recently defended by Weise, Erich Die Amtsgewalt von Papst und Kaiser und die Ostmission besonders in der I. Hälfte des 13. Jahrbunderts (Marburg, 1971).Google Scholar

²⁵ Vladimiri, , “Opinio Hostiensis,” Belch, 2, 845–884 Google Scholar at 883.

²⁶ Ibid., 864.

²⁷ Acta condilii Constanciensis, ed. Finke, Heinrich 4 vols. (Münster, 1896–1928) 4, 363,Google Scholar 365.

²⁸ Ibid., 364.

²⁹ Ibid., 403.

l’expansion Portugaise au XV^e siècle,” Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique [48(1953) 683–718; 49(1954) 438–461; 51(1956) 415–453 and 809–836]48(1953) 715–17 at 715. For a full discussion of this letter and its place in the development of legal thought about the status of infidels, see Muldoon, James “A Fifteenth Century Application of the Canonistic Theory of the Just War,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (Toronto, August 21–25, 1972).Google Scholar

³⁰ Vladimiri, , “Opinio Hostiensis,” Belch, 2, 878.Google Scholar

³¹ Acta concilii Constanciensis, IV, 430.

³² King Edward of Portugal raised this argument in connection with the conquest of the Canary Islands in 1436. According to him: “Has indomiti silvestres fere homines inhabitant qui nulla religione coagulati, nullis denique legum vinculis irretiti, civili conversacione neglecta, in paganitate veluti pecudes vitam agunt. lis navale comercium, literarum exercicium, genus aliquod metali aut numismatis nullum est.” The text is in Charles-Martial de Witte, “Les bulles pontificales et

³³ Casas, Bartolomé Las Historia de las Indias, 3 vols., ed. Cario, Agustín Millares (Mexico, 1951) 3, 25–28.Google Scholar Vitoria, Francisco De Indis et de jure belli relectiones Washington, D.C., 1917 Google Scholar; reprinted, New York, 1964) 121–122, argues that Hostiensian arguments were used to justify the conquest, although he did not say specifically that Palacios Rubios employed them or that they were to be found in the Requerimiento.

³⁴ Hanke, , The Spanish Struggle, 34–35.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ferdinand the Catholic in particular was very sensitive to the need for legitimizing conquests. See Merriman, Roger B. The Rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and in the New, 4 vols. (New York, 1918–1934; reprinted, 1962) 2, 345.Google Scholar Two more recent works have sought to analyze this legitimizing role of the papacy in more detail: Weckman, Luis Las Bulas Alejandrinas de 1493 y la Teorí Política del Papado Medieval (Mexico City, 1949)Google Scholar and de Witte, “Les bulles pontificales. …”

³⁶ “A fin de fundo este principio, tan decisivo papa las relaciones entre la Christiandad y los reinos de infieles, Palacios Rubios se apoya en la doctrine canónica del siglo XIII, o como diriá Las Casas, sigue ’el error de Ostiensis’.” de Palacios Rubios, Juan Lopez De las Islas del mar Océano, intro. and ed. by Zavala, Silvio (Mexico City, 1954) XC.Google Scholar

³⁷ “En virtud, pues, de estos tres derechos parece haberse introducido en cierto modo el dominio de las cosas. … Todo esto se refiere no sólo a los fieles, sino a los infieles. … Fieles e infieles poseen y tienen lícitamente la propiedad de las cosas, como abiertamente lo afirma Inocencio, al que siguen todos los demás, al comentar el citado capitulo ‘Quod super his, De voto’. …”

“De lo anterior se infiere primeramente que los infieles no deben sólo por motivo de su infidelidad y sin mediar otra causa justa, ser privados de sus bienes, ni moverles guerra en que los Cristianos se apoderen de lo que poseen.” Ibid., 41–42.

³⁸ “Por tanto, el dominio que en común o en particular tenían, lícita y justamente, antes de convertirse y de quedar sometidos a vuestro poder, lo conservan hoy, porque al tornarse Cristianos y súbditos vuestros no lo perdieron, como en el capítulo anterior hemos dicho de su ingenuidad y libertad, pues los infieles son capaces para el dominio de las cosas y posesiones.” Ibid., 39.

³⁹ “De lo dicho resulta que el dominio de prelación o jurisdicción que los infieles pretenden tener sobre los fieles puede quitárseles por sentencia u ordenamiento de la Iglesia, poseedora de la autoridad de Dios, porque los infieles, por mérito de su infidelidad merecen perder su potestad sobre los que pasan a ser hijos de Dios. …” Ibid., 115.

⁴⁰ “… fatemur tamen, quod si populi conversi essent, sed domini remanerent infideles, quod Papa bene posset domino infideli dominium er iurisdictionem dimittere super fideles, arg. 1. ad Thimo.6. in prin. dummodo Christianos non gravaret iniuste. Item propter periculum posset cogi dominus ad recipendum pretium vel commutionem. …” Innocent IV, Commentaria, 3.34.8., fol. 177.

⁴¹ It is interesting to note that the Requerimiento is constructed along the general lines of two letters which Innocent IV addressed to the leader of the Mongols in 1245. These letters discuss Christ’s incarnation and the subsequent responsibility of the pope for the souls of all men. This is not to say that Palacios Rubios was directly influenced by Innocent IV’s letters in the writing of the Requerimiento. Rather, the similarity suggests that Palacios Rubios thought along the lines of Innocent IV because he was influenced by Innocent’s views on dominium. The bulls are in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae saeculi XIII e registis Pontificum Romanorum, II, sel. Pertz, G.H. ed. Rodenberg, C. (Berlin, 1887) 72–75.Google Scholar See also, Dawson, C. The Mongol Mission (London and New York, 1955) 73–76.Google Scholar

⁴² Hanke, , The Spanish Struggle, 35.Google Scholar

⁴³ It is interesting to note that Palacios Rubios cited Boniface VIII’s Unam sanctam in his discussion of the Spanish claim to the Americas (page 88). Yet, although this bull is generally understood as the most extreme assertion of papal claims to temporal power, a document which enshrined the theories of Alanus Anglicus according to Walter Ullmann (Medieval Papalism, 11), it is possible to interpret it differently, in the tradition of Innocent IV’s views on the relation of the two powers. For this interpretation, see Muldoon, James “Boniface VIII’s Forty Years of Experience in the Law,” The Jurist 31(1971)449–477.Google Scholar