¹ Despite the interest, neither the Church in general nor the Jesuits in particular have been well investigated in the archives. Most opinions have been based more on conjecture than on fact. The most important archival studies for the economic background of the Church in Mexico are a series of articles by Asunción Lavrin including, “The Role of the Nunneries in the Economy of New Spain in the Eighteenth Century,” HAHR, XLVI (May, 1966), 371–393, and a book by Michael Costeloe, Church Wealth in Mexico, 1800–18S6, Cambridge, 1967. Although possessing a slightly different orientation, Jan Bazant’s, Alienation of Church Wealth in Mexico: Social and Economic Aspects of the Liberal Revolution, 1856–1875, Cambridge, 1971, is also useful as is Arnold Bauer, “The Church and Spanish American Agrarian Structure: 175 1865,” The Americas, XXVIIK1971), 78–98. François Chevalier, Land and Society in Colonial Mexico, Trans. Alvin Eustis, Berkeley, 1963, and William B. Taylor, Landlord and Peasant in Colonial Oaxaca, Stanford, 1972, both analyze characteristics of ecclesiastical landholding during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Chevalier, especially, gives particular attention to the characteristics of Jesuit management but a number of other works go into greater detail. Félix Zubillaga, S.J., “La Provincia Jesuitica de Nueva España: Su Fundamento Económico: Siglo XVI,” Archivum Historicum Societatis lesu, XXXVIII(January-June 1969), 4–169, provides basic information pertaining to the colleges established during the sixteenth century in New Spain. No similar work has been done for the other American provinces but Pablo Macera, Instrucciones para el Manejo de las Haciendas Jesuitas del Peru, Nueva Crónica, 11: 2, Lima, 1966, German Colmenares, Haciendas de los Jesuitas en el Nuevo Reino de Granada: Siglo XVIII, Bogota, 1969, and Esteban Fontana, “La Expulsión de los Jesuitas de Mendoza y sus Repercusiones Económicas,” Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografía, #130(1962), 47–99, have attempted to reconstruct the financial organization and wealth of the Order in their provinces during the eighteenth century using documents from the Office of Temporalidades and its archives. Magnus Mörner’s work, The Political and Economic Activities of the Jesuits in the La Plata Region. The Hapsburg Era, Stockholm, 1953, while not as narrowly focused as the previous studies, does provide good insight into the Jesuit attitude toward commerce and its relationship to their work. The more general histories of the Jesuits say very little about the economic foundation. Father Antonio Astráin’s work, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la Asttencia de España, 7 Vols., Madrid, 1912 1925, includes some documents and analysis and Father Ernest Burrus and Father Félix Zubillaga have added documentary appendices to their edition of Francisco Xavier Alegre’s classic work on the Mexican province, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la Nueva España, 4 Vols., Rome, 1956–60, but the text contains little economic information, a gap not filled by the other historians of the Mexican province.

² For the most recent analysis of the Palafox dispute and his criticisms of the Society, consult E.P. Simmons, “Palafox and his Critics; Reappraising a Controversy,” HAHR, XLVT(November, 1966), 394–409. During the 1750’s, the Marqués de Pombal and his adherents in Portugal published a large number of scurrilous charges against the Jesuits. An example of one of these tracts is “Reflectiones veinte-yna sobre un memorial presentado a … el … Portífice por el padre General de la Compañía de Jesús en defensa de su religión,” Lisbon, November 28, 1758, N.S., found in the Centro de Estudios de Historia de México, Fondo Roberto Valles Martínez, XLIX-1, Carpeta 11, Document 15. This same archive includes another very interesting document which indicates that the Spanish crown, at least, thought all of the religious orders were being corrupted by commerce. In a royal cedula dated February 2, 1730, he pointed with distress to the fact that many of the regular orders and the secular clergy were participating in the contraband trade. The king termed their conduct a scandal to the faithful (Fondo Luis Guitiérrez Canedo, Reales Cédulas I, Carpeta 5–9, document 239). Needless to say, the Jesuits deny all allegations concerning improper conduct. The only incident which they are forced to admit to concerned the notorious activities of Father Lavallete, the business manager of the missions in Martinique, whose conduct resulted in a lawsuit in Paris which resulted eventually in the expulsion of the Jesuits from France in 1764. Consult Bangert, William V. S.J., A History of the Society of Jesus, St. Louis, 1972, pp. 372–383 Google Scholar.

³ One admirer, attempting to sell the college of Guanajuato in Mexico a piece of property, claimed that the profits from the estate would easily double if it enjoyed a Jesuit management. See Father Joseph del Moral to Father Cristóbal de Escobar, Valle de Santiago, July 13, 1744, Archivo General de la Nación, México (hereafter AGN), Jesuuitas, Section I, number 20.

⁴ Instrucciones a los Hermanos Jesuitas Administradores de Haciendas, México, 1950 Google Scholar. See footnote 1 for the other citation.

⁵ See footnote 1.

⁶ Chevalier, Land, p. 239.

⁷ Astráin, VI, 452–53. The difficulties were not just a Mexican problem. Financial problems plagued all of the provinces of the Order (Bangert, pp. 179–80).

⁸ Father General Pablo Oliva to Provincial Tomás Altamirano, 1679, as quoted in Zambrano, Francisco S.J., Diccionario Biobibliográfico de los Jesuitas, 10 Vols., México, 1961–70, V, 280;Google Scholar Memorial of the Sixteenth Provincial Congregation of Mexico, 1662, Ibid.

⁹ The annual averages were taken from multiyear sequences of audits given on chart A. In many cases the beginning and closing dates of the audits did not provide complete years so that some judgement had to be exercised on how to treat the gaps. For the purposes of the data given here, I decided to consider what items of income from the haciendas would have been outstanding in the gap, enough to be considered a sixth, a quarter, etc., of total income. This would then be taken into account in determining the divisor.

¹⁰ See the audit of the business office of the Province, 1708, Archivo Histórico de Hacienda, México(hereafter AHH), Legajo 285, exp. 52.

¹¹ Juan … de Mon … to rector Father Eugenio de Losa, September 10, 1674, AGN, Jesuitas, Section II, number 28.

¹² Report of Father Bartolomé de Cuellar on the condition of the college of Zacatecas, September 20, 1680, AGN, Jesuitas, Section III, number 14: Audit of the college of Queretaro, 1681, AHH, Legajo 285, exp. 33.

¹³ Contact of Capitán Joseph de Santa Maria, 1693, AGN, Jesuitas, Section I, number 27.

¹⁴ Don Joseph Redonas to Provincial Matheo Ansaldo, January 25, 1743, AGN, Jesuitas, Section III, number 12.

¹⁵ Decorme, Gerald S.J., La Obra de los Jesuitas Mexicanos durante la Época Colonial, 2 Vols., México, 1941, I, 371 Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Audit of the college of Guadalajara, 1767, AHH, Legajo 547, exp. 22.

¹⁷ For the analysis of this bequest consult the Statement of the Condition of the Colegio Máximo, 1723–1739, AHH, Legajo 286, exp. 44.

¹⁸ Chevalier, Land, p. 250.

¹⁹ Encina, Francisco, Historia de Chile, 20 Vols., Santiago de Chile, 1952, V, 267 Google Scholar.

²⁰ Macera, p. 36.

²¹ Chevalier, Instrucciones, p. 42.

²² Jean Pierre Berthe, “Xochimancas: Les Travaux et les Jours dans une hacienda sucrière de Nouvelle-Espagne au XVII^e Siècle,” Jahrbuch fur Geschichte Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Lateinamerikas, Band 3 (1966), 106.

²³ Riley, James D., “The Management of the Estate of the Jesuit Colego Máximo de San Pedro y San Pablo of Mexico City during the Eighteenth Century,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Tulane University, 1972 Google Scholar, see chapter dealing with land use, pp. 75–139.

²⁴ Report of Father Bartolomé de Cuellar on the condition of the college of Zacatecas, September 20, 1680, AGN, Jesuitas, Section III, number 14. Peter Bakewell, in his study of Zacatecas contradicts the contention that mining was in a depressed condition. He notes that in 1681, one official called the general situation of the real, “Boyante”. Silver Mining and Society in Colonial Mexico, Zacatecas 1546–1100, Cambridge, 1971, p. 194.

²⁵ Taylor, p. 183. Taylor adds that the Jesuits compounded their problems through poor management.

²⁶ Audit of the college of Zacatecas, 1698, AGN, Jesuitas, Section III, number 12.

²⁷ Father Bartolomé González to Brother Juan Nicolás, August 2, 1715, AGN, Jesuitas, Section I, number 35.

²⁸ Report on the profits of the hacienda de la Presentación, 1669, AGN, Jesuitas, Section I, number 35.

²⁹ Letter to the Provincial, April 20, 1657, as quoted in Astráin, VI, 460–61.

³⁰ Memorial of the Sixteenth Provincial Congregation of Mexico, 1662, as quoted in Zambrano, V, 280.

³¹ Audit of the college of Querétaro, 1681, AHH, Legajo 285, exp. 33.

³² Audit of the business office of the province, 1700, AHH, Legajo 285, exp. 55.

³³ Inventory of the business office of the province, 1743, AHH, Legajo 285, exp. 50; Audit of the business office, 1730, AHH, Legajo 285, exp. 51.

³⁴ Audit of the college of Querétaro, 1708, AHH, Legajo 285, exp. 52.

³⁵ Audit of the colleges of San Luis de la Paz and San Luis Potosí, AHH, Legajo 285, exp. 52.

³⁶ Audit of the college of Valladolid, 1725, AGN, Jesuitas, Section III, number 12.

³⁷ Father Joseph Caullo (et. al.) to Father Juan de Oviedo, October 17, 1747, AGN, Jesuitas, Section II, number 27.

³⁸ Chevalier, Land, p. 250; Encina, V, 267.

³⁹ Audit of the college of Zacatecas, 1679, AGN, Jesuitas, Section III, number 12.

⁴⁰ Report on the condition of the college of Durango, July 1748, AGN, Jesuitas, Section III, number 12.

⁴¹ Father Luis del Canto to Father Bernardo Pardo, June 29, 1681, AGN, Jesuitas, Section II, number 23.

⁴² Statement of the condition of the Colegio Máximo, 1723–1739, AHH, Legajo 286, exp. 44.

⁴³ AHH, Legajo 325, exp. 11.

⁴⁴ Encina, V, 268.

⁴⁵ The question of tax exemptions was a sensitive one and provoked considerable criticism of the Jesuits. Throughout most of the colonial period the Society did not pay the alcabala but in 1754 the crown withdrew the exemption (Petition of Father Andrés García over the proposed change in the regimen of the alcabala, February 16, 1754, AGN, Jesuitas, Section I, number 12). The matter remained in litigation, however, until at least 1762 during which time the Jesuits did not pay the tax(Father Pedro Reales to Father Joseph Sánchez, August 7, 1762, AGN, Jesuitas, Section I, number 2). The tithe also was the subject of controversy. In Spain, the Jesuits and the bishops worked out a compromise in 1628 after more than fifty years of rancorous court battles(Astráin, V, 253–57). Unfortunately, this compromise had no standing in the New World and the suits in Mexico resulted in the episcopacy winning the right to collect the entire ten percent in 1664 (AGN, Papeles de Bienes Nacionales, Legajo 1076, exp. 61). Even so the argument continued because the bishops never believed that the Jesuits correctly reported the yields of their haciendas. A fairly typical example of the argumentation and allegations about Jesuit wealth that resulted from this dispute are presented in Suárez de Zayas, Discurso y Alegación Jurídica del Cabildo Episcopal de México … en el Pleito con la Compañía de Jesús … sobre Diezmos, México, 1735. In 1750, the parties finally worked out a compromise very similar to the one in Spain a century and a quarter earlier. The Society agreed to pay one-third the rate paid by others (Formula for the declaration of tithes, AHH, Legajo 307, exp. 18).

⁴⁶ Father Ambrosio Oddon to Father Bartolomé Cerezo, February 10, 1701, AGN, Jesuitas, Section II, number 19.

⁴⁷ Father Pedro de Retes to Father Mathco Ansaldo, July 27, 1740, AGN, Jesuitas, Section III, number 12.

⁴⁸ Decorme, I,372.

⁴⁹ Father Pedro Reales to Father Joseph Sánchez, 1762, AGN, Jesuitas, Section 1, number 2.

⁵⁰ Audit of the college of Valladolid, 1725, AGN, Jesuitas, Section III, number 12.

⁵¹ Don Manuel de Eguzquiza to Father Andrés Garcia, August 30, 1748, AGN, Jesuitas, Section I, number 20.

⁵² See a series of letters between Juan Francisco de la Cruz Saraiva and Father Juan Balthazar, 1751, and a letter of Father Diego Verdugo to Father Balthazar, August 11, 1751, AGN, Jesuitas, Section I, number 35.

⁵³ Colmenares, p. 54.

⁵⁴ Debts of the hacienda of Chalco and payments on those debts, 1714–1743, AHH, Legajo 258, exp. 16.

⁵⁵ Colmenares, pp. 79 80.

⁵⁶ Miners and Merchants in Bourbon Mexico, 1763–1810, Cambridge, 1971. He quotes an Andaluz proverb mentioned by Lucas Alamán, “Father a merchant, son a gentleman, grandson a beggar,” (p. 211). Rather than lack of capital, he blames taxes and lack of markets for the unprcfitability of the haciendas upon which the rural families based their fortunes (pp. 215–19).

⁵⁷ Report on the improvements made to the hacienda of Toluquilla belonging to the college of Guadalajara, 1698, AGN, Jesuitas, Section III, number 12.

⁵⁸ Report on the condition of the college of San Luis de la Paz, November 1707, AGN, Jesuitas, Section III, number 12.

⁵⁹ Report on the condition of the college of Guadalajara, 1742, AGN, Jesuitas, Section III, number 14; Report on the improvements to the haciendas of San Nicolás de Parangueo between July 18, 1744 and June 20, 1748, AGN, Jesuitas, Section I, number 20.

⁶⁰ For condition in 1677 see Inventory of the Foundation of the college of Chiapas, 1677, Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu, Rome, Fondo Gesuitico (hereafter FG), Section 1403, number 2. For later development consult AGN, Jesuitas, Section I, number 9.

⁶¹ Statement of the condition of the Colegio Máximo, July 1649, FG, Section 1467, number 7.

⁶² Zambrano, V, 399.

⁶³ For income in 1653 sec Astráin, V, 322.

⁶⁴ Decorme, I,425.

⁶⁵ Audit of the Colegio Máximo, 1679, AHH, Legajo 285, exp. 33.

⁶⁶ Statement of the condition of the Colegio Máximo, 1723–1739, AHH, Legajo 286, exp. 44.

⁶⁷ Ibid., see also the exchange of letters between the provincial and Father Donazar, AHH, Legajo 286, exp. 45.

⁶⁸ Ibid.

⁶⁹ Macera, pp. 14–15.

⁷⁰ Statement of the condition of the Colegio Máximo, 1723–1739, AHH, Legajo 286, exp. 44.

⁷¹ Documents pertaining to the sale of the hacienda of San Bernardo to the college of Valladolid, AGN, Jcsuitas, Section III, number 12; Audit of the business office of the province, 1757, AGN, Jesuitas, Section II, number 36.

⁷² The figures were amended to make some allowance for colleges whose rental properties were not included on Chart E. It was arbitrarily decided that since most of these institutions were small, a figure one-half the average value of the properties of the eighteen listed would be added for the omitted colleges. The total sum added was 169,676 pesos giving a total value of 639,549 pesos to this type of investment.

⁷³ Housing leases provided approximately 1,800 pesos of an average income of 3,500 pesos for the college of Guanajuato (see audits, 1756). Similarly, considering the yield of notes held by Veracruz and Pátzcuaro as shown on chart c in relation to average annual income, we find that these instruments contributed 55 percent and 68 percent of gross revenue respectively. It does not appear that the total amount of investment in rental properties and notes fluctuated greatly during the eighteenth century. The holdings of individual institutions did vary but the changes canceled each other out.

⁷⁴ List of the haciendas belonging to the Jesuits in the Archbishopric of Mexico and the bishoprics of Puebla and Michoacan, 1764, AHH, Legajo 307, exp. 14.

⁷⁵ Macera, pp. 12–13.

⁷⁶ Encina, V, 268.

⁷⁷ Ibid., Macera, p. 37.

⁷⁸ Brading, p. 215; James Lockhart, “Encomienda and Hacienda: The Evolution of the Great Estate in the Spanish Indies,” HAHR, XLIX(1969), 425.

⁷⁹ Documents pertaining to the audit of the college of Querétaro, 1739, AGN, Jesuitas, Section I, number 35.

⁸⁰ For an inventory of Espíritu Santo’s operation, see AGN, Colegios, Legajo 20, exp. 1. Little is known about the Colegio Máximo’s workshop. Only some data on its sales has been uncovered. See letters between the college business managers and the administrator of the hacienda of Santa Lucia, AHH, Legajo 288, exp. 1, and Legajo 312, exp. 13.

⁸¹ For analysis of the reputation of the obrajes and crown attempts to control their excesses see Richard E. Greenleaf, “Viceregal Power and the Obrajes of the Cortes Estate, 1595–1708,” HAHR, XLVIII(August, 1968), 365–380, and “The Obraje in the Late Mexican Colony,” The Americas, XXIII(January 1967), 227 250.

⁸² Statement of the condition of the college of Querétaro, 1763, AGN, Jesuitas, Section I, number 35.

⁸³ For the purchase price see AHH, Legajo 286, exp. 44; For the 1775 evaluations see AGN, Tierras, Tomo 1557.

⁸⁴ For the total price paid for Santa Lucia see Riley, unpublished dissertation, p. 74; For the sales price see documents pertaining to the transfer of the estates to the Conde de Regla, AGN, Tierras, Tomos 1557 & 1558.

⁸⁵ Analysis of profits from the haciendas of the colleges under the jurisdiction of the Contaduría General de Temporalidades, 1767–1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, and a letter from the Junta Municipal of the college of Tepozotlán to Viceroy Bucareli, February 25, 1774, AHH, Legajo 547, exp. 26.

⁸⁶ One reecnt dissertation has been completed on this subject. Consult Harold Bradley Benedict, “The Distribution of the Expropriated Jesuit Properties in Mexico with Special Reference to Chihuahua(1767-1790),” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington, 1970. The author presents considerable evidence that the government managers exploited the haciendas in Chihuahua in a very uneconomic fashion.

⁸⁷ AGN, Tierras, 1558.

⁸⁸ Ibid.

⁸⁹ The lower figure is arrived at by using principally the figure for sales prices and filling gaps by adding the valuations and other figures. The higher figure is arrived at by using principally the valuations.

⁹⁰ The figures given on charts E and F must be adjusted to take account of the assets of institutions not included on the list. The procedure used for chart e is explained in footnote 72. The same process applied to chart f increases the value of congregation assets to 960,670 pesos. The figures on chart c must be amended also because of the ambivalent nature of restricted endowment. The Jesuits considered these sums debts because they required outlays of cash, but they must also be regarded as assets because they produced revenue for the college treasuries to meet the obligations. In effect, the obligation and income canceled each other out so that the value of the Dotaciones Consumidas and Obras Pías must be subtracted from college debts in order to reach a true figure for net assets.

⁹¹ Macera, Chart between pp. 8–9.

⁹² Colmenares, pp. 18 22.

⁹³ AGN, Tierras, Tomo 1558.

⁹⁴ Audit of the college of Espíritu Santo, 1690, AHH, Legajo 285, exp. 58.

⁹⁵ Statement of the income and expenses of the business office of the province, 1743–1748, AHH, Legajo 285, exp. 50; Monthly expenses of the Colegio Máximo, 1704–1709, AHH, Legajo 106, exp. 6; Statement of hacienda expenses of the Colegio Máximo, 1707–1710, AHH, Legajo 106, exp. 10; For estimate for 1750’s, see Riley, unpublished dissertation, pp. 325–30.

⁹⁶ The total computation is arranged in the following fashion.

⁹⁷ One subject which needs further investigation is how the Jesuits spent their money. The traditional belief has been that the Jesuits were much more sternly moral than other Orders and so diverted very little of their revenue to their own comfort, but I examined no documents on college expenditures and so much accept the common belief on faith. I did come across one incident which suggests its validity, however. In 1717, the administrator of the hacienda of Santa Lucia wrote his business manager requesting a good bed, some silk tablecloths and comfortable furnishings for his house since the hacienda would be entertaining the Bishop of Campeche and the accomodations were too spartan to suitably receive His Eminence. The administrator made it clear that he would return all of the items as soon as the bishop left(Father Bartolomé González to Brother Juan Nicolás, April 2, 1717, AHH, Legajo 862, exp. 1).

⁹⁸ Magnus Mörner, “The Spanish American Hacienda: A Survey of Recent Research and Debate,” HAHR, LIII(May, 1973), 193, provides a summary of the literature.

⁹⁹ Lockhart, p. 425; Brading, p. 215.

¹⁰⁰ Encina, V, 271.