¹ Hanke, Lewis, The Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America (Philadelphia, 1949), p. 133.Google Scholar

² The lawfulness of warring against the natives of the New World in general had been argued by theologians and jurists throughout the sixteenth century. Cf. Hanke, The Spanish Struggle, passim, as well as Leturia, Pedro, “Maior y Vitoria ante la conquista de América,” Estudios Eclesiásticos, 2 (1932), 44–82,Google Scholar and Muñoz, Honorio, Vitoria and the Conquest of America: A Study on the First Reading on the Indians “De Indis Prior” (Manila, 1935).Google Scholar

³ Powell, Philip Wayne, in his study of the Chichimeca wars, Soldiers, Indians, and Silver: The Northward Advance of New Spain, 1550–1600 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1952), p. 183,Google Scholar refers to the Council’s treatment of the question but does not mention its decision. A very brief consideration of the Council’s stand can also be found in Cuevas, Mariano S.J., Historia de la Iglesia en México (Tlálpam, D. F., México, 1922), 2, 102.Google Scholar However, Cuevas’ account of the first three Mexican Councils is taken almost verbatim from two works by FatherVera, Hipólito Fortino, Apuntamientos Históricos de los Concilios Provinciales Mexicanos (México, 1893),Google Scholar and Compendio Histórico del Concilio Tercero Mexicano (Amecameca, 1879). Father Vera did not have access to the original documents of the Councils but worked entirely from an index of the four volumes of conciliar papers. At the time that he wrote, the documents were not in Mexico. Until recently he has been the standard source for information on the Councils. The Concilios Provinciales Mexicanos are four large bound volumes of decrees, notes, reports, and work papers of the first three Mexican Councils (1555, 1565, 1585), put together without any particular order. At the present time they constitute Mexican Manuscripts 266, 267, 268, 269, of the Bancroft Library, University of California. Hereinafter they will be cited as Concilios Provinciales, M-M 266, 267, 268, or 269, with the appropriate folio number. These documents have been generally neglected in Latin American historical studies except for the following: two articles by FatherBurrus, Ernest J. S.J., in The Americas, “The Author of the Mexican Council Catechisms,” 15 (October, 1958), 171–182,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “The Salazar Report to the Third Mexican Council,” XVII (July, 1960), 65–84. A transcription of Father Juan de la Plaza’s memorials to the Council has been made by FatherZubillaga, Felix S.J., in Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu, 30 (Ian.-Iul., 1961), 108–144.Google Scholar The only attempts at writing the history of the Council have been the author’s “The Indian Problem in the Third Mexican Council” (Saint Louis University, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1961), and FatherLlaguno, José S.J., La Personalidad Jurídica del Indio y el III Concilio Provincial Mexicano (México, 1963).Google Scholar Cf. also this author’s “Research Possibilities of the Third Mexican Council” in Manuscripta, V (1961), 151–163, and “The Church and the Repartimientos in the Light of the Third Mexican Council, 1585,” The Americas, XX (July, 1963), 3–36. Pope Benedict XIV mentioned this Council some fourteen times in his classic work De Synodo Diocesano, and its decrees assumed such importance that they were long considered a code of Mexican canon law. All quotations from the Concilios Provinciales are made with the permission of the director of the Bancroft Library.

⁴ The complex character of Moya de Contreras has been unjustly neglected by historians. At the time of the Council, he was the most powerful man in the New World, holding simultaneously the positions of viceroy, archbishop, captain-general, and inquisitor-general. The only attempt at a biography of Moya that I have been able to find is a contemporary and very uncritical work by de Luna, Cristóbal Gutiérre, Vida y Heróicas Virtudes del Doctor Don Pedro Moya de Contreras, Arzobispo Mexicano (México, 1619).Google Scholar

⁵ The letters of convocation can be found in Concilios Provinciales, M-M 268, ff. 1 to 70. The three bishops who could not attend were the bishops of Manila, Chiapa, and Comayagua (Honduras). As Vera points out (Compendio Histórico, II, 136), most historians of the Mexican Church err when they state that the archdiocese of Mexico had only eight suffragans in 1585. Comayagua is the one usually omitted. The position of its bishop, who was in Spain at the time of the Council, is obscure in the conciliar documents, there being only two letters in M-M 268 that concern him. F. 33 is a letter of convocation to his diocese and f. 45 a letter to Moya saying that his trip to Spain was canceled. Bishop Salazar of Manila could not attend because of the distance and so sent his recommendations by letter. Cf. Ernest J. Burrus, “The Salazar Report. …” Pedro de Feria, bishop of Chiapa, broke his leg on the way to the Council and had to send his opinions via Fray Juan Ramírez, O. P., a well-known theologian. Feria, not Alonso de Noreña, was bishop of Chiapa, contrary to what is asserted by Vera and Cuevas.

⁶ Some suggestions were also submitted to the Council by Fray Gerónimo de Mendieta, some short ones in writing but most of them orally. For some reason the signature of Bernardino de Sahagún seems to have been erased from among the signatures of the Franciscan memorial on the Chichimecan war, cf. M-M 269, f. 94. Ortiz de Hinojosa died before taking possession of his see. Cf. Concilios Provinciales Primero y Segundo de México … en los años de 1555 y 1565. Dalos a luz el Illmo. Sr. D. Francisco Antonio Lorenzana (México, 1763), pp. 286–287. The name of Fulgencio Vique also has the variant spellings of Vic, Vich, and Ubique. I have followed the one that he himself used.

⁷ Concilios Provinciales, M-M 268, f. 3.

⁸ Cf. this author’s “The Church and the Repartimientos. …” Unfortunately no attempt has yet been made to integrate the Council’s opinion on Indian labor with the general attitude of colonial churchmen on the subject. This is to be regretted since the Council’s condemnation of the repartimiento system is one of its outstanding accomplishments.

⁹ The most thorough treatment in English of Chichimeca life and mores, as well as of the wars waged by and against them, is Powell’s Soldiers, Indians, and Silver. For a contemporary description of Chichimeca life, see Focher, Juan, Itinerarium Catholicum ad Infideles Convertendos (Seville, 1574),Google Scholar pars 3a, prima veritas. A Latin-Spanish edition of this work was published in Madrid in 1960 by Antonio Eguiluz, O. F. M., under the title Itinerario del Misionero en América. A useful technical work is Pizana, Pedro Carrasco, Los Otomíes: Cultura e historia prehispánicas de los pueblos meso-americanos de habla otomiana (Publicaciones del Instituto de Historia, núm. 5, México, 1950).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Vera, , Compendio Histórico, p. 259,Google Scholar nota 8. Ponce was the Commissary General of the Franciscans in New Spain, and was one of the signers of the Franciscan memorial on the Chichimeca war (see below).

¹¹ Alegre, Francisco Javier S.J., Historia de la Provincia de la Compañía de Jesús de Nueva España, ed. Burrus, Ernest J. S.J., and Zubillaga, Félix S.J. (Rome, 1956–1960), 1, 413–414.Google Scholar

¹² Quoted in Vera, , Compendio, p. 259.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ An observation by the oidor Hernando de Robles in a Relación to Moya de Contreras, M-M 269, f. 90. This will be discussed in detail below.

¹⁵ Powell, Soldiers …, chapter 5. Most of this survey has been taken from this chapter, as well as from the Robles report (note 14 above), Focher’s Itinerarium, and the letter of Medina Rincón (see below).

¹⁶ Epistolario de Nueva España: 1505–1818, Recopilado por Francisco Paso y Troncóse (segunda serie; México, 1940), XI: 1570–1575: 171.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Fray Juan Salmerón to Philip II, from Mexico, January 10, 1583, in Cuevas, Mariano S.J., Documentos Inéditos del Siglo XVI para la Historia de México (México, 1914), p. 317 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Powell, , Soldiers …, p. 204.Google Scholar

²⁰ Relación que Su Majestad manda se envíe a su real consejo del obispo de Michoacán, Valladolid de Michoacán, 4 de marzo, 1582. Archivo General de Indias (hereafter cited as AGI), México, leg. 374, f. 8–12. Courtesy of Fintan Warren, O. F. M.)

²¹ Medina Rincón, Relación, f. 12v; Lorenzana, , Concilios Provinciales, pp. 323–324 Google Scholar; Cuevas, , Historia, p. 80.Google Scholar

²² In 1561, Bishop Vasco de Quiroga of Michoacán had written to Philip II to complain about the way in which the Spaniards were treating the Chichimecas. For more than twenty years, according to Quiroga, the Indians had been coming to Michoacán for the purpose of receiving baptism. However, in recent times, Spaniards, Negroes, and Spanish-speaking Indians (ladinos) had been lying in wait to capture and enslave them. Also, in defiance of all royal orders, they were capturing and enslaving all available Chichimecas in retaliation for the crimes of a few. The bishop demanded that this be stopped and that those enslaved be freed. Vasco de Quiroga to the Consejo Real de Indias, 17 de febrero, 1561. AGI, México, leg. 374, f. 1. (Courtesy of Fintan Warren, O.F.M. Printed version in Cuevas, , Historia, 1 [3rd edition; El Paso, 1928], 314–315.)Google Scholar

²³ Medina Rincón, Relación, f. 9.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Ibid., f. 10.

²⁶ The raid is mentioned in Powell, p. 183, and in the official request of the City of Mexico (see below). Powell says that the raid impelled the request for a decision on the morality of the war. This may be true, but it was already before the Council prior to the raid.

²⁷ The data on Robles can be found in Powell, pp. 116–117, and the Medina Rincón letter, f. 10. It seems certain that the bishops were aware that the Chichimeca war would be one of their most pressing problems. The Robles relación, which had been solicited by Moya, was first shown to the audiencia on March 4, 1585, and was given to the Council on March 26. The request from the City of Mexico was not given to the Council until April 6.

²⁸ To the Spaniards of this time one lived either “politically” or “barbarously.” The former meant to live like the Spaniards themselves and involved the idea of fixed dwelling, as opposed to the nomadic way of life, and some sort of self-government. The latter meant simply that one did not live like a Spaniard and especially that one did not have a fixed abode. Cf. Hanke, The Spanish Struggle, chapter 4.

²⁹ Robles, Relación, f. 86. Cf. also Powell, Soldiers … , pp. 7–8.

³⁰ Robles, Relación, f. 86. I have not found this mentioned in other sources. It may well have been an invention of Spanish prejudice.

³¹ Ibid.

³² Ibid., f. 87.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ As Chichimeca warfare became more sophisticated through contact with the Spaniards, the use of spies became very important. Cf. Powell, Soldiers … , p. 46.

³⁵ Robles, Relación, f. 87. The fame of the Chichimecas for devising ingenious methods of torturing captives added to their fearsome reputation. Cf. Powell, , Soldiers …, pp. 50–52.Google Scholar

³⁶ The Chichimeca method of scalping was particularly repulsive and was frequently practiced while the victim was still alive. “The Chichimeca warrior obtained the scalp by placing a foot on the victim’s throat and yanking off the skin of the head and face by pulling against the natural direction of the growth of the hair.” Powell, , Soldiers …, p. 51.Google Scholar

³⁷ Robles, Relación, f. 88.

³⁸ In 1570, Philip II had requested an opinion on this very subject from a group of Spanish theologians, of whom Hernando Ortiz de Hinojosa, a consultor of the Council, was one (see below). This group decided that not only was such a war lawful but that under the circumstances it was a positive obligation. Cf. Focher’s Itinerarium Catholicum, pars 3a, prima Veritas, p. 83. This decision does not seem to have influenced governmental policy. Not all ecclesiastics agreed with it, for in 1584 Bishop Domingo de Alzola of Guadalajara wrote to Moya de Contreras condemning the war and suggesting that armed settlements were the only solution. Powell, , Soldiers …, p. 181 ff.Google Scholar Evidently some of the bishops entered the Council already determined that total war of extermination was both immoral and senseless. Both Alzola and Medina Rincón, as men close to the scene, must have carried great weight.

³⁹ Concilios Provinciales, M-M 269, f. 85. This seems to have been a favorite theme of the Spaniards, both with regard to the number of lives lost and the amount of money spent. Salazar and Valdés Volante were also the official representatives of the City of Mexico at the Council.

⁴⁰ Ibid. If the two regidores accurately reflect the policy of the king, then it was truly a remarkable one in the light of the opinions, complaints, and representations about the Chichimecas that had been made since the war began. Was this policy the result of Philip II’s natural deliberateness or of his determination to consider all natives as wards of the Crown or merely of vacillation and incompetence on the part of local government?

⁴¹ Ibid.

⁴² Juan Zumero was archdean of the cathedral.

⁴³ This is the only one of the opinions that is dated. In addition to the names given, there are two other signatures which are indecipherable. The title is “Parecer de la Orden de Sancto Domingo desta Nueva España sobre este caso y relación,” Concilios Provinciales, M-M 269, f. 89 ff.

⁴⁴ Ibid.

⁴⁵ Ibid. This statement seems typical of a large group of Spanish theologians and philosophers in the sixteenth century.

⁴⁶ Concilios Provinciales, M-M 269, f. 93. In addition there are two other signatures which are illegible. The Franciscans at the Third Mexican Council consistently displayed a more pro-Indian attitude than any other single group, with the exception of the bishops themselves. For their forceful opinions on Indian labor, see the author’s “The Church and the Repartimientos. …”

⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁸ Concilios Provinciales, M-M 269, f. 98. The report is signed by Fray Melchor de los Reyes, Fray Juan Adriano, Fray Pedro de Agurto, Fray Juan de Contreras, and other members of the faculty of the Colegio de San Pablo. Much of the document is illegible and part of it is lost in the binding of the volume.

⁴⁹ Ibid.

⁵⁰ Concilios Provinciales, M-M 269, f. 99. For data on Plaza, cf. Zubillaga, “Los Memoriales del P. Juan de la Plaza,” and Burras, “The Author of the Mexican Council Catechism.” Father Pedro de Ortigosa was the teacher of Moya de Contreras, for the Archbishop had been ordained to the priesthood in 1571 without any previous study of theology, his training having been exclusively in law. After ordination, he studied at the Jesuit college under Ortigosa. Cf. Cuevas, , Historia, 2, 75.Google Scholar

⁵¹ The memorial can be found in Concilios Provinciales, M-M 269, f. 101–104 incl. It is dated May 8, 1585. It is a tiresome thing to read, passing rapidly from Spanish to Latin, often in the same sentence. A good part of the report has been borrowed verbatim from Focher’s Itinerarium.

⁵² This section is taken from Focher, who condoned war against the Chichimecas for the same reason. Hanke, , The Spanish Struggle, p. 138,Google Scholar cites a work by Melchor Calderón, church treasurer of Santiago, Chile, entitled “ Treatise on the Importance and Usefulness of Enslaving the Rebel Indians of Chile,” in which the author claims that impedence of traffic on royal roads was sufficient reason in itself for enslavement. The opinion seems to have been fairly widespread, though I have not been able to locate the precise proposition, either in Saint Augustine or in any standard compilation of Roman Law.

⁵³ Concilios Provinciales, M-M 269, f. 101.

⁵⁴ “Omnes capti in bello justo fiant capientium et occupantium.” The original legal proposition used “omnia,” referring to goods, not persons.

⁵⁵ Ibid., f. 102.

⁵⁶ “Servitus aequiparatur morti.”

⁵⁷ Ibid., f. 103.

⁵⁸ Ibid. This section also borrows heavily from Focher.

⁵⁹ Ibid.

⁶⁰ Ibid.

⁶¹ Concilios Provinciales, M-M 269, f. 107.

⁶² Ibid.

⁶⁸ Because so much of the Council’s decision on the Chichimecan question seems to have been determined in private discussion, it is impossible to reconstruct accurately the development of thought on the subject. Vique definitely mentions a junta at which one of the consultore (unidentified) steadfastly refused to give any opinion until a complete report on the justice of the Indian cause had been made. f. 109.

⁶⁴ In addition to these reports, the bishops were also given three others which had been submitted to Martín Enríquez by three oidores, Doctors Cárcamo, Cárdenas, and Arévalo Sedeño. Naturally they espoused the colonial viewpoint. I have not included them, as they were not addressed directly to the Council.

⁶⁵ There are two copies of the letter to the king. Concilios Provinciales, M-M 269 f. 24 to 41 and 43 to 50.

⁶⁶ Ibid., f. 48.

⁶⁷ The bishops included some interesting comments on the caliber of these men “who with cunning insinuation and false promises of new lands and increased populations and conversions to our sacred Christian law, have obtained from Your Majesty positions as adelantados and governors.” Ibid.

⁶⁸ Ibid. Emphasis in the original.

⁶⁹ Ibid.

⁷⁰ Ibid.

⁷¹ Ibid.