¹ I would like to reserve for another occasion consideration of the just war controversy in the Philippines.

² Martín de Rada, O. S. A., to Alonso de Vera Cruz, O. S. A., July 16, 1577. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Fonds Españols 325, Folios 42–44. Rada’s comments were not confined to a few isolated tribes like the notoriously ferocious Zambales. He was in fact generalizing about the whole area of the central and northern Philippines that he knew since his arrival in Cebu as a member of the Legazpi-Urdaneta expedition. Rada died in 1578. Rada was the first Augustinian to discuss abstractly the question of Spain’s just titles to the Philippines. The other letters of Rada and the correspondence of Diego Herrera and Francisco de Ortega mention juridical issues only in passing. For them the war-like methods of the Spanish soldiers and harsh exploitation of native labor were the topics of most immediate concern.

³ Vitoria himself expressed grave doubts about the applicability of such a title to the conquest of the Indies, although he did not categorically exclude it. He suggested* that any one of seven principles might provide Charles V with a clear and just title to exercising political jurisdiction in the Indies: 1) the right to travel and to trade anywhere in the world without harming the natives, 2) the right of Christians to preach the Gospel in pagan lands, 3) intimidation on the part of pagan rulers to compel native Christians to return to idolatry, 4) the right of the Pope to depose a native ruler most of whose subjects are converts and to give them a Christian prince, 5) the personal despotism of native rulers or the prevalence of tyrannical laws, 6) free and voluntary election of the Spanish monarch by the Indians themselves, 7) native states requesting the military assistance of the Spaniards such as the case of Tlaxcala. See the text of Vitoria’s “De Indis noviter inventis” in Scott, James Brown, The Spanish Origin of International Law: Francisco de Vitoria and His Law of Nations (Oxford, 1934), pp. xxxv-xlvi.Google Scholar

⁴ The Acts of the Junta can be found in Morales, Valentín Marín y O. P., Ensayo de una síntesis de los trabajos realizados por las corporaciones religiosas españolas de Filipinas (2 vols.; Manila, 1901), I, chs. xi-xv.Google Scholar For a convincing argument about the authenticity of this document, which had been challenged by Lorenzo Pérez see Aragón, Jesús Gayo O. P., Ideas jurídico-teológicas de los religiosos de Filipinas en el siglo XVI sobre la conquista de las islas (Manila, 1950), pp. 59–60.Google Scholar There were actually four ecclesiastical juntas held between 1581 and 1586: 1) 1581 at Tondo regarding the abolition of slavery; 2) 1582 which is now being discussed; 3) 1583 regarding the possibility of sending missionaries to China; 4) 1586 at Manila where instructions were drawn up for Alonso Sánchez’ mission to Spain and Rome.

⁵ “Rasonamiento que el p. Alonso Sanchez de la Compañía de I. H. S. hizo en una real iunta sobre el derecho conque s. m. esta y procede en las Filipinas” in Pastells, Pablo ’ edition of Colín, Francisco S. J., Labor evangélica (3 vols.; Barcelona, 1900–1902), I, 377–386 Google Scholar. Sánchez had been entrusted by the Junta of 1582 to write the acts. Astrain, Antonio S. J., Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la asistencia de España (7 vols.; Madrid, 1912–1925), IV, 449–451. The Junta was held before March of 1582. On March 14, 1582, Sánchez departed for the Portuguese colony of Macao on a diplomatic mission for the governor of the Philippines in order to secure Macao’s recognition of Philip II’s ascension to the Portuguese throne and to explore the possibilities of direct trade between the Philippines and China. Sánchez’ mundane political activities were frowned upon by some of his superiors in Rome as unbecoming his religious profession.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Domingo de Salazar, O. P., “Tratado en que se determina lo que se ha de tener acerca de llevar los tributos a los infieles de las islas filipinas” in Hanke, Lewis and Carlo, Agustín Millares, editors, Cuerpo de documentos del siglo xvi sobre los derechos de España en las Indias y Filipinas (México, 1943), pp. 117–185 Google Scholar. For Hanke’s introductory essay in which he stresses the just war controversy see ibid., pp. xxxv-i. Also see Costa, Horacio de la S. J., “Church and State in the Philippines during the Administration of Bishop Salazar” in the Hispanic American Historical Review, XXX, No. 3 (August, 1950), pp. 314–336, and Aragón, Gayo, op. cit., pp. 164–172.Google Scholar

⁸ Salazar’s concept of supernatural sovereignty had some Philippine antecedents. A memorandum submitted by the Jesuit prelates to Governor Dasmariñas during the tribute controversy (Jan., 1591) has the germ of many ideas similar to Salazar’s comments. The Jesuit memorandum briefly suggested in a paragraph that the Spanish monarch was not a “natural” sovereign in the Indies as he was in Spain. Alexander VI had transferred to the Castilian monarchy a part of his “supernatural” sovereignty in the New World. The Castilian king’s authority in the Indies was “emperor-like” in that the rights of the native rulers must be respected unless they obstructed the preaching of the Gospel. It is probable that these suggestions may have germinated in Salazar’s mind between 1591 and 1593 to form the point of departure for his much more systematic formulation. The Jesuit memorandum is published in Colin-Pastells, op. cit., pp. 593–598. Father Pastells suggested Alonso Sánchez as the probable author. As Father Gayo has pointed out, such a hypothesis is highly unlikely. Sánchez had been out of the Philippines since 1586 and the memorandum had been written in 1591 at the request of the governor. Gayo Aragón, op. cit., p. 142.

⁹ Miguel de Benavides, O. P., “Ynstrucción para el govierno de las Filipinas y de como los an de regir y governar aquella gente” in Hanke, op. cit., pp. 211, 212, 225.

¹⁰ Vitoria, op. cit., pp. xvi-xxxiv. Vitoria’s position on this point coincides with Thomas Aquinas’. In repudiating the claim that the Pope was the temporal lord of the whole world (dominus mundi), Vitoria was merely rejecting some of the extreme pretensions of papal power formulated by some canon lawyers during the second half of the thirteenth century. For a discussion of this school of canonical thought see , R. W. and Carlyle, A. J., A History of Political Thought in the West (6 vols.; Edinburgh and London, 1903–1936), V, 318–373. Alonso Sánchez and Lie. Melchor de Avalos belonged to that shrinking minority who held to Hostiensis’ doctrine discredited by Vitoria. The treatise in which Sánchez developed his viewpoint has disappeared, Colin, op. cit., I, 474. Melchor de Avalos on the other hand was a lunatic fringe publicist who believed that the opponents of Hostiensis’ theory ought to be handed over to the Inquisition as heretics. Melchior de Avalos, “Dos cartas al rey contra los moros de Filipinas” in Hanke, op. cit., p. 98.Google Scholar

¹¹ Casas, Bartolomé de las, Tratado cõprobatorio del imperio soberano y principado universal que los reyes de Castilla y León tienen sobre las Indias (Seville, 1552)Google Scholar. Las Casas briefly commented on this idea again in the history of the Indies. Casas, Las, Historia de las Indias (5 vols.; Madrid, 1875), I, 28–29.Google Scholar

¹² For the rex est imperator theory see Onory, Sergio Mochi, Fonti canonistiche dell’ idea moderna dello stato (Milan, 1951), pp. 79 ff.Google Scholar For the role of this principle in Spain see Post, Gaines, “Blessed Lady Spain–Vicentius Hispanus and Spanish National Imperialism in the Thirteenth Century,” in Speculum, XXIX, No. 2 (April, 1954), pp. 198–209 and his other article “Two Notes on Nationalism in the Middle Ages,” in Traditio, IX (1953), especially pp. 296ff. Not to be overlooked is the indigenous imperialist tradition of medieval Spain in which the Spanish kingdoms were sometimes regarded as empires separate from the Holy Roman Empire. Alfonso VII of Castile and Leon styled himself as emperor of the Spains and Pope Innocent II allowed him to call himself king of kings. As Mr. Post has pointed out, this brand of Spanish medieval imperialism was probably an out-growth of a variety of factors such as the memory of Visigothic unity, a reaction against the claims of the Holy Roman Empire as well as a reflection of the victories won in the wars of the Reconquista.Google Scholar

¹³ Vicente Palatino de Curzola, O. P., “Tratado del derecho y justicia de la guerra que tienen los reyes de España contra las naciones de la India occidental” in Hanke, op. cit., pp. 11–39. No more grotesque was Oviedo’s claim that the Indies were once under the authority of the Visigothic monarchy in Spain. Thus the Castilian kings were merely “recuperating” lands that once had been Spanish. Oviedo’s learning may have been a trifle bizarre, but his intent was not obscure. It was to bypass the Alexandrian bulls which in another place he dismissed in one sentence as an injunction to preach the Gospel to the Indians. Gonzalo Fernández Oviedo y Valdés, Historia general y natural de las Indias, Bk. I, ch. III and VIII.

¹⁴ Acosta, José de S. J., De promulgatione evangelii apud barbaros (Salamanca, 1589), p. 284.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Benavides cites Báñez on this point. Benavides, however, takes sharp issue with Báñez’s claim that the political jurisdictions of the native princes were totally superseded by the papal grant of imperial sovereignty to the Castilian monarchs. Benavides, op. cit., p. 212; Gayo Aragón, op. cit., p. 179.

¹⁶ Colín-Pastells, op. cit., pp. 593–594. Also see Note 8. Perhaps the earliest critic of Las Casas’ “empire of the Indies” was an anonymous ecclesiastic who ridiculed the whole idea in a letter he wrote two years after the publication of Las Casas’ treatise. He wrote, “Si según la sentencia de los que esto [the king of Castile is emperor of the Indies] dicen, no es lícito enseñorearse dellos antes que sean cristianos lporque después que lo son?” “Parecer razonado de un teólogo desconocido sobre el título del rey de España sobre las personas y tierras de Indios” in Documentos inéditos del siglo XVI para la historia de México, Mariano Cuevas, S. J., and Genaro García, editors (México, 1914), p. 178.

¹⁷ The Venetian ambassador at the Spanish Court mentioned in his dispatches that in 1562, 1563, 1564, and again in 1583 the rumor was that Philip II was about to assume the title emperor of the Indies and the New World. Braudel, Fernand, La mediterranee et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II (Paris, 1949), p. 522.Google Scholar Philip may have been anxious to restore to the Castilian crown the prestige of the imperial dignity which had recently passed upon his father’s death to the Austrian Habsburgs in Vienna.

¹⁸ Pereira, Juan de Solorzano, Política Indiana (2 vols.; Madrid, 1647), I, Bk. I, ch. ix-xii.Google Scholar

¹⁹ An area was considered pacified when it was moderately safe for the Spaniards to reside there and when the inhabitants were favorably disposed to receive religious instruction if priests were available. Natives were regarded as having adequate religious instruction if they were under the care of a priest whose parishioners numbered not more than 2000 souls.

²⁰ There is no Philippine equivalent for Simpson’s study of the encomienda in Mexico. Simpson, Lesley Byrd, The Encomienda in New Spain (Berkeley, 1950).Google Scholar

²¹ Martin de Rada, Diego de Herrera, and Francisco de Ortega were the principal spokesmen of the Augustinians in this period. For their letters see Blair, and Robertson, , op. cit., Ill, 69–72, 253–259; XXXIV, 223–228, 229–234, 256–272, 273–285, 286–294Google Scholar. Rada to Alonso de Vera Cruz, he. cit. Also see “Avisos de Fr. Martín de Errada sobre las confessiones de los encomenderos” cited in Gayo Aragón, op. cit., pp. 37–38. For a protest against the friars’ use of their sacramental powers see letter of treasury officers to Philip II, July 17, 1574, in Blair, and Robertson, , op. cit., XXXIV, 301.Google Scholar

²² Costa, Horacio de la, op. cit., pp. 314–317, 324.Google Scholar For Bishop Salazar’s account of the economic crisis see his letters of 1583 in Blair and Robertson, op. cit., V, 210–255. Between 1583 and 1609 the lot of the natives may not have been enviable but it was tolerable. After 1609 pressure on the natives intensified again, but this time it was not the fault of the encomenderos. The encomienda of this date had become “tamed” as in Mexico into a kind of pension service. The Dutch wars were responsible for the new burdens placed on native labor after 1609.

²³ Morales, Marín y, op. cit., pp. 273–337.Google Scholar

²⁴ The material relating to the Sánchez mission can be found in Blair, and Robertson, , op. cit., VI, 157–233 Google Scholar; Ventura del Arco transcripts in the Newberry Library, I, 1–101; Colin, I, op. cit., 415–438. Philip IFs Instructions to Governor Dasmariñas, August 9, 1589 in Blair, and Robertson, , op. cit., VII, 141–172.Google Scholar

²⁵ Colín, , op. cit., pp. 447–451.Google Scholar

²⁶ Blair, and Robertson, , op. cit., VII, 159.Google Scholar

²⁷ Salazar’s position was defined in the “Twenty-five Conclusions,” Jan. 18, 1591, in ibid., pp. 276–288.

²⁸ Aragón, Gayo, op. cit., pp. 49–56.Google Scholar

²⁹ Salazar and Benavides were particularly angry with Acosta’s implication that the infidel subjects of Castile in the Indies could be taxed. Acosta remarked that the Spaniards could hardly tax the natives for religious instruction. The faith should be given to the natives gratis. Acosta, , op. cit., Bk. Ill, chs. 6–10 Google Scholar; Salazar, , op. cit., pp. 158–159 Google Scholar; Benavides, , op. cit., 216–263 Google Scholar. Another source of bitterness between the Dominicans and the Jesuits was the belief of the Dominicans, who arrived in Manila in April, 1587, that Alonso Sánchez had urged the viceroy of New Spain not to license the Dominican mission’s departure. Sánchez did give such advice based upon his interpretation of one section of his instructions which said “that there is a great need of religious and that no new religious Order come.” Blair, and Robertson, , op. cit., VI, 161 Google Scholar. For a Dominican criticism of Sanchez’s conduct see Aduarte, Diego O. P., Historia de la provincia del santo Rosario de Filipinas, lapón, y China de la sagrada orden de predicadores (3 vols.; Zaragoza, 1693), I, 7, 17 Google Scholar. Colín makes a spirited and convincing defense of Sánchez’ role, admitting that he did advise against the dispatch of the Dominican mission. The Dominicans were determined to use the Philippines merely as a base of operations for China. Sánchez knew from two recent trips to the China coast that the doors of the celestial empire were then firmly closed to Christian missionaries. Colin, , op. cit., I, 363–367 Google Scholar. Bishop Salazar had been particularly anxious that his own Dominicans establish themselves in the Philippines. Sánchez’ activity in Mexico eventually embittered Salazar against Sánchez and his program of conciliation.

³⁰ Petition to the Governor by the City and the Encomenderos, Feb. 15, 1591, in Blair, and Robertson, , op. cit., VII, 301–304. Governor’s reply to the Bishop’s letter of Jan. 21, 1591, in ibid., pp. 29, 295–300.Google Scholar

³¹ For the governor’s argument see ibid., p. 295. For Salazar’s reply, ibid., p. 308.

³² “Order Issued by the Governor for the Collection of Tributes,” ibid., VIII, 27–32. This fund was often used during the Dutch wars (1600–1648) to finance military operations; Governor Juan de Silva to Philip III: Cavite, July 16, 1610, Archivo General de Indias, Audiencia de Filipinas, 20.

³³ The Governor requested the opinion of all the Orders about the Bishop’s “Twenty-Five Conclusions.” Summaries of these opinions are in ibid., VII, 312–318. For the unabridged text in Spanish see the Transcripts of Philippine MS in the Newberry Library, V. These transcripts provided the Spanish text for the Blair and Robertson translations and abridgements.

³⁴ Instructions for Governor Francisco Tello, Toledo, May 25, 1596, in Blair, and Robertson, , op. cit., IX, 228–229.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid.

³⁶ Ibid., VIII, 33.

³⁷ Benavides, , op. cit., pp. 250–260 Google Scholar; Aragón, Gayo, op. cit., pp. 235–240.Google Scholar

³⁸ Governor Tello to the King: July 12, 1599, in Blair, and Robertson, , op. cit., X, 253–255.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid., pp. 277–288.

⁴⁰ Archivo General de Indias, Audiencia de Filipinas, 76.