Reshaping New Spain: Government And Private Interests in the Colonial Bureaucracy, 1535-1550

Ruiz Medrano ETHELIA RUIZ MEDRANO is a professor of history at Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. ...

Author: Ethelia Ruiz Medrano | Ethelia Ruiz Medrano

102 downloads 1299 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Ruiz Medrano

ETHELIA RUIZ MEDRANO is a professor of history at Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

E t h e l i a

R u i z

M e d r a n o

translated by Julia Constantino and Pauline Marmasse

“[C]learly written and well-argued . . . a further development in the study of institutional-social relationships that is so much needed in Latin American history.” —Hispanic American Historical Review

Originally published in Mexico as Gobierno y Sociedad en Nueva Espana, Ethelia Ruiz Medrano’s seminal study Reshaping New Spain is now available in an updated English edition. Drawing on extensive archival research, Ruiz examines the developing colonial institutions in Mexico and how they changed indigenous land ownership and labor laws to favor the new bureaucrats. This portrait of the emerging government in New Spain fills a critical niche in Latin American studies.

“A very useful analysis of the second and third decades of Spanish domination in Mexico, a time when the pen of the nobleman and lawyer was showing its might over the sword of the conqueror.” —The Americas

Government and Private Interests in the Colonial Bureaucracy, 1531–1550

R

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF COLORADO

E

S

H

A

P

I

N

5589 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 206C Boulder, Colorado 80303 For a complete listing of UPC titles, please call 800-627-7377. www.upcolorado.com

Cover illustration: Códice Techialoyan García Grandados, authorized reproduction by the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México


G

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

R

E

S

H

A

P

I

N

G


E t h e l i a

R u i z

M e d r a n o

translated by Julia Constantino and Pauline Marmasse

U n i v e r s i t y

P r e s s

o f

C o l o r a d o

© 2006 by the University Press of Colorado Published by the University Press of Colorado 5589 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 206C Boulder, Colorado 80303 All rights reserved Printed in Canada The University Press of Colorado is a proud member of the Association of American University Presses. The University Press of Colorado is a cooperative publishing enterprise supported, in part, by Adams State College, Colorado State University, Fort Lewis College, Mesa State College, Metropolitan State College of Denver, University of Colorado, University of Northern Colorado, and Western State College of Colorado. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48-1992 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ruiz Medrano, Ethelia. [Gobierno y sociedad en Nueva España. English] Reshaping New Spain : government and private interests in the colonial bureaucracy, 1531–1550 / Ethelia Ruiz Medrano ; translated by Julia Constantino and Pauline Marmasse. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 0-87081-814-7 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Mendoza, Antonio de, 1492?–1552. 2. Tejada, Lorenzo de. 3. Mexico—Politics and government. 4. Mexico—History—Conquest, 1519–1540. 5. Land tenure—Mexico— History—16th century. 6. Mexico—Commercial policy—History—16th century. 7. Indians of Mexico—History—16th century. I. Title. JL1231.R8613 2006 972'.02—dc22 2005025514 Design by Daniel Pratt 15

14

13

12

11

10

09

08

07

06

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

CONTENTS

List of Tables and Maps / vii Acknowledgments / ix Introduction / 1

1. The First Attempts at Royal Control Over the Territory: Policy of the Second Audiencia, 1531–1535 / 13 The Second Audiencia and Indian Jurisdiction / 15 Justice Administration in Indian Affairs: The Centralization Process / 19 Policy of the Second Audiencia: Encomienda / 32 Policy of the Second Audiencia: Corregimiento / 42 The Second Audiencia’s Policy on Tribute / 51 Policy of the Second Audiencia on Indian Labor / 56 Notes / 60

2. Reshaping New Spain: The Policy of Viceroy Mendoza, 1535–1550 / 75 Viceroy Mendoza’s Political Project: Encomienda / 76 Viceroy Mendoza’s Policy: Corregimiento / 95 The Viceroy’s Economic Activities / 116 Notes / 135

—v—

CONTENTS

3. A Royal Official as Entrepreneur: The Case of Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada / 151 Twisting the Law: Appropriation of Indian Lands / 153 Agricultural Ventures: Characteristics / 193 Oidor Tejada’s Trading Ventures / 201 Indian Labor Used by Tejada in His Enterprises / 216 Notes / 235

Conclusions / 257 Comments on the Source Material / 261 Appendix / 265 Glossary / 299 Bibliography / 305 Index / 311

vi —

TABLES AND MAPS

TABLES Table 1.1. List of Corregimiento Towns and Tributes Prior to October 18, 1533 / 48 Table 2.1. Encomienda Grants and Swaps Made by Viceroy Mendoza That Are Mentioned in the 1544 Hearing / 80 Table 2.2. Corregimientos in New Spain, 1536–1546 / 97 Table 2.3. Viceroy Mendoza’s Appointment of Encomenderos as Corregidores to 1546 / 99 Table 3.1. Rural Lands Acquired by Oidor Tejada / 159 Table 3.1a. Royal Grants to Oidor Tejada: Azcapotzalco and ChapultepecXimilpan / 161 Table 3.1b. Royal Grants to Oidor Tejada: Chalco / 162 Table 3.1c. Rural Lands Bought by Oidor Tejada in Ximilpan / 166 Table 3.1d. Rural Lands Acquired by Oidor Tejada Through Swaps / 168 Table 3.2. Oidor Tejada’s Land Appropriations in the Valley of Mexico / 174

— vii —

— vii

TABLES AND MAPS

Table 3.3. Indian Labor for Oidor Tejada According to Notarial Acts He Presented / 202 Table 3.4. Material Indian Towns Contributed to Oidor Tejada’s Building Works According to Notarial Acts / 207 Table 3.5. Mexico City Lands Acquired or Possessed by Oidor Tejada / 217 Table 3.6. Indian Towns’ Work for Oidor Tejada According to Indian Testimonies / 225 Table 3.7. Materials Indian Towns Delivered to Oidor Tejada According to Native Testimonies / 228

MAPS Map 1. Towns Whose Corregidor Was Also an Encomendero (1536– 1546) / 113 Map 2. Locations of the Corregidores’ Encomiendas (1536–1546) / 115 Map 3. Locations of the Officials’ Estates / 125 Map 4. Lands Acquired by Oidor Tejada / 157

viii —

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the Colegio de Michoacán for having published the Spanish version of this book in 1991. For that, I am in debt to Professor Andrés Lira González, principal of that important institution at the time and current principal of El Colegio de México. I am also in debt to Professor Carlos Herrejón Peredo, current principal of El Colegio de Michoacán. Likewise, I am grateful to Professor Antonio Acosta of the History of America Department, School of Geography and History at the University of Sevilla, who with Job-like patience guided the writing of this book as a doctoral dissertation at that institution. I also thank my tutor, Professor María Justina Sarabia Viejo, also of the History of America Department, who led me through the labyrinthine complexities of colonial history. It would be unfair to forget to mention the kind and skillful staff at the General Archives of the Indies, particularly Isabel Ceballos, Pilar Lazaro, María Antonia Colomar, and my generous paleography teacher, María Belén García. I also want to thank the staff at the Hispanoamerican Studies School Library, especially Alfonso Alvarez. For me, Sevilla evenings mean coffee and friendly conversation, and many colleagues—students back then—enthusiastically took part in those cheerful peñas. I particularly remember the conversation, support, and measureless

— ix —

— ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

friendship of my colleagues José Francisco Román from the University of Zacatecas, Raymundo González from the University of Santo Domingo, Tibisay Mañá from the University of Barcelona, Juan Carlos Estenssoro from the Catholic University of Lima, and Belén Alcaide. I also recall with fondness the encouragement and pointed advice of these generous professors: John Murra from Cornell University, Peter Bakewell from Emory University, and Carlos Sempat Assadourian from El Colegio de México. I am especially grateful to Pauline Marmasse Jinks for her immense skill, patience, and friendship as the translator of this book from its original Spanish version into English. Likewise, I thank Professor Julia Constantino Reyes from UNAM, who carefully revised the style and deftly translated the book’s copious notes and tables. I owe a great debt to Darrin Pratt, chief editor at the University Press of Colorado, who always displayed interest and a professional attitude, thus helping the English version of this book reach publication. I also thank the anonymous readers of the work. Their suggestions were taken into account whenever I could do so without distorting the essence of something I wrote more than ten years ago. I thank my home institution, Dirección de Estudios Históricos del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia [Historical Studies Department at the National Institute of Anthropology and History of Mexico] for its support. I am also grateful for a grant I received from the Social Sciences Research Projects Fund, awarded by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de México. Last but not least, I thank lovely little Aurora Olivier Ruiz and her father, Professor Guilhem Olivier, for our long hours of happy and enjoyable conversation.

x—

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

— xi

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

On August 18, 1554, a crowd of Indians from Tlatelolco, Tacuba, Tlalmanalco, and Chalco was waiting to be received by Oidor (Judge) López de Montealegre at the entrance to the Audiencia (court or governing body) Real Hall in Mexico City. The Indians were carrying, with some difficulty, several paintings, or pinturas (the colonial name for Indian codices), that portrayed many issues such as land boundaries, Indian labor, tribute accounts, and details of physical abuse. The powerful Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada—who had been a judge in the Audiencia from 1537 to 1550—was involved in all of them. In one set of codices taken to the government buildings by noble authorities and members of the Tacuba cabildo (municipal council, both in Indian towns and Spanish cities), Oidor Montealegre was shown that in a single day nearly 24,000 Indians had been forced to plant 12,000 vine shoots in Oidor Tejada’s beautiful garden. They had been paid only 40 pesos for this work. As time went by, a number of Indians from throughout the Valley of Mexico showed Oidor Montealegre the codices. The Indians explained in Nahuatl what the codices meant, using an Audiencia interpreter who translated their statements into Spanish. Simultaneously, a scribe wrote down every statement made by the Indian witnesses and ratified the codices’ contents.

—1—

—1

INTRODUCTION

The episode became part of the residencia (court) hearing on licenciado (lawyer) Lorenzo de Tejada in 1554 and 1556. Judge Montealegre followed those procedures with a proclamation that summoned all Indians and Spaniards who had any complaint against Oidor Tejada to present themselves in the Audiencia of México with documented proof to support their statements. In response, Indians from different towns in the Valley of Mexico came to the court with their codices.1 Beyond the outcome of this inquiry, Spanish colonial authorities created, manipulated, and applied complex legal mechanisms little by little to solve the many social and political conflicts and to allow more effective control over Indian lands and peoples recently added to the powerful Castilian Crown. The colonizing process of Spanish America involved not only the expansion and conquest of American lands by Castile starting in 1492 but also a political, administrative, and juridical design that allowed for conservation of the Crown and control over the inhabitants of those lands. Politically, Castile was a dynasty. Therefore, the West Indies, or Hispanic America, was established from the outset not as a personal patrimony but as a kingdom, with the same privileges and rights as the rest of the Castilian Crown’s dominions—at least in the legal domain. In 1493, Pope Alexander the Sixth issued a famous bull that assigned temporal dominion over the Americas, by divine right and through the Roman pontiff, to both Castile and Portugal. This allocation was made under the condition that the population of the new continent had to be converted to Christianity. This privilege allowed for dominion, but it also incorporated the Indians of New Spain as vassals of the Castilian Crown. The jurisdiction and rights of the Castilian monarchy over Hispanic America in part decided the territories’ forms of government throughout the sixteenth century. The search for ethical and political legitimacy triggered a trend of thought that looked for reasons to support the Crown’s rights over Hispanic America. It also contributed to the discussion of the juridical nature and rights of the native population. For these reasons the existence of a legal apparatus for the apparent protection of the Native American population greatly supported the Crown’s rights within its territories. Reality, however, also pointed to the need for dominion to be not only legitimate but also profitable. To support the American venture, Spaniards needed to be willing to conquer, dominate, and settle; and America and its people would have to provide the wealth that would enable Castile and its monarchy to build up a powerful state. To reach this goal, the Crown had to gain legal control over the territories, mainly through judges and royal officials who regulated the colonizing process.

2—

INTRODUCTION

From the beginning of the American colonization and conquest, the Castilian Crown developed several mechanisms for distant control of its colonies. This implied the need for a huge number of bureaucrats, educated mainly at the University of Salamanca, who were endowed with different levels of jurisdiction. The Crown also encouraged both settlers and natives to offer frequent reports about the local situation and problems.2 Thus copious amounts of information were sent to Castile from its faraway colonies, which produced a gigantic legal corpus that was frequently contradictory.3 From the time of the Catholic monarchs to the reign of Philip the Second, the clearest political tendency of the Castilian Crown was to centralize power. That explained the need for information about the general situation in the overseas territories.4 This seeming centralization was largely negotiated locally, however. Specifically, a clear political tendency was formed in New Spain during the first half of the sixteenth century—the Crown, through its higher officials, allowed substantial legislative adjustments to be made, regardless of their social cost, provided that the Crown’s jurisdiction was not undermined. When reformulations were made that favored groups in power, Indian society usually paid the price for these legislative changes. The power of the higher colonial officials was already guaranteed by Spain’s centralizing dynamics. The need to control territories that were formally considered kingdoms of Castile and that were far apart gave higher officials virtually unlimited powers. At the same time, there was also an attempt to make the rest of society obey the metropolitan jurisdictional representatives. This context implied that the Crown would oversee its American bureaucracy’s entrepreneurial activities. The colonial officials’ many and wideranging privileges implied a risk to the Crown’s interests, and a balance between local powers was gradually developed that consisted of providing a wide range of officials with equal levels of power or jurisdiction. The monarchy thus secured surveillance and control over its officials, who also had to watch over each other. The viceroy had to report to both the Crown and the consejo de Indias (the Royal and Supreme Council of the Indies) any irregularities in the oidores’ and other officials’ fulfillment of duties, and vice versa. Some scholars have defined this process as a balancing of powers.5 Thus the Crown and the consejo de Indias managed to control the colonies from afar, guaranteeing royal jurisdiction over the American colonies. Highlevel bureaucrats did enjoy wide powers, however, that linked them to powerful local groups. Many important legal adjustments were made to suit the interests of officials and groups that prevailed in colonial society, such as

—3

INTRODUCTION

encomenderos (holders of Indian grants), tradesmen, miners, ranchers, and minor officials.6 From 1532 to 1550 the viceroy and several oidores had to establish a fragile balance among their private interests, the colonists’ interests, and the monarchy’s interests. Regulation of the encomienda (grant) institution was extremely complex during that time. This practical and legal regulation enabled the colonial venture to be maintained, particularly as the native population was decreasing dramatically—mainly because the Indian world was constantly threatened by severe epidemics and the unlimited demands of tribute, conquerors, encomenderos, and European settlers. As early as 1512 some feeble attempts had been made to reconcile the different interests. For example, in the Antilles some juridical control over the encomenderos was attempted, mainly after Dominican friars complained about Indian depopulation. The resulting regulation, called Leyes de Burgos, clearly did not prevent the Antillean population from being terribly decimated, but it became an antecedent when the conquest of Mexico Tenochtitlan was completed in 1521. The Antillean experiment proved that conquest and dominion had to be controlled if the colonizing venture were to have any future. Therefore, regulation of the institution of encomienda by the consejo de Indias, the viceroy, and the oidores moved in different directions throughout the sixteenth century. The attitude toward the encomienda shifted according to the way the problems of New Spain were perceived. Those same shifts—which sometimes reflected decisions, corrections, doubts, or a lack of information— set wide limits to the scope of New Spain’s administration. This can be seen throughout the different stages the institution experienced. In this context it is interesting to ask about the social and economic roles of the official in colonial administration. Until a few years ago historiography approached this question through a formal study of the institutions of colonial government and produced a lengthy bibliography that enabled scholars to learn about the obligations and prerogatives of Spanish bureaucracy in America. The study throws light on the functioning of the government from the point of view of Spanish American law, especially the institutions of the viceroyalty and the Audiencia. The research tries to explain the origin and development of the Spanish state in the Indies.7 The subject of Spanish American authorities as a major part of the Crown’s political rule in the colonies has given rise to studies centered on the legislative controls applied by higher bureaucracy. In the different analyses of juridical control, what stands out is the Crown’s eagerness to establish a balance among regions of greater political and economic relevance within the empire. These

4—

INTRODUCTION

areas were so far apart, however, that the need arose to appoint authorities invested with a wide-ranging jurisdiction that ensured the effective centralization of the Indian government around the Spanish Crown. The magnitude of their power and the political faculties they enjoyed made it advisable to subject the officials to constant and meticulous investigations or exhaustive residencia hearings and sometimes to general visits, in addition to orienting and instructing them through orders and rulings. Many of these administrative aspects of juridical control have been dealt with by specialists on Spanish American law.8 Although it is somewhat scanty, there is a bibliography that reflects the concern to go deeper into the knowledge of colonial Latin American bureaucracy, no longer solely from the point of view of institutions but from the standpoint of the bureaucracy’s integration into colonial society. Many of these studies concluded, however, that although some high-ranking members of the Spanish bureaucracy in America acted according to their own interests and contrary to the directives of the Crown, they were thought to be isolated cases.9 In any event, the social and economic integration of these officials into the colonial world appeared to be individual and anomalous, part and parcel of an atmosphere of administrative deviations and not connected to a network of relations the powerful, rich men of the colony and governing officials had established. A welcome exception to this point of view is the work of José Francisco de la Peña, who investigated some members of the Audiencia of Mexico during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Peña analyzed the economic and social relations of the oidores who found ways to link their entrepreneurial activities to the economic boom in New Spain at the time.10 The well-known work of Mark A. Burkholder and Dewitt Samuel Chandler also studied the social relations of members of the Audiencia in Spanish America over a considerable period of time—from 1689 to 1808—based on the personal and bureaucratic backgrounds of nearly 700 oidores. Their work also depicts the large number of Creoles who took part in colonial government and the attitude of the Spanish Crown toward them.11 Therefore, some specialists have emphasized how important and relevant it is to conduct a social and economic study of the members of the Audiencia if we wish to expound a more stimulating and comprehensive theory on the character and performance of Spanish officials. No bibliography exists, however, that explores the relationship of the first local authorities to the formation of the colonial system of New Spain. This book is the result of research and reflection in that direction. I was interested above all in exploring the ties between some members of the higher

—5

INTRODUCTION

bureaucracy of New Spain and the colonial process that was just beginning. Another aim was to bring to the fore the actions of certain officials who knew how to use their position in the higher ranks of the administrative structure to excel in different branches of the colonial economy. One of the main reasons I chose to do research on this early period of Mexican history was that there are practically no studies of those years. Further, the administrations of the Second Audiencia and, later, of Antonio de Mendoza were the beginning of secular Spanish control over colonial Mexico. The brief period in which I observed these dynamics covers the years 1530– 1550. The limited time span enabled me to focus on some of the reasons historians have considered the administrative policy, in its beginnings, as hesitant and not at all defined. Generally speaking, two elements came together here: first, the interests of the Crown, specifically seeing that the Royal Treasury benefited from the colony;12 and second, the contradiction between the expectation that the colonial system would last and the possibility that it might quickly become exhausted. Therefore, the initial question focused on the internal process of the colony, through which the authorities sought to adapt the interests of the Crown to the concrete reality so as to obtain considerable benefit from its territories while preventing the extermination of the Indian population. That is, the focus was on ways the governing authorities reconciled the two interests and whether the situation was sustainable and could be put into practice, in spite of the contradictions arising therefrom. Likewise, the period chosen for my work makes it possible to compare the political directions that fostered the development of events both during the Second Audiencia (Chapter 1) and the time of Viceroy Mendoza (Chapter 2). Hence, another question arises: Was there was any continuity in the paths followed by the the Crown and the governing authorities to resolve or attenuate the contradiction over the expected fate of the colonial system, or, if not, could the points of divergence between the two administrations be calibrated? Some sectors of society were also involved in the contradiction. The encomenderos and the jurists of the court, following the ideas of Christian humanism, were in favor of a rational colonial system, sanctioned by the New Laws of 1542. That gave rise to a series of questions on the way the encomendero group tried to lessen the negative effects the Crown’s policy on the organization of the colonial system signified for their interests, primarily with regard to the payment of tribute and to forced labor.13 Important to my work was the documentation of Tello de Sandoval’s visit to New Spain in 1544. This enabled me to take a closer look at the social and

6—

INTRODUCTION

economic ties both Viceroy Mendoza and the rest of the members of the Audiencia established with local groups. This visit, which is documented in nineteen files in the Justicia section of the General Archives of the Indies, has been studied by only two historians, whose books were published in the late 1920s.14 Because of the nature of the documentation, the numerous testimonies and evidence for the prosecution and the defense made it possible to define the economic and social relations between the viceroy and other members of the Audiencia and prominent local groups. The phenomena I was able to document confirmed my initial assumption that the higher-ranking authorities manipulated the Crown’s laws and adapted them to the daily reality, which only they could know and regulate. In the same sense, the documentation about members of the Audiencia contained in the residencia hearings was especially useful. Although they contain a great deal of information that either supports or criticizes the actions of officials in Mexico, these hearings have barely been taken into account when scholars have studied officials during that period. Both of these sources have been neglected by contemporary historiography. Since they have to do with the activities of Crown officials, they deserve greater attention and are worthwhile not only from an institutional perspective but especially from a social standpoint. Likewise, I have used the letters from the Audiencia and those from the viceroy. There are very few of them, but they show the official side of the problem I wish to approach. The letters also allow scholars to evaluate the observations of the officials themselves regarding the times they were living in. Equally useful were the letters from private individuals to the Crown (also in the Audiencia de México section) because some of them contain accusations against officials for both political and private actions. A challenge was how to differentiate the various types of testimonies and their motives and to try to find the source of the problem from which they arose. That is, did an accusation stem from personal problems or grudges? Therefore, I attempted to identify the greatest possible number of witnesses cited in the visit and residencia hearings, thereby locating private individuals with ties to the members of the bureaucracy. The papers of the prosecution and the defense also offered a wealth of material, particularly for the example analyzed in greater detail: that of Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada (Chapter 3). In this case, the information obtained in the papers for the defense, such as notarial documents presented by the oidor as proof of payment to different Indian towns and others regarding operations of

—7

INTRODUCTION

some of his enterprises and payments for lands obtained from those towns, has been systematized in several tables. The same has been done with the accusations Indians made against Tejada. On the basis of these data, some comparisons were drawn. Likewise, for the table on corregidores (Spanish officers in charge of a district) and encomenderos (Table 2.3) I used a list containing the viceroy’s granting of corregimientos (corregidores’ jurisdictions) during the 1536–1546 period, locating some of the corregidores appointed by the viceroy through testimonies already known and pointing out how they coincided with colonists who had an encomienda. Since this book was published in its Spanish version, several relevant studies have appeared. They deserve to be noted because of their important contributions to the other side of the story I am dealing with here—the Indian peoples’ complex response to colonial domination. The Spanish colonization of New Spain (as well as of the rest of Spanish America) was a phenomenon in which coercion was evidently implicit, but it also involved negotiation with the dominated society. Indigenous people thus learned to negotiate and defend the limited rights Spanish power allowed them. Signs of these negotiations often appeared in the judicial files I studied while writing this book. The thousands of colonial administrative documents are insufficient, however, for a deep understanding of the colonial Indian world. In general, these documents do not reveal the narrative and argumentative dimensions of the indigenous peoples; the records show only one side, so to speak, of the negotiation between Indian peoples and Spaniards, which is itself of considerable interest. The rich and abundant documentation available at the General Archive of the Indies (Archivo General de Indias) allows one to analyze the social and political dynamics of New Spain, namely, the balance of power among different social groups (Indians, bureaucrats, the church, colonizers, average citizens, and so on). In short, documents reveal the overall management of the American territories by the Spanish monarchy. Documents in the Indian languages offer rich and varied information about the Indian peoples’ everyday world and their relationship with the colonial powers. These documents include litigations between Indians, testaments, logbooks of Indian brotherhoods and councils, information on services offered to the Crown by descendants of Indian nobility, local stories, and many other examples. Several of these documents have been published, although many have not. Most are original sources found in the General Archive of México (Archivo General de la Nación de México), often in the section on land tenure (tierras).

8—

INTRODUCTION

Some works indicate scholars’ growing interest in administrative sources from colonial times in Indian languages. Pioneering works in this field are those of Frances Karttunen, James Lockhart, Luis Reyes, Miguel León Portilla, S. L. Cline, and Thelma Sullivan, among others.15 The analysis of documents produced by individuals and towns in their own languages clearly allows a more comprehensive understanding of the impact, assimilation, and resistance of the Indian population to colonial institutions. James Lockhart’s and Susan Kellogg’s important works, as well as those of other scholars, point in this direction.16 In this sense, texts in Indian languages allow us to look closely at those peoples’ daily routine—local negotiations with the colonial power. The editing, translation, and study of this important corpus in Nahuatl and other Indian languages provide a wider panorama of the colonial stage as a whole and of the dynamic political and cultural adjustments that had to be made by a population that was subject to a complex system of domination.17 Finally, although the Spanish version of this book was published nearly a decade and a half ago, many of my points and ideas about the way the colonial project was initially formed are still valid. This project was a success for European interests, especially if we consider its lingering permanence for over three centuries of colonial rule and its clear consequences for an independent Mexico, past and present.

NOTES 1. See Chapter 3. I have tried to provide, when possible, an up-to-date bibliography that includes studies and sources in bilingual editions. Usually, in such cases I used the Spanish versions. The first time I quote from these texts I mention the English version of the reference. 2. On the administrative organization of the Indies state, see Ernesto Schäfer, El Consejo Real y Supremo de las Indias, 2 vols. (Sevilla: Imp. Carmona, 1935); Mario Góngora, El Estado en el derecho indiano. Epoca de fundación (1492–1570) (Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria, 1951); Mario Góngora, Studies in the Colonial History of Spanish America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975); José María Ots Capdequí, El Estado español en las Indias (Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1965); Fernando Muro, Las presidencias-gobernaciones en Indias (Siglo XVI) (Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispano Americanos, 1975). On control over higher-level officials in America, see Pilar Arregui Zamorano, La Audiencia de México según los visitadores. Siglo XVI y XVII (México City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México [henceforth UNAM], 1981); Javier Barceló Malagón, El distrito de la Audiencia de Santo Domingo en los siglos XVI a XIX (Ciudad Trujillo: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Santo Domingo, 1942); José María Mariluz Urquijo, Ensayo sobre los juicios de residencia indianos (Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 1952). On officials

—9

INTRODUCTION

formation in colonial bureaucracy, see Richard L. Kagan, Lawsuits and Litigants in Castile, 1500–1700 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981). 3. In his analysis of encomienda perpetuity and the Crown’s political shifts in its instrucciones for the First and Second Audiencias, Silvio Zavala points at the contradictions within the legislative corpus itself. Likewise, this legislative contradiction can be seen in the problems implied in the enforcement of the Leyes Nuevas (laws promulgated by Emperor Charles the Fifth in 1542–1543) in New Spain; see Silvio Zavala, La encomienda indiana (México City: Editorial Porrúa, 1973). On the copious amount of information the Crown received from its American vassals—the only control mechanism that existed—an entire section of letters sent by private individuals to the Crown from 1544 to 1602 is found in the Archivo General de Indias (henceforth AGI), Audiencia de México (henceforth México), legajos nos. 95, 96, 168. 4. On the Crown’s concentration of power, see Perry Anderson, El Estado absolutista, 11a. ed. (México City: Ed. Siglo XXI, 1990); Henry Kamen, Una sociedad conflictiva: España, 1469–1714 (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1984); Alonso Benjamín González, Sobre el Estado y la Administración de la Corona de Castilla en el Antiguo Régimen (Madrid: Editorial Siglo XXI, 1981); A. W. Lovett, La España de los primeros Habsburgos (1517–1598) (Barcelona: Labor Universitaria, 1989); John Lynch, España bajo los austrias. Imperio y absolutismo (1516–1598), 5a. ed. (Barcelona: Ediciones Península, 1987). Carlos Sempat Assadourian, “La despoblación indígena en Perú y Nueva España durante el siglo XVI y la formación de la economía colonial,” Historia Mexicana 38 (1989): 425–426, 440. 5. Clarence H. Haring, El imperio hispánico en América (Buenos Aires: Solar Hachette, 1966); Góngora, El Estado. 6. María Justina Sarabia Viejo, Don Luis de Velasco virrey de Nueva España, 1550– 1564 (Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispano Americanos, 1978); José F. de la Peña, Oligarquía y propiedad en Nueva España, 1550–1624 (México City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1983). 7. Among classic studies of how government agencies function from the perspective of Indian law, see Schäfer, El Consejo Real; Góngora, El Estado; José María Ots Capdequí, Historia del Derecho español en América y del derecho Indiano (Madrid: Aguilar, 1969). Bureaucracy has been explored not only from the perspective of Indian law but also as part of a mechanism of control over the colonies during the Habsburgs’ time: see Góngora, El Estado, especially the section on bureaucracy in chapter 3, 82–98; Alfonso García Gallo, “Los orígenes españoles de las instituciones americanas,” in Estudios del Derecho Indiano (Madrid: Real Academia de Jurisprudencia y Legislación, 1987); Clarence H. Haring, Las instituciones coloniales en Hispano-América (siglos XVI a XVII) (San Juan de Puerto Rico: Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña, 1957). An important work on the colonial state in Mexico is José Miranda, Las ideas y las instituciones políticas mexicanas. Primera parte, 1521–1820 (México City: Instituto de Derecho Comparado, 1952). 8. On the orders for the Audiencia, see John H. Parry, “The Ordinances of the Audiencia of Nueva Galicia,” Hispanic American Historical Review 18, 3 (1938): 364– 373. On how the Audiencia worked, see Ismael Sánchez Bella, “Las audiencias y el gobierno de las Indias (siglos XVI–XVII),” in Revista de Estudios Histórico-Jurídicos, vol. 2 (Valparaíso: Universidad Católica Escuela de Derecho, 1977), 159–186; A. Bermúdez Aznar, “Las funciones del presidente de la Audiencia en Indias,” in Memoria del IV Congreso Internacional de Historia del Derecho Indiano (Madrid: 1976), 85–96;

10 —

INTRODUCTION

Enrique Ruiz Guiñazú, La magistratura indiana (Buenos Aires: Universidad, 1916). On the visits and residencia hearings, see Sánchez Bella, “Visitas a Indias (siglos XVI– XVII),” in Memoria del Segundo Congreso Venezolano de Historia, vol. 3 (Caracas: Academia Nacional de la Historia, 1975), 165–208; Sánchez Bella, “Visitas a la Audiencia de México, siglos XVI–XVII,” Anuario de Estudios Hispano Americanos 30 (1975): 375–402; Pilar Arregui Zamorano, La Audiencia; Guillermo Céspedes del Castillo, “La visita como institución indiana,” in Anuario de Estudios Americanos, vol. 3 (Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispanoamericanos, 1946); Mariluz Urquijo, Ensayo; Carlos Molina Argüello, “Visita y residencia en Indias,” in Actas y estudios del III Congreso del Instituto Internacional del Derecho Indiano (Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estudios Jurídicos, 1973), 423–431. About government in the Indies, see Fernando Muro Romero, Las presidencias-gobernaciones. 9. Horst Pietschmann, “Burocracia y corrupción en Hispanoamérica colonial. Una aproximación tentativa,” Nova historia 5 (Torino, 1982): 11–37; Pietschmann, “Estado colonial y mentalidad social: El ejercicio del poder frente a distintos sistemas de valores. Siglo XVIII,” in Marcello Carmagnani et al., eds., America Latina dallo Stato coloniale allo Stato nazione, vol. 1 (Milano: Franco Angeli, 1987), 427–447; Stafford Poole, “Institutionalized Corruption in the Letrado Bureaucracy: The Case of Pedro Farfán (1568–1588),” The Americas 38, 2 (Washington, D.C., October 1981): 149–171. 10. De la Peña, Oligarquía y propiedad. Also see José Francisco Román Gutiérrez, Sociedad y Evangelización en Nueva Galicia durante el siglo XVI (México City: INAH–El Colegio de Jalisco–Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, 1993). 11. M. Burkholder and S. Chandler, From Impotence to Authority: The Spanish Crown and the American Audiencias, 1689–1808 (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1977); Linda Arnold, Bureaucracy and Bureaucrats in Mexico City, 1742–1835 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1988). 12. Ramón Carande, Carlos V y sus banqueros. La Hacienda Real de Castilla, 3 vols. (Madrid: Sociedad de Estudios y Publicaciones, 1949), especially chapter 1; H. Elliot, Imperial Spain, 1469–1716 (New York: St. Martin’s, 1964), especially chapter 5; John Lynch, Spain Under the Habsburgs (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1965), especially chapters 4 and 5; A. W. Lovett, Early Habsburg Spain 1517–1598 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986). On the Royal Treasury and Philip the Second, see chapter 14 in Lovett. 13. On the encomienda as an institution, see Zavala, La encomienda; Lesley Byrd Simpson, The Encomienda in New Spain: The Beginning of Spanish Mexico (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982 [1950]) (I am using the Spanish version of this book: Lesley Byrd Simpson, Los conquistadores y el indio americano [Barcelona: Ed. Península, 1970]); Robert Theron Himmerich y Valencia, The Encomenderos of New Spain 1521–1555 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991) (I am using the doctoral dissertation version of this book: Robert Theron Himmerich, “The Encomenderos of New Spain, 1521–1555,” Ph.D. diss., University of California, 1984); Guillermo Porras Muñoz, El gobierno de la ciudad de México en el siglo XVI (México City: UNAM, 1982); José Miranda, La función económica del encomendero en los orígenes del régimen colonial de la Nueva España (1521–1535) (México City: UNAM, 1965); Peter Gerhard, A Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). On Indian work and the Crown’s policies regarding it, see Silvio Zavala, El servicio personal de los indios en la Nueva España, 7 vols. (México City: El Colegio de México–El Colegio Nacional, 1984–1995); José Miranda, El tributo indígena en la Nueva España (México City: El Colegio de México, 1980); Charles Gibson, The Aztec Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico (Stanford: Stanford University

— 11

INTRODUCTION

Press, 1964); Lewis Hanke, The Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949) (I am using the Spanish version of this book: Lewis Hanke, La lucha por la justicia en la conquista de América [Madrid: Ediciones Istmo, 1988]). 14. Arthur Scott Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, First Viceroy of New Spain (Durham: Duke University Press, 1927); Ciriaco Pérez Bustamante, Don Antonio de Mendoza, primer virrey de la Nueva España (1535–1550) (Santiago: Tipografía de “El Eco Franciscano,” 1928). 15. Frances Karttunen and James Lockhart, eds., Nahuatl in the Middle Years: Language Contact Phenomena in Texts of the Colonial Period, Publications in Linguistics, no. 85 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976); Luis Reyes García, Documentos sobre tierras y señorío en Cuautinchan (México City: Centro de Investigaciones Superiores, 1978); Luis Reyes García, Eustaquio Celestino Solís, et al., Documentos nahuas de la Ciudad de México del siglo XVI (México City: CIESAS-AGN, 1996); S. L. Cline and Miguel León Portilla, eds., The Testaments of Culhuacan, Nahuatl Studies Series 1 (Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center, 1984); Thelma D. Sullivan, Documentos tlaxcaltecas del siglo XVI en lengua Náhuatl, Serie Antropológica (México City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1987). 16. James Lockhart, Nahuas and Spaniards: Postconquest Central Mexican History and Philology, Nahuatl Studies Series 3 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991); Lockhart, The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992); Susan Kellogg, Law and the Transformation of Aztec Culture, 1500–1700 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995); Robert Haskett, Indigenous Rulers: An Ethnohistory of Town Government in Colonial Cuernavaca (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1991); Rebecca Horn, Postconquest Coyoacán: Nahua-Spanish Relations in Central Mexico, 1519–1650 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997); Stephanie Wood, “Corporate Adjustments in Colonial Mexican Indian Towns: Toluca Region,” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1984. 17. Teresa Rojas Rabiela et al., Vidas y bienes olvidados. Testamentos indígenas novohispanos, 3 vols. (México City: CIESAS, 1999–2000); Susan Kellogg and Matthew Restall, Dead Giveaways: Indigenous Testaments of Colonial Mesoamerica and the Andes (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1998); Elizabeth Hill Boone and Tom Cummins, eds., Native Traditions in the Postconquest World (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1998); Serge Gruzinski, The Conquest of Mexico: The Incorporation of Indian Societies Into the Western World, 16th–18th Centuries (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 1993); Barbara E. Mundy, The Mapping of New Spain (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

12 —

THE FIRST ATTEMPTS AT ROYAL CONTROL OVER THE TERRITORY

— 1 —

THE FIRST ATTEMPTS AT ROYAL CONTROL OVER THE TERRITORY Policy of the Second Audiencia, 1531–1535

As a result of the dismissal of the First Audiencia (court and governing body), brought about mainly by the untenable situation prevailing in the colony and the harshness of its policy toward the Indian communities—whose numbers had fallen drastically and thus threatened the existence of colonial domination—on July 30, 1530, the Crown appointed the members of what came to be known as the Second Audiencia.1 Its officials, assigned as oidores (judges), were the Bishop of Santo Domingo, Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal—the presiding judge—Alonso Maldonado, licenciado (lawyer) Francisco Ceynos, Juan de Salmerón, and the future Bishop of Michoacán, Vasco de Quiroga.2 Viewed as a whole, the Second Audiencia’s administration reflected the Crown’s clear determination to exert its authority in the increasingly important domain of New Spain. Therefore, it appointed an Audiencia that would faithfully carry out its instructions and establish legal rules and regulations on major questions such as whether royal jurisdiction should apply to both Indians and Spaniards. Thus, the Second Audiencia strove to check the power of the encomenderos (those who had grants of Indians) by creating the corregimiento (district), and it tried out formulas for controlling the flow of tribute by regulating tribute according to criteria the Crown developed. These criteria were to

— 13 —

— 13


consider the possibility of Indians paying tribute without creating an excessive burden on them and guaranteeing, at the same time, the maintenance of the colonies and increased revenue for the Royal Treasury. The Second Audiencia was important because in spite of its transitory nature, it was notably efficient in implementing the plans of the Crown. When he left the territory at the end of his term as presiding judge of the Audiencia, Fuenleal stated that he had been successful at reconciling the interests of the Crown with those of the colonists: On March 9th, [1535], I set sail from the Port of New Spain leaving the land in good shape: peaceful and with an abundance of food and sustenance and the Viceroy was well and knew what he was about and the oidores were well versed in their tasks. I beg your Majesty to remember my services and my desire to end the days that remain to me serving God and your Majesty as my illnesses did not allow me to remain in the Indies.3

Although Fuenleal’s opinion is probably a justification, there is no reason to suspect that he was concealing a difficult situation in New Spain. The encomenderos were living in a state of relative tranquillity that helped guarantee the colony’s security—in spite of the fact that the Audiencia had taken encomiendas (grants) away from a large number of Spaniards and that its policy toward the Indians was to protect them from the colonists’ notorious abuses. How did the Crown manage a balance in such a delicate situation? I believe it was because of a series of concessions to the colonists, which were permitted as long as they did not affect royal jurisdiction. That is, the Audiencia strove to centralize some major aspects of colonial society—in the sense of exerting direct control with the backing of royal authority and seeing that, as far as possible, this power should not be exercised by private individuals—on issues as important as tribute, Indian labor, and government of the Spanish American colonies. The complexity of each of these issues and the encomenderos’ reluctance to allow the Crown more control over Indian tribute and personal service were considerable obstacles to developing a comprehensive solution to interests as different as those of the Crown, of private individuals, and of the Indian world. To increase centralization, the Audiencia had to address the colony’s needs. Therefore, it maintained a conciliatory position as long as the power of the Crown was not questioned. In this chapter I take a closer look at the beginnings of the political rule promoted and developed by the Second Audiencia through the strengthening of royal jurisdiction and attempting simultaneously to guarantee the survival of Indian society, revenue for the Royal Treasury, and the colonists’ interests.

14 —


Although it was difficult to preserve each of these spheres, colonial practice was directed toward that end. In brief, the success of the Second Audiencia was its rationalization of the colonial system, which was never in dispute, as far as possible. The First Audiencia had carried to an extreme the exploitation of the natives, seriously undermining the integrity of the Indian world. Hence, the First Audiencia was replaced by another in which the system was controlled by Crown officials, thus guaranteeing the survival of the native population without which the colony would have been unable to produce wealth. An important example was the island of Santo Domingo, where the destruction brought about by the conquest and later colonization caused the native population to disappear within a few years. To explain the rationalization of the colonial system brought about by the Second Audiencia, I shall comment first on its control over Indian affairs, since its proposal is an example of how the Audiencia members’ political intelligence mitigated what was, in fact, a strong pressure on the Indian communities. Likewise, I shall take a close look at the policy the Second Audiencia carried out with regard to the encomienda and the corregimiento. In the case of both institutions, the Second Audiencia had to reconcile interests; the extension of royal jurisdiction did not always guarantee the protection of the Indians. Therefore, the Second Audiencia tried to adopt measures to prevent the Indians from disappearing and, at the same time, to guarantee the establishment of the colonial system. In general, the members of the Second Audiencia were diligent administrators whose main interest—especially for Fuenleal—was to strengthen royal power over the colony.4 The Second Audiencia represented the beginning of the process of centralizing royal authority over the Indians. The government tried to divide the colony into two sections, so both natives and Spaniards recognized that any negotiation between them depended on the Crown through its representatives. Generally speaking, the key ideas on which the Audiencia based its attempt at centralization were in agreement with its members’ intellectual backgrounds— they were legal experts and clergy, as in the case of Fuenleal—and were influenced by the ideas of Christian humanism introduced into Spanish schools of thought during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella.5

THE SECOND AUDIENCIA AND INDIAN JURISDICTION One of the conflictive issues in this progress toward centralization was the existence of the protector of Indians. The elimination of the Protectorate was a

— 15


basic step in the attempt to centralize decision making regarding lawsuits and disagreements between Indians and Spaniards. Thus, the jurisdictional competence of the Protectorate was eliminated. The protector, as his title implies, was to defend Indians from any injustice committed by Spanish colonists. This figure was introduced in America in 1517 by the cardinal-regent of Spain, Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, following Bartolomé de las Casas’s reports on the depopulation and poor treatment of Indians in Santo Domingo. At first, the protector was appointed directly by the Crown.6 In 1528 the first bishop of Mexico, Franciscan friar Juan de Zumárraga, arrived in New Spain with the title protector of the Indians. Since the Crown had not specified the protector’s jurisdiction, serious conflicts arose between the protector and the members of the First Audiencia. The lack of clarity surrounding the office of protector resulted in a broad jurisdiction that even encompassed the rulers. Zumárraga was ordered to report on the Indians’ condition and to protect them, with practically no restrictions. Likewise, as protector he was given authority to judge crimes committed against the Indians. Furthermore, the Audiencia had to help the protector perform his duties, or it would be fined 10,000 maravedis and lose royal favor.7 The conflict between the First Audiencia and Protector Zumárraga is a clear example of the problem of jurisdiction definition within royal offices. The well-known quarrel, which originally arose as a result of actions of Nuño de Guzmán and his retainers against the Indians, became worse because of the contradiction in the attributions the two parties claimed for themselves. It also helped lead to the dismissal of the members of the First Audiencia and the appointment of new officials to the second one. Violent incidents occurred in 1529 and 1530, when Zumárraga started to fight for the right to appoint visitors to the Indian towns and to exercise the jurisdiction he believed had been given to him. The members of the First Audiencia refused to recognize Zumárraga as protector, arguing that they were the ones who were to defend and protect the royal jurisdiction despite the bishop’s pretensions. On one occasion the Audiencia members compared Zumárraga to a Castilian comunero (a rebel to the Crown’s authority). Regardless of the interests the members of the First Audiencia had held over the Indian population, the origin of the problem with Bishop Zumárraga stemmed from Audiencia members’ desire to administer New Spain with wide-ranging political faculties, as requested by the Crown in 1529, and that visits, protection, and defense of the Indians were entrusted solely to the Audiencia.8 Zumárraga tried to defend his authority and informed the Crown that if he were to carry out the functions of protector in New Spain effectively, he needed

16 —


specific and exclusive power to avoid conflicts with local authorities. He also argued that the protector needed extensive power to appoint magistrates to deal with civil and criminal cases among the Indians and that those visitors should be members of religious orders. In spite of the fact that Zumárraga marshaled forces against the members of the First Audiencia to better manage Indian affairs, his effort did not necessarily imply any positive feelings toward the Indians. Recall Zumárraga’s vigorous campaign for the destruction of idols and his role as inquisitor in 1539 in the much criticized trial of Don Carlos, the Indian lord of Texcoco, who was sentenced to death and had his property confiscated for “heretical dogmatism.”9 When the Crown appointed the members of the Second Audiencia in 1530, it wanted to give preeminence to royal jurisdiction, exercised by the Audiencia over the office of protector. Thus, Zumárraga could send representatives to anyplace within his jurisdiction, but such moves had to be approved by the oidores. In 1531 the Second Audiencia received a royal order authorizing it to commission people to undertake visits outside the five-league limit of its jurisdiction, overlapping the authority Bishop Zumárraga had received in 1528 and for which he came into conflict with the First Audiencia when seeking to assert it. In addition, from then on the protector could execute sentences only equivalent to a maximum fine of fifty pesos or ten days in prison, and the accused had to go before the Audiencia to be judged and sentenced. Zumárraga received official notification of the modifications to his office as protector on March 16, 1532. The protector’s subordination to the Audiencia was expressed in no uncertain terms in the royal order of August 2, 1530: “It is therefore not our intention and will that Protectors should have any superiority over our above-mentioned judges.”10 With regard to the protector, the above-mentioned limitations had to do with an attempt to centralize jurisdiction over the Indians within the new Audiencia. In 1531, Zumárraga was ordered to present himself at court, as the Crown wished to be informed about the incidents and problems that had arisen between him and the First Audiencia’s administration.11 The relationship Zumárraga maintained with the Second Audiencia until his departure in 1533 was less problematic and turbulent than that with the earlier Audiencia. By the time the Second Audiencia was appointed, however, the protector’s jurisdiction had been greatly limited, and his office was maintained as that of expert adviser in Indian affairs without any power to make decisions. In March 1531 the oidores informed the Crown that they had occasionally entrusted decisions about the lowering of tribute to Zumárraga because of his experience as protector of the Indians. The Second Audiencia also gave a vote

— 17


of confidence to Zumárraga as protector and to the Franciscan order generally in their conflict with the First Audiencia, although they considered that Zumárraga had gone too far in the matter. Zumárraga also took part in some of the meetings of the government council and members of the new Audiencia, always in his capacity as adviser. One such meeting took place in early 1532 to discuss the assessment of tribute. Another in which he took part “must have taken place in April 1532, as can be seen in a letter from the presiding judge dated April 30th of that year.” That meeting dealt with general matters on the civil and ecclesiastical administration of New Spain.12 The conflicts with the First Audiencia appear to have morally exhausted Zumárraga and the Franciscan order as regards the protector of Indians’ possible effectiveness in New Spain and the possibility of confining native jurisdiction, through that office, to members of religious orders as the Franciscans had requested. In 1532 the Franciscans asked that the office of protector be incorporated into the Audiencia, thus hoping to avoid friction with that group. Zumárraga, during his stay in Spain in 1533, wanted to resign as protector, but the Council of the Indies refused his request. By that time, however, the office was purely honorary.13 In 1534 the Protectorate was finally eliminated. Influential in that decision was the presiding judge of the Second Audiencia, Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal, who informed the Crown that the administration of justice was rightly carried out by the Audiencia and that therefore there was no need for a protector of Indians in New Spain. Fuenleal considered that the office of protector was to “the detriment of the natives, because those who governed did not look after them and only sought differences between them and it is the poor Indians who pay”—undoubtedly referring to the problems of jurisdiction among the Audiencia, the presiding judge, and the protector.14 This can be clearly seen in Fuenleal’s report on the possible appointment of the bishop-elect of Guatemala as protector: “[A]nd now your Majesty commands that Licenciado Marroquí, Bishop elect of Guatemala, be Protector and that he should appear in the Council which is a useful decree. I beg your Majesty to look into this and come to the best decision, as he who is to be bishop would be more useful without the power of Protector, by his doctrine, example and counsel and he should be commanded to report but not to have a jurisdiction.”15 The last sentence is especially relevant because it shows that Fuenleal opposed granting any jurisdiction to the protectors, agreeing in this sense with the members of the former Audiencia. Thus, by means of the royal order issued on September 28, 1534, Zumárraga was relieved of his office as protector, and on September 4, 1535, he resigned.

18 —


Earlier, in a royal order from 1533 dated “Barcelona, April 20,” the Crown had expressed agreement with the Audiencia that the office of protector should be eliminated in New Spain. In addition it accepted the proposal that the oidores themselves should visit the country, accompanied by members of religious orders, although the decisions regarding such visits were to be made exclusively by the Audiencia. From that time on, the Audiencia was to be the highest court that would centralize all decisions and actions regarding Indian affairs in New Spain. Sometimes it would be counseled by members of religious orders who, at that time, had greater experience in such matters because of their knowledge of the languages and traditions of the Indian world, particularly in the Valley of Mexico. Later, this procedure regarding Indian affairs continued to be applied under the supervision of the viceroy.16

JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION IN INDIAN AFFAIRS: THE CENTRALIZATION PROCESS Starting with the Second Audiencia, the Indians tried to assert their rights by appealing to that body, a distinctive feature of Castilian law. The Audiencia encouraged attention to Indian lawsuits, devoting one working day a week to dealing with and resolving cases presented by Indians and seeking mechanisms for them to receive justice more efficiently.17 The Audiencia soon understood that a strong support mechanism that would facilitate the Crown’s control over the Indians would guarantee them proper judicial proceedings up to a point. The conditions to be met for this judicial instrument were flexibility and partial adjustment to Indian reality— using cultural elements explained by Indians who understood them—as long as the conditions did not affect the Crown’s jurisdiction.18 Difficulties increased, however, as contact between the unique world of the Indians and Spanish traditions became more intensified within colonial administration.19 The Indians’ response to presenting their cases before the Audiencia was positive. In spite of setbacks and the fact that they came from places far away, a great number did assert their rights before the court.20 Although it is obvious that, in the eyes of the Audiencia and the Indian community itself, a native lord was not the same as a macehual (Indian commoner), a member of a calpulli (territorial unit), or a mayeque (serf) belonging to the lord’s land, all of them came before the court. It is even more probable that in terms of distance, the Indians of Texcoco or Chalco would go to court to denounce problems more easily than the Indians of Oaxaca could. In any case, at that time, from the social point of view Spanish governors were likely to consider and pay attention

— 19


to the native lords, basically because of the influence they still had over their communities. The Indians faced great obstacles in gaining access to the justice system. First, it was expensive to bring legal action. In 1530 the Crown awarded lowerlevel Audiencia officials a salary three times higher than that of their counterparts in the tribunals of Valencia and Granada because of the high cost of living in Mexico. In 1532, ignoring the oidores’ opposing view, the Crown ordered that an Audiencia deputy judicial notary should receive fees from the Indians unless the latter made a formal statement declaring that they were indigent and therefore, according to Castilian law, that they had a right to be exempted from such fees. This order enabled the officials in charge of collecting fees to profit from the Indians as much as they could.21 In these conditions, the situation was not easy for either party. At the outset, the Audiencia was aware of the cultural difficulties it faced. Audiencia members wrote to the Crown in 1531 about how difficult it was to govern a colony, among other things, “because the towns are very distant from each other . . . because they are people with many differences about boundaries and lands especially.”22 Furthermore, the Indians had to overcome the difficulties presented by their lack of knowledge of the new forms of justice imposed by colonial authorities and to understand that their former laws and customs—which were complex and highly organized—had fallen into disuse.23 The Audiencia depended on interpreters when reviewing Indian problems and lawsuits, taking into account the economic needs of the colonists involved in these matters. Further, the oidores restricted themselves to practicing the Spanish juridical system, which was naturally adapted to the reality and needs of Spain. On this last point, the rules and regulations of the First Audiencia regarding the administration of justice (which remained the same for the Second Audiencia) were insufficient for the new tasks the Second Audiencia was to undertake. For example, the rules regulated the number of oidores needed to administer justice; they also stipulated the number of scribes and court reporters, amounts of fines and sentences, timetable, and similar issues for court cases. But the method used for Indian lawsuits was based on a vague principle of protection. The doctrine of Spanish law on this subject held that the Crown was to regulate Indian problems when it received documented information about poor treatment.24 A chapter of instructions to the Second Audiencia reveals the Crown’s increasing interest in the Indians’ understanding of and adaptation to the governmental forms of the Castilian courts in an attempt to foster demand for

20 —


and application of justice. Specifically, the Crown proposed that some Indians chosen by the Audiencia should join the Spanish town councils as counselors and that Indian alguaciles (constables) should be appointed in all Indian towns throughout New Spain.25 Furthermore, some members of this Audiencia attempted to understand certain features of Indian society, although always from the practical point of view of considering that colonial domination was possible only through the survival of the native society. For example, Oidor Vasco de Quiroga came to understand that control over and order among the Indians—in addition to their well-being—depended on “a proper juridical order adapted to the Indians’ way of living and acting. This demanded the abandoning of the present legal system,” that is, adapting Castilian law to the complex native reality.26 This attitude meant that the natives would have to be molded, but it also implied an interest in their ways because the Indians would learn about the forms of Spanish government by interrelating the native values least foreign to Western culture. This molding would result in better control of natives by the authorities. After all, the Second Audiencia tried to rationalize colonial domination, not eliminate it, thus guaranteeing its continuity. With this idea in mind, Quiroga condensed proceedings in civil lawsuits between Indians and Spaniards and, above all, in the petitions involving the freeing of Indian slaves (liberar a los esclavos indios). He was commissioned by the Audiencia to carry out this task. To do so, he put into practice his idea regarding the need to adapt Spanish law to Indian reality and was counseled by four of the highest-ranking Indian judges.27 Regarding slavery, as early as 1528, during the First Audiencia, the Crown started to regulate the matter of Indians defeated in war who had become slaves, forbidding the enslavement of pacified Indians or those who had become slaves following an “unjust war.” Furthermore, among the instructions to the Second Audiencia, the Crown ordered that it should be informed about cases of Indian slaves belonging to other Indians, noting that slavery was among the existing customs and wanting to be informed “particularly” about this custom.28 Finally, in 1530 the Crown took a more radical attitude toward slavery, establishing that under no circumstances should Indians be reduced to this condition and that they should never be bought or exchanged, including the slaves the Indians themselves might have. The policy by which the Audiencia would deal with matters of freedom of Indian slaves owned by Spaniards or enslaved by the Indians themselves was thus established.29 The complexity of this matter requires more detail about how it was handled during the Second Audiencia, since it is an important application of

— 21


royal justice in Indian affairs after receiving information about the natives’ former customs. The commission entrusted to Quiroga to study the freeing of Indian slaves enabled him to learn about the natives’ slavery system from Indian informers, for which “he was assigned four Indians considered to be judges by them.”30 He concluded that the concept of slavery as such did not exist in pre-Hispanic society: “I don’t see any among them [he said, referring to slavery in the Western sense], rather the contrary, and they keep everything: freedom, family and town or place of residence, and they do not change state or condition, they do not lose anything of that nor do they have the conditions of slaves, but of free men, which is a sure sign that they are not really slaves.” Rather, Quiroga concluded there was a kind of “serfdom” based on “works” or labor, “and not on people’s freedom nor to their detriment.”31 The oidor was also informed that Indians took on this “serfdom,” which in some cases was permanent, as a result of situations that, in his opinion, were “barbaric.” They became slaves if they stole, if they lost the traditional ball game, or if they had children with an Indian slave woman, although Quiroga stated that he had never encountered a case of slavery resulting from these factors and therefore doubted that they were reasons for slavery. On the other hand, he had reviewed a number of cases of Indian orphans who had been kidnapped as children and were later sold as slaves. Furthermore, he learned that Indians did not enslave prisoners captured in “just or unjust wars, nor for serious crimes.”32 Quiroga also learned that both before and after the conquest Indians could sell themselves as slaves because of famine. In his opinion, the fact that they were conquered people resulted in a large number of Indians becoming slaves: These miserable Indians sell themselves or consent to be sold, although, in fact, they do not sell themselves through deceit but because of the extreme need and misery they suffer from, in the same way that many and almost all of them sold themselves in the recent war against the Spaniards and in other great famines they had experienced both before and after.33

In fact, in view of the information Quiroga gathered, slavery represented—as Woodrow Borah mentioned—“an illustration of the way in which the almost unconscious composition of a Spanish conception brought about changes so great that a rather benign native institution became a brutal and destructive form of exploitation.”34 Thus, because of his commission, Quiroga was able to free Indian slaves who had been held by Spaniards, and he refused to help those Spaniards

22 —


whose slaves had fled and who wanted to recover them. The colonizers reacted swiftly to the policy under which they were no longer allowed to have slaves, especially because most of those slaves were destined for the mines— which meant the interest of the Royal Treasury was involved. Hence, some Mexico City residents declared that the oidores could have raised the Royal Treasury’s revenue by “allowing those who had fled from the colonists to be” enslaved again, “as it is a well-known fact that the caciques [local Indian rulers] and other chiefs had them serving them and that if their owners had had them they would have discovered many mines and extracted much gold and silver for the growth and increase of the Royal Treasury.” There were many pressures, and they clearly created problems for authorities whose aim was to protect both the Indians and the economic well-being of the Crown. The Crown put an end to this problem in 1534 when it decided in favor of the colonists and when, faced with the threat of possible losses to the Royal Treasury, it ordered that slaves could be branded again.35 The Audiencia realized that these problems existed but nevertheless continued to insist on the Crown’s old policy of preventing slave labor. It probably did so because that policy was necessary to avoid a greater drop in the Indian population, guaranteeing a more rational exploitation of slave labor. For example, in 1533 the Audiencia members received news that the colonizers of Guatemala were allowed to enslave people, and they wrote to the Crown that “this Audiencia could not believe it, due to the notorious damage and total perdition this will entail for that province.”36 When the royal order was issued that again allowed slavery in New Spain, the Audiencia was accused by the city council of not having the order put into effect and even of having concealed it, since it was not made public until four months before the members’ terms of office ended.37 It is, in fact, probable that the Audiencia did not completely enforce the order, in part because it considered the order unjust to Indians and in part because the order was handed down at the end of the Audiencia’s administration. In any case, slavery was part of the Royal Audiencia’s plan for rationalizing the system of colonial exploitation. Returning to the way the Audiencia resolved the administration of Indian lawsuits, in Borah’s opinion the other oidores did not follow Quiroga’s practice of shortening trials on questions of freedoms.38 On certain occasions and in matters not always related to the freeing of Indian slaves—for example, the assessment of Indian tribute—the remaining members of the Audiencia did review lawsuits. But they did so without remitting them to Quiroga, arguing that they had acted thus because they had received many complaints from

— 23


Indians, some of little importance and referring only to a “handful of corn or a jar of honey and an old mantilla and roots, herbs and garlic and other things of little value.” Here they followed Spanish law, acting collegiately, sometimes using as many as three different interpreters. This solution enabled them to resolve a larger number of cases.39 Consequently, the oidores decided to shorten the proceedings.They reviewed and discussed some of the lawsuits themselves. In their opinion, if they had to meet to resolve each case, there would be no time to deal with all the problems; and many Indians would leave before having presented their complaints, thinking the oidores did not want to deal with them. The Crown was likely aware of this problem. In any case, it assigned Quiroga to examine the minor cases presented by the Indians, allowing him to be counseled by four experienced Indians who would explain how such matters had been resolved in the old days. These natives were acquainted with some aspects of Spanish justice, something the Audiencia considered important.40 In fact, Quiroga was not the only one to examine Indian lawsuits. Oidor Ceynos also examined them with the help of Indian elders from Mexico City and Tlatelolco. The belief was that the oidores themselves should examine some of the Indians’ lawsuits.41 Apparently, the measures the Audiencia took to examine the greatest possible number of the Indians’ cases helped facilitate a process of pacification in the colony. The fear of an uprising was implicit in the instructions sent to the Second Audiencia.42 Thus, several magistrates believed that the oidores should examine some of the Indian lawsuits. Through this practice the Indian population would be taught “good habits” and would see that justice was carried out in their affairs. This would help ward off any sign of rebellion, which was believed to be a latent problem.43 Some Indians who took part in this innovative process agreed with it. With regard to the freeing of slaves carried out by Quiroga, Don Diego, a principal (nobleman) of the San Juan barrio (quarter) in Mexico City, declared: When Quiroga carried out the above hearing in his house, it was always in the presence of 2 or 3 Indian nobles, and sometimes this witness saw how the hearing was carried out and many natives of Mexico City came to request . . . his justice, and also from other parts some came saying that they were in debt to their owners with whom some of them lived and that they had been forced to serve the person to whom they were indebted; some of them for 10 years, others 15, some of them for a load of blankets, others for 2 loads and the above mentioned oidor, when dealing with the cases, saw the owners of the

24 —


slaves and Vasco de Quiroga forced them to free those whom they had forced to serve longer than they deserved. . . . Being so good in what he said and other things . . . all the Indian nobles were happy and held it to be well done.44

Another inhabitant of the San Pablo quarter of Mexico City, who took part as a counselor to Quiroga, held the same view. He was satisfied with the briefness with which Indian affairs were resolved—affairs that involved not only the freeing of slaves but “many [other] qualities” or matters: [W]hen many inhabitants of this land went to the Audiencia to ask for justice of many kinds which were requested, this witness saw how it was rendered, having seen all that was requested fairly carried out, and that this witness [the counselor] was one of the judges that were brought before [Quiroga] and all seemed well to him as to all the others and this brought much benefit to this city and all the surrounding Indian towns . . . and that justice was speedily rendered and everything was dispatched very well; of which they were content.45

Some testimonies by Spaniards, however, mentioned that not all Indians liked the policy since it deprived them of their slaves, some of whom they had inherited: [S]eeing that the oidor Quiroga took away the slaves that they had had and acquired formerly, some inherited from their ancestors and others purchased; on this subject I sometimes saw the presiding judge and oidores speak together in a private agreement and did not know whether [they drew attention] to him, because later I saw that they scolded Licenciado Quiroga, who little by little was losing ground in such business.46

The native lords indeed had Indians ascribed to their lands. They were called mayeques, and some of them may have been confused with slaves and been freed by mistake.47 Indian lawsuits, especially those involving other problems related to Indians such as visits, assessments of tribute, and similar issues, reveal another important element—that of the Audiencia nahuatlatos (interpreters). The Crown had considered the need for such an auxiliary, as well as the need to control him, in its instructions to the Second Audiencia, which dealt with the fraud some interpreters had committed during the former Audiencia. To avoid deceit, the Crown increased the number of interpreters to two so the oidores could compare two translations of the same issue.48 Both nahuatlatos were appointed by the Audiencia. Therefore, the issue of their salaries was important. At the beginning,

— 25


one of them was granted the tribute from a corregimiento of a town called Talasco as payment, and the other was given a constableship as salary. The Audiencia, however, wanted to determine a specific salary for the interpreters.49 The tribute of Talasco, which the interpreter Pedro García received as a salary, consisted only of one hen a day, 400 loads of corn per year, and some wood and clothing. In spite of the fact that the Second Audiencia tried to regulate the administration of justice to the Indians, it was not always easy to get trustworthy interpreters. For example, Pedro García was imprisoned by the Second Audiencia for fraudulent actions he had committed.50 The help provided by some Franciscans, who were language experts, was of greater benefit than that of the interpreters. In the task of administering Indian affairs, translators were indispensable to the Second Audiencia. Franciscan friars—some of whom were not only skilled translators but also experts on Indian society—often helped resolve immediate problems because of their comprehensive picture of Indian society. From the start, the Second Audiencia had been ordered to complete a description of the colony to send to Spain. In fact, the Crown had ordered this to be done since the beginning of the First Audiencia so it could decide on the general repartimiento (allocation) of Indians to the conquistadores (Spaniards who took part in campaigns to subdue Indians), but the information had not been provided.51 To fulfill this commitment, the Second Audiencia entrusted the Franciscan order with carrying out an inquiry into the Indians’ customs. Fuenleal, in an attempt to extend the information requested, started an investigation into opening the “great chronicles,” which were made by the first Franciscan friars to arrive in Mexico. The well-known Franciscan chronicler Friar Andrés de Olmos took part in that investigation. In addition to providing the information the Crown had long requested, the project benefited the Franciscans, as they received official backing to acquire deeper understanding of Indian reality for their own conversion projects.52 Because of its political needs, the Audiencia offered the Franciscans strong backing in their task of evangelization. The order was even given minor jurisdiction over the Indians. For their part, the Franciscans supported the Audiencia’s “political” measures in aspects having to do with royal jurisdiction, including the creation of the corregimiento and other points of the Audiencia’s policy, such as founding the city of Puebla de los Angeles.53 Furthermore, although the office of protector had been eliminated to better centralize royal rule, both Zumárraga and the Franciscans acted as advisers to the Second Audiencia in government matters. It is therefore no surprise that they

26 —


were allowed to enjoy a certain political autonomy as long as it did not affect the Crown’s control over the Indian towns. Thus, the Second Audiencia allowed the Franciscans’ jurisdiction over the Indians and even allowed them to punish them physically and imprison them, including putting them in stocks and chains in the monastery prisons.54 The punishments the friars imposed on the Indians do not appear to have dealt only with conversion. They sometimes also intervened in minor matters of justice and in preventing the Indians from drinking excessively—that is, in questions that did not threaten the Crown’s jurisdiction but that maintained more effective local control. The Audiencia does not appear to have stopped these methods of punishment. Some corregidores of Indians corroborated that the missionaries enjoyed excessive jurisdiction over the Indians. Witnesses mentioned, for example, that Indians were whipped for not learning the “Ave Maria” and were punished for refusing to build a monastery. Diego Telléz, a Mexico City resident, declared that in Chalco he had freed fifteen Indians a Franciscan had held “standing in a pillory” for being drunk.55 Although the Second Audiencia may have ignored the Franciscans’ treatment of the Indians, its interest in their conversion work is well-known. The Audiencia believed successful conversion efforts would eliminate the need for secular clergy in towns that had monasteries. Further, because the Franciscans protected the Indians, the Spanish settlers considered them enemies.56 The other main religious order during the period—the Dominicans—did not enjoy the same favor as the Franciscans, further supporting the argument that the Franciscan project and the acculturation of the Indians greatly interested the members of this Audiencia. This was especially clear in 1533, when the Audiencia strongly protested against the opinions of the Dominican friar Betanzos, who defended the idea that the Indians had an “irrational nature.” This attitude is clearly expressed in the Audiencia’s letters to the Crown. In the opinion of the Audiencia members, Betanzos had an aversion toward the Indians in spite of the fact that he did not know them and had made no effort to convert them to Christianity. Moreover, he had opposed the Franciscan order ever since he had arrived in Mexico.57 The Franciscans shared the Audiencia’s critical attitude toward Betanzos. In fact, some scholars believe that the Audiencia—especially Fuenleal—helped the Franciscans counterattack the ideas of Betanzos and others who held that the Indians were incapable of being converted by creating the famous Tlatelolco school.58 As early as 1531 the Audiencia had reported that the Dominicans were building a “luxurious” monastery, which was not only excessive but also

— 27


caused problems within the Indian towns in charge of building it. It would seem that Nuño de Guzmán “helped to extend the monastery of Saint Dominic.” The other oidores of the First Audiencia had informed the encomendero of Zumpango that his town should provide lime for the Dominican monastery. The encomendero asked the Audiencia not to oblige the town to render this service.59 The Second Audiencia sent the Crown a denunciation of the Dominicans for having given ecclesiastical immunity to a black slave belonging to a former oidor of the First Audiencia, licenciado Diego Delgadillo. The problem became a dispute over jurisdiction—and the matter likely had a political history since the Dominicans had supported the First Audiencia members. The controversy ended when a constable removed the slave from the monastery. The Dominicans objected to the Audiencia, which complained about the Dominicans’ prior support of the First Audiencia and mentioned that when that body was in power it had assigned the Dominican friars an encomienda for the work of the monastery.60 The Crown sided with the Audiencia and sent a royal order expressing its surprise that the Dominicans had defied the representatives of the Crown. The queen stated, “I am very amazed that you should enter into such things with the oidores, being persons representing our Royal person, and you being religious persons.” Shortly afterward the Crown sent orders forbidding the Dominicans to grant ecclesiastical immunities in their monasteries to people who, in the Crown’s opinion, should not enjoy such immunity. The Crown also provided refuge for an excessive amount of time to individuals who, although they might enjoy this exemption, remained there for a longer time than was proper.61 During the residencia hearings involving members of the First Audiencia, which were held by the Second Audiencia in response to royal orders, the Dominicans defended the First Audiencia. It was thus not gratuitous that the Crown limited the Dominicans’ possibility of giving refuge, on the pretext of exemption, to people who may have collaborated with the First Audiencia.62 The differences that had arisen between the Franciscans and the Dominicans in those years had to do with “the Indians’ loyalty.” Charles Gibson mentions that Indian loyalty was a key question in ecclesiastical controversies. The Franciscans were favored in the dispute because of the support they received from the Second Audiencia. For example, in 1533 the Audiencia told the Crown that “the Dominicans had the ambition of becoming skilled in converting, as the Franciscans had,” and that this would lead to a conflict with the Franciscans that would also involve the Indian nobles of Mexico City and

28 —


Santiago, who would side with the Franciscans.63 The Second Audiencia protected the Franciscans even to the detriment of the local jurisdiction, as it considered them an important element in understanding Indian society, which would facilitate the Indians’ conversion and give the Crown greater control over the evolving society. Thus, the centralizing of royal jurisdiction over Indian society took shape slowly, starting with the administration of the Second Audiencia. The Franciscans influenced or determined the Indians’ local interests, and the Audiencia also did so at a more general level. Furthermore, a large group of Indian lords—still fairly strong—began to lose their rights under the Second Audiencia. Controlling these native lords was important to the Audiencia’s centralizing project. The Crown’s preoccupation with establishing royal jurisdiction is reflected in two actions it undertook almost simultaneously in the 1530s: the introduction of the corregimiento of Indians and the appointment of Indian alcaldes and judges.64 Among the instructions to the Second Audiencia, one expressed the Crown’s central interest in controlling and intervening in the jurisdiction over Indian lords. Specifically, the Crown expressed its desire that the Audiencia should allow certain carefully chosen Indians to join the Municipal Council of Mexico City as regidores (councilmen) with a right to vote and that Indian constables should be appointed in every Indian town.65 The Audiencia put into effect only the part of this instruction it considered most easily adaptable to Indian society. It did appoint Indian constables, noting that they would be better able to keep an eye on the Indians and would take part in Spanish political rule at a level that did not jeopardize its jurisdiction. At the same time, the Audiencia rejected the idea that Indian regidores should become members of the Spanish municipal council, not only because of the language barrier but also because it considered that the Indians would learn the political tricks the Spaniards had used to elect mayors and because the Indians had a “better order” with regard to electing officials.66 Fuenleal agreed to leave certain cases of little importance to be judged by the traditional Indian jurisdiction. Likewise, he commented in a letter to the Crown that before the Spaniards arrived in Mexico there had been judges in the marketplaces, known as mixcatlaylutla, who oversaw the markets’ functioning. He also considered that since the jurisdiction included matters only inside the markets, it was not necessary to do away with these posts. At that time there were two such judges in the Mexico City and Santiago Tlatelolco markets. Fuenleal thought the markets were well administered by these judges.67 Until approximately 1550–1555, the Crown respected the native lords’

— 29


territorial dominion—that is, the privileges deriving from the lords’ service to the emperor and from their own lineage. The Crown, however, wanted to keep jurisdiction for itself.68 Thus, during the Second Audiencia the native lords were allowed to keep their territorial dominion, but they lost their jurisdictional one. The Crown, through the Audiencia, may have been able to keep a close watch on those Indian lords who belonged to the lineage of the Mexican native aristocracy and who thus might represent a danger to colony security. In March 1532 the Crown wrote to the Audiencia that it had received a report from Mexico City concerning a son of “Moctezuma,” who apparently had not wanted to accept the aid—consisting of maize—the Audiencia had offered him. For this and other (unspecified) reasons, the Crown wanted this son of Moctezuma to be sent to New Spain “on some business, either as attorney for that city, or in some other way that you might think fitting . . . without giving him to understand that we have written to you before, certifying to him that it would be to his advantage to come.” The Crown requested that a report be sent with the number of caciques in New Spain “and the quality of each one and the amount of land and other possessions of each one and the tribute they received from their Indians and what tribute or vassalage Moctezuma had over these caciques and whatever else you should think fitting, without your deciding anything with regard to this matter over there.”69 This son of Moctezuma was probably Don Martin. In June 1532 the Audiencia had received a petition from a Don Martin, son of Moctezuma, who, together with other Indian nobles, requested that certain Indian towns that had belonged to their lineage be returned to them. It is also possible that he was, in fact, sent to the Spanish court by the Second Audiencia and was held there. In mid-1533, with a son of Moctezuma then at court, the Council of the Indies considered that it was to their advantage that he remain in Spain and sought some way that he and the other five Indians accompanying him “be put into some business that would serve your majesty, especially Moctezuma’s son.” The council also considered that this apparent distinction “would go down well [in Mexico] because it would appear that they would be proud to serve in your palace and in the court.”70 In any case, members of the Indian nobility were closely watched during the years the Second Audiencia held power through the creation of the office of native constable and the introduction of the corregimiento. Through these measures the Crown managed to refuse to allow native lords to judge both minor and major matters—local jurisdiction and government, respectively. This process of centralization was supported by the Second Audiencia. For example, in

30 —


Fuenleal’s opinion the Crown had the right to receive the tribute and services the Indians had formerly paid to the Aztec king. In spite of that right, however, the Crown was not to change the law and the rights of the native lords as long as they recognized Emperor Charles V as their lord and accepted the Christian faith.71 Oidor Salmerón commented in a letter to the king’s secretary that it would be advantageous for the “security of the land” if the native lords no longer had authority over the macehuals and recommended “that their power be gradually taken away from them.”72 The most learned opinion was perhaps that of Oidor Vasco de Quiroga who, in his “Información en Derecho”—a long criticism of the 1534 royal order that allowed Indian slavery—had expressed thoughts about the native lords and their dominion. He said that the Indian government before the Spaniards came was tyrannical: “[F]rom what I have seen and heard of the affairs of these lands, I am practically sure that there was no kingdom or lordship among them, neither was there succession nor legitimate or reasonable possession, but tyranny; and what they had was for the most part by choice.” He explained that Moctezuma’s government had been bad and that the tyranny still existed since the lords continued to behave in the same way, oppressing the Indians with tribute and using “pillories” and prisons. Throughout his report Quiroga seems to indicate his belief that the native lords were complicit in trying to sell their people to the Spaniards.73 Quiroga believed the solution to these problems lay in an intervention by the Crown that would stipulate how the Indians were to be governed. He believed the royal decree would not mean taking away the Indians’ rights, “dominions, and jurisdictions,” since the aim would be to seek “to order them, give them and confirm and exchange and commute them into something incomparably better, comparison which all némine discrepante [without contradiction] hold as being legal, fair and honest.” That is, the decree was to acculturate the Indians both politically and within their religion. He even asserted that the natives’ survival depended on their having law and order in the Spanish fashion, something they would have to learn. Thus, unlike las Casas and other defenders of the native structures, Quiroga proposed imposing the new order of the conquistadores.74 In Quiroga’s opinion, a basic step in educating the Indians politically was to assemble them in towns.75 Although Quiroga’s ideas did not immediately prosper as a policy that would inspire the gathering together and reduction of the natives, he was followed by other detractors of Indian structures who believed the Indians’ forms of government and their customs represented tyranny, excess, and immorality.76

— 31


It was logical that a centralizing administration such as that of the Second Audiencia, in order to see that royal jurisdiction prevailed, would try to reduce the jurisdiction exerted by the native lords. As Quiroga believed, the Audiencia thought reordering and congregating the Indians would strengthen the Crown’s authority and, consequently, would enhance the success of the conversion and the Indians’ survival. Only a few missionaries, such as Friar Pedro de Gante, opposed what later became the congregations’ and the native lords’ loss of jurisdiction. As Anthony Pagden mentions, Quiroga’s famous hospitalespueblo in Santa Fe were actually places where the Indians “had to live imitating their Christian governors.”77 As is well-known, Quiroga not only was a theorist on the matter of ordering the Indian towns politically, but he put the matter into practice in those famous hospitales-pueblo.78

POLICY OF THE SECOND AUDIENCIA: ENCOMIENDA The changes that took place at the beginning of Spanish colonial policy are particularly reflected in the institution of the encomienda. Later, the use of production potential made the encomienda merely one among many exploitation mechanisms that developed in the colonies. In this initial phase, the encomienda was probably one of the most difficult matters upon which the Crown and its representatives had to decide. It encompassed the form colonial domination would take and the relationship between Indian towns—which, with their land and labor, constituted the Indians’ basic economic wealth—and the Spanish population. Furthermore, other relationships of vital importance came into play: achieving harmony between the general situation of the colony and the colonists’ private interests, meeting the colonists’ financial needs, and attracting new colonists. All these interests were undoubtedly difficult to reconcile. In such conditions it is not surprising that the Council of the Indies moved in many, sometimes opposite, directions and sought broader and more precise information. The consequence was that Indian policy on the encomienda oscillated according to the perceptions of the problems in New Spain. In spite of the divergence among the decisions adopted—which might express rectifications, doubts, or a lack of information—certain limits were set on the administration’s actions in the colony. At this point a loophole was opened for colonial bureaucracy, a much greater gap than it appeared at first sight. The beginning of what Silvio Zavala has called the continental period of the encomienda occurred in 1523. That year the Crown—through instructions sent to Hernán Cortés, the governor of New Spain—specified that the Indians

32 —


were free and were vassals of the Crown and that they therefore should not be granted to private individuals as part of an encomienda, as in the disastrous situation in the West Indies. Cortés disobeyed the order—the first challenge to the Crown by the encomenderos’ interests, according to Gibson. The breach between the royal commands and the practical and daily life of society in New Spain did not last long, however. From that time on the numerous opinions sent to the court, as well as the reasons Cortés gave for establishing encomiendas in New Spain, transformed this brief initial opposition into a stage of favoring the encomienda. The need to reward the conquistadores, the need to set the colony on a firm footing, and the justification for increasing the Royal Treasury by means of the encomienda were weighty elements in the decision to favor the institution.79 In fact, by 1525 the Crown no longer maintained its initial opposition to the encomienda. On the contrary, it wanted to gather information with a view to establishing a probable repartimiento of Indians. In 1526 the idea of favoring the allocation option gained acceptance at the court. Two years later, in 1528, royal approval of the encomienda was clear, especially in the instructions it gave to the First Audiencia of New Spain. By means of this decree both the Audiencia and the religious orders were required to report on six points that demonstrated Spain’s interest in a general repartimiento: (1) the number of provinces; (2) the numbers of Indian and Spanish inhabitants; (3) details on the provinces’ fertile land; (4) the conquistadores who had come with Cortés; (5) a list of the repartimientos already made, their size, and the Indian populations; and (6) provinces with mines and fisheries and, in general, the ways in which they were exploited. Through this investigation the Crown believed it would be sufficiently informed to grant encomiendas in perpetuity in New Spain, including some with “a certain form of jurisdiction.” While this wide-ranging information was being gathered (no response was received, and it was the Second Audiencia that finally sent it), royal policy enabled the members of the First Audiencia to grant encomiendas that had fallen vacant because the encomendero had died, although there were certain limitations, such as in the decree issued in Burgos on February 15, 1528.80 On that date, for the first time the Crown set out regulations regarding the Indians, although no decision was made as to the amount of tribute, which leads one to think that the encomenderos still had a good deal of control over Indian labor and tribute. Zavala defines this period as a “clear offensive in favor of encomiendas.” He also believes one can see a change in the Crown’s legal attitude that led to a compromise toward definitive concessions and maintained the practice of the encomienda.81

— 33


The second period of the Spanish institution in New Spain covers the time when the Second Audiencia was in power. Zavala defines it as “the return to a contrary trend toward the institution of the encomienda on the part of the Crown.” Apparently, this attitude resulted from the excesses the First Audiencia had committed through that institution. In the secret instructions sent to the Second Audiencia in 1530, the Indians the First Audiencia had granted to encomiendas were placed under the protection of the Crown. As a transitory measure to reduce the power of the encomenderos, it was ordered that a corregidor would be in charge of the Indians.82 The Crown forbade the Audiencia to entrust anyone to conquer new territories, including those who had already received royal orders to do so. The Crown showed a similar interest, as did Fuenleal, in the economic needs of the Royal Treasury and the importance of setting up a system adapted to the Indian society’s need for protection. This gave rise to an intermediate alternative consisting of reducing the encomenderos’ control over the Indians and, at the same time, allowing the encomenderos to hold in usufruct the tribute and personal services of the Indians who remained vassals of the Crown. Furthermore, the Audiencia would check and regulate this tribute. In 1532 this attempt to set tribute through assessment was begun. In addition, it was declared that the encomendero had no direct dominion over the Indians allocated to him; jurisdiction over them was held by the Crown. Once again, in 1533 the Council of the Indies reasserted its position on the Indians’ freedom and stated that the Indians should not be granted to encomenderos. On the other hand, the Crown did not want to risk having the new members of the Audiencia identify with the encomendero group and forbade the oidores to have Indians allotted to them under the encomienda system.83 The Crown did not want the encomenderos, who were still powerful, to react unexpectedly to its plans, and it kept them quiet by having them believe the court was considering a general repartimiento. The Crown ordered that the Audiencia should give preference to conquistadores and the first settlers for any service to the Crown and that it should make a general report on New Spain with a view to a possible repartimiento. Furthermore, before 1532 the Crown sent orders to the presiding judge, Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal, allowing him to allot Indians to encomenderos if necessary.84 Through its Audiencia, the Crown saw that the encomienda did not become a jurisdictional lordship that would enable the encomenderos to set any tribute, be it in-kind, in work, or in money. For the king, maintaining juridical control over the Indian towns was an important political and economic factor.85

34 —


Naturally, the most relevant consequence of the application of this Crown policy in New Spain was direct conflict with the encomenderos. This group had acted autonomously in its relationship with the Indians up to that time, and extreme oppression exerted on Indian society formed part of “an extension of the militarism of the conquest in the years following it.” The encomenderos made no distinction between encomienda Indians and Indian slaves. Most of the Indian population had been defeated in war, and slaves formed a part of that war booty. Furthermore, in spite of the obstacles placed on the encomenderos by the introduction of the corregimiento, they had too much strength, and their economic and political reasoning generally convinced the Crown and, consequently, the Second Audiencia as long as royal jurisdiction was not in jeopardy.86 This situation is illustrated in the way the Crown proceeded. When it attempted to carry out political transformations that would result in the survival of the Indians and some of their rights, it had to take a step backward when faced with colonists’ pressure. Thus, after a period in which the Crown forbade enslavement of the native population, complaints from the colonists and the economic needs of the colony led it to revoke the order, and by 1534 it again allowed slaves to be branded. Likewise, as we will see later, regarding labor, the Crown forbade the use of tameme (Indian bearers) in its orders to the First Audiencia. This continued in force during the administration headed by Fuenleal. The colonists’ response, through attorneys in Mexico City, was to negotiate the revoking of the order, as happened somewhat later in spite of the opposition of the Audiencia’s presiding judge.87 The colonists’ complaints to the Crown for rectification were at times effective, if monotonous. At no time did the complaining colonists constitute a minority. The people most affected were those to whom the First Audiencia had granted repartimientos of Indians in encomienda and who, with the new administration, had them taken away. In general, the policy of the Second Audiencia throughout its term was also detrimental to the encomenderos who did not fall into that category. For example, when a vacancy occurred following the death of their encomendero, the Indians were placed under the Crown’s jurisdiction—as were those whose encomendero was absent, especially if he had more than one repartimiento. Furthermore, in 1533 the Audiencia suggested that the Indians granted to Spaniards who were not conquistadores and not married, or ones who were married and who did not bring their wives to New Spain within a stipulated time, would be placed under the Crown.88 All of this contributed to the fact that the number of encomenderos willing to defend their rights rose remarkably. The Crown saw problems looming from the increased number of Spaniards affected by the Second Audiencia’s measures

— 35


regarding the encomienda system, and in 1533 it softened the proposal by ordering that encomiendas should not be taken away from conquistadores for any reason, either in New Spain or in its dependent provinces.89 The colonists’ criticisms of the Second Audiencia’s policy demonstrated that not only they but also the Royal Treasury were being harmed. They skillfully pointed out the negative consequences the Second Audiencia’s measures would have for the colony. They also mentioned the scarcity and rising prices of products in Mexico, the latent danger of a possible Indian rebellion, the colony’s general instability, the disillusionment of the colonists who no longer wanted to plant crops or engage in any kind of business, the drop in profits from the mines, and similar factors. Although these arguments were reiterative—and somewhat exaggerated—they reflected the prevailing political and economic situation and the potential harm to the Royal Treasury if wealth was not generated in the colony.90 The conflict between the members of the Second Audiencia and the Municipal Council was especially notorious. The Mexico City Municipal Council accused the Audiencia of having concealed royal orders that were important for the settlers, such as, for example, one that allowed the branding of slaves and another that permitted Indians belonging to conquistadores who had died to pass to their widows. Furthermore, council members accused the oidores, particularly Salmerón, of insulting Antonio de Carvajal—a Mexico City resident and an attorney on the Municipal Council—in court. Moreover, the Municipal Council brought a suit against the Audiencia for not allowing the council to appoint the chief constable, although the Crown had given it permission to do so.91 However suspicious these accusations may appear, the Audiencia did keep a close watch over the Mexico City Municipal Council and suggested to the Crown that it should allow an oidor appointed by the Audiencia’s presiding judge to attend council sessions, since “the members of the Municipal Council of this city take more interest in their own affairs than in governing.” Also, on one occasion the Audiencia prevented Mexico City attorneys from placing a petition before the Spanish court requesting that encomiendas be granted in perpetuity.92 At times, the radical position of some encomenderos was clear, but they argued very skillfully and tried to stay within certain limits. This did not, however, prevent them from occasionally making false accusations against certain members of the Second Audiencia. An example is the testimony of Ana Rebolledo Hernandez, the wife of Pedro Hernandez de Navarrete, encomendero of Acayuca (Pachuca).93

36 —


During the residencia hearings on the Second Audiencia, Doña Ana stated that Don Juan, the Indian lord of Tlatelolco, had made a rosary with “very large” gold beads for the wife of Oidor Ceynos and had not been paid. She added that she had only heard of this but that she had spread the news around. She concluded that she “was very upset and angry at the above-mentioned Licenciado Ceynos because he had been the reason why her Indians no longer served her and because of other causes contained in a petition that she had brought against him at the Audiencia.” Doña Ana hinted that she knew of several irregularities committed by the oidores and had mentioned this to Viceroy Mendoza. Her accusations were not heeded. During the hearings Don Juan was summoned to make a statement and, somewhat surprised, explained that neither he nor anyone else, to his knowledge, had made a rosary for Oidor Ceynos.94 Apparently, there was no follow-up on this case. The Audiencia had more serious matters to deal with regarding the encomienda than defending itself against attacks from people like Doña Ana. In applying the measures contained in its instructions, as well as those taken to protect the Indians, the Audiencia underwent two stages. Lesley Byrd Simpson mentions that before Fuenleal arrived in 1532, the other Second Audiencia oidores had a more flexible attitude toward the encomenderos.95 Not the least of these concerns involved the socioeconomic problems the colony was experiencing as a result of the implementation of the Crown’s plan. Thus, when the Audiencia members mentioned in 1531 that 120 encomiendas had been taken away, they also commented that the encomenderos’ dissatisfaction sometimes caused prices to rise and that the cost of living was high and constantly rising in New Spain. In the same report they declared that they were willing to continue with the Crown’s policy but added that they would prefer to allot Indians to certain people, especially the widows and children of conquistadores. Finally, they explained that if anything would stop the imminent clash between the Audiencia and the encomenderos, it was the fact that the latter still had hopes of a general repartimiento—a matter on which they, as oidores, encouraged them to continue to trust: We believe that they trust us to inform your Majesty of the truth of their difficulties, and we encourage them a great deal to rest assured, telling them how we are attending to them and they also see this, because we have sent throughout the land the people we found most fitting to bring us a report of what there is in it, which neither we nor these bishops or members of religious orders are able to reach and thus we keep them happy although they continue mumbling and mulling it over.96

— 37


Fuenleal’s position, however, was less flexible with regard to the encomienda, and toward the end of his administration he favored postponing any general repartimiento. In fact, Fuenleal tried to increase the Audiencia’s jurisdiction to see that royal orders were strictly fulfilled, especially the one stipulating that the native population should not be decimated as a result of excesses committed by encomenderos.97 Ever since his arrival in Mexico, Fuenleal had asked the Crown to modify its royal order that the oidores should deal with criminal cases only within a five-league radius of their jurisdiction and have no authorization to commission judges outside those limits. Fuenleal defended the revoking of this order, explaining in a letter to the Crown that the Spaniards’ mayordoms (calpisque) had killed Indians, made them carry heavy burdens, and caused other problems in places far from the Audiencia. Further, because these towns were held by encomenderos, no corregidores were nearby. Therefore, the Audiencia suggested sending its representatives beyond the five-league limit to investigate and report on such abuses, as well as on the cases in which Indians from different towns were in disagreement. Fuenleal believed the corregidores should be those delegates.98 Somewhat earlier the Crown had shown an interest in having the oidores visit the provinces of New Spain and had sent orders giving them permission to do so.99 Abuses continued, however. For example, one of the best-known abuses involved the way the Tepetlaoztoc encomendero treated his Indians. The oidores were accused of not punishing the encomenderos Rodrigo de Bazán and Isidro de Moreno and two others for poor treatment and excessive tribute demands of Indians in their respective repartimientos. The size of the territory of New Spain made it impossible to keep a close watch over the most distant encomiendas, a reality that did not improve the situation.100 Preventing the encomenderos from treating the Indians poorly was not a political objective of the Second Audiencia but rather was a consequence of the idea of introducing royal jurisdiction in the territory. Therefore, Fuenleal proposed that the colonists’ services be rewarded by the Indians’ tribute and personal service but that the colonists receive no jurisdiction, since it belonged to the Crown and could not be taken away.101 The Second Audiencia members carried out their mission of providing the groundwork for greater control over both Spanish and Indian affairs. Although this initially purported that the Indians’ situation would improve, other factors—such as the economic development of colonial society with its increasing needs, the benefit of the Royal Treasury, and similar issues— caused the measures that were important for the survival of Indian society

38 —


to be eased, altered, or suppressed when they were put into practice in the colony. In this regard, it is important to explain the reasons that led to the founding of Puebla de los Angeles and the transformations the Audiencia’s original project underwent. The city arose as an alternative to the encomienda, which the members of the Second Audiencia and the Crown believed they could promote. It was an experiment that aimed to prove that the colonists were capable of living and generating wealth in the territory of New Spain without having Indians allotted to them but rather by coexisting peacefully with them. The difficulty of carrying out such a project was that the settlement came into being, but the colonists did not want to leave the capital. This meant that the Audiencia had to make concessions that from the beginning distorted the original plan. In addition, it had to resist the attacks of the encomenderos, especially those who were Mexico City residents and who protested the creation of Puebla to the Crown on various occasions.102 Finally, the political prestige of the oidores visà-vis the Crown was at stake. Various elements combined to favor the founding of a settlement of Spaniards dedicated mainly to agriculture in the Tlaxcala area, among which, at the outset, was the initiative of the bishop of Tlaxcala, Dominican friar Julian Garces. Together with the Franciscans, he pleaded before the Crown for the idea of founding a Spanish town in his diocese to prevent the native population from rebelling. The Franciscans’ interest lay in founding a town of farmers who would work the land. Meanwhile, in 1531–1533 the Crown aimed to foster agricultural development in New Spain and sought to encourage this through a population of labradores (Spanish farmers), taking up once again an earlier, unsuccessful experiment of the well-known Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas. For its part, the Audiencia wanted to found a city of farmers that would benefit the royal revenue by cultivating fertile lands, thereby reducing criticism in the Spanish court about the First Audiencia’s administration.103 In general, the project to found Puebla arose as an economic and social alternative to the encomienda. Originally, the project aimed to locate landless emigrants who were willing to settle in the area in a new city between Tlaxcala and Cholula. Julia Hirschberg has demonstrated, however, that 60 to 80 percent of the first colonists of Puebla had at least five years’ prior experience in the Americas. Hirschberg has pointed out that the founders of Puebla sought to attract a new type of Spaniard, dedicated to agriculture, although the people who arrived there were more interested in obtaining the greatest possible number of grants of land. As is well-known, the site for the city was changed twice.

— 39


Puebla was first founded on April 16, 1531, midway between Tlaxcala and Cholula at a “resting” place on the road from Mexico City to Veracruz.104 It was a strategic site—surrounded by fertile land, located on the main route from Mexico City to Veracruz, and sufficiently near a dense Indian settlement over which it was to keep watch. At least half the population who settled there was chosen from among the conquistadores, of whom a large percentage (30.8) had received a prior grant of encomienda or corregimiento. As Hirschberg asserts, this ran counter to the Second Audiencia’s intentions, which were not to choose conquistadores to participate in the settlement of the town. The first colonists were temporarily granted twenty Indians from neighboring towns to help them build their houses and prepare the land for cultivation. The Audiencia, especially the person in charge of the project, Oidor Salmerón, hoped that within ten years the Indians’ services could be eliminated. In addition to the Indians, each Spaniard received between 1 and 1.5 caballerías (units of farmland equivalent to 106 acres each) of land. In Hirschberg’s opinion, importing this labor compromised the experiment from the beginning, as the aim had been to show that Spaniards could work without the help of Indians.105 The second founding of Puebla took place in late 1532 under the surveillance of Oidor Salmerón. The Franciscans coordinated the relocation. The new site chosen was the Valley of Atlixco, and the concession was made by taking land from Huejotzingo, Calpan, and Cholula. Although at the beginning of this project the vowed intention was not to affect Indian lands, in the relocation and with the permission of civil and religious authorities, Indian lands were encroached upon. Similarly, the Indians’ service was continued. This time Tlaxcala and Cholula had to provide between 1,300 and 1,600 Indians a week for the colonists’ activities. In this second settlement more than half of the colonists of Puebla were conquistadores. Therefore, a large number of people the Audiencia especially wanted to fight and did in fact fight through its experiment remained settled in Puebla. Even more revealing is the fact that most of the population of Puebla in 1531–1533 had previously lived in Mexico City, in spite of Salmerón’s assertion that he would not allow inhabitants of Mexico City to settle in Puebla. Of the total population of Puebla in 1531, 57.1 percent came from Mexico City. By 1532 that figure had risen to 65.3 percent. As Hirschberg comments ironically, “the enemy camp” of Mexican conquistadores had moved to Puebla. Finally, Puebla did not signify an alternative to the encomienda because of the compromises the Crown and local authorities had been obliged to make during its establishment.106 The consequences for the native population of the province of Tlaxcala were not immediate but could be foreseen. Although the administration’s origi-

40 —


nal policy was to prevent Pueblan colonists from taking over Indian lands, the opposite occurred as throughout the sixteenth century such orders were ignored again and again. The attraction, as can be supposed, was great not only because of Indian lands but also because of the abundant native labor.107 Problems arose from the time of the first settlement of Puebla, when the Indians were forced to personally serve the colonists. Before that, from the beginning of the tasación (tribute assessment record) policy of the Second Audiencia, Tlaxcala had paid a nonspecified tribute of 8,000 fanegas (1.5 bushels) of maize each year. With the founding of Puebla, Tlaxcala’s tribute was changed to personal service to the Puebla colonists. For four years Tlaxcala had to deliver 800 Indians a week, in exchange for which the obligation to pay tribute in maize was eliminated, as was the maintenance of the Spanish constable. The Spanish corregidor distributed the Indians among the colonists. Although the Second Audiencia planned to do away with personal service once the colonists had become self-sufficient, the policy was never eliminated. By 1538 the Indians of Tlaxcala not only had to again pay 8,000 fanegas of maize per year but, in addition, had to continue to serve the residents of Puebla, even though that service was no longer legal. In fact, it continued throughout the sixteenth century, and the Puebla colonists never accepted any reduction in the number of workers.108 Apparently, the mechanisms Oidor Salmerón and the Puebla colonists used for sharing the Indians are unknown, and there seems to be a deliberate effort to conceal the circumstances.109 In spite of this, since the large majority of the Puebla population was made up of conquistadores, some insight can be gained from various comments. Gerónimo López, a conquistador, asserted that he knew that once the Indians had been taken to Puebla, they were herded into enclosures and then distributed to the Spaniards. The Indians were stripped and made to work in the nude, and their clothes were taken as a guarantee that they would not run away. However suspicious this testimony may be, Gerónimo was very exact in stating that he saw how the Indians of Huejotzingo had their lands taken from them and divided among the colonists.110 Some Huejotzingo lands were, in fact, used in the second settlement of the Spanish city, which indicates that Gerónimo López knew details the Audiencia apparently chose to ignore. Finally, the location of the Spanish city of Puebla had an effect on the serious problems experienced by the Tlaxcala Indians. Without the mediation of the Second Audiencia, especially that of Oidor Salmerón, the coexistence of colonists and Indians became increasingly intolerable for the latter. In 1535 the Crown restated that colonists were forbidden to hold lands in the province of

— 41


Tlaxcala, although the Crown also chose to ignore this principle. In 1538 it granted lands in Tlaxcala to Diego de Ordaz, one of the founders of Puebla and a cattle owner in Atlixco. By 1540 the situation was alarming, as Spanish cattle strayed into Indian crops.111 Tlaxcala suffered the consequences of this failed experiment. I believe Puebla de los Angeles can be considered an alternative project to the encomienda, fundamentally because the aim was that the colonists there would receive neither tribute nor personal service. As we have noticed, the Crown, like Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal, tried to see that the encomenderos would have no jurisdiction over the Indians. What was discussed at this stage was the need to establish mechanisms so the Crown could centralize its power in New Spain. The benefits to which the colonists were entitled were not questioned, however, and the attempt was made merely to find alternatives that would allow the Indian population to survive. With the Puebla experiment, the Audiencia tried to go beyond that plan and prove that the Crown could receive benefits, as could the colonists, without receiving tribute or personal service from the Indians. In brief, the Puebla experiment was frustrated from the beginning when the Audiencia consented to the Indians’ giving personal service to the colonists and when it allowed some conquistadores living in Mexico City to move to Puebla.

POLICY OF THE SECOND AUDIENCIA: CORREGIMIENTO In general, the characteristics of the corregimiento institution might lead us to think that in its first stage, the Crown considered it an alternative to the encomienda. It is not clear, however, that the Crown conceived it as such. In the instructions to the Audiencia, it was ordered that the Indian towns granted in encomienda by the First Audiencia should be placed under the Crown because the First Audiencia had allotted Indians to its members’ relatives and friends. Furthermore, it is obvious that when an Audiencia was dismissed, the decisions it had taken during its term were apt to be revoked. Likewise, it was ordered that while the Crown was determining its stance on allocating Indians in perpetuity, the Second Audiencia should also place under the Crown any encomiendas that had “fallen vacant or were to fall vacant in some way.” Finally, in these towns justice was to remain in the hands of a Spanish royal official (corregidor), and Indians were to go to other royal officials to pay the tribute assessed by the Audiencia.112 Both Zavala and Gibson mention that the corregimiento was reflected in the instructions as an alternative institution to the encomienda, although later this

42 —


was not so.113 In any case, at the beginning of the corregimiento the Crown did not clearly state that it was an alternative. The instructions hinted that not all encomenderos were going to be affected by the Crown. The order addressed encomiendas granted by the First Audiencia—that is, a tribunal that had been dismissed and whose decisions were considered to have been incorrect. Although the instructions mentioned that repartimientos that no longer had encomenderos should revert to the Crown, they specified that this was only the case while the decision on the general repartimiento was being discussed. Therefore, at the outset the corregimiento was not thought of as affecting all encomenderos. In addition, it was left to the presiding judge of the Audiencia to decide whether to make this measure more general, as he had the power to grant encomiendas to private individuals if he thought fit. This would make it possible for the number of repartimientos held by private individuals to stabilize, only changing from one private individual to another or increasing if more grants were made. This did not happen because of the policy followed by the Second Audiencia, which preferred not to increase jurisdiction among private individuals.114 It is not clear that the Crown considered the corregimiento as an alternative to the encomienda. Gibson mentions that encomienda and corregimiento were closely related at this stage for two main reasons. One was that although “corregidores . . . were salaried officials, while encomenderos were not . . . at the beginning, their salaries depended exclusively on tribute.” In fact, at times that tribute represented almost all of the corregidores’ salaries.115 The other reason Gibson mentions for finding a relationship between the two institutions, with which I agree, refers to the fact that the Crown allowed some corregimientos (the king’s encomiendas) to be granted to encomenderos who had been dispossessed of their allocation of Indians.116 This happened in the case of the corregidor Miguel Díaz de Aux (unfortunately, we do not know of which towns he was corregidor). Díaz was encomendero of half of Meztitlán until 1525, and during 1524–1525 he was encomendero of Tempoal in Pánuco and of Tepetlaoztoc, Texcoco, from 1527 to 1528. Another case is that of Lope de Saavedra, corregidor of Michoacán. When he was a resident of Pánuco in 1528, he was granted the multiple encomienda of Tuxpan, which he later sold to another private individual. Hernando de Helgueta, corregidor of Tlaxcala from 1531 to 1538, had a third of the encomienda of Tlapalcatepec, Michoacán, until 1531.117 Some encomenderos were also corregidores, which apparently was not forbidden by the Crown (see Chapter 2). The fact that this was allowed leads us to wonder to what extent the initial idea of creating the corregimiento was a countermeasure to the encomienda. From what we know, two encomenderos were

— 43


simultaneously corregidores under the Second Audiencia: Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia, encomendero of a quarter of Tlapa, and Antonio de Carvajal, encomendero of Zacatlán, Puebla.118 In general, it would seem that the Audiencia was eager to maintain royal jurisdiction and opposed to making exceptions. There seem to be few cases, in spite of the fact that the Crown did not forbid encomenderos from being corregidores. Despite the fact that the Audiencia could grant more corregimientos to people who had Indians, it did not do so.119 In addition, the Crown likely took into account the importance of the office of corregidor to Indian towns. By means of the corregimiento, the Crown took away the Indian lords’ right to judge important cases. From that time on, the corregidores’ tasks covered important aspects of Indian towns, as can be seen in the particular instructions written for them in 1530. The corregidor was to find out about different crops formerly given to the encomendero before the towns were placed under the Crown. He was to review the record of tribute contained in the Indians’ pictorial records and to investigate the tribute given before the Spaniards arrived. With these data he had to report on the amount of tribute the Indians could pay at that time and send it to the Audiencia so the towns could be assessed. His opinion on the subject was taken into account, and he was obliged to give it. In addition, he was to review the labranzas (plowed land) and granjerías (estates) the local encomenderos had held before they came under the Crown, seeing that these undertakings were not affected or harmed in any way. The corregidor also had to survey the encomiendas of private individuals close to his corregimiento, reporting on the calpisque administering it, the treatment of the Indians there, the tribute they paid, whether there was a chaplain, and, in general, anything important to communicate to the Audiencia. Moreover, he was ordered to inform the Audiencia about monasteries in the nearby towns in the encomienda and the corregimiento. In general, the corregidores’ tasks increased continually because of suggestions from the Audiencia, and from 1532 on Fuenleal requested that the Crown permit the Audiencia to appoint and send delegates to the towns that were part of private encomiendas beyond the five-league limit of the Audiencia’s jurisdiction (which was where most of the abuses of Indians took place). These delegates should “gather the information and arrest the culprits.” Fuenleal suggested that some of these visitors could be corregidores themselves.120 From that time on, the main restriction on the corregidor was that he could only take “food and maintenance goods” from towns he was responsible for “because he did not have the wherewithal to buy them.” But he had to do so in

44 —


an orderly way, with a scribe writing down what he had taken and requesting that the Indians make a note of what had been requested in their pictorial records, explaining that this would be discounted from the corregidor’s salary. The aim here was to prevent the Indians from confusing a corregidor with an encomendero.121 The earlier instructions reveal an interest by the Crown to guarantee minimal rights to the Indians. The people in charge of carrying out the orders, however, were not always suitable for the office of corregidor. As we have seen, the Crown did not forbid encomenderos from being appointed corregidores. Apparently, the Audiencia took care of these appointments to the extent that it could, reviewing the information it started receiving from colonists who wanted to become corregidores. The oidores were inclined to appoint as corregidores people who had no Indians or were new arrivals—preferably married ones. They appointed married men as corregidores in the towns close to Mexico City and sent some single men to outlying areas. Some colonists protested that the Audiencia granted corregimientos to people who had recently arrived in the colony, to those with a manual trade, or to men who were married to Indian women—who were considered despicable. For example, Antonio de la Cadena, a Royal Treasury official, protested because the Audiencia had granted the office of corregidor to people of “low condition and married to Indian women.” The encomendero of Cicoac, Pedro de Meneses, mentioned that the oidores appointed as corregidores men of “little skill” and men married to Indian women, and he referred to the case of a constable, Francisco López, of whom it was said that he was a carpenter and married to a quadroon. The colonists’ complaints stemmed from the fact that the Audiencia did not appoint them as corregidores. They were conquistadores, which qualified them to receive such an appointment.122 Although the colonists were opposed to their encomiendas being placed under the Crown and fought against it, they also perceived that becoming corregidores was a final resource that ultimately might compensate for the loss of their Indians. In addition, that compensation did not represent the salary a corregidor received. The Mexico City Municipal Council proposed to the Crown that it appoint as corregidores people who had lost their Indians.123 In general, and in spite of the care the Audiencia had taken to choose suitable people for the office of corregidor, those appointed sometimes went beyond the limits of their functions, to the detriment of the Indians. Licenciado Castañeda, a corregidor in Michoacán, stole gold and silver from the local Indian lord and other natives. The Audiencia decided to investigate the case and sent Oidor Quiroga to visit Michoacán. The corregidor of Texcoco, Rodrigo

— 45


Gómez, took slaves from other Spaniards and “marked them with his own brand over that of the owners,” as well as engaging in other types of “ill treatment of the Indians of his own corregimiento.”124 If a corregidor had previous experience as an encomendero, the poor treatment and abuse of Indians in his corregimiento likely increased. For example, corregidor Miguel Díaz de Aux had been encomendero of Tepetlaoztoc in 1527– 1528. He sent 1,200 tameme, together with 10 Indian women and various nobles from the village, to the gold mines 30 leagues away from the encomienda carrying 3,700 loads of maize, hens, and other supplies. In addition, he received from the Indians of his encomienda 14 discs of gold, 12 loads of clothing, 80,000 grains of chili, 200 loads of salt, 80 fanegas of beans, 800 fanegas of ground maize, 800 fanegas of cornmeal, 20 loads of biscuits, 300 tameme of hens, and 60 loads of pinole (a drink made of toasted maize).125 Someone who had been an encomendero would likely be dissatisfied with the lower salary of a corregidor and would probably seek additional ways to profit from the latter position. Corregidores’ salaries were not very high for the time, and normally they were taxed. Salaries fluctuated from 200 to 500 pesos a year (see Chapter 2), and some were even lower, such as the 140 pesos the corregidor of Chiconautla received in 1531. In addition, prices were high: a fanega of wheat cost half a peso, and an arroba (2.6 to 3.6 gallons) of the best red wine cost 4 pesos.126 A corregidor did have other ways of profiting from the resources within his reach, some of which involved bending the law. For example, he could trade products imported from Spain. This was done by the corregidor of Otumba who had brought articles from Spain to trade and, among other things, sold some harnesses to Hernán Cortés. Furthermore, a corregidor could trade with the products the Indians gave him free of charge, and even though the products had to be discounted from his salary, it may have been the corregidor himself who did the accounts.127 According to the Crown’s instructions, anything a corregidor requested from the Indians had to be taken down by a scribe. Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal mentioned in 1532, however, that there were no scribes for the towns. The oidores pointed out that when they found the corregidores to be at fault on any charge, they called in a scribe and a statement was taken from the corregidor. If he was found not guilty, he was allowed to continue in office, and the information was taken down before the scribe of the Audiencia. Since there was no one “to pay the scribe for this work,” however, the scribe did it “unwillingly.” In addition, although there were supposed to be residencia hearings on corregidores and they were not to continue in office if found guilty, this policy

46 —


was rarely carried out.The Second Audiencia was even accused of prolonging some corregidores’ terms in office without a residencia hearing.128 In fact, the Audiencia had foreseen the problems the corregidores might create for the towns. Initially, the oidores did not allow recently appointed corregidores to visit their jurisdictions unless authorized to do so by the Audiencia. Gibson mentions that “this restriction suggests that the Audiencia feared that the corregidores might enter into conflict with the encomenderos or that they might make use of their position to engage in exploitation, as the encomenderos did.” In fact, it appears that the second case was more likely. By 1533, the issue of corregidores residing in their corregimientos was questioned because the Crown had been informed that these royal officials should be prevented from settling in the towns.129 There is no doubt that the Audiencia attempted to extend royal jurisdiction by means of the corregimiento. In less than three years (from the time of the Audiencia members’ arrival in Mexico up to 1533), it placed fifty-three encomiendas under the Crown (see Table 1.1). This number indicates that the Second Audiencia was serious about putting the practice of royal jurisdiction into effect. Placing this number of towns in the corregimiento system required a clearly defined political decision by these authorities with regard to the possible consequences of such measures. The decision must have presented some problems. No doubt the main one was to curb the encomenderos’ dissatisfaction. As we have seen, the Second Audiencia avoided handing over the office of corregidor to colonists who had been allotted Indians. This policy, however, created another problem: Which Spaniards should be granted the office of corregidor? It was obviously difficult to find fifty-three colonists willing to take on the office without attempting to obtain personal advantage from it and willing to maintain royal jurisdiction in the towns entrusted to them. As an illustration of the inherent problems, shortly after the end of the Second Audiencia’s administration, during the period 1533–1546, of the fifty-three corregimientos existing in 1533, thirty were under the authority of a corregidor who simultaneously enjoyed an allocation of Indians. In addition, five of the fifty-three corregimientos returned to being private encomiendas during this period (see Tables 1.1 and 2.3). This indicates not only the difficulties the Second Audiencia faced but also the short-lived nature of the encomienda and corregimiento programs. The consequences of the measure for the Indian population depended largely on the controls carried out by the Audiencia to prevent excesses as it placed more towns under the Crown. This can be seen in the interest of some encomenderos in obtaining corregimientos, as well as in the cases of corregidores

— 47

31-VII-1531 2-X-1531 [1531?] [1531?]

Tiquiquequilco Huazolotitlán Teuzapotlán, Yztepec, Ocotlán Aquila, Iztupila, Zalagua, Tlacatiquilpa Tecomavaca y Sujeto

Pochutlatana, Ameca, and subjects

6-IV-1532 13-IX-1531 29-V-1532 1-VIII-1531

Chilapa Chinantla Tenayuca Chichicapa, Titiquepa

8 loads of skirts and shirts (with 40 pieces of cloth), 1 sementera of corn each year 36 xiquipil of cacao beans

62 pesos of gold in tejuelos, 2,000 fanegas of corn, 20 bundles of chili, 10 fanegas of beans 120 pesos of gold dust 2 loads of cacao beans 59 pesos of gold in tejuelos 286 pesos, 4 reales, gold dust, tejuelos, 80 pieces of cloth, 10 fanegas of beans, 1,085 fanegas of corn 100 fanegas of beans 2,130 fanegas of corn 2,000 loads of corn

17-IV-1531

1,000 loads of corn

800 fanegas of corn each year 1 sementera of wheat 88 pesos of gold dust

150 pesos 233 pesos of gold, 4 loads of cloth, sementera: 2 thousand brazas each year 6 loads of cloth (toldillo, “canopy”) 10 fanegas of corn 76 pesos of gold dust 765 pesos of gold dust

4-IV-1531 20-III-1531 3-IV-1533

4-V-1532 13-V-1531 31-III-1531 27-III-1531

600 pesos of gold dust 8 tejuelos de 25 c/u

Tribute Indian Towns Should Pay to the Crown Amount of Tribute Given Less by Indian Towns

Acatlán, Aguatlán Tepeapulco Yanhuitlán Xalapa, Acatlán, Cintla, Coytlán, Zacatepec Huamelula Teposcolula Tamazula, Etlatongo, Suchitepeque, Axomilco, Amatlán Talistaca

20-III-1531 23-X-1531

Tlapa Otumba

Date1

Table 1.1 List of Corregimiento Towns and Tributes Prior to October 18, 1533

continued on next page

Atlatlauca Teutila Teozacoalco Orizaba Tatatelco (Guazpaltepec) Cihiatanetepasuneca, Alimay, Pochotulan, Goabayucla Tasco Ochulubusco, Mezquique Calpa Teutenango, Tepemaxalco, Coatepec Cihuatecanapa Tetabanco Guaxuapa Epetlán Yzcuintlapilco Tezcoco Metateyuca, Atlán, Tezapotitlán

Texupa Taxitaro, Tacapaltepeque Macuilsuchil, Teotitlán

40 skirts, 40 shirts, 3 small jars of honey 3 loads of canopy cloth 140 pesos, 60 tomines of gold, 10 loads of canopy cloth 9 loads of canopy cloth, 2,000 loads of corn 8 loads of cloth 3 loads of canopy cloth 7 loads: skirts and shirts

Didn’t pay

4-V-1532 11-III-1531 18-VII-1531 15-IV-1531 17-IV-1531 13-III-1531 11-III-1531

29 tejuelos of silver (“each one as big as the palm of a hand and equally thick”) 48 pesos of gold dust 42 toldos, 300 pieces: skirts and shirts 85 pesos of gold, 1 sementera of corn (“that must have 250 fanegas”) 60 “pieces of textile” (cloth) 1 load of cacao beans 117 pesos, 9 loads of chili, 9 loads of beans

11 pesos and 5 tomines (“from certain corn and cloth”)

900 fanegas of corn 25 pesos of mined gold

56 small loads of wax 7 loads of canopy cloth (2 each load) 10 loads of canopy cloth, 344 fanegas of corn 9 loads of canopy cloth

without assessment without assessment without assessment

2 sementeras of corn each year 1 sementera of corn

27-IV-1531 29-III-1531

11-X-1532 1-III-1533 22-V-1532

11-VIII-1531 8-V-1532

1-VIII-1531 each year

Mitla, Tacolula

Cimantlatepe, Cimatlán, Guaniqueo

10-IX-1531

Ocotlán Titiquipaque

50 —

11-III-1531 10-III-1531 29-XI-1531 28-III-1531 14-IV-1531 14-VI-1531 7-XI-1531 21-III-1531

Date1

Tribute Indian Towns Should Pay to the Crown

2,989 loads of corn 10 loads of canopy cloth 3 loads of canopy cloth 43 loads of canopy cloth, 480 pieces: skirts, shirts, and cloth 6 loads and 2 pieces: skirts and shirts 8 loads of canopy cloth 40 loads of canopy cloth 3 loads of canopy cloth

Amount of Tribute Given Less by Indian Towns

Sources: AGI, Justicia, 232, “Relación de los tributos que han dado a Su Majestad los pueblos que se pusieron en corregimiento antes de dieciocho de septiembre de mil quinientos treinta y tres años, que fue el tiempo que no se vino en cuenta a los corregidores por no tener los oficiales las moderaciones de ellos no comisión para las poder tomar porque hasta el dicho día, no se les dio comisión ni moderación alguna para tomar la dicha cuenta.” Millán de Valdivieso, taken from account books, ordered by Licenciado Loaysa, oidor and responsible for residencia hearings on the members of Second Audiencia. 1. Day-month-year.

Xiquipilco Teutitlán, Tehuacán, and sujetos Sochiguatla Tululuava and Tultepeque Xicotepec Teutalco and Centeupa Utlavac Cuatepeque

Table 1.1—continued



interested in gaining personal economic benefit at the expense of local Indians. The fact that the oidores were opposed to letting corregidores settle in the towns shows that the latter did not represent an improvement for the natives but were just another means of reducing the encomenderos’ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the colonists’ interests were also linked to those of the Crown. They were the ones who guaranteed the defense of New Spain and raised the Royal Treasury’s revenue through their undertakings. Reconciling all of this was not an easy task, and the Audiencia had to make great adjustments—especially, as we will see, with regard to Indian tribute and labor.

THE SECOND AUDIENCIA’S POLICY ON TRIBUTE A significant aspect on which the Audiencia focused when organizing royal jurisdiction over the Indians had to do with its policy on tribute and Indian labor. This was important not only to avoid the extermination of the native population but also to guarantee the colony’s economic growth. The Second Audiencia endeavored to centralize the administration of both tribute and Indian labor. It was able to guarantee firm backing of the Crown when faced with the Spaniards’ demands that they obtain broader powers over the Indians. At the same time, the Second Audiencia became an intermediary to prevent the colonial economy from being excessively affected by its main policy of rationalizing the system of colonial exploitation. José Miranda has explained how, especially in the early days of the colony, tribute played a major role in enabling the natural economy of Indian society to change to the monetary system of Spanish society. He also explained that in the political and social domains, tribute was the basis on which the Crown ensured the “defense and sustenance” of the colony. Tribute thus became the first link of control and government between Indians and Spaniards.130 For the Indian community, however, tribute was the greatest burden the Spaniards imposed. It was, as Gibson mentions, “an obligation that no community could continually support over the long term.” This was especially true in the 1520s, when imperial control had not yet restrained the ambitions of the conquistadores and the officials. During the years after the conquest, when there was neither order nor tasación to curb Spanish demands, the excesses committed by the encomenderos upset the balance in the native communities to such an extent that the Crown had to issue this set of laws to prevent the ruin of the colony and even that of the Royal Treasury.131 The way in which the Crown proceeded at first was imprecise because of its lack of knowledge about assessing tribute, accentuated by the lack of a

— 51


sufficiently centralized local authority to provide proper reports. Thus, before the Audiencia was set up, the Crown had only ordered, by instructions to Hernán Cortés and Ponce de León, that an inquiry be made as to how much the Indians had formerly paid to Moctezuma and their own Indian lords.132 The First Audiencia received practically no instructions regarding tribute except that it should find out how much the Indians had previously paid and write a general “memorandum.” I have already mentioned that the Indians of the provinces were to remain under the Crown. If a general repartimiento were to be made, they could pay tribute annually in gold or in-kind, according to their ability.133 Likewise, in these first attempts to organize tribute, the Crown ordered the encomenderos not to take more than the Indians wanted to pay and could afford to give. In this area, in Miranda’s opinion, a general rule arose “on the decision as to which goods could be considered for tribute, that in the long run would become fundamental.” The rule was that encomenderos should not require the Indians to give products that did not exist in their communities. Shortly thereafter, in 1529, the Crown decided that the Indians should have the same tribute levied as the rest of its vassals—namely, church tithes and a tribute that was not too high but that was evaluated according to the Indians’ ability to pay. Both impositions were included in one payment, which was the tribute itself.134 The Second Audiencia also received few instructions about tribute. It was merely pointed out to Audiencia members that the tribute should be set when the Indians were placed in a corregimiento. The corregidores’ salaries should be defrayed by the amount of tribute, with Indians not giving more tribute than that which the Crown stipulated for officials and encomenderos. It was restated that the Indians had to pay tribute on what they produced according to the “quality” of their lands.135 Carrying out these orders was not easy for the Second Audiencia. The numerous problems of organization initially led the Audiencia to delegate this responsibility. In 1531 it asked Bishop Zumárraga to make the first tasaciónes of the Indians, as he was the person with the greatest experience in Indian affairs. The Audiencia members soon realized that Indian customs hindered the task. When they wanted to count the number of people paying tribute to Cortés, for example, they found people who were, in their opinion, “expert at going from one place to another, which confused matters.”136 The Audiencia believed one of the obstacles to success in moderating tribute was the authority native lords still had over the Indians. This implied that the Spanish authorities should find out about the old forms of organizing tribute payments.137 This problem probably reaffirmed the Audiencia’s posi-

52 —


tion on reducing the native lords’ jurisdiction, which did not imply questioning their right to tribute. This reinforces Fuenleal’s ideas on how the Crown should collect tribute formerly given to the Mexican emperor and, at the same time, respect the tribute the caciques received from the Indians. With this in mind, the Audiencia tried to respect the tribute of legitimate native lords and check on the tribute the Indians had formerly given to Moctezuma.138 In 1532 the Crown asked the Audiencia to send a list specifying the number of caciques in the province of Mexico, the quantity and quality of the land they possessed, the tribute gathered, and, particularly, the tribute they had paid to Mexico City in Moctezuma’s time. The Audiencia was forbidden, however, to make any decision on the basis of that information.139 Oidor Alonso de Zorita mentions that before the Spaniards arrived in Mexico, the Mexican emperor collected two types of tribute. One was “voluntary,” or the acceptance of Aztec dominion. The Indians offered products of no specific type and of an indefinite amount “without assessment,” the “voluntary” tribute. Unlike that tribute, Zorita added, lords defeated by the Aztecs and their allies had to hand over a tribute of vassaldom, which was characterized as having a specified amount and time period. As one can see, the types of tribute were not only different but difficult to determine, since the old forms of tribute adhered to a concept of customary law framed within social reciprocity for distribution.140 This was obviously not the case in the new colonial order in which tribute and Indian labor represented a means for producing wealth. The lack of knowledge about the old system of native tribute and the attention to other priorities of a political nature—such as securing colonial rule by extending royal jurisdiction—were some of the reasons the tribute system was not reorganized at that time. This is obvious in the “description” of New Spain the Crown ordered the Audiencia to make and which did not mention this point.141 For the Audiencia members, the criterion of tasación that prevailed was to find out and consider the Indians’ capabilities to pay, on the basis of which they tried to set the amount of tribute. It was not easy to determine this information, so the Audiencia decided to get it from the Indians themselves. The Indians’ declarations helped the Audiencia decide on the assessments according to the Indians’ abilities to pay, although the Indians’ customs disconcerted them. The oidores mentioned that seeing that [the Indians] do not possess more than a petate [mat] on which they lie and a stone on which they make their tortillas, and being unable to see what other things they might have, the assessments are made as best we can, since we are eager to see the royal patrimony increased, and

— 53


the preservation of its vassals, and in view of the above-mentioned difficulties in judging their possibilities, in order to make the assessments we will consult on this matter with your Majesty. We beg you to accept that we did this as best we could and temporarily, since there was no complete information as to why we might alter the tasaciónes.142

Furthermore, the Second Audiencia conferred upon itself a greater jurisdiction than that which corresponded to Indian tribute assessment. In general, and as long as the Crown permitted it, members of the Audiencia decided solely among themselves what the assessment should be without consulting Crown officials. Likewise, the oidores proceeded according to their own plan of shortening the procedures (as they had done in investigating Indian lawsuits). On some occasions they decided to share among themselves the task of setting and reducing the amount of tribute assessed to an Indian town. Baltazar de Castro, an Accounting Office official, mentioned “that these oidores, each one for himself, made assessments at home and outside it.” Juan de Cuevas, principal scribe for mines and records, confirmed that assertion, saying that “he saw Licenciado Maldonado make some assessments of towns and this witness saw that the presiding judge and the other oidores did the same, thus the above-mentioned licenciado by virtue of his commission did so for the town of Cuitlahuac . . . which belongs to this witness.” Millán de Valdivieso, an official of accountant Rodrigo de Albornoz, explained how “Licenciado Ceynos himself, in his home, made tasación assessments on towns; some assessments this witness even wrote down by his own hand, as would appear in the book that the above-mentioned licenciado alone did, and thus I have seen in the book that other assessments are noted which were made by other oidores, particularly as will appear in the enclosed account book.”143 Because its members consulted the Indians to learn how much they had paid in tribute, the assessments set by the Audiencia were highly criticized. Both the Crown officials and the colonists considered that the Indians could pay more tribute than the amounts the Audiencia had set. In fact, this was one of the charges against the oidores in their residencia hearings: “They were remiss toward the Royal Treasury as they assessed the Indian towns according to their criteria and, at other times, reduced the amount of tribute” on the strength of the report the Indians had made. Pedro de Meneses, a Mexico City resident, declared that some of his Indians’ tribute had been reduced “somewhat, although they were able to give more . . . and that other residents of the city had complained saying that they assessed their towns very little when they could get more. [This was b]ased on no other information but what the Indians said.”144

54 —


The conflict was inevitable, especially with the encomenderos, since it was the first time a curb had been put on their demands for tribute, and sometimes there was a request from the encomienda Indians themselves. For example, the Cuernavaca Indians belonging to Hernán Cortés brought “their pictorial records” before the Audiencia and declared that the marquis had demanded more than they could give. The Audiencia sent the evidence, consisting of these pictorial records, so the Crown would be aware of the need to reduce the tribute.145 Further, the assessment of the encomienda towns did not prevent the encomenderos from demanding a higher tribute from their Indians. Thus, the native lord of Huizuco declared that his encomendero, Isidro Moreno, did not respect Vasco de Quiroga’s assessment for the town.146 In addition, there was a problem with the Royal Treasury officials, who protested that they had received no notification of the Audiencia’s reductions for the towns. The officials argued that they therefore had no control of their records. The Crown supported the treasury officials in this petition. For its part, the Audiencia considered that it should have greater control over the officials, especially the one who sold for his own benefit the tribute the corregimiento Indians had handed over to the Royal Treasury officials.147 In spite of these problems, the tribute system was taking shape; it was setting rates and creating special ledgers for recording them. The oidores were now obliged to rely on Crown officials to determine the assessments. Thus, Valdivieso, a Royal Accounting Office official, mentioned that Albornoz sometimes asked members of the Audiencia for a copy of the assessments made for the corregimientos, since he needed to show the other officials how much royal tribute was received. The Audiencia finally agreed to his demand and ordered that Valdivieso fetch the book in which assessments for the king’s towns were recorded and make a copy of it in the Accounting Office notebook (which he did on September 18, 1533). It would seem that from then on the Audiencia ordered corregidores to go to Crown officials to receive instructions on how they should proceed with regard to tribute to be paid to the Crown.148 This centralization also implied that the Crown’s interest should be protected, even when the tribute obligations were set beyond the Indians’ capacity to pay. In this regard, in a letter written on August 5, 1533, the Audiencia explained to the Crown the impossibility of asking the Indians to pay an extraordinary tribute, as had been requested. It argued that their poverty and the contradiction implied, on the one hand, that the Crown was concerned about their protection and, on the other, that it was asking them to pay tribute beyond their capability. Even so, the Audiencia said it had asked the lord of Michoacán to hand over an extraordinary tribute to the king, but he had replied that

— 55


“although when the Spaniards arrived it had been possible to give your Majesty a cart with golden oxen, now the macehuales are poor and have nothing to give.” The Audiencia had also asked the lords of Tepeca and Tlapa for an extraordinary tribute “because they were rich” and received the same reply.149 In fact, the Audiencia tried to mediate between the excessive demands the colonists made on Indian society and the need to secure the colonial system, preventing extreme harm to the Indians. From 1531 on, it informed the Crown that, among other reasons, the assessment of tribute had negative economic effects on the colony, but it hoped this would be temporary. One solution may have been to bring the Indians into the mercantile economy and to foster an interest in trade among them. In 1532 Fuenleal considered that one of the economic benefits for New Spain was “to familiarize the Indians with trade and make the person who extracted gold take it to the merchant to exchange it for what was needed, and that the person who had cotton should exchange it for gold.” To encourage this trend, the presiding judge suggested that the Crown should urge the payment of tribute, considering what the Indians produced, and that it should permit them to trade their products so they could pay their tribute in gold.150 Finally, the Second Audiencia organized the tribute of corregimiento towns. Reductions were made from the beginning, however, which proved that assessments were lower during the Second Audiencia’s administration. Practically all of the fifty-three towns placed under royal decree before 1533 received a reduction in the tribute set (see Table 1.1). This shows the interest and effort of the Audiencia to regulate tasación assessments, at least in the corregimientos. In spite of its interest in having the natives pay a tribute in accordance with their abilities, from the very beginning the corregimiento Indian towns officially gave less tribute than that set in the assessment. Of the fifty-three towns belonging to the Crown, forty-seven handed over a lower amount than that set by the Second Audiencia. Arrears in the payment of tribute by most corregimiento towns may have resulted from different reasons: the Indians’ real inability to pay tribute—even if it was modest or reduced—or the irregular earnings of corregidores and royal officials from tribute from that time on. In any case, the Crown’s fiscal pressure led to the accumulation of tribute arrears in these towns.

POLICY OF THE SECOND AUDIENCIA ON INDIAN LABOR The economy of the time depended not only on what the towns produced but also on Indian labor, especially in mines. In spite of the policy of protecting the

56 —


Indians, the oidores made little effort to prevent or control personal service or forced labor in general, since these were fundamental forms of Indian labor in the colonial system. The Second Audiencia tried to restrain the most notorious Spanish abuses against the Indians and to safeguard and strengthen royal authority over the corregimiento Indians. It advocated a salary for Indians working for colonists and stipulated that, for better treatment, their hiring should be controlled by “justices” (corregidores) or should be done “mainly before an oidor.” The oidores mentioned that from the time of their arrival, the Indians “hired themselves out” to the Spaniards to make them buildings and farms as free men—which they were—because the king had ordered that the hirings be made before the justice, mainly before an oidor, to put an end to any fraud or deception the Indians might suffer.151 The economic boom in the colony and the interests created by the Spaniards, as well as the needs of the Royal Treasury, however, combined to see that political protection for the Indian communities was very limited. In 1531 a meeting in Mexico City brought together civil and religious authorities who decided to regulate the working relations between Indians and Spaniards. The Indians could no longer be used as bearers, and as free men they should work for the colonists voluntarily and for a salary. This was not the first time this issue had been stipulated. From 1526 on, the Crown had encouraged that Indians be paid for their services.152 In fact, the Crown reasserted its position in 1532 when it supported the Audiencia so Indians could be allowed to work for the colonists in their “constructions” as long as they were well treated and were paid. This applied only to Indians in the corregimiento system, however, since labor relations between encomienda Indians and encomenderos were regulated by the tasación rate, which included personal service. Likewise, it is unclear whether the Indians were to provide materials when working on a building. For the construction of the Santa Fe hospital, the Indians provided the material. Therefore, Quiroga commented that it was customary for the Indians to “bring the materials when they make some building and it was no use to want them not to do so, as that was their custom and they did so without it being necessary.”153 Among the Audiencia’s plans with regard to Indian labor was that Indians would work as bearers, but also for pay, which the Audiencia would assess and see that it was complied with. In 1528 the Crown had forbidden the use of tameme in any way, even if they were paid. Tribute to the encomendero could be brought by that means to his place of residence, however, if the distance was no more than twenty leagues; otherwise, he would have to pay for it.154

— 57


From the time the oidores arrived, they spoke out against this prohibition. In 1531 they explained to the Crown that in New Spain Indian children started carrying burdens at a very early age and that this was a means of livelihood for many. Likewise, they said tameme were needed because of the demand for their labor, the limited number of beasts of burden in the territory, and the impassable nature of some roads. They argued that the tameme were essential to the colony’s life, as they transported products to Mexico City and helped the Spaniards move from one place to another. Even the Audiencia needed them when it commissioned people to report on particular problems in the provinces.155 In spite of the opposition of the presiding judge, Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal, in 1533 the Crown revoked its prohibition, allowing Indian bearers to be used in exchange for payment. Fees therefore had to be listed and posted on the doors of New Spain town halls. The Royal Tribunal, however, had already started regulating the use of tameme. As of 1532 it had set the rates bearers should receive at 100 cacao beans per day. Married Spaniards could use four bearers and single ones only two. Once again, internal needs encouraged the establishment of a system of work that was harsh for the Indians, and the Audiencia could only hope the Indians would be paid a fair wage and that its members would be allowed to deliver the proper permits to those using such services. The measure was not obeyed, however, and in 1532 the Audiencia complained that Hernán Cortés took no notice of the restrictions and used Indian bearers to carry goods and materials from Oaxaca to Acapulco for an expeditionary fleet on the Pacific Coast.156 In addition, Indian labor, especially that of Indian slaves, was channeled into work in the mines.157 When mining first began, the Crown was opposed to encomienda Indians working in this area. In 1528 it forbade the use of Indian labor in gold mines, but in 1536 it revoked the order to ensure the necessary labor for the booming mining industry.158 The Crown’s restrictions regarding Indian slavery resulted in mining work falling basically to Indians serving an encomendero. In 1532, Fuenleal told the Crown that because of the discovery of rich mines, the Spaniards were increasingly desperate to get slaves to work them, and therefore the price of slaves had risen to forty pesos each. The colonists’ complaints were clear: without slave labor there was no way to exploit the mines. It is not difficult to imagine that the demand for slaves caused the encomenderos to increase the number of Indians from their repartimientos offered for mining work.159 Indian service and tribute to the encomenderos in that period were destined mainly for the mines. Likewise, encomienda Indians were hired out to other private individuals to work in mines, in spite of this practice being forbidden.

58 —


In fact, for the encomenderos, Indian slaves and their encomienda Indians were practically the same. They were sold and hired without distinction, and an indefinite number of Indians became slaves as tribute payment to the encomenderos. Referring to this matter, in 1533 the Franciscans said the Spaniards “were branding free men, the reason being that the Spaniards were extremely greedy and pestered their caciques to provide them with slaves instead of the tribute they should give them.”160 The Audiencia probably tried to curb the greatest abuses against the Indians, but the frequency with which their encomenderos sent them to the mines—regardless of whether they were slaves— could hardly be avoided. Personal service increased considerably immediately after the Second Audiencia; during the years 1535–1550 the “means used to increase it was to exchange goods for work.”161 In addition, the Audiencia did not overlook the growing importance of mining or the need for Indian labor. Quiroga suggested to the president of the General Council of the Indies that Indians who committed crimes—including idolatry, not to mention rebellion—should be destined for service in the mines. Although his idea was not taken up at the time, shortly afterward, during Mendoza’s administration, Indians accused of crimes were sent to work, particularly in textile mills.162 The Audiencia almost always intervened to see that corregimiento Indians were paid when they were hired out for mining work. Sometimes the oidores exchanged a royal town’s tribute for work in the mines, as long as the person hiring the Indians agreed to pay the town’s tribute in exchange. For example, Pedro de Bazán had gone to the corregidor of Asuchitlán, Francisco Carvajal, offering to pay the town’s tribute—consisting of 2,000 fanegas of maize and “some clothing”—in exchange for the Indians of the town working in the mines. Having come to an agreement with the corregidor, he then went to Oidor Ceynos, who asked the Indians whether they agreed and, when they did, signed the “contract.” Although in general within their radius of action the oidores saw to it that the encomenderos did not send their Indians to the mines, some abuses obviously occurred. The corregidores were the local mediators in these hirings.163 During the Second Audiencia the Indians became aware that they should not be sold as slaves and that the best thing for them to do was to hire themselves out for some kind of work. Thus, Don Diego, a Mexico City Indian lord, expressed his gratitude to Vasco de Quiroga for having shown him what a mistake it was for Indians to sell themselves as slaves, as he said they had been doing before the Spaniards arrived. Instead, they should hire themselves out to the Spaniards because, as another Indian declared, “the above-mentioned

— 59


Licenciado Quiroga put them in the right and told them not to sell themselves but to hire themselves out, which they had done.”164 One might say that the policy applied by the Second Audiencia was pragmatic. The Audiencia served as mediator in relations between Indians and Spaniards, made assessments, promoted the hiring of Indian labor, and, when important adjustments were carried out, permitted the extension of Crown jurisdiction in New Spain. It was to see that Spaniards did not depend on the encomienda and, at the same time, to guarantee economic growth that would benefit colonists, Indians, and the Crown. All of this showed the members’ interest in rationalizing the system of exploitation of Indians promoted by the First Audiencia. Combining the interests of the Crown with those of the colonists required no special political skill because of the convergence of economic interests as long as the Royal Treasury benefited from the wealth the Colony generated in activities such as mining, ranching, and similar endeavors. The skillful policy of the Second Audiencia is also reflected in the fact that it staved off the extinction of the Indians, a matter on which the survival of the colonial system as a whole depended. Finally, although the Second Audiencia managed to increase royal jurisdiction, it did so through strict control of the representative authority in New Spain. Later, Viceroy Mendoza used some elements set down by the Second Audiencia, but his policy—which was more flexible toward the colonists— also allowed adjustments that, although they did not jeopardize the royal jurisdiction, did threaten the Indian community, as we will see in Chapter 2. Undoubtedly, the members of the Second Audiencia were the initiators of an administrative order. By initiating and perfecting that order, it was possible to strengthen Spanish dominion in New Spain and guarantee the Indians’ survival. Combining that domination with regulations, however, enabled the alliances and adjustments carried out by the authorities and the colonists to allow the subjection of the Indians who, not even under the Second Audiencia, were not guaranteed the elementary rights formulated in the legislation of the time in their daily lives. The gap between the laws and reality was accentuated when later authorities, unlike the members of the Second Audiencia, created private interests for themselves in New Spain. The situation worsened for the Indians when the authorities not only attempted this but also when they identified their private interests with those of the colonists.

NOTES 1. The First Audiencia and Chancery were formally established in New Spain on November 29, 1528: Ernesto Schäfer, El Consejo Real y Supremo de las Indias (Sevilla:

60 —


Imp. Carmona, 1935), vol. 2, 67; Alfonso García Gallo, “Las Audiencias de Indias, su origen y caracteres,” Memoria del segundo Congreso Venezolano de historia 1 (1975), 382. This Audiencia was formed by a president, a post assigned to Nuño de Guzmán. Guzmán, who was also the conqueror and governor of Pánuco, held the president’s position from April 5, 1528, to 1530, when he was dismissed. The rest of the oidores were licenciado Juan Ortíz de Matienzo, previously oidor in Santo Domingo, who was appointed oidor in Mexico from August 4, 1527, until his dismissal in 1530, and licenciado Francisco Maldonado and bachiller Alonso Parada, appointed First Audiencia oidores on the same date as Ortiz de Matienzo, but who died before holding office. Finally, licenciado Diego Delgadillo was appointed oidor on August 4, 1527, and was dismissed in 1530, just like the others. See Schäfer, El Consejo, vol. 2, 451. For First Audiencia instructions see the glossary, Madrid del 20 de abril de 1528, in Vasco de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas Instrucciones para el gobierno de la Nueva España, ed. facsimilar (Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica, 1945), fol. 27v. 2. Second Audiencia appointments were made on April 5, 1530, but their instructions were made on July 12, 1530: Lesley Byrd Simpson, Los conquistadores y el indio americano (Barcelona: Península, 1970), 103; Instrucciones a la segunda Audiencia Madrid 12 de julio de 1530, in de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 56v. Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal, Santo Domingo bishop, was appointed Audiencia president. Schäfer mentions that he was appointed on July 12, 1530, and he returned to Santo Domingo in 1535 when Antonio de Mendoza, the first New Spain viceroy, arrived. The Audiencia oidores included Alonso Maldonado, former student in Cuenca (Salamanca), appointed oidor on April 5, 1530. On June 14, 1543, licenciado Francisco Ceynos, a Consejo of Indias attorney, was appointed president of the Audiencia de los Confines. His appointment also dated from April 5, 1530, and he was an oidor until 1546 when he was allowed to go back to Spain. He was again an oidor in Mexico from June 19, 1558, until his retirement on March 23, 1567. Juan de Salmerón had been alcalde mayor in Panama and was appointed an oidor on April 5, 1530. He went back to Spain in 1534 and later held office as Consejero de Indias. Vasco de Quiroga was also appointed oidor in the Audiencia on April 5, 1530, and was assigned as Michoacán bishop in 1537. Near the end of the Second Audiencia’s office (when the first viceroy arrived in 1535), Francisco de Loaysa was appointed oidor on July 19, 1534, to replace Salmerón: Schäfer, El Consejo, vol. 2, 451. Licenciado Loaysa was responsible for the residencia trial of the oidores by real cédula (royal decree) on November 13, 1534; charges against the Second Audiencia were dated April 1, 1536: Archivo General de Indias (hereafter AGI), Justicia, 232, Residencia tomada el año de 1535 y 1536 a los licenciados Juan de Salmerón, Alonso Maldonado, Francisco Ceynos y Vasco de Quiroga, oidores que fueron de la Audiencia de México, por el licenciado Francisco de Loaysa oidor de aquella Audiencia juez nombrado para este efecto. 3. AGI, Indiferente General, 1092, vol. 8, letter from Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal to the empress, Sevilla, June 16, 1535. 4. Peggy K. Lyss, Mexico Under Spain 1521–1556: Society and the Origins of Nationality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 53. 5. Ibid., 54–55. 6. Fidel de J. Chauvet, “Fray Juan de Zumárraga, Protector of the Indians,” The Americas 5, 3 (Washington, D.C., 1949): 283–284. The office origins take us back to thirteenth-century Spain when Peter the Second of Aragon established the “Father of Orphans” as a town office. The office figure later passed to Castile and, from that point, to America.

— 61


7. Real cédula, Burgos, January 10, 1528, in de Puga, Provisiones Cédulas, fols. 64– 65; Joaquín García Icazbalcera, Biografía de D. Fr. Juan de Zumárraga. Primer Obispo y Arzobispo de México (Madrid: M. Aguilar, 1929), vol. 3, 32–33; Fidel de J. Chauvet, Fray Juan de Zumárraga. O.F.M. (México City: Publicistas e Impresores Beatriz de Silva, 1948), 28–29, 53–54; Chauvet, “Fray Juan de Zumárraga,” 284, 286–287. 8. García Icazbalceta, Biografía de D. Fr. Juan de Zumárraga, vol. 1, 65–66. The general conflict between the First Audiencia and Bishop Zumárraga can be seen in García Icazbalceta, Don Fray Juan de Zumárraga; Carta de Zumárraga al emperador, agosto 27, 1529, published by García Icazbalceta, Colección de Documentos para la historia de México (México City, 1856–1866), vol. 2, 169–245; Memorial que dio por extenso Jerónimo López, Conquistador de la Nueva España, sobre el gobierno de aquel reino, Epistolario de Nueva España, 1505–1818 (henceforth ENE), by Francisco Paso y Troncoso (México City: Antigua Librería Robredo, de José Porrúa e Hijos, 1939–1942), vol. 15, doc. 887, 183–198; Chauvet, Fray Juan de Zumárraga, 53–80. 9. Carlos E. Castañeda, “Fray Juan de Zumárraga and Indian Policy in New Spain,” The Americas 5, 3 (1949): 302–303; Carta de Fray Juan de Zumárraga al rey, agosto 27, 1529, García Icazbalceta, Colección de Documentos para la historia de México, México City, 1856–1866, vol. 2, 169–245. On Zumárraga’s participation in the destruction of Mexican idols, see Robert Ricard, The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico: An Essay on the Apostolate and the Evangelizing Methods of the Mendicant Orders in New Spain, 1523–1572 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974) (I am using the Spanish version of this book: La conquista espiritual de México. Ensayo sobre el apostolado y los métodos misioneros de la orden de mendicantes en la Nueva España de 1523–1524 a 1572 [México City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1986]), 105–108. Here the author favors Zumárraga’s position and uses some of Joaquín García Icazbalceta’s arguments, “La destrucción de antigüedades mexicanas,” Opúsculos varios, II (México City: n.p., 1896), 5–117, and Julio Jiménez Rueda, Opúsculos y biografías (México City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1942); on the trial of Don Carlos, see Proceso inquisitorial del cacique de Tezcoco, vol. 1 (México City: Publicaciones del Archivo General y Público de la Nación, 1910); Ricard, La conquista, 396–398. 10. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 75; Castañeda, “Fray Juan de Zumárraga,” 304; Chauvet, Fray Juan de Zumárraga, 93–94; Alberto María Carreño, Un desconocido cedulario del siglo XVI perteneciente a la Catedral Metropolitana de México (México City: Ediciones Victoria, 1944), appendixes 36–41. 11. García Icazbalceta, Biografía de D. Fr. Juan de Zumárraga, 106; Chauvet, Fray Juan de Zumárraga, 118, 125, 140. Zumárraga left for Spain in 1532 and went back to Mexico two years later, in 1534. 12. Chauvet, Fray Juan de Zumárraga, 116–118, 121–122; García Icazbalceta, Biografía de D. Fr. Juan de Zumárraga, 93 (quotation). 13. Castañeda, “Fray Juan de Zumárraga,“ 304; Chauvet, Fray Juan de Zumárraga, 142–143. 14. Francisco del Paso y Troncoso, ENE, vol. 3, 117. 15. Ibid. 16. Chauvet, Fray Juan de Zumárraga, 142–143, 293–294; García Icazbalceta, Biografía de D. Fr. Juan de Zumárraga, 117; Castañeda, “Fray Juan de Zumárraga,” 304; Carreño, Un desconocido cedulario, 97; de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 85v. 17. Woodrow Borah, Justice by Insurance: The General Indian Court of Colonial Mexico and the Legal Aides of the Half-Real (Berkeley: University of California Press,

62 —


1983) (I am using the Spanish version of this book: El Juzgado General de Indios en la Nueva España [México City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1985]), 52, 57. 18. Lyss, Mexico Under Spain, 56. 19. Borah, El Juzgado General, 57. 20. Delfina E. López Sarrelangue, “Las tierras comunales indígenas de la Nueva España en el siglo XVI,” in Estudios de Historia Novohispana, vol. 1 (México City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1966), 141. The phenomenon of a crowd of Indians attending the Audiencia to claim justice also took place in colonial Peru, where from early times Indians earned a reputation as contentious. Steve J. Stern, Peru’s Indian Peoples and the Challenge of Spanish Conquest—Huamanga to 1640 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982) (I am using the Spanish version of this book: Los pueblos indígenas del Perú y el desafío de la conquista española de Huamanga hasta 1640 [Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1982]), 187. 21. Borah, El Juzgado General, 71; ENE, vol. 3, 32. 22. ENE, vol. 2, 57. 23. Alonso de Zorita, Life and Labor in Ancient Mexico. The Brief and Summary Relation of the Lords of New Spain by . . . , translated and with an introduction by Benjamin Keen (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994) (I am using the Spanish version of this book: Los señores de la Nueva España [México City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (hereafter UNAM), 1963]), 360, where the social scale of the people who administered justice in pre-Hispanic Mexico is described, and 48– 61, where we find descriptions of the formalities observed by the Indians in order to have justice and descriptions of some of their laws. Fray Diego Durán, The History of the Indians of New Spain (Civilization of the American Indian, Vol. 210) (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994) (I am using the Spanish version of this book: Historia de los Indios de la Nueva España e Islas de la Tierra Firme [México City: Editorial Porrúa, 1967]), vol. 2, chapter 26, 211–215, esp. 213, where Durán mentions the place where justice hearings were held in ancient Mexico. 24. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 27v–33v. Regarding the Audiencias’ orders throughout the sixteenth century, they have been separated into three groups by Ernesto Schäfer, El Consejo, vol. 2, 99–106. I am interested in the first two, which are the 1528 orders that according to Schäfer cannot be considered as carefully realized and show the Consejo de Indias’s lack of experience, since it had been recently formed. Because of these defects, several changes and additions were made in 1530, none of which refers specifically to the procedure that had to be followed to grant an audience to the Indians. The second group of orders was formed in 1542 by a commission assigned to Consejo de Indias president Cardinal Loaysa. These orders, mainly the second part, are imbued with the notorious spirit of the Leyes Nuevas (New Laws, 1542–1543). The tendency of such laws is to protect Indians, and the Crown’s clear interest in listening to and solving Indian problems through the Audiencia appears there. Likewise, in the First Audiencia orders of December 4, 1528, concrete problems and restrictions regarding the abuse suffered by Indians when they were used as tameme and about war slaves are approached; de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 34–35v. Another order, for example, mentions that poor people’s suits were to be addressed first; de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 32v. 25. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 40–40v. 26. Paulino Castañeda Delgado, Don Vasco de Quiroga y su “Información en Derecho” (Madrid: Ediciones de José Porrúa Turanzas, 1974), document’s study and edition, 49. 27. Ibid., 134; Borah, El Juzgado General, 68.

— 63


28. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 35; real cédula mentioning that no one should be made a slave in an unfair war, Toledo, November 20, 1528, in de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 40. According to Baudot, the information requested by the Crown had not been sent and had not been sought: Georges Baudot, Utopia and History in Mexico: The First Chroniclers of Mexican Civilization (1520–1569) (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 1995 (I am using the Spanish version of this book: Utopia e Historia en México. Los primeros Cronistas de la civilización mexicana (1520–1569) [Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, S.A., 1983]), 58. 29. Madrid, 2 de agosto, 1530, in de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 65–66. 30. The Audiencia especially decided that when Indians went to an oidor to review freedom issues and other things, they were to be sent to Oidor Quiroga so he “los oyese y breve y sumariamente, como su majestad manda, [y] se averiguasen las causas y pleitos de los indios” and also for him “se mandó tuviese consigo cuatro indios que ellos entre sí tenían por jueces”: AGI, Justicia, 232 (quotation), Residencia tomada el año de 1535 y 1536 a los licenciados Juan de Salmerón, Alonso Maldonado, Françisco Ceynos y Vasco de Quiroga que fueron de la Audiencia de México, por el Licenciado Françisco de Loaysa, oidor de aquella Audiencia, juez nombrado para este efecto, question 25; Castañeda Delgado, Don Vasco de Quiroga, 174. 31. Castañeda Delgado, Don Vasco de Quiroga, 173, 198. 32. Ibid., 200–201, 203. 33. Ibid., 185–186. 34. Borah, El Juzgado General, 50. 35. AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 12. They did not obey a real cédula that ordered them to return some runaway slaves, a fault that harmed the hacienda real because “habiendo más esclavos hubiera más minas y se sacaría más oro e hubiera más quintos para su majestad,” general sentence to the previous cargo (charge), charge testimonies, witnesses: Juan de Cuevas, scribe of mines, licenciado Altamirano, Juan Ochoa, royal attorney in the Audencia, Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia, neighbor in México; the officials in Compostela declare the need to have slaves in ENE, vol. 3, 33; copy of a petition that the México City Municipal Council made to the Audiencia, no date given (henceforth n.d.g.). The March 22, 1532, reply from the Audiencia states that since slaves are not branded, the Crown loses “quintos y derechos” since mines cannot be exploited in ENE, vol. 15, n.d.g., 177; Castañeda Delgado, Don Vasco de Quiroga, 61. 36. ENE, vol. 2, 60. Indian slaves used in mine work are mentioned by Quiroga throughout his Información en Derecho: “the destiny of slaves was to work in the mines, that’s what Quiroga repeats all the time,” 140; Carlos Herrejón, “La información en Derecho de Vasco de Quíroga como fuente para el estudio de los indios,” in Pedro Carrasco et al., eds., La sociedad indígena en el centro y occidente de México (Zamora, México: El Colegio de Michoacán, 1986), 140; ENE, vol. 3, 88 (quotation). 37. AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 14, about a provisión real (king’s order) that stated that the way slaves could be acquired had been stopped: “y que no dieron la orden hasta pasado un tiempo.” A guilty sentence for the previous charge was sent to the king and the council; charge testimonies, witness: Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia; “Los capítulos que pusieron y presentaron Rodrigo de Castañeda y el maestre de Roa, contra los oidores,” 1536: “Yten. decimos que habiendo mandado su majestad e dado de ello provisión real la forma que se ha tener acerca de la provisión real de hacer esclavos en esta tierra, la cual vino en cierto envoltorio a los dichos oidores puede haber dos años, poco mas o menos tiempo, e habiéndola de dar e publicar,

64 —


para que se hiciese lo en ella contenido la tuvieron escondida e no la quisieron publicar ni dar, porque no se hiciese lo que su majestad mandaba, siendo como era justo y en pro de esta tierra.” 38. Borah, El Juzgado general, 68. 39. AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 2 (quotation). In one of the April 20, 1528, orders to the First Audiencia, its work regarding sentence pronouncement was regulated: a minimum of three favorable votes was established in general, and a minimum of two votes was required when the amount involved in the lawsuit reached 200,000 maravedíes (Spanish monetary unit): de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 28v; AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 2, questions 25 and 26: “si saben que esto de sus libertades, que nosotros decimos, era y es entre ellos cosa de tan poca importancia, que se vendían a veces entre sí por precio tan vil como es un cestillo . . . , de ciertos mosquitos que ellos comen, o de maíz, o de frijoles, o ají, o por cuatro o cinco mantillas, o poco más, o por otras cosas de muy poco valor y que esto andaba entre ellos, como entre nosotros alquilar de obras, o servicios o jornales, y que no sabían ni tenían otra manera de servirse unos de otros ni la habían hallado.” 40. AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 2, questions 25 and 26. 41. AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 2, final sentence, testimonies of charges and descargos, witnesses: Jerónimo López, neighbor in Mexico; Juan de Cuevas, scribe of mines; licenciado Altamirano; Juan Ochoa, royal attorney in the Audiencia; Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia, neighbor in Mexico and regidor; Miguel Díaz de Aux and Diego Rivera, corregidores and neighbors in Mexico. 42. For a while the Crown forbade Indians, under penalty of death, to have horses, mules, and weapons: de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 42–42v. 43. AGI, Justicia, 232, testimonies of descargos, witnesses: Miguel Díaz de Aux, corregidor of several towns; Diego Rivera, Michoacán corregidor. 44. Ibid., testimonies of descargos, witness: Don Diego, Indian principal from the barrio of San Juan, who was more than fifty years old. 45. Ibid., witness: don Pedro, Indian from the colación del barrio of San Pablo, sixty-seven years old. 46. Ibid., testimony of the comendador Diego Hernández de Proaño, alguacil mayor (constable), testimonies of charges. 47. Zorita, Los señores, 113. 48. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 42–42v. 49. Ibid., fols. 85v–86. 50. AGI, Justicia, 232, witness: Pedro García, interpreter of Indian languages, charge 20, final sentence: pay to the cámara real an amount equal to the tribute to which the Talasco nahuatlato was entitled; charges against the oidores, witnesses: Diego Téllez, neighbor in Mexico, and licenciado Altamirano. 51. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 39–39v; de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, dated April 5, 1528, fols. 8–9. 52. Baudot, Utopía e Historia, 56. 53. ENE, vol. 3, 84–85. The founding of Puebla is addressed later in this chapter. 54. AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 2. How serious this case (of the Audiencia allowing the friars to punish the Indians) was is shown by the fact that licenciado Loaysa— responsible for the residencia hearings and appointed oidor as recently as 1534—sent the sentence on this charge to the council. 55. Ibid., witnesses: Juan de Cuevas, scribe of mines; Diego Téllez, neighbor in Mexico; Antonio de la Cadena, factor (Treasury official) of New Spain; Pedro de

— 65


Meneses, neighbor in Mexico who declared that the friars “prenden” (arrest) and punish Indians, have stocks and chains, and free Indian slaves—this last point was especially bothersome for some Spaniards—and he also declared he had personally seen Indians imprisoned en el cepo (in stocks) in the Franciscan convent in Tulancingo; Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia, neighbor and councilman in Mexico City, mentioned that several times he had commented with Oidor Ceynos on the problem of Franciscan jurisdiction over the Indians; Miguel Díaz de Aux, corregidor of some Indian towns; and Hernando de Elgueta, Tlaxcala corregidor. Likewise, the Mexico City Cabildo (Municipal Court) reported to the Crown, among other things, that the Franciscans had too much jurisdiction over Indian matters: ENE, vol. 3, 84–85. It is especially enlightening that the 1539 Junta Eclesiástica (assembly of ecclesiastical authorities) forbade the friars to imprison and lash Indians: Ricard, La conquista, 365. 56. AGI, Justicia, 232, descargo 15; ENE, vol. 2, 35–64; ENE, vol. 3, 25. The oidores declared they were in favor of the Franciscan order: “somos de parecer contrario de todos cuanto acá están, e aun de los oidores pasados que no hay otra cosa más conveniente e necesaria que frailes así los unos como los otros puesto que los franciscanos han tenido e tienen muy grand celo a la salvación destas gentes e tienen hecho e hacen muy grand fruto,” ENE, vol. 3, 52. The oidores also recommended that the Franciscans “tengan alguna licencia” for “corregir y castigar” the Indians, since they considered their religious conversion was better achieved that way: ENE, vol. 3, 26. 57. Hanke, La lucha, 107. Hanke mentions a document where it seems Betanzos regretted having defended Indian irrationality, 125–127; ENE, vol. 3, 90; ENE, vol. 15, 163. Audiencia president Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal even requested that the Dominicans who had gone to Spain not be allowed to return and also recommended that the friars who were sent to Mexico “sean conocidos en el Consejo”: ENE, vol. 3, 119. 58. ENE, vol. 3, 93; Baudot, Utopía e historia. 59. Report dated March 30, 1531, in Silvio Zavala, El servicio personal de los indios en la Nueva España—I, 1521–1550 (México City: El Colegio de México–El Colegio Nacional, 1984), 499–500. The Crown sent a cédula that notified Guzmán that it had received information about this work and that ordered the issue to be reviewed: Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 73. 60. ENE, vol. 2, 35–64; de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 73. 61. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 72–73. 62. Ibid., fols. 45v–47v. The residencia hearing on the First Audiencia oidores took place in March 1533: Baudot, Utopía e historia, 51. 63. Charles Gibson, The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519–1810 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964), 105. Conflicts between the two orders had taken place since the Dominican friars arrived in 1526. During the First Audiencia regime, the Dominicans confronted the Franciscans: Ricard, La conquista espiritual, 362; ENE, vol. 3, 27. 64. Gibson, The Aztecs, 90, 179, 192. 65. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 45v–47v. 66. ENE, vol. 15, 164; Gibson, The Aztecs, 175. On this point, where the Crown approves of the measures taken by the Audiencia: de Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, fol. 77. 67. ENE, vol. 15, 164. 68. Gibson, The Aztecs, 192. 69. Colección de documentos inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organización de las antiguas posesiones españolas de Ultramar, Segunda serie (Madrid: Publicada por la Real Academia de la Historia, 1885–1931) (henceforth DIU), vol. 10, 106–135.

66 —


70. The document was not originally transcribed, and only the beginning appears; in ENE, vol. 15, n.d.g., 170; AGI, Indiferente General, 415, fol. 29, dated April 24, 1533. 71. ENE, vol. 15, n.d.g., 170; AGI, Indiferente General, 415, fol. 29, dated April 24, 1533. 72. In ENE, vol. 15, n.d.g., 182. 73. Paulino Castañeda, Don Vasco de Quiroga, 35, information dated July 24, 1535, also 144–146, 158; Herrejón, “La información en Derecho,” 129, 136–137. 74. Paulino Castañeda, Don Vasco de Quiroga, 155, 162. 75. Ibid., 144–146, 152–153, 279–280; Herrejón, “La información en Derecho,” 145. 76. Paulino Castañeda, Don Vasco de Quiroga, 144–146, 152–153, 279–280. 77. Anthony Pagden, The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of Comparative Ethnology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982) (I am using the Spanish version of this book: La caída del hombre natural [Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1988]), 62. 78. For an analysis of this well-known case of the Santa Fe hospitals that goes beyond this work’s scope, see Fintan B. Warren, Vasco de Quiroga and His PuebloHospitals of Santa Fe (Washington, D.C.: Academy of Franciscan History, 1963); Warren, “The Construction of Santa Fe de México,” The Americas 21, 1 (Washington, July 1964): 69–78; Warren, “Vasco de Quiroga, fundador de hospitales y colegios,” Missionalia Hispanica 63: 67 (January–April 1966): 25–46; Josefina Muriel, Hospitales de la Nueva España, vol. 1, Fundaciones del siglo XVI (México City: JUS, Publicación de Instituto de Historia, 1956), chapter 5, 55–80; Silvio Zavala, La “Utopía” de Tomás Moro en la Nueva España y otros estudios (México City: J. Porrúa, 1937). Likewise, in the charges and descargos in the residencia hearing of the Second Audiencia, valuable information can be found in AGI, Justicia, 232, especially “Memoriales de las cuentas que se han gastado en Santa Fe y en la iglesia,” fols. 451–452v; Declarations from the principales and gobernadores of México and Tlatelolco about the hospital de Santa Fe, year 1536, fols. 194–198v; Cédulas, purchase documents, payments to Indians, and oidor Quiroga’s petition to the Indians, all points related to the hospital de Santa Fe de México, year 1536, fols. 65v–78r. 79. Zavala, La encomienda, 40–48; Zorita, Los señores, 36–37; Gibson, The Aztecs, 59. 80. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 15–15v; Zavala, La encomienda, 49; de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 9–9v; Zavala, La encomienda, 53–54. Here we see that this encomienda was limited in this order to only 300 Indians. 81. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 34–35v; Zavala, La encomienda, 54–55. 82. Zavala, La encomienda, 55, 57; Diego de Encinas, Provisiones, cédulas, capítulos de ordenanzas, instrucciones y cartas . . . tocantes al buen gobierno de las Indias y administración de la justicia en ellas (Madrid: Ed. Cultura Hispánica, 1945), vol. 3, 17–18; Miranda, El tributo indígena, 67. 83. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 44v; Simpson, Los conquistadores, 119. For Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal’s opinion on this matter in 1532, see Zavala, La encomienda, 60–64; “Instrucciones a la segunda Audiencia, Madrid 12 de julio de 1530,” in de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 38v–39. It was also forbidden for them to grant an encomienda to people who were close to them: de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 39. 84. Simpson, Los conquistadores, 106–107; de Puga, Provisiones, Cédula, fol. 43v; ENE, vol. 15, n.d.g., 169–170; AGI, México 18, n.d.g. 85. Gibson, The Aztecs, 192.

— 67


86. Ibid., 78. 87. Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 126–127; de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 89, where the prohibition to use tameme disappears, although their use was limited; Simpson, Los conquistadores, 117. 88. Letter from Francisco Téllez, neighbor of México City, which reported the ill consequences of not making the repartimiento of New Spain, in ENE, vol. 2, n.d.g., 169–170; de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 79v; ENE, vol. 3, 89; ENE, vol. 3, 119–120. 89. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 90v. 90. AGI, Justicia, 232, “Los capítulos que pusieron y presentaron Rodrigo de Castañeda y el maestre de Roa, contra los licenciados, Ceynos, Salmerón, Maldonado y Quiroga,” fols. 584–619v; Francisco Téllez, report, in ENE, vol. 2, n.d.g., 169–170; copy of a petition presented by Mexico City to the Mexico City Audiencia, n.d.g., the reply is dated March 22, 1532, Paso y Troncoso, in ENE, vol. 15, 173–179; ENE, vol. 3, 86; Simpson, Los conquistadores, 114; Miranda, El Tributo, 70–73. 91. AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 11, about the fact that Mexico City was not provided with a copy of the instructions it contained. Charge 23 against Oidor Salmerón for insulting Carvajal; general sentence to charge 11, the juez de residencia pronounces not guilty and does the same in the case of charge 23; testimonies of charge, witnesses: Gerónimo López, who declared he had been ill treated by Salmerón; Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia, neighbor and regidor in Mexico, declared that the oidores had not given him a copy of the provisions and the king’s letters in spite of the fact that they had brought from Spain a cédula where this was commanded and that was “ganada a pedimento de la ciudad.” The Spaniard also declared that the oidores had not obeyed the order for two years. Likewise, he declared that the council had started a lawsuit because the Audiencia did not allow it to appoint the alguacil mayor, although the Crown had given permission. He also expressed he had heard Salmerón insult Carvajal. Gerónimo López, neighbor in Mexico, declared the same. Antonio Ruiz de Medina declared the Audiencia had not brought to realization the cédula sent by the Crown when Viceroy Mendoza was about to arrive, which ordered that the repartimientos that belonged to deceased encomenderos were to be given to their widows; inquiry of Alonso Lucas, neighbor in México. See the first part of this chapter for statements about the Audiencia’s concealing the cédula that allowed the branding of Indians as slaves. 92. ENE, vol. 3, 115 (quotation); letter from the queen to Oidores, where she thanks the oidores for not having allowed the Mexico City attorneys to go to Spain to ask for the encomienda’s perpetuity, in de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 78. 93. Gerhard, A Guide, 209. 94. AGI, Justicia, 232, information from Ana Rebolledo; information from Don Juan, Indian governor of Tlatelolco. 95. Fuenleal arrived in Veracruz on September 23, 1531, and visited Indian towns on his way to Mexico City, where he arrived in early 1532: Colección de documentos inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organización de las antiguas posesiones españolas de América y Oceanía, sacadas de los Archivos del Reino y muy especialmente del de Indias (Madrid: Imp. de Quirós, 1864–1889) (henceforth CODOIN), vol. 13, 206–207; Simpson, Los conquistadores, 116–117. 96. ENE, vol. 2, 35–64 (quotation); Simpson, Los conquistadores, 105–111; Miranda, El tributo, 73. 97. Simpson, Los conquistadores, 118–119; ENE, vol. 15, 163; ENE, vol. 3, 116; ENE, vol. 3, 175–176.

68 —


98. CODOIN, vol. 13, 207–208; Simpson, Los conquistadores, 118. 99. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 75; DIU, vol. 10, 121–122. 100. Gibson, The Aztecs, 80. The author mentions abuse by the Tepetlaoztoc encomendero, a place close enough to Mexico City to be better surveilled by the Audiencia. AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 18, that an encomendero named Solís was not punished, “ciertos delitos que hizo a sus indios”; charge 19, that Rodrigo de Bazán and Isidro de Moreno were not punished for abusing and robbing the Indians from their encomienda towns; descargos and charges 18 and 19, sentences of the oidores, absolved from charge 18, and charge 19 was sent to the Consejo de Indias so it was decided upon; testimonies of charge, witness Gerónimo López, neighbor in México City and regidor and scrivener for the Second Audiencia, that “Villegas’ Indians” denounced their encomendero for abuse and for assessing too much tribute; their reports were merely recorded; accusations of charges 18 and 19; “proceso de que se dio de cargo a los oidores el juez por haber sido remisos.” 101. CODOIN, vol. 13, 207–208. 102. ENE, vol. 3, 83–85; Julia Hirschberg, “La fundación de Puebla de los Angeles mito y realidad,” Historia Mexicana vol. 28, 2 (October–December 1978): 200; Hirschberg, “Social Experiment in New Spain: A Prosopographical Study of the Early Settlement at Puebla de los Angeles, 1531–1534,” Hispanic American Historical Review 49, 1 (February 1979): 2. 103. Hirschberg, “La fundación de Puebla,” 190; François Chevalier, Significación social de la fundación de Puebla de los Angeles (Puebla, México: Ediciones del Centro de Estudios Históricos de Puebla, 1957), 6–7. De las Casas’s project was to colonize the northern coast of Venezuela with farmers. The experiment failed, however; about this, see Hanke, La lucha, 161–162. 104. Hirschberg, “La fundación de Puebla,” 185; Chevalier, Significación, 9–10; de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 68; Hirschberg, “Social Experiment,” 16–17. 105. Hirschberg, “La fundación de Puebla,” 192, 204; Hirschberg, “Social Experiment,” 3, 18–19; Chevalier, Significación, 11–12. 106. Hirschberg, “La fundación de Puebla,” 209–211; Hirschberg, “Social Experiment,” 19, 20–22. 107. Charles Gibson, Tlaxcala in the Sixteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), 79. 108. Because of the Tlaxcalan support received by Hernán Cortés in the conquest of México, Tlaxcala was officially absolved from tribute payment, although the population was actually compelled to pay for practical reasons: Ibid., 170–173. 109. Ibid., 174. 110. AGI, Justicia, 232, testimony from Jerónimo López, neighbor and regidor in México. 111. Gibson, Tlaxcala, 81. 112. “[P]or relación de muchas personas avemos sido informados que el presidente Nuño de Guzmán, y los oydores no guardando el tenor y forma de su instrucción han proveido de todos los indios que han vacado a parientes criados y amigos suyos, e a otras personas a quien no se devieran dar, de que nos avemos sido deservidos: por ende yo vos mando que luego como llegáredes os informeis de los indios que han vacado después que los dichos presidentes y oydores fueron proveydos, y ellos han proveydo por via de vacacio, y ante todas cosas, todas las encomiendas que los susodichos presidente y oydores oviere hecho de los indios que han vacado, las deis por ningunos, que nos por la presente la damos por tales, y

— 69


vos mandamos que luego los quiteis a las personas en quien estuvieren encomendados, y pongays los dichos indios en libertad, señalándoles los tributos que os pareciere que pueden y deven pagar buenamente, con los quales acudan a nuestros oficiales y a ellos les haced charge de todo ello; y pondreis personas hábiles, que sean tenidos por de buena conciencia, para que tengan en justicia a los dichos indios, y les hagan industriar en las cosas de nuestra santa fe . . . lo mismo haréis de todos los que han vacado y vacaren en cualquier manera; hasta que vista vuestra relación, Nos vos enviemos a mandar lo que a nuestro servicio, bien y población de la dicha tierra convenga. Las personas que asi se pusieren em los tales pueblos, se llamen corregidores, para que aun por el nombre conozcan los indios que no son sus señores,” in Diego de Encinas, Provisiones, cédulas, capítulos de ordenanzas, 17–18. 113. “In the instructions to the second audiencia, issued in 1530, corregimiento appeared as an alternative to encomienda, a system of government and tribute collection for Indians under the crown. . . . It briefly fulfill[ed] this role”: Gibson, The Aztecs, 82; Silvio Zavala, La Encomienda, 57. 114. This can be seen in the Audiencia’s letter, DIU, vol. 10, 106–135; ENE, vol. 3, 88, 91; ENE, vol. 3, 117. 115. Gibson, The Aztecs, 83; AGI, Justicia, 232, descargo 9, about a man called Robles, corregidor of a town on the way to Veracruz who had the town’s tribute as his salary. 116. Gibson, The Aztecs, 82–83; Gibson, Tlaxcala, 72; Simpson, Los conquistadores, 104. 117. Miguel Díaz de Aux declared he had been corregidor of some towns: AGI, Justicia, 232; Gerhard, A Guide, 183–184, 216, and 312, respectively. Lope de Saavedra declared he had been corregidor in Michoacán: AGI, Justicia, 232, witness in favor of the oidores; Gerhard, A Guide, 118, 250; AGI, Justicia, 232, witness in favor of the oidores, Hernando de Helgueta, who claimed he was Tlaxcala corregidor; Gibson, Tlaxcala, note 15, 67–68. 118. AGI, Justicia, 232, testimony of Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia who declared that the Audiencia took two years to give him and Antonio de Carvajal a corregimiento and that he only had it for a year; Gerhard, A Guide, 321–322, 391. 119. AGl, Justicia, 232, testimonies of charge, testigo Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia, who said the king had ordered in the instruction brought by the oidores that he and Antonio de Carvajal were to be given “sendos corregimientos” (large corregimientos) and that the oidores took two years to give them and that they held those corregimientos only for one year. 120. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 52–52v; Alonso de Zorita, Leyes y ordenanzas reales de las Indias del mar océano (1574, ed. facs.) (México City: Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público, 1984), vol. 1, 224–226; CODOIN, vol. 13, 207–208 (quotation). 121. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 52–52v; Zorita, Cedulario, 224–225. 122. ENE, vol. 2, 35–64; ENE, vol. 3, 114; AGI, Justicia, 232, charges against the Second Audiencia, charge 13, for appointing as corregidores single men; general sentence to charge 13 is pronounced not guilty: AGI, Justicia, 232; testimony of charges, witness: Gerónimo López, neighbor and regidor in Mexico and also Audiencia secretary, witnesses who declared the oidores granted corregimientos to people who were not conquerors and were newcomers: Juan de Cuevas, scribe of mines; Diego Téllez, neighbor in Mexico; Antonio de la Cadena, royal judge, declared he had seen how the Audiencia had appointed the corregidor office to people of “baja suerte e casados con indias”; Francisco de Lerma, neighbor of México City; Pedro de Meneses,

70 —


neighbor in Mexico, declared that the oidores had endowed people of “poco arte” with the office, as well as men married to Indian women, and he remembered the case of alguacil Francisco López, a carpenter married to a Moor woman; Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia, neighbor and regidor in México, recalled that the corregidor office was granted to “gente de baja manera” who had married Indian women; Hernando de Herrera, scribe, who heard corregimientos were given to people who were not worthy; and Antonio Ruiz de Medina. 123. ENE, vol. 15, 176; ENE, vol. 3, 82. 124. ENE, vol. 3, 107; AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 17; testimony to the charge 17, where the Audiencia declared the abuse of Gómez against the Indians to be true. No charges were filed, however, because Gómez was sick. Charge testimonies, witness: Gerónimo López, neighbor and regidor in México. Rodrigo Gómez, corregidor of Texcoco, could be Actopan encomendero at the same time; Gerhard mentions Rodrigo Gómez de Avila as Actopan encomendero in A Guide, 44. 125. Vargas Rea, Noticias relativas al pueblo de Tepetlaoxtoc, su origen dominación, tributos que pagaba al conquistador Hernán Cortés y otros encomenderos . . . sacados de muy interesantes manuscritos antiguos (México City: Vargos Rea, 1944), 12–13. 126. Gibson, The Aztecs, 83; Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, see the table on pp. 81–86. 127. AGI, Justicia, 232, witness: Diego Téllez, neighbor in Mexico, who declared that the Otumba corregidor, named Tello, was a newcomer who had brought goods and things to be sold, and even Marquis del Valle had purchased some harnesses for his horses from him. “As recipients of Indian payments and with access to a variety of commodities, the early corregidores enjoyed some particular commercial advantages”: Gibson, The Aztecs, 94. 128. CODOIN, vol. 13, 207–208; AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 22 (quotation), the oidores ratified the corregidores’ assigned posts in the Audiencia without inquiries or hearings; oidores’ testimony to charge 22, where they officially mention in a letter what they had come to know verbally about a corregidor’s abuse of Indians and about the things he had taken from them. The oidores mention that when they found there were charges against the corregidor, they called the scribe and the corregidor’s declaration was recorded. If he was not found guilty, his office was extended and the information was recorded in front of the Audiencia’s scribe. But since there was no one who “pagase el asiento al dicho escribano,” he recorded everything “de mala gana.” Likewise, the oidores mention that they had learned that “en las provisiones al corregidor que sucedía” there was a section that ordered them to get information on how the previous corregidor had performed his office; general sentence to charge 22, they are pronounced not guilty. 129. Gibson, The Aztecs, 92; Zorita, Cedulario, 226. 130. Miranda, El tributo, 23. 131. Gibson, The Aztecs, 217. 132. Miranda, El tributo, 68. 133. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 8; ibid., 63. 134. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 33v–36v; on tribute, see de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 35–35v; Miranda, El tributo, 66–67. 135. Cedulario de Encinas, vol. 3, 17; Miranda, El tributo, 67–68. 136. ENE, vol. 2, 35–64 (quotation); Zorita, Breve y sumaria, 151; Miranda, El tributo, 70.

— 71


137. DIU, vol. 10, 118–119; Gibson, The Aztecs, 195. 138. Paulino Castañeda, Don Vasco de Quiroga, 144–146, 150; Miranda, El tributo, 73. 139. DIU, vol. 10, 118–119. 140. Zorita, Los señores. 141. Baudot, Utopía e historia, 50. 142. AGI, Justicia, 232, descargo 6; questions to his descargo witnesses, question 6. 143. AGI, Justicia, 232, charges 8, 10, and 25; descargo 8; testimonies of charge, witnesses: Gerónimo López, neighbor in Mexico and Audiencia secretary; Baltazar de Castro, treasury official: “que los dichos oidores cada uno por sí hacían en su casa y fuera de ella tasaciones”; Juan de Cuevas, scribe of mines: “el licenciado Maldonado le vido hacer algunas tasaciones de pueblos, e estas vido este testigo que el presidente e los otros oidores se lo cometieron, así, el dicho licenciado por virtud de la dicha comisión lo hizo con el pueblo de Cuitlahuac . . . que es de este testigo”; Millán de Valdivieso, treasury official: “que el licenciado Ceynos hacía por si solo, en su casa tasaciones de pueblos, aún algunas tasaciones escribió este testigo de su mano, como parecería por el libro que las hacía el dicho licenciado solo, e así ha visto en el dicho libro que, están puestas otras tasaciones hechas por algunos de los otros oidores, particularmente como parecerá por el dicho libro a que se remite”; Juan Alonso de Sosa, royal treasurer; Juan Nuñez Gallego, public notary: “dijo que no sabe más de que una vez vio que el licenciado Maldonado hizo cierra tasación de un pueblo, e que cree que era por comisión del presidente e oidores, porque ante ellos lo vido platicar”; Alonso de Zamora, natuatlato; Pedro de Meneses, neighbor in Mexico; Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia; Gerónimo Ruiz de la Mota, neighbor in Mexico. 144. AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 6 (quotation), to the oidores; sentence to charge 6. “Fueron remisos en la hacienda Real pues tasaban los pueblos de indios con relación de ellos solos y otras veces les bajaban los tributos . . . [only because of the Indians’ testimony].” This was not a serious charge according to the juez de residencia, and they were therefore absolved. Charge testimonies: Francisco de Orduña declared that assessed by Indian declarations and testimonies; Antonio de la Cadena, judge in New Spain, also declared that the oidores assessed towns very little and that Indians could give more, since the oidores got their information from the Indians themselves; Pedro de Meneses, neighbor in Mexico City, declared that some of his Indians had their tribute reduced “poco, pudiendo dar más . . . y que de esta manera ha visto quejarse otros vecinos de esta ciudad, diciendo que les tasaban sus pueblos en poca cosa para poder procurar más, creyéndose de los indios sin otra información más de los que ellos decían.” Charges presented by Rodrigo de Castañeda and the Maestre (superior of military order) of Roa, “Que estando mandado por su majestad, por la dicha instrucción, que cuando los dichos presidente e oidores hiciesen moderación y tasación de tributos de indios guardasen la forma que se contiene el capítulo de ello, han hecho algunas tasaciones y no guardando lo contenido . . . en el dicho capitulo, porque no han habido la información en el contenido, e sólo por lo que los indios han dicho, han moderado, tasado y retasado, muchos tributos de muchos indios en la cantidad que los indios han dicho y no más.” See, on the other hand, ENE, vol. 3, 24; Miranda, El tributo, 71–72. 145. ENE, vol. 3, 24; Order where it was said that the marquesado del Valle Indians were tasados and moderados: de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 87–87v. 146. AGI, Justicia, 232, “Procesos de que dio charge a los oidores el juez por haber sido remiso en la ejecución de ellos, los cuales mandó sacar y poner en esta

72 —


residencia, para que por ellos se viese cómo por causa de ellos les daba el charge y así van cada uno por sí,” Don Pedro’s declaration, an Indian principal of Huizuco. 147. ENE, vol. 3, 47; ENE, vol. 3, 176. 148. AGI, Justicia, 232, testimony from Millán de Valdivieso, royal official. Rodrigo de Albornoz added that before that time the contador (accountant) had not been given a copy of the tasaciones (records) of the royal tributes; Miranda, El tributo, 81. 149. ENE, vol. 3, 108–110 (quotation); Miranda, El tributo, 85–86. 150. Miranda, El tributo, 73; Miranda, El tributo, 76; ENE, vol. 2, 35–64, where the queen was notified of the high prices reached by goods. 151. Miranda, La función económica, 10; Zavala, El Servicio personal, vol. 1, 195–196; Simpson, Los conquistadores, 124; Lyss, Mexico Under Spain, 55; AGI, Justicia, 232, question to descargos 23; ENE, vol. 2, 35–64 (quotation). 152. Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 26, 57. 153. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 72–72v; DIU, vol. 10, 109–110; Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 283–284; AGI, Justicia, 232, question 26 (quotation). 154. De Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 34–34v. 155. ENE, vol. 2, 53; Simpson, Los conquistadores, 110. 156. Simpson, Los conquistadores, 116–118; CODOIN, vol. 11, 212. 157. Miranda, La función económica, 20–21. 158. On February 8, 1531, the oficiales reales informed the Crown about New Spain’s silver abundance and foretold that it would substitute gold “contratación”: Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 195; Miranda, La función económica, 13. Orders to the First Audiencia, December 4, 1528, about the encomienda Indians being forbidden to help mine slaves or to build houses where slaves were to live: de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fols. 34v–35. These orders are reiterated in Toledo, August 24, 1529. The Crown orders those who have “quebrantado” (broken) the previous orders to be punished: Real cédula, Medina del Campo, March 20, 1532. 159. Miranda, La función económica, 12; Letter from Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal to Charles V, September 18, 1532, in Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 119. Copy of a Mexico City petition, Audiencia reply, March 22, 1532, in ENE, vol. 15, 177; ENE, vol. 3, 1533–1539, 32. 160. Miranda, La función económica, 10, 14, 22–23; de Puga, Provisiones, Cédulas, fol. 69v; Gibson, The Aztecs, 221; Letter to the emperor from the Franciscan friars, Mexico, July 31, 1533, in Mariano Cuevas, Documentos inéditos del siglo XVI para la historia de México (México City: Ed. Porrúa, 1975), 15; Paulino Castañeda, Don Vasco de Quiroga, 185–186; Simpson, Los conquistadores, 107. 161. Miranda, El tributo, 264. 162. ENE, vol. 3, 111; Letter to the president of the Consejo de Indias from oidor Vasco de Quiroga, August 14, 1531, in Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 315–316. 163. Sometimes the oidores exchanged the tribute of Indians of a royal town (corregimiento) for work in the mines, as long as the person hiring them took on the commitment to pay the tribute of the town in exchange: AGI, Justicia, 232, charge 25; Oidor Ceynos exchanged the tribute of corregimiento towns for work in the mines; sentence of charge 25, he was pronounced not guilty; descargo 25: Ceynos admits having performed the exchange and affirms that it had been a matter of a previous agreement and not of his own benefit. Testimonies of charges, witness: Millán de Valdivieso, treasury official; question 24, “Procesos de que dio cargo a los oidores el juez, por haber sido remisos en la ejecución de ellos, los cuales mandó sacar y poner en esta residencia para ver cómo, por causa de ellos, les daba el cargo.”

— 73


164. AGI, Justicia, 232, testimonies in favor of the oidores, witnesses: Don Diego, Indian principal from the barrio of San Juan, and Don Pedro, from the barrio of San Pablo in México City.

74 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

— 2 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN The Policy of Viceroy Mendoza, 1535–1550

After the Second Audiencia established a new political order in New Spain, new directives started to appear that defined relations between Indians and Spaniards. With the appointment of Antonio de Mendoza to the post of viceroy in Mexico, the first to hold this post, another period of colonial administration began (1535–1550). Mendoza’s arrival in Mexico in 1535, after some setbacks regarding his appointment, set off a new political stage in the colony.1 Up to that time, the Crown had made attempts to adjust the functioning of society in New Spain to metropolitan instructions to the viceroy, with differing results. I have commented on how the Second Audiencia made some progress in this sense, but the decisive step was the creation of a viceroyship. The viceroy was indeed the direct representative of the Crown in the colony, an “alter ego” of the king who enjoyed wide-ranging powers by reason of being the sole representative.2 Only the Audiencia could balance the power of the viceroy within the colony. Although the Crown’s interest was to centralize its authority over the Indies, effective control was difficult because of the great distance between Spain and America.3 The distance between Spain and its colonies, however, made it possible for

— 75 —

— 75

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

the colonial magistrates to act with a good deal of autonomy. For example, both the viceroy and the Audiencia had the right to suspend the “execution of orders from the Crown which, in view of the dangerous circumstances in the region,” might have consequences contrary to political and social stability. These orders were filed under the formula of acato pero no cumplo (noted but not fulfilled) and were returned to Spain for reconsideration and modification if necessary.4 It was impossible for the Crown to achieve close control over the highranking civil servants in New Spain. This enabled a certain form of autonomy, acquired from early on, which sometimes clashed with the centralization process the Crown wanted to maintain in administrative and social spheres. To have a better understanding of this autonomy, as part of the social and economic development in New Spain during Mendoza’s administration, we should begin with his policy regarding the encomienda (grant of Indians) and corregimiento (jurisdiction of a Spanish official), centering on the years 1535 to 1544. There are several reasons for choosing this short period, including the arrival of the New Laws and the visit of Tello de Sandoval to New Spain in 1544 that paralyzed the policy the viceroy was carrying out. The viceroy was even subjected to a thorough residencia (trial).5 The years prior to that visit are important for the later development of the area, however, judging by the wealth the colonists started to generate through different undertakings—which counted on the viceroy’s firm support. It is important to stress the entrepreneurial activity the highest authority undertook in Mexico, as will be seen later. Furthermore, the policy Mendoza followed with regard to the encomienda and the corregimiento during the period before the arrival of the New Laws has been insufficiently dealt with.6 Finally, if we compare Mendoza’s policy with that followed by the Second Audiencia, we find a noteworthy break, especially with reference to the encomienda and the corregimiento, as I will try to show in the following pages.

VICEROY MENDOZA’S POLITICAL PROJECT: ENCOMIENDA From the institutional point of view, during Mendoza’s administration the encomienda was a stage in which the Crown—as happened during the First Audiencia’s administration—once again favored the allocation system. From the time of the instructions Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza received on April 25, 1535, there was again an obvious change in the Crown’s thinking toward the institution of the encomienda. It was in part the continual economic needs of the Crown that brought about this change. One can notice this concern especially

76 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

in the second section of the instructions the viceroy received, where the Crown suggests increasing tribute in gold and silver. It can also be seen in the third section, which deals with replacing tribute in-kind by tribute in money and the need for Indians to serve in mines. Specifically, three sections of the instructions seem to indicate that the Crown again favored the encomienda. In these sections of the law, the Crown requested that the viceroy send a report with the relevant information to carry out a few general repartimientos (Indian distributions), conduct a census of the conquistadores (Spaniards who helped subdue campaigns against Indians), and hold a meeting with members of religious orders and colonists to discuss the problem of perpetuity. Likewise, the viceroy received secret instructions granting him the right to place Indians within the encomienda system, if necessary.7 Therefore, with the establishment of the viceroyship, this stage started in a much more favorable way as regards conquistadores’ and settlers’ interests than the earlier period of administration by the Second Audiencia.8 One year later, in 1536, encomenderos were granted the concession to enjoy an encomienda for two lifetimes. Thus, the Crown whetted colonists’ expectations of a general repartimiento of Indian towns, even with jurisdiction. In addition, it had a viceroy who seemed to be in harmony with this new direction on the encomienda and who had opposed the corregimiento—not because of the institution itself but because of the people occupying the post, as will be seen later.9 In 1542, however, the Crown’s attitude toward the encomienda changed again, with decisive consequences for some colonists. This was expressed by the arrival of the New Laws of 1542 in New Spain, spurred by Friar Bartolomé de las Casas before Emperor Charles V with the aim of favoring the Indians. This legislation unleashed the last and most far-reaching of the quarrels between the defenders of the Indians and those who favored the encomienda.10 Nevertheless, the conflict was more superficial than real, since the encomienda followed the juridical path sketched out by Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal rather than adjusting itself completely to what was decreed in the New Laws.11 The novelty resided above all in the fact that, for the first time, the “theoretical” decision was embodied in a detailed and extreme set of laws. The violent reaction with which the New Laws were received in Peru and the general dissatisfaction they also provoked in New Spain, as is well-known, caused several of the laws’ conflictive chapters to be revoked. The succession for two lifetimes remained in force, however.12 Thus, once again, at the beginning of the Mendoza administration the Crown left open the possibility of carrying out the old project of distribution of encomiendas, although without jurisdiction.13

— 77

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

All of this was part of the institutional development of the encomienda. Besides this, however, the situation of the colony was shaken up, with Indian society in constant transformation. Thus, throughout the sixteenth century the petition the colonists repeatedly made to the king was that they should be granted a general repartimiento in perpetuity. The encomenderos’ aspirations were included in this project: the settling of a lordship regime over Indian towns.14 In turn, the colonists saw no clear distinction between encomienda Indians and Indian slaves, and in a wider context, the legislation did not intervene in the relationship between encomenderos and Indians on an everyday level, at least until the mid-sixteenth century.15 This relationship became more oppressive the more the encomenderos depended economically on the Indian communities and, in general, as colonial society grew. In this respect, a large number of colonists, from early on, developed a series of businesses based on the encomienda or the renting of it.16 Although it may seem obvious, when speaking of policies related to the encomienda it is worthwhile emphasizing the economic benefit it brought about. The political design of the encomienda formed by the Crown was confusing and not highly elaborated. It rested on the higher authorities, especially in the local sphere. In the case of the Second Audiencia, I have mentioned that it tried to maintain a separation between the Crown’s interests and those of the encomenderos as long as this did not produce a fall in the revenue of the Royal Treasury or affect royal jurisdiction. This is not so clear during the administration of the first viceroy, however, since the viceroy followed a favorable policy toward the encomienda. An example is that during the viceroy’s administration a large number of encomiendas were bought and exchanged, as they had been during the First Audiencia’s administration. Although obviously more moderate and adhering to legal formalities, the sales were camouflaged as transfers. Likewise, the viceroy used his faculty of granting encomiendas to hand them over to some of his people. This took place in spite of the fact that, ever since the Second Audiencia, there had been attempts to limit the power of the encomienda and increase royal jurisdiction over New Spain, among other measures that accompanied the introduction of the corregimento (see Chapter 1). Upon the arrival of Viceroy Mendoza in 1535, the encomenderos occupied a major place in New Spain society, to the point that in the period from 1535 to 1546 the viceroy granted or facilitated the purchase of fifty encomiendas (see Table 2.1). I have taken percentages to show the relevance of each of the mechanisms used. Therefore, it is neither futile nor lacking in interest to explain the policy Mendoza followed with regard to the encomienda and the corregimiento, as we will see

78 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

thereby that the legal structure and the economic reality went in different directions. The granting mechanisms Viceroy Mendoza used during the period prior to the New Laws can be classified as (1) new grants, (2) transfers from which one can see the sale of encomiendas, and (3) swaps or exchanges.17 The mechanisms for grants are grouped together in the three categories mentioned according to the nature of the proceedings. The heading “new grants” includes all the granting of towns that were not part of encomiendas at the time the grant was made. Here, in the cases we know of, it was a question of towns placed under corregimiento. The seventeen cases I encountered in this procedure made up 34 percent of the total. The “transfers” between private individuals involved a variety of forms that have in common the fact that, first, they were towns that were part of an encomienda and, second, that the operation did not suppose a counterpart. Among them are cases of legacies (8 percent, with four cases), dowries (4 percent, with two cases), and divisions (2 percent, with one case), with the exception of purchase by the beneficiary—euphemistically called “renunciation”—which refers to operations that involved an exchange of money. This type—sale—is a clear example of the fact that the encomenderos considered the towns handed over to them to be part of their patrimony.18 This category reached the highest percentage among the acquisition procedures—46 percent, with twenty-three cases. Except for the sale type, which was explicitly forbidden by the Crown, the other mechanisms had royal sanction. The third type, “swaps,” stands out only because it did imply a counterpart: here, the private individuals exchanged an Indian town “A” for a town “B” (three cases, only 6 percent of the total). The amount of cases shows what kind of activity was carried out with regard to the encomienda in those years, unlike what took place during the Second Audiencia when few encomiendas were granted. In the period we are now dealing with, probably at the request of the encomenderos and with reluctance on the part of the viceroy, legal mechanisms that gave vitality to the institution of the encomienda appeared. In effect, at least two royal orders of the period contained authorization for transfers, swaps, and other operations on encomiendas. It was typical that these legal mechanisms were implemented largely at the viceroy’s discretion. This made such operations a powerful instrument in the hands of the viceroy, both to favor specific individuals and to carry out his political plans. It is therefore not surprising that some beneficiaries were people close to the viceroy, a characteristic different from the earlier period. We will see some examples of these transactions, which “negotiated” the living conditions in many Indian towns.

— 79

Guillén de Loa2 / Pedro de Medinilla Fernando Rodríguez Magerino2 / Juan de Carvajal Hernando Torres2 / Antonio de Almaguer Bartolomé de Perales2 / Juan Moscoso Francisco de Solís Casquete / Juan Suárez Juan de Burgos / Francisco Vázquez de Coronado Juan Rodríguez / Gabriel de Aguilera Diego de Rodas / Alonso de Navarrete Francisco Montaño / Diego Muñoz Ramiro de Guzmán / Juan de Busto Tomás de Rijoles / Jorge González Francisco de Zamora / Juan de la Peña Vallejo Francisco Gutiérrez / Gregorio de Saldaña

Coyuca (part of) Chichicapa, Cuezala and Tlacotepec (part of) Tepecuacuilco (part of) Mecatlán (part of) Tamazulapa

Teutenango, Cuzamala and Sujetos, Hueytenango (part of) Guacilango

Teutlán and Nexpa

Castilblanco (part of)

Tacetuco

Tepotango

Tecticpaque

Moin, Tlaustepeque, Acamistlán and Ocelitlamatitlán Piaztla and Zola Con Sus Sujetos

Tacansineque, Tamalocón and Sus Sujetos

Alonso Lucas / Alonso de Mérida

Meztitilán (part of)

García de las Rivas / Telmo de Moeda

Francisco Guillén / Pedro de Fuentes

Beneficiary(ies)1

Town

Transfer (married to an encomendera) Transfer (married to an encomendera) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money)

Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (married to an encomendera) Transfer (married to an encomendera)

Operation

Table 2.1 Encomienda Grants and Swaps Made by Viceroy Mendoza That Are Mentioned in the 1544 Hearing

Luis de la Cueva / Tomás de Lamadrid Juan de Mansilla / Juan Gallego Juan Gallego / Francisco Rodríguez Cordero Juan Pérez de Córdoba / Francisco Guillén Lic. Telléz / Manuel Telléz (son) Pedro de Meneses / son and daughter Juan de Sámano / Crown Juan de la Cueva / Crown Bernardino de Albornoz Bernardino de Albornoz / Crown

Tequicistlán

Tetela and Tlauca (part of)

Tetela and Tlauca (part of)

Tanchipa

Coyuca (part of) Tepequilpac Chilchota and Coyna for Zinacantepec Xiquilpan for Cuytlavaca Guaspaltepeque Guaspaltepeque for Totolapa and Tabaliloque Tlapa (part) Coatepec, Tonalá and Tenayuca3


Andrés López and Antón Medel / Lic. Telléz

Tlaquilpa

Francisco Vázquez de Coronado Juan Alonso de Sosa

Juan de Cuéllar / Blas de Bustamente

Chimaloacán

Lic. Sandoval and Juan de Villagrán / Diego de Rodas Francisco Ramírez / Pedro de Meneses

Tempual and Tlacolcula

Diego de Guzmán / Juan de Fuentes

Juan Pérez de la Gama / Francisco de Lucena

Cempoala

Cicoame (part of) and Tecoaque (part of) Tamaol, Taultoana and Tambolón

Alonso Martín Jara / Cristóbal Cabezón

Texcatepeque (part of)

New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento)

Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (renunciation: operations that involved an exchange of money) Transfer (dowry) Transfer (dowry) Swap or exchange Swap or exchange New grant (a corregimento) Swap or exchange

82 — Gerónimo López Gonzalo Ruíz Alonso de Contreras Zamora (nahuatlato) Don Luis de Castilla Lic. Altamirano Diego de Ordaz Obispo de Oaxaca Juan Alonso de Sosa Juan de Valdivieso Diego de Ordaz Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia Francisco de Chávez Juan Cano Alonso Ortiz de Zúñiga / Jerónimo de Medina

Ajacuba3 Arao and Cuyseo Tamazula (for) Etlatongo3 Mazatán Tutepeque Tepemaxalco and Metepec Chilapa3 Tlalistlaca3 Tonalá and Izucar3 Tamazula (for) Etlatongo3 Calpa3 Churubusco3 Tascaltitlán3 Ocotuca and Capuluaque3 Huimantla and Tanchinotiquepac

New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) New grant (a corregimiento) Transfer (division)

Operation

Sources: Lewis Hanke, Los virreyes españoles en América durante el gobierno de la casa de Austria. México, vol. I (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Españoles tomo, 1976), document 7; AGI, Justicia, 259. Charges against Viceroy Mendoza nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30; AGI, Justicia, 258. Charge testimonies against Viceroy Mendoza, witnesses Hernando de Vergara, Juan de Tello de Medina, Rodrigo Castañeda, and Andrés de Tapia; Peter Gerhard, A Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). 1. Names before the division (/) refer to the original encomenderos, who owned the encomiendas until transference or succession took place. 2. Transfer occurred at death. 3. The dates when these towns shifted from belonging to the Crown to becoming private individuals’ encomiendas were Chilapa, 30-VIII-1539; Talistaca, 1538; Tonalá and Izúcar, 1537; Tenayuca, 1537; Tamazula y Etlatongo, one part—Juan de Valdivieso—on 6-X-1541, the other part—Alonso Contreras—on 17XII-1541; Calpa, 30-VIII-1539; Ochilobusco (Huitzilopocho), 16-XII-1541; Tascaltitlán, 10-VI-1540; Ocoyuca and Capuluaque, 25-VI-1541; Ajacuba, 11-IX-1538. AGI, Justicia, 258, documents that correspond to the hearing on the viceroy, “Relación sacada de los libros de la contaduría de Su Majestad de los corregimientos que se han proveído de esta Nueva España de los pueblos que están en su Real Corona . . . desde 5 de noviembre de 1535,” fols. 737–795.

Beneficiary(ies)1

Town


RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

New Grants of Indian Towns There are few data about this first type of operation, but its importance can be calculated through the references found in the source material. From these, it stands out that the towns were generally under the regime of corregimiento. That is, the new grants of encomienda, approved by Antonio de Mendoza, were made by taking towns away from the Crown (corregimiento) and handing them over to private individuals. An example of this is the town of Ajacuba, in Hidalgo. This town, which was under the Crown, was adjudicated as a private encomienda to the conquistador Gerónimo López in 1538. It is interesting that López considered that the viceroy had delayed in handing over this repartimiento to him. During the general visit he stated that he possessed a royal order to be given a repartimiento but that, earlier, he had presented it to the Audiencia and his request had been refused twice, although finally the encomienda of Ajacuba was handed over to him. In spite of the fact that López was not a person of influence in colonial life—he was a notary by profession—the relative ease with which he was given a royal town as repartimiento shows that this was a usual mechanism. In 1532 the Second Audiencia had taken an encomienda (Tepetitango, Colima) away from López, and one might think the new grant was made as compensation for this loss. In 1544, however, he was appointed corregidor in Talnocopan, a town very close to his encomienda, so that in this case the conquistador was doubly rewarded for the earlier damage to his patrimony. His encomienda of Ajacuba cannot have been among the smallest of the encomiendas because in 1570 it still had 4,300 Indians paying tribute. Finally, it was passed on to his son.19 Other colonists who received a grant of encomienda from the viceroy that, as in the case of Ajacuba, had been corregimientos up to that time were Gonzalo Ruiz, a Mexico City resident who was granted Arceo (Michoacán) as an encomienda; Alvaro de Zamora, a nahuatlato (interpreter) for the Audiencia who received the town of Mazatlán “on the Pacific coast”; Don Luis de Castilla, who was given the cabecera (head town) of Tututepeque; and Francisco Vázquez de Coronado, who received part of the town of Tlapa.20 Likewise, the accountant Bernardino de Albornoz was granted Guaspaltepeque, and, finally, the licenciado (lawyer) Altamirano received from the viceroy the towns of Tepemaxalco and Metepec (see Table 2.1). At least in the case of the towns handed over to Altamirano, the corregidor was not even informed that the town had become an encomienda: “being corregidor of these towns Rodrigo Calderón, who told this witness that within three days they had been stealthily given to

— 83

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

Licenciado Altamirano although they had never been his, and without the above-mentioned corregidor being transferred.”21 Another case is that of Gonzalo Ruiz, who was Mexico City’s regidor (councilman) for thirty years and had received Viceroy Mendoza on his arrival from Spain. Ruiz was one of the many encomendero-entrepreneurs of the time, although not the greatest of them. Partially dedicated to trade—he had a shop in Mexico City—Ruiz was also the owner of a ranch and an orchard in Tacubaya, for which he obtained various water rights. For its part, the municipal granted him seven plots of land in Mexico City. The encomienda he received from Mendoza provided him with 1,000 pesos per year in tribute. Finally, Ruiz was appointed corregidor of Tataluava and Tuctepeque in 1538 and 1539, respectively.22 One of the most interesting encomienda grants made to a private individual was that of the towns of Tonalá, Tenayuca, and Coatepeque, handed over to Treasurer Juan Alonso de Sosa in 1537 (see Table 2.1). This is especially interesting because of the circumstances surrounding the case. Sosa had arrived in New Spain a ruined man in spite of the powerful influence of certain members of his family, such as his father, the captain-general and governor of the Canary Islands. The ship that brought him from Spain was lost and with it the personal goods he was transporting to New Spain.23 On June 14, 1538, he was appointed regidor of Mexico City; two days earlier (June 12) he had been appointed by Viceroy Mendoza as treasurer to the Royal Treasury.24 Shortly afterward, in 1537, he was granted the cabecera of Coatepec and Tenayuca (which had been corregimientos since 1534 and 1532, respectively) as encomienda. Both repartimientos were located in a very fertile strip of the Valley of Mexico and again became corregimientos in 1544 under the New Laws.25 De Sosa was also given Tonalá (which had been a corregimiento since 1531) as an encomienda in 1537, including in this grant the towns of Cilacayopan and perhaps Patlanola. The cabecera of Tonalá was located in the lower Mixteca district. Later, in 1544, under the New Laws, this encomienda was taken away from him.26 The viceroy handed over the towns to the treasurer in compliance with royal orders so that Sosa would receive two-thirds of his salary as revenue from these tributes.27 Although Sosa only had this encomienda for a few years, there is no doubt that he received larger amounts of tribute than those the Crown had obtained from it, among other reasons because the native population of the territory comprising the Audiencia of Mexico had dropped from 16.8 million to 6.3 million between 1532 and 1548.28 If one takes into account that the “great plague” of the “cocoliztli” (epidemic, sickness) hit New Spain

84 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

between 1535 and 1548, with decisive effects on the drastic drop in the Indian population, one can believe that Sosa enjoyed relatively well-populated encomiendas. In addition to his encomiendas, in 1538 he was given the office of corregidor in Aguatlán (Puebla). The annual tributes from his towns were Tenayuca, 275 pesos and 600 fanegas (1.5–1.6 bushels) of maize per year; Coatepec, 1,000 pesos and 1,000 fanegas of maize per year; Tonalá, 4,645 pesos in-kind and in money.29 It is probable that the treasurer enjoyed the favor of the viceroy; at least it is known that they had economic relations, since the treasurer sold Mendoza “some oxen and carts and Negro slaves” for the construction of a dock— possibly that of Veracruz. It appears that the viceroy was not aware of some irregularities committed by the treasurer when he was performing his duties. From a witness who made a statement at the viceroy’s residencia, it is known that Sosa “acquired a large amount of gold pesos,” 20,000 castellanos, to purchase mines and serfs. This money “was apparently from the Royal Treasury.”30 In fact, by 1553—when he was suspended from his office following a royal order—Sosa owed a considerable sum that he had taken from the Royal Treasury in the course of his duties.31 During Tello de Sandoval’s general visit, when Mendoza and all the officials of the Audiencia underwent residencia hearings, one of the charges made against the treasurer was that he had 107,000 ducats “outside the three-key royal coffer.”32 Furthermore, it was stressed that Sosa was involved in various mining ventures during the second half of the 1530s—specifically in Taxco and in partnership with Hernán Cortés—to exploit the silver district of Sultepeque, where the Indians were extremely ill treated by local mine owners. Significantly, Sosa was the brother-in-law of Luis de Castilla, the richest mine owner in Taxco at that time, who was married to Sosa’s sister.33 There was a legal basis that enabled the viceroy to hand over Indians as part of an encomienda. These legal grounds were in the so-called secret instructions addressed to Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza in 1535. The instructions specified: “[I]f . . . you see it fitting to give Indians in encomienda, you may do so as long as it is not a case of the cabecera of a province.”34 This aspect did not go unquestioned. In fact, Silvio Zavala has pointed at these instructions and discusses Leon Pinelo’s statement, who considered that from the time of the Second Audiencia the governors did not have the faculty to bestow vacant encomiendas of Indians. According to Zavala, this, then, seems to refer rather to the decision about the problem of encomiendas in New Spain and not to an authorization for all of its administration. In any case, Zavala considers the granting of Ajacuba to Gerónimo López an “exceptional act.”35 Thus, as we

— 85

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

have seen, Mendoza often granted encomiendas throughout his administration until the New Laws entered into force.

Transfers of Indian Towns Transfers were the most usual mechanism for placing Indian towns in encomienda. Within this procedure four modes applied according to whether they occurred as a result of inheritance, marriage, dowry, or renouncement. On occasion, the transfer might also conceal the sale of an encomienda. Among the transfers Mendoza ratified, we will see some modes and examples of how they were carried out. Through Inheritance. Of the cases I am using, only three refer to the transfer of encomiendas from parents to children—one in which, following the death of Guillén de Loa, part of the tribute from his encomienda was handed over to his minor children. Another is that of encomendero Bartolomé de Perales’s son, who for a short time had his father’s Indians; later they were taken away from him because he was a “son from an adulterous relationship.”36 One case of an illegitimate daughter who inherited an encomienda was that of Rodrigo Gómez’s bastard daughter, married to Juan Guerrero who received the Indians together with her (see Table 2.1).37 In the other cases, it is a question of inheritance of the encomenderos’ widows. Four widows kept a part of the encomiendas on the death of their husbands. The legal grounds for this are found in the royal orders on succession for two lifetimes, issued in Madrid on May 26, 1536, which will be discussed later (see Table 2.1). In all these cases, the widows married a second time, and the viceroy granted the encomiendas to their new husbands. Also, the inheritance went first to the wife rather than to the legitimate children because of the priority Viceroy Mendoza granted them. A no less important role widowhood played was that it left the wife free to remarry. As is logical to assume, the fact of having inherited an encomienda from her former husband made a woman a good match, so it was not surprising that she would marry again, and, often, her widowhood lasted only a few months. Through Marriage. It was common that an encomendero’s widow would remarry and that the encomienda would pass into the hands of her new husband. This modality was promoted by the viceroy during his administration to protect people who belonged to his socioeconomic circle. Several testimonies point to the idea that the viceroy favored marriages of his own people to wid-

86 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

ows and daughters of encomenderos.38 A Mexico City resident stated, for example, that “he had heard tell that there had been several marriages of the Viceroy’s people who enjoyed his favor and that he heard that this would not have occurred if it had not been for the Viceroy.”39 Some of Antonio de Mendoza’s companions, friends, and retainers had obtained repartimientos by marrying encomenderos’ widows and made their fortune through the viceroy’s approval of such successions to encomiendas. This happened in the case of the nephew of the viceroy’s mayordomo (steward), Pedro de Medinilla. He obtained the Indians of Coyuca, Michoacán, by marrying encomendero Guillén de Loa’s widow. According to a witness, the encomienda was granted “in spite of the fact that this woman had legitimate children of her first husband.”40 In such cases the division of the town between the children and the encomendero’s wife was authorized. This happened particularly with Bartolomé de Perales’s repartimiento. After his death his widow married Juan Moscoso, who received half of the encomienda while the other half went to Perales’s son (see Table 2.1).41 Another case was that of Juan de Carvajal, who married encomendero Francisco Rodríguez Magarino’s widow (who also had legitimate children who succeeded him in the encomienda). A witness pointed out that the viceroy, instead of favoring the legitimate son, gave the encomienda to Carvajal. He also explained that this was forbidden because “there was a decree or section of the letter of his Majesty commanding that when a person who had an encomienda of Indians dies, the Viceroy shall leave the encomienda of such Indians to the legimate son of a legimate marriage.”42 Another transfer of this type occurred with Antonio Almaguer, who married encomendero Hernando de Torres’s widow and received the Indians that had been allocated to him (see Table 2.1). Almaguer received from Mendoza an appointment as corregidor of the towns of Jonotla (from 1537 to 1546) and Cuauhtinchan (from 1537 to 1541) in the province of Puebla.43 The legal basis for this type of transfer is found, fundamentally, in the royal orders of May 21, 1536, which granted succession for two lifetimes. Part of the section referring thereto points out: When some resident of the above mentioned province should die and had had some Indians in encomienda, and should leave in that land a legitimate child born of a legitimate marriage, he shall be allocated the Indians his father had . . . and if that married man had no legitimate children born of a legitimate marriage, the Indians shall be allocated to his widow, and if she should marry and her second husband has other Indians, he should be given one or the other of these allocations; whereas if he has none, the Indians should be allocated to him.44

— 87

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

There is another royal order of June 16, 1535, in which the encomienda was also granted for two lifetimes, in addition to establishing the size of the grant from then on. Nothing is specified, however, about widows who had succeeded to towns and remarried.45 In the eleven months between the issuing of the two royal orders, could the viceroy and the Audiencia have intervened to point out to the Crown the need to make grants in cases in which the widow of an encomendero had remarried? Through Dowries. An antecedent of this type of transfer was the case of Diego de Loaysa, son of Oidor Francisco Loaysa. Shortly before 1537, the son of this Second Audiencia official married a daughter of Cristóbal de Salamanca— who shared the encomienda of Coatlán with his brother-in-law, Alonso de Paz, encomendero of Colotepec and corregidor in Teutila (Oaxaca) and in Amula (Jalisco). Part of the encomienda of Coatlán was given as dowry to Diego de Loaysa’s wife, with the approval of the viceroy (see Table 2.1).46 It is no surprise that the viceroy approved the transfer because of the social and economic importance of the persons involved. Likewise, with Mendoza’s authorization, half of the repartimiento of Tepeyacuilco was transferred to Pedro Osorio, corregidor of Taxco and Tenango, for having married the daughter of the conquistador Hernando de Torres.47 Other similar cases of transfer by dowry were that of the encomienda of licenciado Telléz, who gave it as a dowry to Manuel Telléz, his son, and that of the encomiendas of Pedro de Meneses, who gave them as a dowry to two of his children (see Table 2.1).48 The legal precedent for this is found in the royal authorization to hand over an encomienda as dowry on the marriage of the son of Oidor Loaysa. By royal order of February 3, 1537, the king authorized the granting of encomiendas as dowry when any conquistador wished to marry off one of his sons or daughters, as long as the people in question fulfilled the requirement “of quality.” In this order the king mentioned that the viceroy had informed him that one of licenciado Loaysa’s sons had married the niece of the conquistador “who on his marriage to her had been given certain towns which you [the viceroy] had transferred on our behalf and you had done so because it had seemed fair to pass them on from conquistadores to settlers, and that you thought of doing this in similar cases of this sort.” The Crown agreed to the transfer and granted the viceroy the faculty to do the same for other conquistadores in the same situation. On the basis of this letter, the viceroy also authorized Hernando de Torres’s request, issuing the order on May 9, 1542.49

88 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

By Renouncement. Another form of transferring towns was by renouncement. This consisted of an encomienda being left to another recommended person, who needed to possess the qualities required to own it.50 Thus, Rodrigo Gómez de Avila, encomendero of the village of Actopan, arranged the engagement of his natural daughter to Juan Martínez Guerrero—who, upon marrying her, received the father’s encomienda by “renouncement” (see Table 2.1).51 In this case it was a question of a transfer as a dowry upon marriage, although an improper one since the encomendero’s daughter was a “natural child” and could not receive it legally.52

Purchase of Indian Towns In the other cases, the renouncement seems to have concealed an act of purchase of Indian towns. Unlike the three types of mechanisms examined up to now, the purchase of towns lacked any legal basis. In fact, it appeared to be a mechanism that went beyond the legal decrees, concealing it under the form of renouncement whereby a private individual gave up his encomienda to another. This depended on two conditions: the payment of a price agreed upon and the approval of the authorities, in particular the viceroy. Robert Himmerich has mentioned that the purchase of encomiendas was not common practice in the 1521–1555 period. Himmerich calculates that in that period only slightly over 2 percent of encomiendas were transferred by sale. My perception of the problem is different, however, considering that the sale of encomiendas was not a marginal phenomenon, especially in the first years of Mendoza’s administration. I have found no royal orders specifying permission to purchase encomiendas. On the contrary, there is an order dated June 10, 1540, explicitly stating that “no encomendero can give up and transfer the Indians allocated to him, and if he should do so, they will remain free to be allocated to someone else.”53 It is no surprise that this course of action was forbidden, since, as is well-known, the encomenderos had no jurisdiction over the Indian towns, and they were not private property—at least in the royal laws. In those years, however, such transfer was the most frequent method for acquiring Indian towns used by private individuals. Specifically, there were twenty-three cases of encomienda purchase during the first years of Mendoza’s administration (see Table 2.1). All of these purchases were carried out with the viceroy’s permission. Furthermore, some of the buyers were closely related to Mendoza. The prices of the permits fluctuated from 500, to 700, and up to 2,000 pesos, according to the size of the encomienda.54 Among the people who acquired encomiendas through

— 89

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

this mechanism, the most important were Francisco Vázquez de Coronado, governor of New Galicia, who was in charge of expeditions to the north, and Alonso de Mérida, treasurer of the Mint (see Table 2.1)—both of whom were close collaborators of the viceroy.55 Because of this close relationship with the viceroy and the fact that Mendoza allowed them to buy encomiendas, it is relevant to mention some aspects regarding the cases of Coronado and Mérida. Coronado bought his encomiendas from Juan de Burgos, the encomendero of a part of Cuzamala and a part of Tenango, although we do not know how much he paid for them. Coronado was known to be an “intimate friend and favorite of the Viceroy.” In fact, he had come to New Spain with Mendoza, and people knew how much the viceroy trusted him. Some colonists even went to see him about matters of their own in the hope that he would intercede for them with the viceroy. On one occasion a private individual expressed his desire to hand over an encomienda as a dowry, “since, in secret, this witness would pay him with possessions he had in Spain.” Coronado replied that he would not say anything about this to the viceroy because he would not give him a permit “to transfer Indians to anyone except if negotiated through him.”56 Vázquez de Coronado had an encomienda in New Galicia with over 3,000 Indians paying tribute while through his wife, Treasurer Alonso de Estrada’s daughter, he received half of the encomienda of Tlapa. In 1548 the Tlapa encomienda had about 6,800 Indian tribute payers. Coronado was also corregidor of the town of Tlaxcaltitlán in 1539.57 As for Alonso de Mérida and the encomienda he bought, almost all the testimonies reveal the extraordinary favor he received from Mendoza. Thereby, Mérida acquired half of one of the richest towns in New Spain—Meztitlán (Hidalgo)—and that purchase gave rise to a lawsuit that lasted several years.58 The problem started when, on August 4, 1536, Alonso Lucas “renounced” to Mérida half of the above-mentioned town with the permission of the viceroy. In the early 1540s Lucas died, and his wife and daughter, as well as his brotherin-law, brought legal action against the treasurer.59 Lucas’s family had a royal order requesting that Meztitlán be given back to them, in exchange for which they would hand over the money Mérida had apparently paid for the town.60 The tension between Lucas’s family and Mérida reached the extreme of the two parties “fighting with knives.” Mérida kept the encomienda.61 It was well-known that Mérida had Mendoza’s backing. Mérida’s relatives had been raised by Viceroy Mendoza’s father and brother, and the viceroy had appointed Alonso de Mérida treasurer of the Mint.62 Several testimonies also point out that Mérida did the viceroy great favors. For example, he gave Mendoza 1,000 marks of silver from the royal coffers and granted him several

90 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

loans totaling 400 pesos, in addition to giving the viceroy “a large quantity of fish from his encomienda.”63 The treasurer also had good relations with Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada. Mérida placed as deputy treasurer the well-known trader Juan de Manzanares, who was Tejada’s nephew.64 These cases show to what extremes the viceroy went in compromising with certain colonists on a political issue as important as encomienda was at that time. Finally, it should be noted that most of the transfers of encomiendas for which the viceroy gave permission were within the legal mechanisms of the time, with the exception of the most common one—the sale of Indian towns. In general, these movements of encomiendas reflect the fact that during Mendoza’s time, and unlike the administration of the Second Audiencia, attitudes favored the encomenderos, on the part of both the Spanish government and the local one. This policy to a certain extent recalls that followed by the First Audiencia with regard to the encomienda.

Swaps of Indian Towns Within this method, a small number of cases show the benefits a private individual could receive when he had the viceroy’s approval to swap and exchange an encomienda. Specifically, I will discuss the case of Mexico City constable Juan de Samano. The constable married a sister of Oidor Francisco Ceynos. To help him, the viceroy had allowed him to exchange two of his encomiendas—the towns of Chilchota in the province of Michoacán and Tonalá in the province of New Galicia—for the town of Zinacantepec, which belonged to the Crown and was located “ten leagues” from Mexico City (see Table 2.1).65 Some testimonies point out that the latter town was more profitable than the others because it was located in “a region with mines.” Therefore, the constable had made a good swap, although the Crown lost the town.66 Chilchota gave greater personal service in the mines, but Zinacantepec produced more maize and wheat. Chilchota was obliged to give, every thirty days, twenty “loads” of maize for pigs that fed the calpisque (tax collector), which was later exchanged for the service of fifty Indians in the mines of Zinacantepec. Furthermore, the town of Zinacantepec was assessed an annual amount of cultivated land that was to equal five plots, “with 2,000 brazas and land sown to wheat measuring 100 brazas long and 30 wide.” Later, that tribute was also exchanged for twenty Indians serving in the mines.67 The swap was accepted by the viceroy, with letters confirming it.68 Although the personal service of Chilchota might be greater than that of Zinacantepec, one must take into

— 91

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

account that the latter was a mining district and rendered as tribute a considerable amount of maize and wheat that sold well in the mines.69 Another of the transfers through swaps, also with the viceroy’s permission, was that of the secretary of the Royal Tribunal, Juan de Cuevas, who exchanged the town of Jiquilpa in Michoacán for Cuitlahuac near Mexico City, which belonged to the Crown (see Table 2.1). Witnesses considered this town to be richer than his former town and determined that the exchange therefore benefited the official.70 Yet another exchange was carried out by Francisco Rodríguez, encomendero of Patlatlan and Xalxucatitlán (Zacatula), and Francisco Quintero, encomendero of half of Yeitecomal and Taymeo (Michoacán). The exchange of encomiendas occurred July 13, 1537 (see Table 2.1).71 Of the three cases mentioned, this is the only one that complies with the regulations of the royal order regarding the swapping of encomiendas, since Francisco Quintero was ill and wanted to leave Mexico City. In the other two cases no such proviso was made. The only explanation I can find for these towns having being handed over lies in the social standing of the two men who received them. One was the chief constable—Juan de Samano—and the other was secretary of the Royal Tribunal, Juan de Cuevas. The legal basis is found in royal orders from Valladolid dated August 8, 1538, when permission was given to the viceroy to issue permits “for an encomendero to swap his repartimiento for another.” The antecedent for this was a report by conquistador Bartolomé de Zarate of the city of Veracruz. He mentioned that some people who were ill and living “in the hot part of the country” wanted to exchange their encomiendas for others in “cold land” and, both parties being in agreement, requested that this type of exchange be allowed. The orders specified that health reasons were the priority for carrying out this type of exchange.72 Likewise, a secret instruction addressed to Viceroy Mendoza granted him the faculty “to make swaps and exchange of Indians,” dated Valladolid, April 8, 1538.73 Nevertheless, this type of exchange had been forbidden just six years before, in 1532, by a royal decree establishing that because in such exchanges the Indians were apt to be “ill treated,” it was forbidden to make this type of “swap.”74 It is interesting to note the different criteria with respect to encomiendas between the Second Audiencia and Viceroy Mendoza. The acquisitions of encomiendas, carried out by some colonists during this period, took on special relevance because they were the result of direct intervention by members of the Audiencia and the viceroy. This seems clear when one considers the wide range of social ties the higher bureaucracy maintained at that time with some encomenderos and colonists. These people made up the

92 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

small white society of Mexico City and also generated wealth in New Spain. I have traced the ties of family and friendship among the members of the Audiencia during Mendoza’s administration. For example, in 1538 Oidor Alonso Maldonado (1530–1543) married the legitimate daughter of the conquistador and governor of Yucatán, Francisco de Montejo, who had the encomienda of Azcapotzalco.75 This family relationship situation fostered a favorable political attitude on the part of the oidor toward the encomendero group. During Tello de Sandoval’s visit from 1544 to 1546, Maldonado was charged with being partial to his friends in lawsuits and matters presented before the Audiencia, particularly toward the encomendero and mine owner Luis de Castilla and the encomendero Francisco Maldonado. Furthermore, when Oidor Maldonado decided to take part in early commercial ventures, he did so as partner of the encomendero and governor of New Galicia, Francisco Vázquez de Coronado, with whom he also started a mining company in Taxco.76 A similar situation can be found with regard to Oidor Francisco Ceynos (1530–1546), the brother-in-law of Juan de Samano, encomendero of Zinacantepec and Mexico City constable. They had a friendly relationship, and Ceynos favored his brother-in-law in lawsuits that were resolved in the Audiencia.77 The extent of his relationship with the encomenderos is surprising, however. In lawsuits he did favors for Juan de Infante, who brought action against the bishop of Michoacán, former oidor Vasco de Quiroga. Ceynos also favored Miguel Díaz de Aux in his lawsuit with Andrés de Barrios for a part of the town of Meztitlán. Likewise, Treasurer Alonso de Mérida was favored against encomendero Alonso Lucas, coincidently so he could be granted the other half of Meztitlán, as was pointed out earlier. Finally, Ceynos supported Pedro de Medinilla in his lawsuit against Pedro de Meneses.78 Oidor Francisco de Loaysa (1534–1549) was related to encomenderos through his son Diego de Loaysa’s marriage to the niece of Alonso de Paz. In 1545 the tribute from the Paz encomienda, Colotepec, passed to the oidor’s son. This relationship established a legal precedent for transfer by dowry, some examples of which have been given. Perhaps because of this tie, Loaysa favored the lawsuits of Paz, as well as those of his brother-in-law, Cristóbal de Salamanca, who was also an encomendero.79 The most conspicuous figure in the Audiencia was clearly Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada (1537–1552), uncle of the encomendero of Hueypustla, Juan de Manzanares, who also benefited from the post of his relative, as did Treasurer Alonso de Mérida (see Chapter 3). Finally, Oidor Hernando de Santillán (1543– 1551) was the son-in-law of Andrés de Barrios, encomendero of a part of Meztitlán.80

— 93

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

As we can see, the tendency to favor a particular group of encomenderos in New Spain had to do with the relationships of friendship and family they maintained with members of the Audiencia. It is not surprising that such a deeply rooted tendency survived in later times. This is illustrated in the testimony of an oidor who, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, wrote to King Philip III about the problem of local royal authorities having so many social ties in New Spain: The lack of relatives is the reason why spiritual relationships of godparents are esteemed as much as if they proceeded through blood relationships and the legal problems of these spiritual relatives of the local Spanish authorities are apt to be defended with passion by them. If this is to be avoided, it would seem fitting to forbid your ministers to enter into such relationships, be they of baptism or marriage.81

A surprising trait in the behavior of Audiencia officials was the superficial way in which they occasionally sought the acceptance of the people they governed. This happened at the same time they promoted the establishment of personal relationships for their future activity as entrepreneurs. The most frequent activities for entertainment were popular festivals and taking part in mock tournaments and card games. Oidores Maldonado and Loaysa, for example, used to meet in their homes with encomenderos Castilla, Salamanca, and Paz, among others, to play cards. In spite of this being forbidden by law, they bet large sums of money. A special addict of this type of gambling was Loaysa, who liked to invite his friends to play in an orchard he owned.82 Mendoza and Oidores Ceynos, Loaysa, Maldonado, and Tejada liked to take part in fiestas and mock tournaments “which have been given in this city publicly in the streets.”83 Flirting with ladies (in spite of the advanced age of some of them), using expressions that had little to do with the official nature of their high posts, and even courting Spanish and Indian women were some of the customs the oidores practiced that were socially accepted by residents. Oidor Loaysa—as was vividly described by a witness during Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the Royal Audiencia—was going “[o]ne day to a fiesta along a street in the city, arriving at a window in which there was a public woman known as ‘La Caimana,’ this witness saw that oidor Loaysa stopped his horse crying out words of love to her.”84 Although the Crown tried to impose some formality in the attitude of its officials and to impose austere treatment toward those they governed, daily life in the colonies greatly affected this idea. Human in their dealings with their encomenderos and traders, the oidores and the viceroy took part in popular celebrations, which reinforced (or created) the social links tying them to the mem-

94 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

bers of the most powerful economic groups in colonial society. Especially during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, colonial fiestas were an “instrument for social integration from the top down.”85 All important celebrations in New Spain were of an official nature and highly arranged, hierarchically speaking, since the privileged sectors were placed near the colonial authorities as a way of distinguishing their power and prestige to other participants.86 The cases analyzed in this part of the book—the fifty acquisitions of encomiendas—although surely not the total of those carried out during the first five years of the viceroy’s administration, are representative of the trend prevailing at that time. The acquisition of encomiendas through purchase was the predominant form to which colonists of a certain importance had recourse to accede to a repartimiento of Indians. The viceroy’s tolerance of this act of purchase of encomiendas, which was supposedly illegal, reveals a more than conciliatory attitude, since Mendoza and the oidores took part in this special economic and social world in which patrimonial and personal relationships also fit—which enabled them to have greater influence in all spheres of colonial society.

VICEROY MENDOZA’S POLICY: CORREGIMIENTO At the beginning of his administration, Viceroy Mendoza was reluctant to maintain the institution of corregimiento because, in his opinion, the corregidores committed various abuses against the Indians. To replace these officials, the viceroy proposed appointing alcaldes mayores (judges in a district). They would collect the tribute from the towns, as at that time these officials fulfilled the functions of justice and surveillance without entering into the sphere of local government in the Indian towns.87 The viceroy did not give any details to explain his preference. To clear up this point, we would have to see what the difference between these two figures is. As part of the origin of the post of corregidor in Spain, they were persons delegated by the king to the municipalities of Castile ever since the thirteenth century. Apparently, in 1480 Ferdinand and Isabella installed corregidores, as delegates of royal power, to head the councils of important cities in Castile and León, where they were responsible for the administration of justice in their municipalities.88 The figure of alcalde mayor stems from the same period and in the Middle Ages was responsible for justice in the frontier provinces. According to Alfonso García Gallo, “[T]he main difference between corregidores and alcaldes of the frontier provinces lies in the fact that the corregidores exercised both administrative and judicial affairs, whereas the alcaldes only exercised this last one.”89

— 95

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

In the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella there was another kind of alcalde mayor who had both civil and criminal jurisdiction. This occurred in Galicia and was similar to a corregidor in administrative functions, although the two continued to be different because the alcaldes acted in association—unlike the corregidores— and because the former had jurisdiction at the appeal level whereas the corregidores did not.90 As the functions of the two figures were very similar in the Indies, some historians have confused them.91 A simple outline of the differences between the two officials in Spanish America and in Castile is that the alcalde mayor (on occasion also known as higher judge) exercised justice within a whole province, acting as appeal judge for the ordinary alcaldes of that province only in civil matters. The corregidores functioned as administrators and judges, but only at a local level.92 Thus, the viceroy’s preference for placing Indians under alcaldes mayores was perhaps a way of preventing corregidores from having influence over Indian local government. Furthermore, and in agreement with the instructions he received, the viceroy lowered the salaries of corregidores.93 His idea was that by this reduction he might have enough money to provide economic help to poor conquistadores. Thus, the viceroy explained that through this procedure, in 1544 there had been 16,000 pesos in the royal coffers, which were distributed both by him and by Sandoval and the Audiencia to people “they thought fitting.”94 Apparently, before Antonio de Mendoza’s arrival in New Spain, the corregidores were paid according to the wealth of the town or towns they were in charge of. Therefore, they could obtain 200, 300, or even 500 pesos a year. Under the viceroy, however, it appears that salaries were not only lowered, but there was a trend for them to become uniform.95 Of the 159 corregimientos, only one, corresponding to the town of Talasco (Matalcingo), was equivalent to the tribute assessed for it (see Table 2.2).96 During the first eleven years of Mendoza’s administration, the average annual salary of a corregidor was 194 pesos. Nevertheless, the average of the yearly salaries underwent some small variations, as can be seen in Table 2.2. In special cases, during those years a corregidor might receive 400 or 500 pesos as an annual salary. Such was the case of the brothers Hernando de Salazar and Juan Velázquez de Salazar, the first of whom was a Royal Treasury official. The political and social influence of the two probably determined such high salaries. There are data regarding the number of corregimiento decrees between 1536 and 1546 that reveal the corregidores’ mobility. There is no doubt that this situation made it easier for the viceroy to use them for political purposes, since

96 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

Table 2.2 Corregimientos in New Spain, 1536–1546 Year Before 1533 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1

Corregimiento Creation

Amount of Provisiones

Yearly Increase of Provisiones

53 43 16 3 1 4 5 2 6 16 8 2

— 78 102 87 82 97 92 97 85 103 122 41

— — 24 (15) (5) 15 (5) 5 (12) 18 19 (81)

Subtotal

106

TOTAL

159

Corregidor’s Average Salary (pesos) — 223.3 208.8 206.5 195.5 180.9 183.8 185.5 195.5 197.4 195.2 203.2

Source: Table 1.1; AGI, Justicia, 258, “Relación sacada de los libros de Contaduría de S.M. de los corregimientos que se han proveido en esta Nueva España.” 1. Only until August 17, 1546. Note: Negative numbers are in parentheses.

he was able to grant corregimientos when they fell vacant, although it was the Crown that had originally authorized them. In spite of Mendoza’s initial reticence with regard to this institution, there was a large increase in the granting of corregimientos in just thirteen years. In 1533, under the administration of the Second Audiencia, which very much favored the corregimiento, there had been 53 corregimientos in New Spain. By 1546 the number had risen to 159, and during that period only 11 had gone back to being encomiendas.97 From what we have seen, there is no doubt that the number of encomiendas granted also grew, since Mendoza was not a strong partisan of placing Indian towns under the Crown. Despite that, the number of corregimientos increased, although never at the same pace as at the beginning of the institution during the Second Audiencia. We can see that in the years 1536–1537, the number of appointments to the post of corregidor was much higher than that for the years 1538–1544 (see Table 2.2). Once again, in 1544 an increase took place in the number of these appointments, mainly as a result of the application of the New Laws: some encomiendas in the hands of royal officials and encomenderos with more than two repartimientos reverted to the Crown (see Tables 2.2 and 2.3). A large part of this increase in the number of corregimientos in the years 1536–1546, especially in 1536–1543, resulted from social measures Viceroy

— 97

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

Mendoza adopted for the institution. This situation led him to change his original unfavorable opinion on the subject. In the report Mendoza made for his successor, Luis de Velasco (1550–1551), he told him that the functioning of this institution depended on the royal decrees regarding the administration of justice sent out by the Crown. It also depended on the statutes and laws on the forms to be kept up in the collecting of tribute, which he had carried out as viceroy and which his successor was to continue—of whom it was hoped “business of this type would be in good order and speedily undertaken.”98 One of the solutions to the viceroy’s reservations about the operational effectiveness of the system of corregimientos thus appears to have been resolved through viceregal control over the forms of collecting tribute. For Mendoza, the situation was clear: if the corregimiento was to continue to exist, it had to be controlled by the viceregal authorities to avoid problems and abuses in the Indian towns. Because of their attributions, the corregidores had opportunities for profit. In Charles Gibson’s opinion, there is no doubt that “the first corregidores considered themselves to be short-term encomenderos.” The Crown originally allowed certain corregimientos to be given to encomenderos whose encomienda had been taken away from them. Furthermore, the corregidores’ salaries stemmed from the tribute, in addition to being able to receive services and other products from the Indian towns as extra income.99 Additionally, in spite of the appointments being made on an annual basis, there were cases of corregidores who remained in office for a longer period.100 This was the case of Antonio de Almaguer, corregidor of Jonotla, who remained in the post from 1537 to 1541; of Antonio de la Cadena, who was corregidor of Cholula from 1539 to 1542; of Luis de Castilla, corregidor of Mexicalcingo, who remained in his post from 1538 to 1542; and of the corregidor of Huatlatlauca, Alonso del Castillo, who held the office from 1537 to 1551, to cite only a few cases (see Table 2.3). A specific set of rules for the corregidores occurred during Mendoza’s administration with the New Laws (1544). Therein it was once again ordered that the corregidores should be subject to residencia procedures—as was the case during the administration of the Second Audiencia (see Chapter 1)—like the rest of the authorities. It was also ordered that the people receiving a corregimiento should be suitably chosen.101 The residencia hearings for corregidores should be conducted by the viceroy and the Audiencia.102 It is possible that up to the arrival of the New Laws, no residencia hearings were applied to corregidores on the point of leaving their posts.103 In spite of this and following Gibson, only “rarely were corregidores punished for their illegal acts, which were not sufficiently distinguishable from the acts of other Spaniards to justify an exclusive punishment.”104 The residencia

98 —

Antonio de Almaguer

Antonio de Almaguer

Hontañón de Angulo

Pedro de Aragón

Pedro de Aragón

Tristán de Arellano



Juan de Arriaga

Gaspar de Ávila (Quiñónez)

Jonotla, Quezalesal y Tetela (Puebla)

Guatinchan (Puebla)

Izucar (Puebla)

Chichicapa y Tetequipa (Oaxaca)

Macuilsuchil-Teutitlan (Oaxaca)

Tlapa (Guerrero)

Uaxolotitlan (Oaxaca)

Guaxocingo (Puebla)

Tecomabaca (Oaxaca)

Ucila (Oaxaca)


Name

Corregimiento

25-IX-1536

8-II-1539 29-VII-1540

26-VII-1538 29-VII-1539

3-IX-1544 23-IX-1545

1-I-1536 31-I-1537

17-I-1545

7-II-1539 30-VIII-1541 6-IX-1542

14-VIII-1544

15-VI-1545 31-VII-1546

28-XI-1537 27-XI-1538 5-XII-1539 22-XII-1540 23-IX-1541

(half an encomienda; Taymeo, 1529)

(half an encomienda; 1534)

(half an encomienda; married an encomendera 1548–1550)

(30-VIII-1541; his son succeeded him in 1554)

(married an encomendera in the late 1540s)

(encomendero at the beginning of the viceroyship)

Date of Provisión Observations

Table 2.3 Viceroy Mendoza’s Appointment of Encomenderos as Corregidores to 1546

Cuacugilichan Cuautepec (Guerrero) Taymeo (Michoacán)

Guaxuapa (Oaxaca Mixteca baja)

Teposcolula (Oaxaca Nueve estancias)

Chicomeaguatepec (Oaxaca)

Justlaguaca (Oaxaca)

Iztepexi (Oaxaca)

Tianguistengo (Hidalgo)

Tepecuacuilco (Guerrero)

Encomienda

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

— 99

Name

Alonso de Bazán

Alonso de Bazán

Pedro de Bazán

Antonio de la Cadena

Jorge Carrillo

Jorge Carrillo

Rodrigo de Castañeda

Luis de Castilla

Luis de Castilla

Luis de Castilla

Luis de Castilla

Corregimiento

Teutila (Oaxaca)

Tamazula y Etlatongo (Oaxaca)

Tepeapulco (Hidalgo)

Cholula (Puebla)


Mexicalcingo y Zopotlan (V. of México)

Jalapa, Cintla y Acatlan (Guerrero)

Teuzapotlan (Oaxaca)

Tezcoco (V. of México)

Mexicalcingo y Zapotlan (V. of México)

Tasco y Tenango (Guerrero)

Table 2.3 —continued

25-X-1542 27-X-1543

12-X-1538 21-X-1539 14-XI-1540 19-XI-1541

22-VII-1537

11-XI-1540 19-XI-1541

3-IV-1542 21-VI-1543

17-VI-1545

16-VII-1544 17-VII-1545

7-II-1539 3-III-1540 3-III-1541 9-III-1542

26-XI-1537 5-II-1539

27-XI-1536 12-I-1537

5-XII-1542

Teotihuacan (V. de México)

Encomienda

(late 1534)

(since 1532)

(since 1524)

(in the 1530s)

(as dowry in 1537)

(before 1528)

Nopala y Sus Sujetos (Oaxaca)

Tutepec y Sus Sujetos (Oaxaca)

Puctla (Tlaxcala)

Amatlan y Montepacoya (Michoacán)

Chiapa y Tecucitlan (Colima)

Pachuca (Hidalgo)

Pungaravato (Límite Michoacán)

(half was granted to J. de Cuestlaguaca (Oaxaca) Valdivieso, the rest was granted to Alonso de Contreras on 17-XII-1541)

(married an encomendera)



Juan de Cervantes (Casaus)

Jorge Cerón (Saavedra)


Tula y su Partido (Hidalgo)

Bernardino del Castillo

Metateyuca y su Partido (Veracruz)


Alonso del Castillo

Guatlatlauca y su Partido (Puebla)


Alonso del Castillo

Jonotla, Quezalesal y Tetela (Puebla)

Otumba (V. of México)

Alonso del Castillo Maldonado

Teutenango y su Partido (Toluca)

Tlacotepeque

Alonso del Castillo Maldonado

Yzcuintlapilco (Hidalgo)

17-VII-1545

16-VII-1544

14-IV-1543 29-V-1544

12-X-1538

16-III-1540 17-III-1541 17-III-1542

9-VIII-1544 22-VIII-1545

17-XII-1537 18-XII-1538 10-I-1540 5-III-1541

23-IX-1536

9-VII-1544

14-III-1542

(half an encomienda; 1529; taken away and redistributed during the 1540s)

(before 1547)

(mentioned in a 1554 list as encomendero)

(as dowry; in 1548; half an encomienda)

(after 1539)

(since 1528; he sold them before 1548: half an encomienda)

(married an encomendera; in the 1540s he had ¼ part of Tehuacán)

Llamatlan (S. Luis Potosí) Altehuecian y Tamazunchale (S. Luis Potosí)

Guautla (Hidalgo)

Charo-Matalcingo (Michoacán)

Igualapa (Guerrero) Ometepec (Guerrero) Suchistlahuaca (Guerrero) Mechoacan (Límite Veracruz)

Yurirapundaro (Bajío)

Suchistlahuaca (Guerrero)

Iguala (Guerrero) Ometepec (Guerrero)

Tehuacan (Puebla)

Name

Alonso de Contreras

Johan Coronel

Johan de Cuéllar Verdugo



Lope Cherinos

Bachiller Pedro Díaz de Sotomayor



Andrés Dorantes

Corregimiento

Zacualpa (V. of México)

Escateupa y Atengo (Guerrero)

Metlatoyuca y su Partido (Veracruz)

Yztlauaca

Sochiguatla

Tepeaca (Puebla)

Teutila (Oaxaca)

Cimatla y Tepeimatlan (Oaxaca)

Guexocingo (Puebla)

Chinantla (Oaxaca)


11-VIII-1544 (s.d.n.m.) 1545

1540–1541

1542–1543

1-IV-1536 1-VII-1537

9-VIII1544 21-VIII-1545

12-II-1536 12-II-1537

1-IX-1538 24-IX-1539 25-IX-1540 26-IX-1541

6-II-1543 6-II-1544

11-VIII-1544 20-VIII-1545

30-XI-1537 1-III-1539 5-XII-1539 19-I-1541

(married to an encomendera; 1540)

(until 1537, when he gave it away as his daughter’s dowry)

(Cortés granted him an encomienda; Cuéllar sold it to a town inhabitant in the 1540s)

(since 1528; one part)


Atzalan Mexcalcingo (Veracruz)

Cuestlaguaca (Oaxaca)

Pachuca (Hidalgo)

Paguatlan y Acasuchitlan (Veracruz)

Chimalhuacan Atenco (V. de México)

Orizaba (Veracruz) Jalapa (Oaxaca)

Tamazola (Oaxaca) Cenzontepec (Oaxaca)

Encomienda

20-IX-1536

Johan de Jaso (“el mozo”)3

Johan de Jaso (“el mozo”)3

Tezcuco (V. of México)


Suchimilco (V. of México) Johan de Jaso (“el mozo”)3

Tezayuca, Zapotlan y su Partido (V. of México)


2-XII-1541 7-XII-1542

Francisco de Herrera2

Mitla-Taculula (Oaxaca)

Gonzalo López (“el camarero”)

24-IX-1536 15-IX-1537

Diego Hernández

Acatlan y Piaztla (mitad) (Puebla)

19-II-1537

17-X-1538 11-X-1539 25-X-1540

17-XI-1540 1-I-1542

16-I-1540 16-IV-1541

21-VII-1544 24-VII-1545

Lorenzo Genovés

Rodrigo de Guzmán1

Guaxolotitlan (Oaxaca)

7-II-1538 22-II-1539 13-V-1540

29-III-1542

3-VII-1543 12-VII-1544

12-III-1539

26-XI-1537

20-XI-1536

Tonatico (Veracruz)

Lorenzo Genovés

Lorenzo Genovés

Tetequipaque (Oaxaca)

Ocotlan (Oaxaca)

Francisco de Estrada

Francisco de Estrada

Capula (Michoacán)

Andrés Dorantes

Chilchota (Michoacán)

Sochiguatla (Hidalgo)

Andrés Dorantes

Teutalpa e Iztepque (Puebla)

(assigned in 1528)

(as dowry; 1540)

(assigned in 1528; half an encomienda)

(1540s; part of the encomienda)

(granted in 1532)

(Cortés gave him the encomienda)

(before 1547; half an encomienda)

Cuiseo (Michoacán)

Xipacoya (Hidalgo)

Ometepec (Guerrero) Suchistlauaca (Guerrero) Igualapa (Guerrero)

Turicato (Michoacán)

Tonatico (Veracruz)

Minzapa (Veracruz)

Tuzantalpa (Hidalgo)

Tezcatepec y Sujeto

Juan Núñez Sedeño

Pedro Osorio

Martín de Peralta

Texupa (Oaxaca)

Tasco y Tenango (Guerrero)


Johan Tello de Medina

Chiconautla (V. of México)

Juan Núñez Sedeño

Alonso Martín Muñoz

Teuzacualco (Oaxaca)

Yzcuintepeque y Elotepeque (Oaxaca)

Lorenzo (Vázquez) Marroquino

Ajacuba (Hidalgo)

Francisco de Montaño

Francisco Maldonado

Teuzapotlan (Oaxaca)

Francisco de Montaño

Pedro López de Alcántara

Guaxuapa y su Partido (Oaxaca)

Ximeltepeque (Morelos)

Gerónimo López

Talnocopan (Hidalgo)

Sochiguatla (Hidalgo)

Name

Corregimiento


21-I-1536 16-II-1537

9-IX-1539 10-VI-1541

16-XI-1540 1-I-1542 1-I-1543

8-VII-1544

24-IV-1545

4-III-1538

9-VII-1544 17-VII-1545

16-VI-1545

14-IX-1536 15-IX-1537

27-X-1543 1545

22-V-1543 24-V-1544

1544

(since 1536)

(married an encomendera, a little before 1548)

(until 1528)

(he lost it in the 1520s; in 1530 he sold his share)

(until 1544)

(as inheritance in 1544)

(as dowry, a little before 1550)

(died in 1548)

(until 1532) (asssigned in 11-IX-1538)


Tezuatlan (Oaxaca)

Tepecuacuilco (Guerrero)

Tlaxiaco y Sujetos (Oaxaca)

Calpulalpa (Oaxaca)

Iztaquimaxtitlan (Puebla) Zapotitlan (Puebla)

Tecali (Puebla)

Guaxuapa y Tucla (Oaxaca) Cuyotepexi y Sujetos (Oaxaca)

Ixtlan (Oaxaca)

Chila (Puebla)

Tecomastlaguaca (Oaxaca) Chicomeaguatepec (Oaxaca) Nueve cabeceras de Teposcolula (Oaxaca)

Chicoloapa (E. de México)

Tepetitango (Colima) Ajacuba (Hidalgo)

Encomienda

Francisco de Rosales

Martín Ruíz de Monjaraz 3-III-1545

Cristóbal de Salamanca

Cristóbal de Salamanca4 25-XI-1536 15-IX-1537

Juan de Salamanca

Juan de Salamanca

Juan de Salamanca

Ocuytuco (Morelos)

Aquila (Michoacán)

Teutila (Oaxaca)

Amula y su Partido (Jalisco)

Tezayuca, Zapotlan y su Partido (V. of México)

Tetabanco (Hidalgo)

Yzcuintlapilco (Hidalgo)


Gonzalo Ruíz

Tataluaba y Tutepeque

4

Luis de Quesada

Chinantla (Oaxaca)

14-XI-1543

(Br.) Alonso Pérez

Malinalco (half)

8-VII-1545 24-VII-1546

27-XI-1537 30-XI-1538 12-XII-1539 21-I-1541

17-I-1542 15-I-1543 13-II-1544

15-X-1539 25-XI-1540

28-IX-1545

8-V-1537 9-VI-1538

7-IX-1537 13-IX-1538 7-XI-1539 23-XII-1542 13-II-1543

16-VI-1545

Martín de Peralta


(granted in the early 1530s, probably by the Second Audiencia)

(since 1528 he shared with his brother-in-law Alonso de Paz)

(in the 1520s he was given)

(in the 1540s he was granted)

(married an encomendera)

Ayuquila y Zacapala (Jalisco)

Coatlan (Oaxaca)

Nagualpa y Mispan (Colima)

Aticpac y Tenango (Oaxaca)

Cuiseo (Michoacán)

Xilotepec (entre Hidalgo y Querétaro)

Acamistlaguaca (cerca de Taxco, Guerrero) Tezontepec (Hidalgo) Tepantlan (cerca de Izúcar)

Name

Juan de Salamanca

Factor Hernando de Salazar

Factor Hernando de Salazar

Bartolomé Sánchez

Bartolomé Sánchez

Juan (Alonso) de Sosa

Bartolomé Tofiño

Johan de Valdivieso

Johan de Valdivieso

Corregimiento

Yzcuintepeque y Elotepeque (Oaxaca)

Chautla (Puebla)

Ocopletlayucon (Puebla)

Macuilsuchil-Teutitlan (Oaxaca)

Teuzacualco (Oaxaca)

Aguatlan y su Partido (Puebla)

Amaltepeque (State of México)

Tenayuca (V. of México)

Tezayuca, Zapotlan y su Partido (V. México)


29-XI-1537 7-XII-1538

15-IX-1536 16-IX-1537

3-IV-1542

31-I-1538

(from 1538 to 1544 given to Juan Alonso de Sosa)

(married an encomendera; a little after 1543)

(in 1533 he was given) (in 1537 he was given; the four encomiendas were taken away with the Leyes Nuevas)

(since 1552)

(since 152? until circa 1554)

14-I-1539

9-VIII-1540 30-VIII-1541

(since 1525 until 1525)

26-XI-1537

27-II-1546

20-X-1542

8-VII-1545


Etlatongo y Guautla Tamazola (Oaxaca) Cenzontepec (Oaxaca)

Malinaltepec (Oaxaca)

Uruapa y Guanaxo (Michoacán) Coatepec (Estado de México) Tonalá (Oaxaca) Tenayuca (Edo. de México)

Zoyaltepec (Oaxaca)

Cuyotepec (Oaxaca) Zola (Oaxaca) Popoyutla (Colima) Costatan, Cempoala y Pechucalco (Veracruz)

Hueytlalpa Ixtepec e Ixcoyamec (Puebla)

Tlatlauquitepec (Puebla) Xontla (Puebla)

Encomienda

Francisco de Vargas

Francisco de Vargas

Johan de Vargas

Pedro de Vargas5

Francisco Vázquez de Coronado

Francisco Velásquez (de Lara)

Francisco Velásquez (de Lara)

Gregorio de Villalobos

Antonio de Villarroel6

Asuchitlan (Guerrero)

Zacualpa (State of México)

Chiconautla (State of México)

Guatlatlauca y su Partido (Puebla)

Tascaltitlan (State of México)

Tapazcolula (Oaxaca)

Acatlan y Piaztla (Puebla)

Teutalpa e Iztepeque (Puebla)

Totolapa (Chalco)


Francisco de Vargas

Chautla (Puebla)

28-V-1544

9-VII-1544 21-VII-1545

2-V-1542 10V-1543

15-V-1545 1-VII-1546

11-III-1538

8-VI-1545 14-VII-1546

5-II-1537

1-IV-1542 24-V-1543

16-X-1538 21-X-1539 23-XI-1540

22-IX-1536 31-XII-1537

(given to Rodrigo de Albornoz in exchange for Guazpaltepeque)

(died in 1547)

(bought half an encomienda in 1538) (as dowry in 1537; half an encomienda) (in the 1540s he shared; he kept them until 1544)

(in the 1520s part of given to his daughter in the 1540s)

(married an encomendera, a little before 1545; half an encomienda)

(Cortés gave it to him and he kept it until 1537)

(Cortés gave him; taken away from him during the 1520s)

Ixuatlan (Veracruz)

Ixitlan (Puebla)

Cuzamala Teutenango (Estado de México) Tlapa (Guerrero) Aguacatlan, Xala Amaxaque, Tepuzuacan Amatlan, Xalcingo, Istimitique, Atengoychan, Zacaluta, Guaxacatlan (Jalisco)

Iztaquimaxtitlan (Puebla)

Mizquiaguala (Hidalgo)

Suchitepec (cerca del puerto de Guatulco)

Tulancingo y Amatlan

108 —

Antonio de Villarroel6

Bartolomé de Zárate

Ocoyuca y Calpuluaque (Toluca)

Zongolica (Veracruz)

21-X-1539 10-XI-1540 1-I-1542 30-IX-1546

27-IX-1536 19-IX-1537

(given to his daughter as a dowry before 1550)

(given to Juan Cano on June 25, 1541)

(given to Diego de Ordaz on July 30, 1539)


Totolapa (Oaxaca) Mixquic (V. de México)

Encomienda

Sources: AGI, Justicia, 258, “Relación sacada de los libros de Contaduría de S.M. de los corregimientos que se han proveido en esta Nueva España”; Peter Gerhard, A Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Robert Theron Himmerich, The Encomenderos of New Spain, 1521–1555, doctoral thesis, University of California, 1984; Guillermo Porras, El gobierno de la ciudad de México en el siglo XVI (México City: UNAM, 1982). 1. This is an interesting case. Both Gerhard (219) and Himmerich (320) mention Rodrigo de Guzmán as the Tonatico encomendero; likewise, the corregidores record refers to Rodrigo de Guzmán as that town’s corregidor. The town was included in the Crown in 1544, when Guzmán appears as corregidor. 2. He may be the Audiencia scrivener Francisco de Herrera and not the encomendero with the same name, a possible guess allowed by a specific testimony (AGI, Justicia, 258). 3. Two cousins with the same name are mentioned (cfr. Himmerich, 336): Juan Jaso “the Elder” and Juan Jaso “the Young.” Both were encomenderos during this period, although Jaso “the Elder” was an encomendero until 1534. 4. Oidor Diego de Loaysa was accused of favoring Cristóbal de Salamanca and Alonso de Paz, his brother-in-law; Paz’s niece married the oidor’s son (AGI, Justicia, 260, Cargos contra Loaysa, no. 1, 1546). In 1545 Coatlán had already been given to the oidor’s son (Gerhard, A Guide, 188). 5. Around 1547 Vargas announced that he was poor and asked for a corregimiento that might support him in old age (cfr. Himmerich, 514). 6. He should not be confused with Antonio de Villarroel, senior alguacil, who changed his name and became Antonio Serrano de Cardona in 1525, a name he used when he was assigned as Mexico City regidor (cfr. Himmerich, 529–530).

Antonio de Villarroel

Chilapa (Guerrero) 6

Name

Corregimiento


RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

hearings brought against the corregidor of Tehuacán are especially illustrative in this sense, since during his term of office his behavior toward the Indians of his corregimiento was that which any encomendero might have exhibited. When he fulfilled his duties as corregidor of Tehuacán, up to shortly before 1549, Francisco Cárcamo de Figueroa used sixty tameme (Indian bearers) to transport agricultural products from his corregimiento to Puebla and other Indians as tameme to transport either his daughter or his wife from Puebla to Tehuacán. In addition, at different times he took from the Indians of Tehuacán “3 loads of cocoa” (“each load of cocoa equivalent to 24,000 cocoa beans”), 100 pieces of clothing, and 36 rush mats. Furthermore, he confiscated 43 head of cattle belonging to the Indians of Tehuacán without paying for them. Finally, he took 40 loads of maize from the Indians of the town of Tecomozalca.105 The case of Cárcamo was no exception. From 1540 to 1542 the corregidor of Taxco-Tenango, Pedro Osorio, rented out to private individuals the tribute inkind from the towns in his corregimiento. As Taxco was an important mining area, the tribute from those towns could be sold at a good price, probably to the mines. It would seem that Osorio left Taxco to accompany Viceroy Mendoza to the conflict known as the Mixtón War, in which the Spaniards had to put down a rebellion of the Indian towns in the Jalisco area and toward the north of Spanish-occupied territory. The people renting this tribute caused some harm to the Indians, leading them to protest before the Audiencia. There they were told that as Pedro Osorio was a friend of the viceroy, nothing could be done.106 As we have seen in the section on the encomienda, Osorio was also encomendero in Tepecuacuilco. In general, the corregidores normally made a profit from their post—practically since the institution was set up—because they were offered excellent possibilities of doing so. The post was especially profitable, for example, if one wanted to go into trade through the sale of Indian tribute. In 1552 the visitor to the towns, Diego Ramírez, noted that in the towns near Mexico City the corregidores did business with the tribute in-kind they had collected from the Indians.107 This situation was continual, and in 1567 the Crown was informed about the trade the corregidores carried out by selling the tribute from the towns entrusted to them.108 If the granting of a corregimiento was normally an economic advantage for settlers who had no repartimiento of Indians, we can only think of the advantages an encomendero would try to obtain from the post if he succeeded in obtaining it. After all, the encomenderos had greater experience in control over the Indian population and in the most profitable ways of benefiting from both the tribute and the labor.

— 109

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

This type of situation—that is, encomenderos being appointed corregidores— often took place during the administration of Viceroy Mendoza. The viceroy’s appointments to the post help to show the large number of encomenderos who at the same time enjoyed a post as corregidor (see Table 2.3). The probable use the viceroy made of the institution was to try to satisfy some of the encomenderos, who were complaining about the delay in making a general repartimiento of Indian towns, and because of the earlier policy the Second Audiencia had carried out in regard to the encomienda. To understand the uneasiness that existed among the colonists, recall that with the latter Audiencia fifty-three Indian towns formerly in the hands of the colonists were placed, in less than two years, under the Crown. From the persons assigned to them, the corregimientos were clearly used by Mendoza to reward people he trusted. It should not be forgotten that it was the viceroy who sent the Crown a list of candidates so it could appoint a corregidor from among them.109 There is no doubt, from the large number of encomenderos with the office of corregidor, that Mendoza used this office to do away with social tensions persisting among the encomenderos. Various testimonies from Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the viceroy coincide in pointing out two important issues. The first was that the viceroy had granted corregimientos to his friends and to encomenderos, some of whom were also close to the viceroy. The second is that he preferred these people when granting the office of corregidor rather than the conquistadores and settlers without resources, as he had been ordered to do.110 The Crown had ordered Mendoza, from the very beginning of his time as viceroy, to choose carefully “the people on whom he should bestow” corregimientos.111 Among the number of corregimiento appointments we know of, the viceroy granted a third to encomenderos (see Table 2.3),112 which at that time was not forbidden by the Crown.113 The case of Peru is paradoxical, as there the corregimiento was introduced later. Guillermo Lohmann Villena mentions that there was a dispute in Peru about the possibility of an encomendero becoming at the same time a corregidor and that “since before the creation of corregidores of Indians in Peru, there existed generally speaking Royal Decrees according to which” an encomendero might become a corregidor as long as his repartimiento and his corregidoreship were not in the same province. Later, however, “laws were made with even more restrictive criteria, absolutely forbidding that encomenderos hold any corregimiento.”114 Juan de Solórzano Pereyra says in this respect: How it was also stipulated in other royal orders that those who had encomiendas of Indians could not be appointed corregidores, because

110 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

thus the rewards from those lands would be shared out among more people. And it was already allowed that corregimiento might be given if it was not located in the same provinces where they had their encomiendas.115

It is worthwhile to check on another opinion, that of León Pinelo. When referring to officials who could not have encomienda Indians, he points out that this restriction includes neither corregidores nor alcaldes mayores.116 Later, however, he lists corregidores as officials who could not have Indians allotted to them.117 From this information it would seem there was no definite prohibition in those days, and it was only requested that corregidores with Indians not have their repartimiento in the same province where they held the post of corregidor and vice versa. In any case, it does not seem probable that the Crown would foster the appointment of corregidores with encomienda. We would have to understand why the earlier situation led to a charge against Mendoza during the residencia visit. In general, the testimonies from colonists annoyed about the matter reveal the only reason they protested on this issue: the viceroy granted corregimientos to certain people who had Indians and who thus had no clear economic need to receive a corregimiento, especially when there were conquistadores and early settlers who had no Indians. Many corregimientos were given to important encomenderos such as Don Luis de Castilla, among others (see Table 2.3).118 Examples of this and other cases follow. Luis de Castilla was one of the big mine owners and encomenderos of the time. His encomiendas, Tuctepec and Nopala, were located in Oaxaca and provided a revenue of 3,000 pesos a year.119 A good friend of Viceroy Mendoza, whom he served during the Mixtón War, Castilla devoted himself mainly to exploiting his mines in Taxco where he was appointed alcalde mayor.120 This rich Spaniard was appointed by Mendoza to be corregidor of important towns: Texcoco, Mexicalcingo, and Teozapotlán (see Table 2.3). Another friend of Mendoza’s, Tristán de Arellano, also enjoyed benefits during the viceroy’s administration. He was encomendero of Justlaguaca when, in 1548, he married the widow of a very important Oaxaca encomendero, Francisco Maldonado. His encomiendas thus passed into the hands of Arellano, with the viceroy’s approval. On the question of the transfer of Maldonado’s towns, there were conflicts with the Audiencia prosecutor, who questioned Arellano’s right to them.121 Arellano was also corregidor of the towns of Tlapa, Guaxolotitlán, and Huejotzingo (see Table 2.3). Bernardino del Castillo was another of the first encomendero-entrepreneurs to receive a corregimiento. He had a sugar mill in the Mexico City area and a

— 111

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

cocoa plantation. Married to the daughter of Francisco de Orduña, he received half of the encomiendas of Ometepec, Suchitlahuaca, and Igualapa as dowry.122 Castillo also obtained the corregimiento of Metlatoyuca (see Table 2.3). Other encomenderos with less social weight but who also received corregimientos were Pedro Díaz de Sotomayor, encomendero of Pachuca and half of Cuestlahuaca.123 Corregidor of Teotitla (Oaxaca) in 1536–1537, he gave the encomienda of Pachuca as dowry to deputy official Antonio de la Cadena when the latter married his daughter. De la Cadena was also corregidor, specifically in Cholula, from 1539 to 1542, and he had an agricultural estate in the area of Tacuba (see Table 2.3).124 The encomendero of Aticpac and Tenango (Oaxaca), Francisco Rosales, also obtained a corregimiento. Living in Veracruz, he operated as a trader in the port. He was also corregidor of Ocuytuco, Morelos, in 1545 (see Table 2.3).125 Among the corregidores with encomiendas appointed by Viceroy Mendoza, sixteen had their encomienda and corregimiento in the same province. Among these, nine had the encomienda and corregimiento in the province of Oaxaca, four in the central area—near Mexico City—and one in the area of Puebla (see Table 2.3). The granting of these posts might have led to some corregidores engaging in advantageous businesses. This happened, for example, with the mines and cattle ranches, as well as with the agricultural ventures producing cocoa in the area of Oaxaca. The corregimiento Indians might have been used by the corregidores for these ventures, either in the corregidores’ own enterprises or rented out to private individuals. Obviously, having two or more towns in the same province or neighboring provinces was highly profitable (see Map 1). Lorenzo Genovés provides an example. He had his encomienda in Minzapa, Veracruz. He lived in Oaxaca where he had the post of corregidor of three towns: Guaxolotitlán, Ocotlán, and Tetequipa (see Table 2.3).126 It was in Oaxaca that he went into partnership with other private individuals to mine gold in the province.127 We can easily conclude that Genovés used his corregimiento Indians as labor in the mining work and that they also provided him with food for his workers. Like Genovés, Francisco Maldonado was corregidor in Teozapotlán, Oaxaca, during the years 1543 to 1545 (see Table 2.3). Likewise, he had important encomiendas in Oaxaca: Tecomastlahuaca, Chicomehuatepec, and nine cabeceras in the Teposcolula district.128 He had some mining business there, and at least two towns in his encomienda in Teposcolula were assessed tribute of personal service and provisions for the mines in the area.129 Maldonado’s interest in the mining characteristics of the area may have led him to use his corregimiento

112 —

Map 1 (Source Table 4). Towns Whose Corregidor Was Also an Encomendero (1536–1546)

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

— 113

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

Indians. Furthermore, the mining prospects had caused the colonists to treat the Indians of Oaxaca poorly on an excessive scale, which was the basic reason that led them to rebel. The rebellion was suppressed by Maldonado himself.130 In general, the corregidores’ faculties for governing the Indian towns, and the abuses they sometimes committed, may explain Viceroy Mendoza’s apparent reticence to implement the institution. The viceroy’s December 10, 1537, letter to Charles V seems the most common source in which most authors working on this period find grounds for the viceroy preferring the system of alcaldes mayores instead of corregimientos.131 In spite of the viceroy’s initial distrust of the corregimiento, however, shown in the letter and directed not toward the institution itself but toward the people appointed thereto—it would seem that this lessened to a certain extent. Proof thereof is the important increase in the number of persons appointed to the post of corregidor, at least during the first two years of his administration (see Table 2.2). I believe this increase of corregimiento appointments under Mendoza, and the fact that approximately a third of them went to encomenderos, was because through this institution the viceroy attempted to mediate between important sectors irritated by the policy on encomienda followed by the Crown. The Crown was unable to come to a political decision about carrying out a general repartimiento of Indian towns because of the behavior of the Second Audiencia, which was bent against the encomienda system, and because of the Crown’s political adoption of the corregimiento institution for New Spain. That is, Mendoza wanted to compensate the most powerful encomenderos, those closest to the circle of the viceroy and the Audiencia, so they might benefit from a corregimiento and use the office to carry out some profitable venture (mining, cattle ranching, and the like; see Map 2). This decision might also indicate an attempt to neutralize some encomenderos’ resistance by having them become bureaucrats, hence the need to lower salaries and set a limit on them. If my assumption is correct, we might wonder whether from the outset the corregimiento was an institution that was really antagonistic to the encomienda, as some authors appear to think.132 The social cost of appointing encomenderos as corregidores, a decision Mendoza made, fell on the Indian communities. Who were the encomenderos who received these posts? It was the second generation—used to having Indian populations made totally available to them and to extracting unlimited benefit from them until the arrival of the Second Audiencia—who now, under Mendoza, had access through corregimientos not only to the social wealth they obtained as encomenderos but also to exercising local jurisdiction conferred upon them by their office. As we have seen, it is

114 —

Map 2 (Source Table 4). Locations of the Corregidores’ Encomiendas (1536–1546)

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

— 115

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

probable that the Indians’ position worsened in the cases in which the figure of the corregidor coincided with that of the encomendero, who sought his personal benefit and did little, if anything, to protect the Indian communities from other encomenderos in the area.

THE VICEROY’S ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES After Antonio de Mendoza’s arrival in New Spain (1535), he started to establish his administration and at the same time secured his privileged personal position. I believe that because of the latter, the Crown’s centralistic orders toward New Spain were changed or adapted by the viceroy according to his personal interests and those of the rest of Spanish colonial society. After all, these interests were shaping a new economic and social order, which at times ran counter to that of the Spanish monarchy in the New World. The main economic activities to which the viceroy devoted himself in New Spain were many and varied: stock-raising ranches, a wool and cloth obraje (workshop), a sugar mill, and a trading company in Veracruz. I will deal separately with each of these ventures and the viceroy’s interests in them, for a specific reason. As we have seen, Mendoza’s policy regarding institutions such as the encomienda and the corregimiento favored the most powerful socioeconomic sector of the time—people close to the viceroy. Mendoza was especially interested in having this sector, mostly made up of encomenderos, diversify its activities in ventures such as mining, stock raising, and agriculture, among others, as those ventures enabled the local economy to develop. His policy of appointing a large number of encomenderos as corregidores fostered their private interests. The same thing happened with the viceregal policy of permitting the sale of encomiendas, legally disguised as transfers. In this way, Mendoza favored the encomendero sector politically during a good part of his administration. His support for this sector was probably motivated by the fact that the viceroy himself had private interests linked to the economic growth of New Spain. Thus, the political opportunity the viceroy offered the colonists enabled him at the same time to guarantee the development of his own ventures. These activities, little by little, strengthened the colonial system through their benefit to private individuals. Moreover, in my opinion his economic activities illustrate the special mechanisms that influenced certain decisions made during his administration. In general, these were decisions on different aspects of the corregimiento and the encomienda, on the economic organization of the natives, and, in particular, on the strong encouragement of agriculture, stock raising, and similar ventures.

116 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

Mendoza developed a policy that favored the expansion of stock raising during his administration. One might say he implemented complex and daring initiatives to see that stock raising was developed not only over large areas but also under the protection of the intricate network of political and family relationships characteristic of that time’s economic momentum. From 1538 to 1540 the number of cattle multiplied at an accelerated rate. The large extensions of land in the colonial territory were a natural element, with abundant pasture and watering places (water deposits), which helped to achieve the success of this activity promoted by the viceroy.133 One of the constants of colonial life, from the very outset, lay in the development of stock raising. The first form of this to be introduced into New Spain was pig raising. The fact that pigs were easy to transport and reproduced rapidly were important reasons they were the first.134 In the mid-1520s there were some early stock-raising districts, such as the surroundings of Mexico City and the Valley of Matalcingo, as well as Michoacán, Coyoacán, Chapultepec, and Zacatula, among others.135 Larger animals were introduced later into the colony, their presence not being noticeable until 1528. The increase in the number of cattle can be attributed to the conquest of territory in northern Mexico and the favorable policy implemented by Viceroy Mendoza.136 On the other hand, horses were scarce in Mexico until the mid-sixteenth century.137 During Viceroy Mendoza’s administration, the Crown’s policy was favorable to the expansion of stock raising—of both larger and smaller animals— throughout New Spain.138 Generally, this is seen in the instructions with which the viceroy was sent to New Spain. In the first stages of organizing the colony, the Crown wanted to know how fertile and “abundant” the lands of these regions were, as well as the “diversity of things” from which both the Crown and the colonists might benefit. The king therefore ordered Mendoza to find a way of gathering such information.139 One of the aspects specifically linked to stock raising gave rise to further instructions to the viceroy. The Crown specified that—as this was an important element for the “population and perpetuity” of the New Spain territory— the viceroy should foster the interest of the Spanish settlers in stock raising, at the same time persuading the Indians, through the religious orders, to devote themselves to this activity, although seeing that they did not breed horses and mares. For security reasons, this prohibition included preventing the natives from riding.140 The viceroy and the Audiencia issued decrees entailing punishing an Indian with 100 lashes and the loss of the animal if a native were to possess and ride a horse.141

— 117

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

The viceroy was of the opinion that in New Spain there were three products not exploited by the Indians that offered optimum benefits for the Spaniards. One was silver, another was mulberry leaves for breeding silkworms, and the third was “the grass on which animals graze.”142 According to this evaluation, Mendoza’s stock-breeding policy laid a firm foundation for the development of this venture, in which certain points stand out. The first was the setting up of the association of cattle breeders in the same way as that which existed in Spanish territories (Mesta), with a view to organizing cattlemen and making specific regulations for this activity. The viceroy also promoted the centralization of grants of farms or ranches for cattle. Finally, Mendoza sought a legal solution to the problem of cattle encroaching on Indians’ lands, especially in areas close to Mexico City. It was almost impossible, however, to stop cattle from forcing their way onto Indian lands, since the policy of expansion required large territory extensions. It was in 1537, during Mendoza’s administration, that the Mexican Association of Cattle Breeders (Mesta) was set up by royal decree, and the viceroy and members of the Municipal Council took an active part therein. Oidor Loaysa was put in charge of drawing up the rules and regulations (January 7, 1537), which were approved by both Mendoza and the Municipal Council. Royal approval did not arrive, however, until 1542.143 Shortly after it was set up, in 1538, the first alcaldes of the cattle-breeders’ association were appointed. The institution flourished under Mendoza’s administration, and in 1543 it was requested that there should be a similar association in Oaxaca, Puebla, and Toluca.144 Another point of his policy had to do with granting farms or ranches for cattle. This was especially problematic. From the beginning of the colony until the mid-sixteenth century, the Crown tried to see that there were communal pastures for the cattle once the harvest had been brought in. Colonial reality caused this interest to be modified, however. Viceroy Mendoza was favorable to pastures being communal; earlier, Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal had been of the same opinion. The colonists thought differently. The Spanish Municipal Council recognized from early on sites or fixed places for the cattle to pasture. To prevent the Municipal Councils from distributing ranches based on their own interests, Mendoza started distributing them.145 Under Mendoza, definitive and transmittable rights started to be granted, and with this an important step was taken toward the ownership of pastureland—but this time under the supervision of the viceroy.146 Mendoza even sanctioned some private individuals’ earlier occupation of land for cattle.147 In François Chevalier’s opinion, the first ranch grants (historically, the ancestor of the traditional hacienda) are difficult to specify in time, it not being

118 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

known if there were any before the years 1540–1542.148 The viceroy had stockraising ranches before those dates, however, as we will see later. He decreed orders of land to determine the size of the ranches and the distance between them. He pointed out that Spaniards took lands for their animals—cows, horses, and sheep—and placed them very close to each other, causing mutual harm, as they should have been in parallel squares.149 Finally, with regard to the last point on the relevant aspects of Mendoza’s policy on stock raising, there was a large drop in the population of the Indian towns between 1540 and 1548. This resulted from the notable increase in the number of animals wandering in large herds and causing losses of agricultural Indian lands, especially in areas where there were many herds, such as Tepeapulco (Hidalgo) and Xilotepec (between Hidalgo and Queretaro).150 Generally, the viceroy was not insensitive to this problem. From 1543 on, ranchgranting deeds made it explicit that they were only granted if the ranches did not affect third parties, especially Indians. For this favor to be granted, it was necessary that the corregidor call together “the notable Indians of the region and sometimes even the encomendero of the place in order to guarantee—as is explicitly stated—that the cattle ranch would cause no damage to Indian properties.”151 Also, it appears that Mendoza tried to solve the problem of animal encroachments by sending out people he trusted as special visitors.152 This mechanism, however, lent itself to some people receiving cattle ranches—including the viceroy himself, whose cattle ranches were reviewed for royal confirmation by persons close to him. Antonio de Mendoza attempted to do away with cattleland concentrations in the center of the country, “directing those enormous herds toward less inhabited areas. . . . [F]rom 1542 or 1545 onward, great herds of cattle invaded the northern plains or the less mountainous parts of the hot lands, along the coasts.”153 Thus, for example, with the relative pacification of the New Galicia area, new areas of rich pasturelands were won.154 On occasion, the viceroy was skeptical about the numerous complaints by Indians regarding Spanish cattle encroaching on their cultivated lands. He told his successor, Luis de Velasco, “You must be warned that, in order to occupy lands and do damage to the Spaniards, the Indians slyly open up lands again near to the cattle ranches and in other parts, without any need to do so, so as to have a reason to complain and ask your Excellency not to permit this.”155 In any case, the Crown increased its attention to the problem of encroachment. During the last two years of Mendoza’s administration, there were increasingly numerous and insistent royal orders to protect Indian lands, in part because the measures carried out by Mendoza were considered insufficient.156

— 119

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

A partial solution to avoid or limit cattle from forcing their way onto Indian lands was to send commission judges to the affected areas to try to resolve the situation according to the powers they received. Occasionally, these judges were the corregidores of the towns concerned or even the oidores themselves. From the outset, however, this solution had no success in preserving Indian land because of the interests in cattle ranching that some oidores had, as we will see later. Among the commercial ventures in which Viceroy Mendoza took part, ranching held a major place. His presence in this field should be no surprise, since in general the large-scale owners of cattle mentioned by Chevalier were the richest people in the colony.157 In spite of the importance of the viceroy’s cattle ranching in Mexico, there is little information in colonial historiography that stresses this part of Mendoza’s presence in the economic sphere.158 It is therefore interesting to touch on this aspect. Specifically, the viceroy had ranches in four places in New Spain: Maravatío, Veracruz, Tepeapulco, and Matlacinco. His ranches in Veracruz were dedicated exclusively to breeding horses, and the others were for breeding large and small animals. Furthermore, all of these ranches—except that located in Tepeapulco—were visited by royal order. Mendoza’s special interest centered on breeding merino sheep.159 In the viceroy’s opinion, when he brought merino sheep—which reproduced “everywhere”—from Castile to New Spain for his ranches, this gave rise to a private initiative that served as an example for Spaniards to settle, “as they have settled, in the country for their benefit.”160 It is probable that the first viceroy of New Spain devoted himself to stock raising from the very first years of his administration. Thus, in 1539 the Crown ordered him to pay the tithe on his animals.161 Also, in 1540 the Crown requested that a visit be made to Mendoza’s ranches. It was specified that the viceroy had sent information about the purchase of animals he had made and “with which he was conceded the right to and possession of the ranches in which he had these animals.” The viceroy sought royal confirmation for the legal possession of his ranches. To that end, Mendoza proposed licenciado Lorenzo de Tejada, oidor of the Audiencia of Mexico, as visitor to Mendoza’s ranches. In the royal order in which this was approved, it was specified that once the visit had been carried out, Tejada would be authorized, on behalf of the Crown, to hand over to the viceroy the deeds of ownership of the ranches. Under such conditions, Oidor Tejada visited five ranches belonging to the viceroy, “known as that of El Paso and that of Carrizal, Baquizuata, [and] that of Ancon [and] Ocoaritareo,”162 on which he bred cows,

120 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

mares, and sheep he had bought from a colonist named Pedro Méndez de Sotomayor.163 The last two of these ranches were originally bought in 1541 by Tejada on behalf of Viceroy Mendoza. This is certified by Serván Bejarano, witness to these purchases. In his statement to visitor Tello de Sandoval, Bejarano explained that [h]e saw that Licenciado Tejada, the oidor, came to an agreement with Pedro Méndez de Sotomayor, who was married to the widow of Juan de Cáceres, in which Sotomayor sold the town of Maravatío, which used to belong to Juan de Cáceres, and which Sotomayor possessed for having married his widow. This town he sold to the Viceroy for 2,000 gold pesos, and a ranch with some sheep and pigs and maize for 800 pesos of “tipuzque” [copper coins] and the 2,000 gold pesos.

The condition that allowed the purchase consisted of the viceroy paying Sotomayor 200 pesos each year until royal confirmation of this transfer was obtained. Meanwhile, Sotomayor allowed the viceroy to use the ranches.164 Sotomayor received a corregimiento from Mendoza in Ucareo, Michoacán, perhaps as part of the transaction between the two. In fact, this appointment was profitable for the corregidor, as Sotomayor’s corregimiento of Ucareo was near his ranch at Maravatío, which may have enabled him to use the Indians allotted to him from his corregimiento for his ranch benefit. Pedro Méndez de Sotomayor held the appointment as corregidor from 1542 to 1544.165 The viceroy’s purchase of the ranch or ranches in Maravatío is only mentioned by Bejarano, witness to the sale. Among the evidence documents favorable to the defendant during Tello de Sandoval’s visit, there is an act of purchase that partially specifies some important points, such as that in Maravatío, Mendoza bought some main houses of the morada (dwelling) of the lords, as well as cattle pens and jacales (huts) located around them. The sale included 2,400 head of sheep, 1,200 head of pigs, and cultivated lands producing maize, beans, and chile. He also sold the viceroy an Indian slave, a native of Maravatío. The sum of the purchase amounted to 821 gold pesos. In this contract a colonist, Hernán Pérez de Bocanegra, appears as the viceroy’s representative.166 From this discussion it stands out that the purchase of the Maravatío ranches, or some of them, was carried out by Tejada on behalf of the viceroy. Shortly afterward, as we have seen, Tejada was appointed visitor to the ranches in question on the proposal of Mendoza and because Tejada was obviously a person who enjoyed the viceroy’s trust. Furthermore, the witness to the visit to Mendoza’s cattle ranches was the treasurer of the Mint, Alonso de Mérida, who was also a good friend of the viceroy, as I have noted.167 — 121

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

Moreover, in the deeds of sale Hernán Pérez de Bocanegra is mentioned, which is significant. It is probable that both Tejada and Bocanegra made different purchases on behalf of the viceroy in the area of Maravatío.168 Furthermore, Bocanegra benefited during Mendoza’s administration, so we can affirm that there was a link between them. During his administration, in 1538, the viceroy assigned to Bocanegra the encomiendas of Acámbaro and Apaseo, located in the same province as the town of Maravatío and also devoted—a surprising coincidence—to stock breeding.169 The rest of Mendoza’s ranches visited by Tejada were in “El Paraje de la Veracruz.” Two were “on the edge of Tecamachalco, 36 leagues from that city . . . one known as Ozumba and the other as Astapa,” and the third was two days’ journey away, “going down to a valley known as Orizaba.”170 It is difficult to verify how these ranches came into Mendoza’s hands. With regard to his ranch in Orizaba, the viceroy apparently purchased the town of Orizaba from its encomendero, Juan Coronel. But we do not know the amount that passed between them and whether there were intermediaries. 171 Coronel, like Sotomayor, received the office of corregidor in Ixcateopan (Guerrero), and the appointment to his office is dated 1544 and 1545. Given the policy Mendoza followed at that time with regard to the institution of the corregimiento, this grant was likely given as part of a negotiation between Mendoza and Coronel, with the aim of obtaining lands to locate his ranch in the areas surrounding the encomienda.172 Furthermore, the purchase of encomiendas was prohibited by royal legislation, as stated earlier. As we have seen with regard to Mendoza’s policy on encomiendas, however, during his administration a large number of encomiendas were sold, so in practice this prohibition does not appear to have been applied, at least until the arrival of the New Laws. The characteristics of Mendoza’s ranches are well-known. On his Orizaba ranch he bred horses, mares, and colts. For looking after the ranches the viceroy used the personal service of the Indians of the town of Matlatla who were in the corregimiento system.173 A witness mentioned in this regard: That the Indians of the town of Matlatla served at a ranch belonging to don Antonio de Mendoza and that this witness saw in that town a stable of horses and colts belonging to the Viceroy and many other colts running freely in the fields which were guarded by the Indians of that town and they provided for and fed those that were in the stable. And that this witness asked how the Viceroy used this town and that he was told that he paid his Majesty the quintos [the royal fifth], that this town was obliged to give and that this witness knows that when the Viceroy started using them, the town was largely depopulated due to the ill-

122 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

treatment received by the people, who first of all were in encomienda, and because there is a well traveled road passing through the town. And that, after the Viceroy started using it people returned to populate it and he knows this because he saw it before and after.174

There is little information on the viceroy’s ranch in Tepeapulco (Hidalgo), and it would seem this ranch no longer belonged to him at the time of Tejada’s visit. Furthermore, in the area of Tepeapulco, stock raising caused serious problems for the region’s Indian population. Cattle encroachment onto the Indians’ cultivated lands was a determining factor for depopulation from that time on.175 As a result of this problem, Mendoza initially ordered ranches located on the borders of Tepeapulco and Tlaxcala to be taken away from some private individuals. Later, in spite of his measures that attempted to solve the problem, the viceroy populated this same area with his animals and ordered the Indians of the place to build him a house. For some reason of which we are unaware, shortly afterward he transferred his cattle from Tepeapulco to Michoacán—probably to Maravatío—after which, in “that place, from the above-mentioned ranch the monastery of Tepeapulco was founded.”176 Mendoza placed a criado (servant) of his as corregidor of Tepeapulco. This situation no doubt made it easy for Mendoza to have his ranch there for a time. At least during the first two years of the viceroy’s administration (1536–1537), Martín de Peralta—one of the viceroy’s criados and encomendero of Tezuatlán (Oaxaca), thanks to Mendoza’s mediation—was appointed corregidor of Tepeapulco precisely at the time the viceroy had his ranch there.177 The corregidor was the person to determine if both agricultural and stock-raising ranches granted to private persons were causing damage to Indian lands. The viceroy’s ties to stock-raising ventures make it possible to better understand his policy of fostering stock raising among the colonists, as well as the facilities he had in granting cattle ranches, which in time became estates because of their large area. As mentioned, however, animals caused great problems for Indian agriculture. In his case, to obtain royal confirmation of his ranches, Mendoza used people he trusted to help avoid legal problems with nearby Indian towns. It is not improbable that, through his support, other early entrepreneurs obtained estate grants. In fact, encouragement of this type of venture was what shaped the new colonial order, in which the interests of the viceroy and the Audiencia were equally involved with those of the most dynamic colonists in the economic sphere. The region of Xilotepec (located northwest of Mexico City) was naturally suitable for stock raising, with good pastures and a large amount of land. This natural disposition for stock raising, however, caused grave problems for

— 123

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

Indian communities. In 1551 the local Indians protested. They were alarmed because twenty-two towns were affected by animals from thirty-two ranches. Between 20,000 and 30,000 head of large and small animals pastured on Indian land and crops. Indian land deterioration in that area had been going on since 1546 when they first faced the problem of animals encroaching on their land. The Audiencia, therefore, sent a Spanish visitor there.178 The most important stock raisers affecting Indian lands in Xilotepec were important colonial officials and encomenderos, such as Mexico City treasurer Juan Alonso de Sosa, who—as I have said—was a good friend of the viceroy; the secretary of the Audiencia, Antonio de Turcios; Ruy González, encomendero of a part of Tlacozautitlán; and Beatriz de Andrade, encomendera of a part of Xilotepec, among others.179 As was already mentioned, in 1546 a person was appointed to visit the place and investigate the ranches. The choice was Oidor Hernando de Santillán who, accompanied by several servants and friends, started off for the region probably in early 1547.180 From the beginning of his visit to the district, Santillán showed interest in obtaining lands. To achieve this, the oidor ordered the governor of Xilotepec, Don Juan de la Cruz, to evict people from a place known as Quisimay, inhabited by Chichimecas. He argued that these Indians were not native to the place and that he intended to keep this land for his cattle. Through pressure on and threats to the Indian authorities, the oidor obtained the lands. Shortly afterward he took other lands for his cattle, almost up to the town of Tolimán (see Map 3), thus becoming the biggest cattle owner in Xilotepec with the viceroy’s consent. The harm caused by Oidor Santillán’s expansion in stock gave rise to protests from the Indians, not only because the animals encroached on their crops but, in addition, because the official’s servants and slaves caused serious problems for the population, stealing food from them and carrying them off to work on the ranches.181 In spite of these protests, in 1547 Viceroy Mendoza sanctioned the property Santillán had taken from the Indians by granting him the gift of four pieces of land for ranches.182 That is, one year after the viceroy had sent the oidor to visit the region because of the damage ranchers were causing for the Indians, he decided to grant land to a new cattleman. Obviously, the viceroy’s interest was inclined toward persons who were not only close to him but who also could devote themselves to commercial ventures— such as stock raising—that were profitable for colony development and of benefit to the most powerful local sectors. An important stage in the viceroy’s stock-raising policy was the period 1546 to 1548. Both the colonial authorities and some of the most powerful people in New Spain were involved, and cattle raising was extended to the

124 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

Map 3. Locations of the Officials’ Estates

northern border of the colony. The ranches in Xilotepec, Tolimán, Apaseo, and Acámbaro were the area of greatest penetration to the north achieved by the stock-raising policy. In 1547, Mendoza designated Diego de Guevara, Santillán’s brother-in-law, as alcalde mayor of New Galicia.183 In January 1547, Guevara ordered his deputy alcalde mayor, Pero Gómez de Contreras, who was also treasurer of the New Galicia Royal Treasury, to collect the tithes from the ranches located on the borders of the dioceses of New Galicia and Michoacán.184 In 1548, Pedro Gómez Maraver—bishop in New Galicia, consultant judge to Antonio de Mendoza in 1542 during the Mixtón War in New Galicia, godfather of one of Santillán’s children, and living in the house of the oidor—ordered that tithes should be collected from the border ranches. The collection of tithes was carried out on twenty-four ranches for large and small animals, and the action was protected by a legal ruling issued by Antonio de Mendoza. This was necessary because one of the persons involved in the conflict mentioned

— 125

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

that the bishop of New Galicia’s collectors had the intention of going as far as the regions of San Miguel and Querétaro. They were outside the limits of his diocese but within the territory in which the viceroy and oidores acted, since they were in the area in which those officials’ ranches were located; thus, the bishop “asked for authorization to collect the tithes.”185 The bishop of Michoacán, Vasco de Quiroga—who had been an oidor during the Second Audiencia—brought legal action before the Mexico City Audiencia, and both the viceroy and the oidores took an active part in the conflict, always trying to protect the New Galicia group. There was undoubtedly a close relationship among the New Spain officials, the bishop of New Galicia, and the tithe collectors. There are two interesting features in this. First, those going to collect the tithes from the ranches, apart from two individuals, were conquistadores of New Galicia, already holding the office of alcaldes of the cattle-raising association or ordinary alcaldes, encomenderos, and similar offices. Second, alcalde mayor Contreras—a great friend of Santillán; they helped each other conduct business—turned up with a total of 26,846 gold pesos when accounts were made for the years 1544 to 1558.186 Although different, the cases of Xilotepec and New Galicia illustrate the interest of the authorities—especially Mendoza—and the group of large stock breeders in setting up an economic corridor to the north, seeking to bring the cattle ranches close to the mining areas that were beginning to operate in the north from 1546 onward. It is revealing to take another look at the viceroy’s interest in merino sheep as an approach to an enterprise deriving from the breeding of these animals: the textile workshops. Here, the viceroy’s participation is not so clearly visible because of Mendoza’s interest in disguising, through his mayordomo, his association with a mill owner in Texcoco. The mayordomo appeared as an intermediary between the viceroy and the mill owner. From the time of the Second Audiencia administration, the textile industry received attention from the Crown and local authorities. An example thereof is that during the Second Audiencia the Crown ordered that some Spanish and Indian women should be employed to “spin linen and wool and cotton and make woolen cloth and canvas in their homes; because in addition to being useful and productive for the country, it is good that, on settling in the land, they should take up good customs.”187 In general, the Second Audiencia fostered small-scale industry, although it forbade the personal service of Indians in that industry. It stipulated that Indians working in the industry should be paid a salary.188 These measures were part of a policy that restricted personal service.189 Moreover, in the instructions the Crown sent to Viceroy Mendoza, no mention was made of any point referring to the development of

126 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

the textile industry. Broadly speaking, however, one of the sections mentioned that because of the wealth of Mexican lands it was necessary to encourage the enterprises of the colonists in general.190 During his administration, Viceroy Mendoza effectively encouraged the colonists’ enterprises, and one of his concerns centered on the textile industry. Thus, wool mills took on real strength in this period.191 In a general way, the mills constituted “a purely Spanish innovation, a natural corollary of the colonial sheep-breeding which was set up very rapidly in the center of Mexico in the years following the Conquest.”192 In 1540 treasury official Gonzalo de Salazar commented in the Municipal Council on the wealth of the colony, where there was an “abundance of output of ‘greater and smaller’ woolen cloth, friezes, coarse woolen cloth, light woolen cloth, and blankets.”193 Unlike the policy followed by the Second Audiencia, however, the textile industry developed openly by using personal service, at least until the arrival of the New Laws.194 In this respect, Gibson mentions that “[t]he kidnapping of Indians for private work outside the encomiendas and the repartimiento started not in the Spanish farms but in the workshops for the production of woolen cloth, known to the colonial population as ‘obrajes.’ ”195 Labor in the workshops was specialized, and the workers lived inside the workshops. Most of the workers were Indians, mainly Indian slaves as well as Indians condemned for some crime.196 Working conditions in the workshops were very harsh, and the Indians suffered from ill treatment and malnutrition. Texcoco was one of the main centers for textile mills in the Valley of Mexico, and it was there that Viceroy Mendoza had a partnership in a woolen mill with a private individual named Gonzalo Gómez. The viceroy’s concerns through this business were highly profitable, as he supplied it with fine wool from his own sheep. In addition, the labor for this industry came from slaves taken during the Mixtón War and was thus free of cost. To complete the production circle, the cloth made in the workshop had a guaranteed commercial outlet through a shop in Mexico City in which the viceroy was also a partner.197 With regard to the slave labor working in Mendoza’s textile mill, we know some of how it came to be. Shortly after 1542 the viceroy ordered his mayordomo, Agustín Guerrero, to transfer Indians captured during the Mixtón War to the mill in Texcoco under the pretext that he was interested in having them learn the art of cloth making.198 There is no doubt that a great many slaves were sent to the workshop. Mendoza’s mayordomo alone was accused of having branded for himself about 100 Chichimec Indians captured in the war. Furthermore, the viceroy also took 150 Indian slaves captured in the war for his personal service.199

— 127

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

From Mendoza’s viewpoint, sending Indian slaves to the workshop in Texcoco was of clear benefit for New Spain “because many of the natives of that city and district have gone into this trade and have come out very good officials and have enriched themselves and get richer and richer every day.” The viceroy stated that the number of slaves sent to the workshop was only about 32 or 33, no higher.200 The number of slaves who worked in the mill was likely much higher than the number declared by the viceroy. Merely feeding the slaves exhausted the supplies from a royal roadside inn in Texcoco. The inn was rented by Gonzalo Gómez to ensure supplies for the workshop. The regidor of Veracruz declared that “with the supplies and service provided by the inn Gómez fed the Viceroy’s slaves from the cloth mill in the town of Texcoco which the Viceroy held in partnership with Gómez.”201 The viceroy and Gomez’s workshop must have been of a considerable size: it had its own fulling mill (batán) and “a dyeing installation,” and many Indian slaves and Nabori Indian women worked there. Guerrero was directly in charge of managing the mill, according to the testimony given by Alejo Maturana, a Texcoco resident who worked there. He explained that “Gonzalo Gómez is in charge of administration and sales of all the business [and] reports to Agustín Guerrero.” He added that in the mill they used “all the wool from the Viceroy’s sheep” for making cloth.202 Finally, the cloth produced in the mill belonging to Gómez and the viceroy was distributed through a shop in Mexico City. On this issue, a witness mentioned having “heard tell, from a young man, that there is a shop . . . at the entrance to San Francisco street, near the square, where they sell local cloth, but he didn’t know what it was called [and] that this witness, arriving at the afore-mentioned shop to buy some cloth, was told that these cloths that were in the shop belonged to the Viceroy and were made in the town of Texcoco.”203 At least until between 1544 and 1546, when Tello de Sandoval’s visit took place, the viceroy maintained his partnership with Gómez in the Texcoco mill. At the same time, he was involved in the business of sugar mills that was just starting, demonstrating thereby a surprising capacity for diversifying his business that required a rather unusual capital for the time and, at the same time, an interest in establishing himself firmly in the colony (an attitude that is surprising in the case of a viceroy or any other high official). Little by little, Viceroy Mendoza was becoming like any entrepreneur colonist. The basic difference between him and the rest of the colonists, however, lay in the high political position he occupied as viceroy. This made it easy for him to make important local investments, some of great magnitude, such as the one required for a sugar mill.

128 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

In general, the sugar industry arose in Mexico under the best conditions: it was Hernán Cortés who started the cultivation of sugarcane in the district of Tuxtla (Veracruz).204 Especially in those years, sugar mills represented a large investment and were therefore found only in the hands of “large-scale or small capitalists” because they were “big half-agricultural, half-industrial exploitations employing hundreds of men, Indians or Negroes.”205 The names of the first owners of sugar mills speak to the large investment required by this type of enterprise. They were people such as Cortés, the viceroy, the accountant Rodrigo de Albornoz, and Royal Treasury official Gonzalo de Salazar, who in 1543 or 1544 “got the Viceroy to confirm his purchase of 20 caballerías [land measure equivalent to 106 acres] from the Indians of Tajimaroa, his encomienda in Michoacán, to set up a sugar mill there, that of San Juan Zitámaro.”206 The viceroy chose a good time to devote himself to this activity, since the increase in sugar cultivation in general started during his administration. This took place, for example, in Atlixco, where some rich landowners stopped growing wheat and went into sugar. By the end of the sixteenth century, the demand for the product intensified this change to sugar cultivation, which was just starting.207 The viceroy located his sugar mill in the area of Orizaba (Veracruz). Some testimonies point out that he even bought the town or rented it from its encomendero, Juan Coronel.208 There is no doubt that Mendoza was for a time the owner of a “large sugar mill” in the region of Orizaba.209 This mill was found “in a town that had been entrusted to Juan Coronel” and in the purchase of which the viceroy’s son, Francisco de Mendoza, intervened as intermediary. A witness mentioned “that the Indians which belonged to Juan Coronel have been bought by Don Francisco.”210 To start sugarcane plantations, the viceroy needed the personal service of the Indians from the town he had purchased. This was how a private individual described it: [T]his witness passing through the town saw Indians from a village working to set up a sugar plantation for the Viceroy and they told him how they worked for his lordship, and that he, likewise, knew about and saw the town, because it was on a well traveled route. The cabecera was moved and the Indians uprooted and scattered around the villages and other towns in the district and that after the Viceroy took them the cabecera had won out and become populated because, passing by, this witness saw many houses there.211

The place where the viceroy located the sugar mill was called Oztoticpac.212 Among the ventures undertaken by the viceroy, the best known is his participation in the financing of exploration companies. A general interest of the time was centered on finding a strait that would link the Atlantic and — 129

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

Pacific oceans, with the aim of opening up a route for trade and navigation with the East Indies.213 Shortly after his arrival as viceroy, Antonio de Mendoza showed an interest in exploration of the Pacific, “the Southern Sea.” The Crown’s instructions do not reflect any interest in carrying out explorations, either from New Spain or in ones supported by private individuals or members of the colonial administration. Neither did Mendoza mention this aspect in the instructions he gave his successor, Luis de Velasco.214 In spite of the few official references, it is a well-known fact that Mendoza took part in the exploration of the Pacific area, for which he went into partnership with the conquistador Pedro de Alvarado. In 1538 the two obtained a royal captaincy to carry out this exploration.215 The major expeditionary venture carried out by Mendoza, however, was that directed toward discovering the northern area of New Spain. The viceroy became interested in this project from reports Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca gave him in 1536 about his expedition to Florida.216 An important step in the viceroy’s preparation for his expedition to the north was to foster the appointment of a collaborator of his, encomendero Francisco Vázquez de Coronado, as governor of New Galicia.217 Some of his contemporaries judged that Coronado’s influence over Mendoza was decisive in achieving his appointment to New Galicia.218 In 1538, Coronado started preparations for the expedition to the north ordered by Mendoza.219 Mendoza’s interest centered on sending out this expedition, and he even financed a part of it.220 Furthermore, he handed over 1,000 mules and horses to supply his people, as well as mutton from his ranches.221 For its part, the Crown was interested in having the viceroy make this expedition to the north.222 In spite of such good auspices, during the time the viceroy was preparing his expedition, in 1541 the Mixtón Indian rebellion broke out in the province of Jalisco, and the New Galicia Indians started an uprising against the Spaniards. The viceroy was obliged to postpone his private interest to solve this problem. During Tello de Sandoval’s visit, Mendoza was accused, among other things, of the Indians of the Jalisco area having rebelled because of ill treatment by Governor Coronado, who demanded work and food from them for the expedition he was preparing on the viceroy’s orders, and because a group of them would be sent out on the expedition.223 Because of this rebellion, in 1541 the viceroy deferred his expedition with Pedro de Alvarado.224 Moreover, during the war the viceroy lost many of his men, including Alvarado, who died in the campaign against the Indian rebels. At the time of his death, Alvarado owed the viceroy 50,000 pesos, without counting the 15,000 pesos the viceroy asserted had been invested in their mu-

130 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

tual company. In spite of this setback, not all was a loss for the viceroy. He remained in charge of the fleet Alvarado had taken to the port of Santiago, in Colima.225 Another obstacle arose to upset the viceroy’s plans, however. The expedition directed by Coronado was a failure, as it did not find the rich regions it had expected to discover.226 During spring 1542, Coronado arrived in Mexico City with news of his enterprise’s poor results.227 In spite of these problems, the viceroy, at the same time he was preparing his expeditions, tried to obtain some profit by shipping goods to Peru, especially horses from his ranches. The interest in trading with Peru was not new, although few colonists could undertake such a project. Hernán Cortés belonged to the limited group of people who had enough economic resources to set up commercial ties with Peru.228 The port of Navidad on the Pacific operated as a strategic site for the viceroy’s discovery ventures, serving as a point of arrival and departure for the expeditionary ships.229 There, while preparing part of his fleet to sail north, Mendoza decided to give the sailors something to do “to while away the time.” He came to an agreement with them according to which three ships would leave with enough supplies to make a trading trip to Peru, delivering for sale there sixteen mares and some colts that were his. The viceroy stipulated that each of his animals would have a value of 60 gold pesos (equivalent to 450 maravedis), although it appeared that the business did not progress because the ships were retained in Peru.230 On this subject, a “barrelmaker official” declared that on the viceroy’s orders he had made barrels for the ships’ voyage to Peru. The barrel maker mentioned that the ships had left for Huatulco (Oaxaca), a port on the “Southern Sea,” where the viceroy’s servants loaded mares, horses, and all sorts of goods for transport to Peru. The charge of animals seems to have consisted of 500 mares and horses. Once it arrived in Peru the load could be sold, the barrel maker said, for 50,000 to 70,000 ducats.231 Mendoza’s ships reached a Peruvian port sometime between late 1543 and early 1544, the year in which the uprising of Gonzalo Pizarro and the encomenderos broke out. Thanks to this critical situation, the viceroy’s goods were able to get a high price.232 Finally, and to give an idea of the considerable investment the viceroy had made in his expeditions, the number of ships he had in the port of Navidad, after sending the trading fleet to Peru, was four vessels and a small galley. Moreover, two more ships were being built for the viceroy, one of which was a “200-tonner,” one of the best ships built at that time in the Indies.233 My aim has been to give a broad outline of the viceroy’s enterprises in Mexico. As we have seen, they ranged from stock raising to manufacturing,

— 131

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

shipbuilding, and sending out expeditions. Another of his interests was trade, although the economic potential of New Spain was hindered by the import of products from Spain. Here the Crown’s control was effective, as it functioned as a commercial monopoly over its colonies but managed to avoid the continual frauds royal officials and others committed against the Royal Treasury. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the viceroy attempted to make a profit from trade. A large number of products imported from Spain were of vital importance to his enterprises and, in general, for his personal supplies. For Viceroy Mendoza, trade represented an important activity among his private interests, especially in supplying his expeditionary ships. One of the achievements of Mendoza’s administration was the building of a dock and the adapting of the port of San Juan de Ulúa, “and although it was very bad, with industry and the repairs that have been made, it is [now] quite good.”234 In the port of Veracruz, the viceroy had commercial affairs, and he even placed a merchant partner in the port. On this subject, Hernán Cortés mentioned that the Viceroy has in the town of Veracruz, where goods are unloaded from Spain, a merchant called Varela, who [receives goods] for the Viceroy and has them brought directly to his house, without taking them to the customs nor to the customs officers. Hence it is suspected that as he is a merchant and that it is a question of goods from Spain, and that under the pretext of them being for the Viceroy, he likewise takes some of them for himself and hereby the Royal Treasury is defrauded of your Majesty’s import duty, and because an official of the accountant called out to him and requested that such goods be taken first to the customs office and to no other place . . . he was stabbed in the face.235

The merchant Varela, according to Cortés’s testimony, was a trade representative of the viceroy in Veracruz and supplied Mendoza’s expeditionary ships that put in at the port of San Juan de Ulúa. We know the viceroy did indeed appoint as “dockside receiver” in the port a merchant named Pedro Varela, who as receiver was “in charge of the people passing through and had to deal with all that was necessary.” Varela caused several problems in the port, however. Some ship “masters,” for example, complained that the merchant bought from them, at less than their real value, anchors and munitions destined, it would seem, for fitting out the fleets Viceroy Mendoza “sent out into the Southern Sea.” The alcalde mayor of Veracruz did not intervene in these matters.236 Furthermore and also through his position, Pedro Varela took away from Veracruz on pack animals and carts the goods he had bought at a low price, sending them on to the Pacific Coast where Mendoza had his ships: “[O]n

132 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

pack animals and carts, on behalf of the Viceroy, he takes them away via Coatzacoalcos by ship toward the Southern Sea.”237 As part of the port’s treasury policy, Viceroy Mendoza had placed a “duty” on goods arriving in Veracruz from Spain so that the money from this tax should help construct the dock of San Juan de Ulúa. There was no lack of protests people made to Sandoval about the unfairness of this tax, since all it did was make Spanish products scarce in the colonies: [T]here is a tax on goods to build the docks amounting to “one castellano” per ton . . . ; and this cannot be without harm to the merchants, and the residents of this country would prefer that your Majesty pay it, and not the merchants, because “any” [damage] to the residents of this country means that the merchants, due to the above mentioned tax, [will] sell their goods at a higher price, and that the dock is slow in building. And we would prefer it be otherwise, because it is very useful.238

Mendoza explained that the tax had been levied and the Crown had been informed thereof.239 To justify the business Varela carried out in Veracruz, the viceroy explained that because of the war in New Spain caused by the rebellion of the Indians of Jalisco against the colonial power, he had sent Pedro Varela—as “justice”—to Veracruz to get “shot and powder” for the arsenal in Mexico City and asserted that they had, in fact, bought ships in Almoneda but that they were for “the service of the dock works, and for the houses which had been built and are being built in the island where the people dock and pick up goods.” He was thus explaining why Varela had purchased from and supplied the docks. The viceroy explained that in any case, Varela had a public position that allowed him to carry out such business.240 While Pedro Varela was in charge of collecting tax on goods, he supplied his house and fed his Negro slaves with part of the maize and “biscuit” purchased for the people building the dock. He also ordered Indians destined solely for building the dock at San Juan de Ulúa to make repairs on his houses.241 We can conclude that both the merchant and the viceroy profited therefrom. Varela remained in his post based on his private business. In exchange, he guaranteed Mendoza a direct supply of products entering through the port for his expeditionary campaigns, as well as for other commercial ventures of the viceroy’s. Additionally, the viceroy’s mayordomo, Agustín Guerrero, had a trading company in partnership with a merchant named Cataño Genovés.242 In general, we have seen that the viceroy entered into all types of interconnected enterprises: sheep breeding, in order to send part of the wool to his workshop in Texcoco, and raising horses that were sent to Peru on his expeditionary — 133

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

vessels, which were supplied through a middleman in Veracruz. It is probable that Mendoza maintained a respectful attitude toward the fulfillment of certain legal forms—above all, those deriving from the nature of his office. Therefore, he had recourse to third parties to carry out his business ventures. Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada and Hernán Pérez de Bocanegra were in charge of acquiring the estates of Maravatío. His mayordomo, Agustín Guerrero, managed the workshop in Texcoco. Francisco Vásquez de Coronado commanded the expeditions to the north, and for a short time the viceroy had conquistador Pedro de Alvarado as his partner. Furthermore, in Veracruz, Mendoza placed a merchant who was a major support in supplying his ships. About his sugar mill in Orizaba, we only know that his son Francisco played a part. Francisco de Mendoza also continued to maintain economic ties in the colony, and he was interested in the spice trade. From 1548 on, he showed interest in having “half of the profit on ginger,” and in 1558 he signed two civil contracts with the Crown—“one for pepper, cinnamon and cloves, and another for ginger, china and sandalwood.”243 Among other concessions Mendoza’s son received were “the lands and animals needed; the former would be royal lands but, if necessary, the expropriation of lands belonging to private individuals will be carried out after paying indemnity to their owners.” Furthermore, “Mendoza would have priority for receiving repartimiento Indians to work on cultivating spices,” in addition to granting him the “monopoly for the plantation and commercialization of spices obtained in New Spain.”244 There are also signs that Francisco de Mendoza continued to do business in Mexico, particularly on some of his father’s stock-raising ranches.245 Don Francisco made a “report” to Viceroy Velasco that “he has three of his own drover teams, which travel the road to Veracruz, and that he now sends to the kingdoms of Spain a large amount of wool from his sheep and has to send this wool by his drover teams from Texcoco and his ranches to Veracruz and fears that, if he should not take the supplies by the drover teams he is sending,” the Veracruz authorities might fine him. Therefore, he requested that his three teams be allowed to pass under these conditions, and he was granted permission.246 One might conclude, from the elements discussed in this chapter, that there was continuity in some of the enterprises started by Mendoza and which passed into the hands of his son. Finally, it is important to note the difference between the Second Audiencia policy with regard to the colony’s economic development—more in accordance with encouraging small-scale landowners and agricultural workers, as is shown in the Puebla de los Angeles project—and that of Viceroy Mendoza,

134 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

who centered his interests on ventures requiring a large investment of capital: stock-raising ranches, textile mills, and sugar mills. This type of business could only be carried out by a limited group of businessmen who, at that time, were royal officials and powerful encomenderos interested in diversifying their economic and social interests.

NOTES 1. After several setbacks and negotiations, such as settling the salary, Antonio de Mendoza was finally appointed viceroy on April 17, 1535, and given a salary of 8,000 “ducados”: José Ignacio Rubio Mañé, El virreinato I. Orígenes y jurisdicciones y dinámica social de los virreyes (México City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México [hereafter UNAM]–Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1983, 2nd ed.), 21. On the problems that delayed the choice of a viceroy for Mexico, Rubio Mañé, El virreinato, 19–21; Rubio Mañé, “Organización de la institución del virreinato de Nueva España,” in Memoria del Primer Congreso Venezolano de Historia (Caracas: Academia Nacional de la Historia, 1972), 276–278; Schäfer, El Consejo, 5–9. Viceroy Mendoza landed in the harbor of Veracruz on October 2, 1535. Rubio Mañé narrates news about how Mendoza was received and about the celebrations for the viceroy’s arrival in New Spain, information Rubio Mañé gathered from town council meeting records: Rubio Mañé, El virreinato, 120–121. As regards Mendoza’s biographical information, some of his family ascendancy allowed his viceroyship aspirations, since he was the son of the second Earl of Tendilla and first Marquis of Modéjar. The future viceroy was born in Granada sometime between 1493 and 1495, and his father had contributed to the conquest of that place. He had a good financial position, which allowed him to leave easily since, at his father’s death in 1516, he inherited the encomienda of Socuéllamos in Ciudad Real province and a 200,000-maravedí allowance: Rubio Mañé, El virreinato, 214–220. There is a general study on the Mendoza family by Helen Nadar, Los Mendoza y el renacimiento español (Guadalajara: Instituto Provincial de Cultura “Marqués de Santillana,” 1986). 2. Rubio Mañé, El virreinato, 45; José Miranda, Las ideas y las instituciones políticas mexicanas. Primera parte, I521–1810 (México City: Instituto de Derecho Comparado, 1952), 103–104. 3. Haring, El Imperio, 130, 137; Rubio Mañé, El virreinato, 51. 4. Haring, El Imperio, 130–131. 5. On the chapters from Leyes Nuevas, Antonio Muro Orejón, Las Leyes Nuevas de 1542–1543. Ordenanzas para la gobernación de lar Indias y buen tratamiento y conservación de los indios (Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 1961). On Sandoval’s visit to the viceroy, licenciado Tello de Sandoval—a member of the Consejo de Indias, prebendary of the Sevilla cathedral, and inquisitor of Toledo’s episcopate—was granted full powers to carry out the general visit to New Spain royal officials and perform residencia hearings on those whose office had finished. This can be seen in the reales cédulas in Barcelona, May 13, 1543, and June 26, 1543: Arthur Scott Aiton, The Secret Visita Against Viceroy Mendoza (Lancaster, Pa.: Lancaster Press, 1932); also see Archivo General de Indias (hereafter AGI), México, real cédula of 1543, 18. Real cédula where Tello de Sandoval is sent so that when he arrives in New Spain he tells all provinces “sujetas a la Audiencia de la dicha visita, para que todas las personas

— 135

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

que quisieren venir ante vos a pedir su justicia de los agravios que hubiere recibido del dicho presidente y oidores,” The Princip, July 6, 1542: AGI, México, 92. The visit resulted in forty-four charges against the viceroy, Mexico, June 21, 1546, and he provided an answer for all of them: AGI, Justicia, 259, “Visita hecha el año de 1543 a 1547 al virrey de la Nueva España y presidente de la Real Audiencia de México, Don Antonio de Mendoza a los oidores de ella . . . Por el licenciado Françisco Tello de Sandoval del Consejo de su Majestad, en el de Indias, Visitador General de la Nueva España.” His impressive direct examination for the descargos, which consisted of 309 questions, is dated January 8, 1547, and is published in Lewis Hanke, Los virreye españoles en América durante el gobierno de la Casa de Austria, vol. 1 (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Españoles [vol. 281], 1976), 59–109. 6. Broadly speaking, both Aiton and Bustamante have explored Mendoza’s office period. In spite of time having gone by, Aiton’s work is still valid, not only because the topic has not caught scholars’ attention but also because of the interesting firsthand information and documents he used and published. Bustamante’s study is also useful because of its documentary appendix. Both authors used documents produced during Sandoval’s visit. Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza; Bustamante, Don Antonio de Mendoza. The Indians’ personal service in New Spain during Mendoza’s period is reviewed in Silvio Zavala’s wider study, El servicio, vol. I. Both tribute and encomienda during the time explored here are found in more specific studies: Miranda, El tributo; Simpson, Los conquistadores. 7. Instructions to Viceroy Mendoza: “Instrucción del 25 de abril de 1535, document 1,” 21–22; see also documents 8, 9, 120–123, and 10, 123; also, ”Instrucción secreta del 17 de abril de 1535,” “Instrucción del 25 de abril de 1535,” and “Ampliación de la instrucción a Antonio de Mendoza, 14 de julio de 1536,” all in Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, documents 3, 31–32, 2, 22–31, and 4, 32–38, respectively. About the instructions for this viceroy, the Consejo de Indias gave Mendoza two instructions. One was dated April 17, 1535, and the viceroy was ordered to keep away from the Audiencia’s domain in the administration of justice because, since he was not educated, he did not have a say in such matters. The other instruction, dated April 25, 1535, shows the Crown’s strong fiscal interest. In 1535, when both instructions were released, the Consejo de Indias had little real knowledge of the colonial situation or of the government’s main lines. According to Schäfer, this can be seen in the instructions to Mendoza, which do not include special orders as regards the way to govern the colonial territory. Furthermore, in the instruction there was no clarity about the well-being of the Indians: Schäfer, El Consejo Real, vol. 1, 10, 13. Indeed, the instructions Viceroy Mendoza received were especially aimed at the Crown’s obtaining further gains. 8. Zavala, La Encomienda, 66. 9. Ibid., 69–70, Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza’s letter dated December 10, 1537; on the encomienda succession for two lifetimes, Hanke, La lucha, 221. 10. Zavala, La encomienda, 74; on the Leyes Nuevas and Friar Bartolomé de las Casas, the main negotiator, the most complete studies are Helen Rand Parish, Las Casas as a Bishop (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1980); Hanke, La lucha, 222– 255. Also worth reading is Harold E. Weidman’s study, “The Correct Birthdate of Bartolomé de las Casas,” Hispanic American Historical Review 56, 3 (August 1976): 385– 403. 11. Zavala, La Encomienda, 140. 12. Ibid., 89, chapter 30 is revoked.

136 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

13. Ibid., 90. 14. Ibid., 321. 15. Gibson, The Aztecs, 78. 16. See Miranda, La función económica, where several contemporary notarial contracts are presented that show the varied economic activities carried out by the encomenderos. 17. AGI, Justicia, 259, Visita, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, 1546, charges 24– 28, 30; Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, document 7, 59–110. 18. Zavala, La Encomienda, 400–401. 19. AGI, Justicia, 258, Visita hecha el año de 1543 a 1547 al virrey de la Nueva España y presidente de la Real Audiencia de México, Don Antonio de Mendoza a los oidores de ella . . . Por el licenciado Françisco Tello de Sandoval del Consejo de su Majestad, en el de Indias, Visitador General de la Nueva España, testimonies against Viceroy Mendoza: witness: Gerónimo López; Gerhard, A Guide, 108, 296; Himmerich, “The encomenderos,” 344–346; on López’s appointment as corregidor, see Table 2.3, and AGI, Justicia, 258, Relación de corregimientos otorgados por Antonio de Mendoza, nombramiento del año de 1544. 20. AGI, Justicia, 258, Andrés de Barrios’s testimony. 21. Ibid., testimonies of Rodrigo de Castañeda, Juan Tello de Medina, and Hernando de Vergara. 22. Guillermo Porras Muñoz, El gobierno de la ciudad de México en el Siglo XVI (México City: UNAM, 1982), 407–410; Himmerich, The encomenderos, 453–454; Gerhard, A Guide, 135. On Ruiz’s appointment as corregidor, see Table 2.3. 23. AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, testimonies of Andrés de Tapia and Miguel Díaz, who reported that Sosa was financially ruined when he arrived in Mexico. On Sosa being the son of the Canarias governor, see Porras Muñoz, El Gobierno, 234–235. 24. Porras Muñoz, El Gobierno, 85, 149. 25. Gerhard, A Guide, 77, 284; Gibson, The Aztecs, 427; Emma Pérez Rocha, La tierra y el hombre en la villa de Tacuba durante la época colonial (México City: INAH, 1982), 53; AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, testimonies of Marqués del Valle and Andrés de Barrios. 26. Gerhard, A Guide, 130; AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Mendoza, testimonies of Marqués del Valle and Andrés de Barrios. 27. Hanke, Los virreyes, 96. 28. Woodrow Borah, The Indian Population of Central Mexico 1531–1610 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960); Borah, The Aboriginal Population of Central Mexico on the Eve of the Spanish Conquest (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963); Gibson, The Aztecs, 62, 448–449. 29. See Table 2.3. For the annual tribute some Indian towns gave Sosa, see AGI, México, 256, “Lo que rentan los pueblos en que tienen entretenimiento los conquistadores de esta Nueva España . . . son estos pueblos los que se quitaron por virtud de las Nuevas Leyes y se pusieron en la Corona real.” 30. AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, witnesses: Francisco Téllez, Andrés de Tapia, and Miguel Díaz. 31. Ibid., testimonies of charges against Viceroy Mendoza. On irregular actions by Sosa, see AGI, México, 68, letter from Doctor Quesada to the Crown, Mexico, April 12, 1553, where he announces that, based on royal orders, Treasurer Juan Alonso de Sosa was suspended and Hernando de Portugal had been appointed in his place,

— 137

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

with bonds and bondsmen; AGI, México, 96, Fernando de Portugal, treasurer in New Spain, letter to the Crown, Mexico, April 18, 1553, reports that Viceroy Velasco provided a treasurer to substitute for Sosa; AGI, México, 19, Viceroy Luis de Velasco in letter to the Crown, Mexico, September 14, 1555, where he says about accountant Sosa and the rest of the royal officials: “tampoco era cosa razonable que las llaves que estaban en poder del contador de las arcas de tres llaves estuvieran en poder del tesorero ni del factor, siendo ellos las personas a quien se hace el cargo.” 32. AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, charge 31. 33. Himmerich, The encomenderos; Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 234–235; ibid., 127, 1537. 34. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 31–32. 35. Silvio Zavala, “Las encomiendas de Nueva España y el Gobierno de Don Antonio de Mendoza,” Revista de Historia de América 1 (Mexico, March 1938): 60. 36. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 74. 37. AGI, Justicia, 259, charge 25. 38. Ibid., 258, testimonies of charges against Mendoza, witnesses: Francisco Téllez, Andrés de Tapia, and Hernando de Vergara; ibid., charges against Mendoza, charge 24; Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 73–74. 39. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of the visit, witness: Diego Telléz. 40. Ibid., witness: Andrés de Tapia; Porras Muñoz, El Gobierno, 362; ibid., 259, charges against the Viceroy, charge 24; Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 74. 41. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 74. The Indians were, however, taken from the latter because he was “adulterine.” 42. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of the visit, witness: Diego Telléz; AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against Mendoza, charge 24; ibid., 73. 43. AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against Mendoza, charge 24; Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 74. On his appointment as corregidor, see Table 2.3. 44. Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, fols. 368–370; Zavala, La Encomienda, 68. 45. A chapter from this cédula states: “Mandamos que cuando muriere algún conquistador o vecino que se de a la mujer o hijo que dejare los indios que su marido o padre tenían, y si pareciere que es gran cantidad lo que así vacare por su muerte, se les dé lo que pareciere que se debe dar para su mantenimiento y sustentación”: Zorita, Leyes y Ordenanzas, 42. 46. AGI, Justicia, 260, “Visita hecha el año de 1543 a 1547 al virrey de la Nueva España y presidente de la Real Audiencia de México, Don Antonio de Mendoza, a los oidores . . . Por el licenciado Françisco Tello de Sandoval del Consejo de su Majestad, en el de Indias, Visitador General de la Nueva España,” charges against Oidor Francisco de Loaysa, Mexico, July 30, 1546, charge 1, where he was accused of favoring Cristóbal de Salamanca and his brother-in-law, Alonso de Paz; AGI, Justicia, 258, charges al virrey y Audiencia; Gerhard, A Guide, 49, 188; on the appointment as corregidor in Salamanca, see Table 2.3. 47. AGI, Justicia, 259, charge 24; Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 74. On his appointment as corregidor, see Table 2.3. 48. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 77. 49. Diego de Encinas, Provisiones, cédulas, capítulos de ordenanzas, instrucciones y cartas . . . tocantes al buen gobierno de las Indias y administración de la justicia en ellas, vol. 2 (Madrid: Ed. Cultura Hispánica, 1945), 196–197; AGI, Justicia, 258, documents of Viceroy Mendoza’s descargo mention the cédula, dated “Valladolid, January 3, 1537.”

138 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

50. Recopilación de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias. Mandadas imprimir y publicar por la Magestad Católica del Rey Don Carlos II nuestro Señor, 4 vols. (Madrid: Edición facsimilar, Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica, 1973 [1681]). 51. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 74; Gerhard, A Guide, 44. 52. Unlike the previous case, this grant was part of the visit: AGI, Justicia, 259, charge 25; Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 74. 53. Himmerich comments: “The sale of encomiendas, although not a common practice, does not appear to have been considered absolutely illegal in New Spain as it was in Peru; perhaps it was viewed in the same light as the disposition by sale of any other office. Even so, only slightly more than 2 percent of our encomiendas, most of them with relatively few tributaries, were disposed of by sale.” Himmerich, The encomenderos, 98–99. On the laws that restricted the sale of encomiendas, see Recopilación de Leyes de los Reynos, Libro 6, título 2; the June 10, 1540, cédula is also found in Zorita, Leyes y Ordenanzas, 49. 54. AGI, Justicia, 258, documents of charges against Viceroy Mendoza, Marqués del Valle’s information. 55. Ibid., testimonies of charges against Mendoza, witnesses: Francisco Telléz, Andrés de Barrios, Andrés de Tapia, and Alonso Ortiz de Zuñiga; ibid., 259, charges against the Viceroy, charge 6; received some fish from Meztitlán as the treasurer’s gift, charge 27; Hanke, Los virreyes, 64, 75. Both Mérida and Coronado arrived in Mexico with Mendoza: Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 368; Himmerich, The Encomenderos, 516–517; Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 62. 56. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of the Viceroy’s charges, witnesses: Andrés de Tapia and Miguel Díaz (quotation); AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, charge 27 (quotation); Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 75. 57. Himmerich, The encomenderos, 516–517; on his appointment as corregidor, see Table 2.3. 58. AGI, Justicia, 144, suit about the Meztitlán encomienda against Alonso de Mérida in 1543; AGI, Justicia, 156, recusation performed on the towns of Meztitlán and Tenango by Alonso de Mérida in 1556; also see Walter V. Scholes, “The Diego Ramírez Visita in Meztitlán,” Hispanic American Historical Review 24, 1 (February 1944): 30–38; Walter V. Scholes, The Diego Ramírez Visita (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1946). 59. Gerhard, A Guide, 184; Zavala, La Encomienda, 446. 60. Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 369. 61. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charges against Mendoza. 62. Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 368. This display of power to benefit from one’s office was not approved by the Spanish Crown. Yet the Crown had not produced clear enough laws during the beginning of Antonio de Mendoza’s period as viceroy, particularly as regards the issue of royal officials having encomiendas. There was, for example, a royal cédula that forbade New Spain royal officials with repartimiento Indians from receiving more than one-third of their salary: Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, fols. 15v–16. In 1528 the Crown had established that the mentioned officials’ salaries and gratuities were to be: for the treasurer and the accountant, 510,000 maravedíes each; for the factor, 460,000 maravedíes; and for the veedor, 390,000 maravedíes per year. Since the Crown had knowledge that encomiendas were the only income source of royal officials, however, it decided that only when they were very poor were they to have the necessary compensation to cover the fully established salary. Otherwise, they would only receive a third and not the complete salary. Therefore,

— 139

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

such a device was allowed under special circumstances and during a time when the Crown did not have a clear stance on encomiendas—their being handed over in perpetuity to settlers in the Indies—and on whether officials were to have encomiendas. At the same time, they were not to make “deals” or “contracts” that could allow them to receive gains different from their own salary: the Queen’s communication to the Second Audiencia, Madrid, July 12, 1530, in Puga, Cédulas, provisiones, fol. 45. 63. AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Viceroy Mendoza. 64. Ibid., 237, “Residencia tomada el año de 1553 a 1560, al licenciado Lorenzo de Tejada y Doctores Gómez de Santillán, Antonio de Mejia y Françisco Herrera, oidores de la Audiencia de México, por el Licenciado Diego López de Montealegre, oidor de la misma audiencia, Juez nombrado para este efecto,” residencia hearing on Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada, charges against Oidor Tejada in 1554. 65. Ibid., 259; ibid., 258, charges against Mendoza, witness: Hernando de Vergara; testimonies of the visit, witness: Juan de Sámano, Mexico City alguacil, who declared he was Oidor Ceynos’s brother-in-law, his and Oidor Tejada’s “compadre”: “de ciertos hijos que le han sacado de la pila y el licenciado Loaysa (oidor) fue padrino de este testigo en la velación cuando se casó.” 66. Ibid., 258, testimonies of the visit, witnesses: Juan de Nájera, Francisco Telléz, Andrés de Barrios, Diego de Zárate, and Hernando de Vergara. Vergara mentioned that Zinacantepec was located in a mining area and that Indians’ service and maize for the mines could be extracted from the town; ibid., 259, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, charge 30; Hanke, Los virreyes, 77. 67. AGI, Justicia, 259. 68. Ibid. 69. Gerhard, A Guide, 175, 268. 70. AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against the Viceroy, charge 30; AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of the visit, witness: Hernando de Vergara; Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 78. Cuitlahuac was located in Chalco, an economically strategic area in the Valley of Mexico; Gerhard, A Guide, 102–103. 71. Zavala, La Encomienda, 398. 72. DIU, vol. 10, 405–406. 73. Edmundo O’Gorman, “Sobre la facultad que tuvo don Antonio de Mendoza para hacer trueque y cambio de indios,” Boletín del Archivo General de La Nación, num. 3, vol. 10, 1 (November–December 1986). 74. Puga, Cédulas, provisiones, fol. 10v, Mexico, March 16, 1532. 75. Conqueror Montejo was also encomendero in Chila y Matlatlán in northern Puebla. On the encomiendas on Azcapotzalco, see Gibson, The Aztecs, 62, 414; on the three encomiendas, see Gerhard, A Guide, 248, 391; Himmerich, The encomenderos, 381; on the date of Maldonado’s marriage, see Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 348. These connections can also be traced back in AGI, Justicia, 261, “Visita hecha el año de 1543 a 1547 al virrey de la Nueva España y presidente de la Real Audiencia de México, Don Antonio de Mendoza a los oidores de ella . . . Por el licenciado Françisco Tello de Sandoval del Consejo de su Majestad, en el de Indias, Visitador General de la Nueva España,” visit of Oidor Alonso de Maldonado. 76. On the fact that Castilla and Maldonado benefited, see AGI, Justicia, 260, charge 1. On the mining company with Coronado, see AGI, Justicia, 258, Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the Viceroy and the Audiencia in 1546, charges against oidor, witness: Francisco Vázquez de Coronado, governor of Nueva Galicia; AGI, Justicia,

140 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

261, “Visita hecha el año de 1543 a 1547 al virrey de la Nueva España y presidente de la Real Audiencia de México, Don Antonio de Mendoza, a los oidores de ella . . . Por el licenciado Françisco Tell de Sandoval del Consejo de su Majestad, en el de Indias, Visitador General de la Nueva España,” charge 9 against Oidor Maldonado. 77. AGI, Justicia, 258, Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the Viceroy and the Audiencia in 1546, Oidor Ceynos’s charge 1. 78. Ibid., charges against Doctor Ceynos, charge 1; ibid., charges against Oidor Ceynos, charges 1 and 5. 79. Ibid., charges 1 and 5 against Oidor Loaysa. 80. AGI, Justicia, 239, “Residencia tomada el año de 1553 a 1560, al licenciado Lorenzo de Tejada y Doctores Gómez de Santillán, Antonio de Mejia y Françisco Herrera, oidores de la Audiencia de México, por el Licenciado Diego López de Montealegre, oidor de la misma audiencia, Juez nombrado para este efecto,” residencia hearing on Oidor Hernando de Santillán; Scholes, “The Diego Ramírez Visita”; Scholes, Diego Ramirez. 81. AGI, Guadalajara, 7, Gaspar de la Fuente’s, oidor of the Guadalajara Audiencia, letter to the King, dated Guadalajara, April 2, 1603. 82. AGI, Justicia, 261, Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the Viceroy and the Audiencia in 1546, charges against Oidor Maldonado, charge 7; AGI, Justicia, 258, Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the Viceroy and the Audiencia in 1546, charges against Oidor Maldonado; AGI, Justicia, 260, charges against Oidor Loaysa, charge 9. On the prohibition, see “Ordenanzas de don Antonio de Mendoza acerca del juego,” 24-VII1539, in Mariano Cuevas, ed., Documentos inéditos del Siglo XVI para la historia de México (México City: Ed. Porrúa, 1975), 90–92. 83. AGI, Justicia, 258 Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the Viceroy and the Audiencia in 1546; AGI, Justicia, 261, Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the Viceroy and the Audiencia in 1546, charges against Oidor Maldonado, charge 5. 84. Ibid., 258, Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the Viceroy and the Audiencia in 1546. 85. Review of Alfonso García Morales’s “Las fiestas de Lima (1632), de Rodrigo de Carvajal y Robles,” in Anuario de Estudios Americanos, vol. 44 (Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 1987), 142–143. 86. Juan Pedro Viqueira, “Diversiones públicas y cultura popular en la ciudad de México durante el Siglo de las Luces,” in Anuario de Estudios Americanos, vol. 44 (Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 1987), 215. 87. Letter from Viceroy Mendoza to the King, 1537, DIU 2, 179–211; Zavala, La Encomienda, 70; Sarabia, Don Luis de Velasco, 60; Simpson, Los conquistadores, 136. 88. Luis G. Valdeavellano, Curso de Historia de las instituciones españolas. Desde los orígenes al final de la Edad Media (Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 1973, 3rd ed.), 550, 568; Corregidores’ ordenanzas given by the Catholic King and Queen, Seville, June 9, 1500, where it can be seen what these corregidores understood regarding local government; “Otrosí que faga arca en que estén los privillegios e escrituras del concejo a bien recabdo, que a lo menos tengan tres llaves; e una la tenga la justicia e la otra uno de los regidores e otra el escrivano del concejo,” in Alfonso García Gallo, Manual de historia del Derecho Español. Antología de fuentes del Antiguo Derecho, vol. 2 (Madrid: Artes Gráficas, 1973), 125–126. 89. Alfonso García Gallo, “Alcaldes Mayores y Corregidores en Indias,” in Memoria del primer Congreso Venezolano de Historia (Caracas: Academia Nacional de la Historia, 1972), 314. 90. Ibid., 318–319.

— 141

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

91. Miranda, for example, makes no distinction between the two posts: Miranda, Las ideas, 123. For a thorough study of the differences between alcaldes mayores and corregidores in the Indies, see ibid., 301–347. 92. García Gallo, “Alcaldes mayores,“ 336. 93. AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against Mendoza, charge 20; Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 27. 94. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 71–72. 95. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of the visit, witness: Hernando de Vergara. 96. Ibid., relación de corregimientos, fol. 793v. 97. Ibid., 232, relación de los tributos que han dado los pueblos en corregimiento antes de 1533, 1536; AGI, Justicia, 258, relación de los corregidores . . . desde 1536 en adelante, 1546. 98. Hanke, Los virreyes, Mendoza’s advice to his successor, 39. 99. Gibson, The Aztecs, 82–83. 100. Ibid., 84; see Table 2.3 for some cases. 101. This had been ordered before with the Second Audiencia and later in the expansion of an instruction to the viceroy, July 14, 1536; capítulo 15, in Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 37. 102. Muro Orejón, Las Leyes, chapter 19, 11. 103. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of the visit, witness: Hernando de Vergara. 104. Gibson, The Aztecs, 92. 105. AGI, Justicia, 235, residencia hearing on Francisco Cárcamo de Figueroa, corregidor in the town of Tehuacán in 1549. 106. Ibid., 258, testimonies of Tello de Sandoval’s visit, witness: Rodrigo Castañeda. 107. AGI, México, 96, Diego Ramírez, visitor of Indian towns by the King’s appointment, letter to the Crown, January 22, 1552. 108. Ibid., 168, Francisco Gómez de Silva, brief that reports how the Hacienda Real was defrauded, March 15, 1567, and it is claimed that some corregidores “y otros tenientes y alcaldes mayores, que recogen los tributos” sell them, “especialmente si es ropa, o cacao, o cualquier otro genero”; AGI, Indiferente General, 1561, from 1551 to 1556, memorial que dio al Consejo un religioso (n.d.g.), where the same issue is reported. 109. Miranda, Las ideas, 124; José Ignacio Rubio Mañé, “Organización de las instituciones del virreinato de Nueva España,” in Memoria del primer Congreso Venezolano de Historia (Caracas: Academia Nacional de la Historia, 1972), 312. 110. AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Mendoza, testimonies by Juan de Nájera, Francisco Telléz, Diego de Zárate, Andrés de Tapia, Hernando de Vergara, Gerónimo López, Bernardino de Albornoz, and Rodrigo de Orduña; AGI, Justicia, 258–259, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, charge 19: “Que habiendo S.M. proveído y mandado que los conquistadores fuesen preferidos en oficios y aprovechamientos de la tierra . . . ha proveído los corregimientos y alcaldías mayores y otros oficios a personas que tienen pueblos de indios encomendados, siendo ricos”; Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 71. 111. Table 2.3 has the underlying purpose of finding, by means of the corregidores’ provisions, those people who were encomenderos during the same years. I have used Peter Gerhard’s invaluable geographical guide, wherein I found more than fifty encomenderos who have the same name and surname as some people who had been given corregimientos in the years I am studying. I have decided to present this

142 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

information because most of the testimonies on Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the viceroy and the Audiencia suggest that several encomenderos were granted corregimientos and also because some names found in both sources coincide in time. I have omitted surnames that were very common during the time, even when dates and names coincide. On the other hand, I have kept the names of some corregidores with encomiendas, although their time as corregidores does not coincide, when the encomienda title was given after ten years at most. This points out that even if they were not encomenderos at that precise time, they were sometime later, and their names loom large in the social life of the time. Conversely, I have omitted those people who used to be encomenderos but no longer were when they were granted a corregimiento by the viceroy. A few corregidores’ names and surnames coincide with those of two different encomenderos. Even if one of them was not an encomendero, I included him in the table with a note that makes the case clear. 112. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 37. 113. Gibson, The Aztecs, 83–84; about this point, see the already quoted testimony of Hernando de Vergara about how the corregidores’ salary depended on the town’s tribute and how this refers to a relative salary leveling during Mendoza’s period. 114. Guillermo Lohmann Villena, El Corregidor de indios en el Perú bajo los Austrias (Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica, 1957), 103–104. 115. Juan de Solórzano Pereyra, Política Indiana, vol. 4 (Madrid: Ibero-Americana, 1930), 32. 116. A cédula is quoted on this: Real cédula, Valladolid, 29 de agosto, 1544, in Pinelo, Tratado de confirmaciones reales, fols. 54–55. 117. Ibid., fol. 56. On the other hand, the Recopilación de Leyes does not mention a word about this, at least regarding the time I am studying. 118. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies against Viceroy Mendoza, witnesses: Bernardino de Albornoz, Juan Tello de Medina, Francisco Telléz, “el Marqués del Valle” (Hernán Cortés), Diego de Zárate, Andrés de Tapia, Hernando de Vergara, Hernando de Herrera (Audiencia scribe), and Gerónimo López. 119. Gerhard, A Guide, 380–381; Himmerich, The encomenderos, 243; Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 234–239. 120. Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 234–239. 121. Gerhard, A Guide, 197, 285; Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 354; AGI, Justicia, 1540, 192. 122. Gerhard, A Guide, 139, 150; Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 242–245. 123. Gerhard, A Guide, 210, 285; Himmerich, The encomenderos, 490. 124. Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 216–217; Gerhard, A Guide, 210; AGI, Justicia, 237, papeles de los descargos del oidor Lorenzo de Tejada. 125. Gerhard, A Guide, 301; Himmerich, The encomenderos, 451. 126. Gerhard, A Guide, 139; Himmerich, The encomenderos, 298. 127. Miranda, La función económica, 37–38. 128. Gerhard, A Guide, 164, 197, 285; Himmerich, The encomenderos, 356. 129. Miranda, La función económica, 44. 130. Gerhard, A Guide, 368. 131. DIU, vol. 2, 179–211; Zavala, La Encomienda, 70; Sarabia, Don Luis de Velasco, 60; Simpson, Los conquistadores, 136. 132. Zavala, La Encomienda, 57. 133. François Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios en México (México City: Fondo de Cultura Económica [FCE], 1982), 125; José Matesanz, “Introducción de la

— 143

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

ganadería en Nueva España 1521–1535,” Historia Mexicana, Colegio de México 56 (April 1964–June 1965): 541; Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, 110. 134. Matesanz, “Introducción de la ganadería,“ 536. 135. Ibid., 537–538. 136. Ibid., 540. 137. Ibid. 138. William H. Dusenberry, The Mexican Mesta: The Administration of Ranching in Colonial Mexico (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963), 32. 139. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 27. 140. Ibid., 36. 141. Bustamante, Don Antonio de Mendoza, document 29. 142. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 48. 143. Dusenberry, The Mexican, 48–49; Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, 110. 144. Dusenberry, The Mexican, 49–50. 145. Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 130. 146. Ibid., 131. 147. Ibid., 125. 148. Ibid., 130. 149. Dusenberry, The Mexican Mesta, 99–100. 150. Jesús Ruvalcaba Mercado, “Agricultura colonial temprana y transformación social en Tepeapulco y Tulancingo 1521–1610,” Historia Mexicana 33, 132 (April–June 1984): 438. Just in the area of Tepeapulco, at the end of Mendoza’s government, there were more than 200,000 head of cattle and horses. It seems the areas of seasonal crops, such as Tepeapulco, were even more affected than irrigation plots, since the animals invaded lands that were resting in wait for the next season; Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 127. 151. Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 132. 152. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 152, where Antonio de Mendoza mentions: “yo he dado algunas comisiones, especialmente para Oaxaca y otras partes, y en ellas mando que además de ejecutar lo que les pareciere ser necesario para evitar los daños que los indios hubieren recibido.” 153. Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 128. 154. Silvio, El servicio, vol. 1, 96. 155. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 52. 156. Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 132. 157. Ibid., 126. 158. Chevalier mentions that the viceroy had cattle ranches, although he does not mention which they were: La formación de los latifundios, 162. Zavala offers the same information: Zavala, El servicio, vol. 1, 96, 467. Aiton gives more copious information taken from the viceroy’s descargos during Tello de Sandoval’s visit: Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, 48. 159. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 68. 160. Ibid. 161. Zavala, El servicio, vol. 1, 467. 162. AGI, Justicia, 259, licenciado Tejada’s visit to his ranches on June 15, 1542 (quotation); Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, 48. 163. AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, testimonies of Juan de Nájera, Andrés de Barrios, Oidor Francisco de Loaysa, Hernando de Vergara, and Gerónimo López.

144 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

164. Ibid., testimony of Serván Bejarano, witness of the sale; ibid., 259, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, charge 29. 165. AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Mendoza, witness: Oidor Francisco de Loaysa. Gerhard does not mention Pedro Méndez de Sotomayor as encomendero in Maravatío, and he does mention that Pedro Juárez o Suárez was encomendero during that time: Gerhard, A Guide, 173. Bejarano’s testimony strikes me as strange, since Sotomayor sold the town to the viceroy. Indeed, an encomienda in a town did not grant titles over the town’s lands. As has been noted, however, encomienda sales were usual during that time, although they were disguised as transfers and swaps. It might be that Sotomayor only owned the ranches next to Maravatío. On Sotomayor’s appointment as corregidor, see AGI, Justicia, 258, documents of the visit to Antonio de Mendoza, corregidores’ appointments by Mendoza in New Spain from 1536 to 1544. 166. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimony of Serván Bejarano; AGI, Justicia, 259, Viceroy Mendoza’s documents: sale deed between Pedro Méndez de Sotomayor and his wife, Catalina, and Viceroy Mendoza, witnesses: Serván Bejarano and alcalde Antonio de Nava, September 29, 1541. 167. AGI, Justicia, 259, Oidor Tejada’s visit to the Viceroy’s ranches, June 15, 1542; AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, charges 43, 44: he is there accused of having favored Tejada, granting him lands in Chapultepec and allowing him to build an irrigation ditch; AGI, Justicia, 259, charge 6, where he is accused of having received an indeterminate amount of fish from Meztitlán, which was sent as a gift by Alonso de Mérida, the encomendero in that town. It is mentioned in his descargos that the de Méridas were, as a family, at service to the Mendozas in Granada. Likewise, several testimonies mention the viceroy’s special partiality for Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada and Treasurer Alonso de Mérida: Hanke, Los virreyes, 62; AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of Alonso Ortíz de Zúñiga and Francisco Telléz, among others. 168. Another testimony mentions a cattle ranch in Maravatío that was bought by Agustín Guerrero, the viceroy’s mayordomo: AGI, Justicia, 258, testimony of regidor Francisco de Santa Cruz. 169. Gerhard, A Guide, 65; Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 391–394. 170. AGI, Justicia, 259, the Viceroy’s descargo documents, licenciado Tejada’s visit to his cattle ranches, June 15, 1542; Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, 48. 171. AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against Mendoza; AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of Bernardino de Albornoz, regidor Francisco de Santa Cruz, Juan de Sandoval (who mentions that the town was purchased for Francisco de Mendoza, the viceroy’s son), and Rodrigo Castañeda; AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against the Viceroy, charge 29; Gerhard, A Guide, 205. 172. AGI, Justicia, 258, list of the provisions of corregimientos, 1536–1546. 173. Matlatlán, Orizaba, in Gerhard, A Guide, 206. 174. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimony of Rodrigo Castañeda. On his way from Veracruz to Tehuacán, the viceroy had problems with the Indians of the region, since his cattle were invading their cultivated lands: AGI, Justicia, 258, testimony of Francisco de Lerma. 175. Ruvalcaba Mercado, “Agricultura colonial,” 438. 176. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimony of Andrés de Barrios. 177. Ibid., appointments of corregidores, 1536–1546; ibid., 259, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, charge 1: when he arrived at New Spain, in the town of Veracruz, he “dio vara de justicia a Martín de Peralta que venía con él”; Himmerich, The Encomenderos, 417; Gerhard, A Guide, 130.

— 145

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

178. On the Indians’ claim related to the cattle invasion of their lands, see AGI, México, 96, 1551, Alonso de San Juan, on behalf of Don Juan de la Cruz, governor of the place, and of the caciques and macehuales of Xilotepec, 1551. The town of Xilotepec is located in the northwestern area of the state of Mexico, at the southwest of Hidalgo, and part of it is in Querétaro. Before the Spaniards arrived, it used to be an Otomi kingdom located on the Chichimeca border. It was the most heavily populated private encomienda in New Spain. The province was granted as an encomienda at different times: Gerhard, A Guide, 383. On the Querétaro area, mainly during the seventeenth century, see John C. Super, “The Agricultural Near North: Querétaro in the Seventeenth Century,” in Ida Altman, James Lockhart et al., eds., Provinces of Early Mexico (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976), 231–251. On this region during Viceroy Velasco’s period (1550 to 1564), see Sarabia Viejo, Don Luis de Velasco, 231–251. 179. AGI, México, 96, Alonso de San Juan, on behalf of Don Juan de la Cruz, governor of the place, and of the caciques and macehuales of Xilotepec, 1551. 180. Oidor Santillán’s appointment as visitor is dated December 24, 1546, so we can assume his visit started in early 1547: AGI, Justicia, 239, documents for his descargos, copy of Santillán’s appointment as visitor in that region. On Santillán’s being accompanied by friends and criados, see AGI, Justicia, 239, charge testimonies to the oidor, witness: Don Juan de la Cruz, governor of Xilotepec. 181. AGI, Justicia, 239, residencia hearing on Hernando Gómez de Santillán, 1554, testimony of Don Juan de la Cruz, governor of Xilotepec. 182. Ibid., residencia hearing documents for the descargos: copy of a grant of four ranch sites bestowed by Viceroy Mendoza, “con dos caballerías de tierra” per site, the original document is dated in Mexico, January 13, 1547, fols. 1301v–1302. 183. On Diego de Guevara’s appointment as alcalde mayor of Diego Guevara, see Antonio Tello, Crónica Miscelánea de la Sancta Provincia de Xalisco por fray . . . , vol. 1 (México City: IJAH/INAH, 1973), Libro segundo, cap. CLIX, 407; on Santillán’s and Guevara’s kinship, see Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 195–196. They were married to two sisters, daughters of the encomendero in part of Meztitlán, Andrés de Barrios, conqueror and relative of Hernán Cortés. Barrios’s part was passed on to Diego de Guevara. The oidor was always partial to his wife’s brother-in-law: AGI, Justicia, 239, charge testimonies, witness: Juan de Guevara, scribe. 184. AGI, Justicia, 238, “Residencia tomada el año de 1553 a 1560, al licenciado Lorenzo de Tejada y Doctores Gómez de Santillán, Antonio de Mejia y Françisco Herrera, oidores de la Audiencia de México, por el Licenciado Diego López de Montealegre, oidor de la misma audiencia, Juez nombrado para este efecto,” residencia hearing on Oidor Hernando Gómez de Santillán, inquiries on the partiality of the Bishop of New Galicia in the lawsuit on the limits of the New Galicia and Michoacán dioceses, fols. 17–17v. 185. On the conflict between the New Galicia and Michoacán dioceses, see José Fco. Román Gutiérrez, “Sociedad y frontera: la creación de Nueva Galicia” (mimeo), 1989, 3–4; AGI, Justicia, 238, averiguaciones sobre la parcialidad en el pleito entre los obispos de Nueva Galicia y Michoacán, a favor del obispo del primero, fols. 8–10. On the relation between the Bishop of New Galicia and Oidor Santillán, see ibid., 239, residencia hearing on Oidor Santillán, charge testimonies, witnesses: Alonso de Bazán, neighbor in Mexico, and Gabriel Castellanos, neighbor in Mexico, who declared that in 1551 the bishop posaba (stayed) in the house of the oidor’s father-in-law, the oidor also living there. Furthermore, he baptized Oidor Santillán’s eldest son.

146 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

186. Román Gutiérrez, “Sociedad y frontera,” 5–6; AGI, Justicia, 238, residencia hearing on Oidor Hernando Gómez de Santillán, 1554, averiguaciones sobre la parcialidad en el pleito entre los obispos de Nueva Galicia y Michoacán, a favor del primero, fols. 3–7; AGI, Justicia, 239, residencia hearing, testimony of licenciado Caballero, Audiencia real lawyer; AGI, Guadalajara, 230, fols. 75v–76. 187. Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, fol. 42. 188. Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 25. 189. Ibid., 26. 190. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 27. 191. Ibid., 30, 34; Dusenberry, The Mexican Mesta, 32. 192. Gibson, The Aztecs, 243. 193. Cabildo session on September 17, 1540. 194. Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 35. 195. Gibson, The Aztecs, 243. 196. Ibid., 243–244. 197. AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against Mendoza, charge 15; AGI, Justicia, 258, charges testimony against Mendoza, witnesses: Alejo Maturano, “oficial de pañería” Texcoco resident, and Alonso Vázquez, regidor of Veracruz; Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 67–68. Gibson notes that “[d]uring the mid-century period, sheepherding and woolen manufacture enjoyed promotion under the highest auspices. The entrepreneurs included the oidor Lorenzo de Tejada and Antonio de Mendoza, the first viceroy.” In the mid-century sheepherding and wool production were greatly supported by the viceroyship as an institution; entrepreneurs included Antonio de Mendoza himself: Gibson, The Aztecs, 243. On the Mixtón War and the viceroy’s participation in it, see AGI, Justicia, 262, “Visita hecha el año de 1543 a 1547 al virrey de la Nueva España y presidente de la Real Audiencia de México, Don Antonio de Mendoza, a los oidores de ella. . . . Por el licenciado Françisco Tello de Sandoval del Consejo de su Majestad, en el de Indias, Visitador General de la Nueva España”; Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, 137–158; Hanke, La lucha, 282–283. 198. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, preparation for the visit, 67. During Sandoval’s visit the viceroy was accused of having acted cruelly when capturing and subduing the rebellious Indians in Mixtón: AGI, Justicia, 262; see also Hanke, La lucha, 226. 199. AGI, Justicia, 258, charges testimonies on the visit to Mendoza, witnesses: regidor of Mexico City Gerónimo López, regidor of Mexico City Gonzalo Ruiz, and Diego de Orozco. 200. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 67–68. 201. AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, testimony of Alonso Vázquez, regidor of Veracruz. 202. Ibid., charges testimonies against Viceroy Mendoza, witness: Alejo Maturana, Texcoco resident, who said that “este testigo ha dado la industria para hacer los dichos paños y los ha hecho en el dicho batán y ha tenido y tiene charge de la dicha hacienda y de hacer los dichos paños, y le dan por ello la cuarta parte de los paños que se hacen en el dicho tinte, pagada la costa.” 203. Ibid., testimonies of charges against Viceroy Mendoza, witness: Iñigo López, criado of Viceroy Mendoza’s brother. 204. Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 108; Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 436, note 702. 205. Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 107.

— 147

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

206. Before 1535, sugar was produced in the Cempoala region: Ibid., 108; AGI, Justicia, 116. When accountant Rodrigo de Albornoz y Nuño de Guzmán was governor of Pánuco, there was a suit in 1532 over the titles to usufruct a sugar mill on the banks of the Cempoala River. On a mill that belonged to Hernán Cortés, see AGI, Justicia, 146, Marqués del Valle’s lawsuit against Antonio de la Cadena and Isabel Ojeda over the utilization and felling of trees by de la Cadena and Ojeda in the hills of the town of Cuernavaca for a mill that belonged to the Marqués del Valle’s jurisdiction; Ward Barrett, The Sugar Hacienda of the Marques del Valle (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970). 207. Barrett, The Sugar Hacienda of the Marques del Valle, 106. 208. AGI, Justicia, 259, charges that resulted from the secret visit in 1546, charge 29; AGI, Justicia, 258, testimony of Francisco Santa Cruz, regidor of Mexico City, and testimony of Pedro Villegas, also regidor of Mexico City; “ha oído decir que [the viceroy] hace un ingenio de azúcar, hacia la costa de Veracruz,” testimony of Juan Tello de Medina, Mexico City neighbor. Orizaba was indeed an encomienda of Juan Coronel’s: Gerhard, A Guide, 205. 209. Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 162. 210. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimony of Juan de Sandoval, Mexico City neighbor. 211. Ibid., testimony of Rodrigo Castañeda, Mexico City neighbor. 212. Ibid., testimony of Juan de Cuevas, scribe of mines. 213. Miguel León Portilla, Hernán Cortés y la mar del Sur (Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica, Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana, 1985), 50–51. 214. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 22–57. 215. Milagros del Vas Mingo, Las capitulaciones de Indias en el Siglo XVI (Madrid: Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericano, 1986), April 16, 1538, 344–350; Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, 122. 216. Portilla, Hernán Cortés, 122–124; Bustamante, Don Antonio de Mendoza, 29; George Parker Winship, The Coronado Expedition (Chicago: Rio Grande Press, 1963 [Washington, D.C.: 1896]); George P. Hammond and Agapito Rey, Narrative of the Coronado Expedition, 1540–1542 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1949); Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza. 217. Bustamante, Don Antonio de Mendoza, 42. Coronado arrived in New Spain in 1535 as part of Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza’s retinue: Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, 124. 218. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charges against Mendoza, witnesses: Francisco Telléz and Andrés de Tapia; AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Mendoza, charge 27: the viceroy allowed Coronado to buy his encomiendas of Indians. 219. Bustamante, Don Antonio de Mendoza, 47. Believing he was about to discover rich and populated lands, Mendoza devoted himself to organizing an expedition to the north. Coronado, the governor of New Galicia, was in charge of the venture, and the viceroy allowed him to receive his salary as governor during his absence from the office: AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Viceroy Mendoza. 220. Bustamante, Don Antonio de Mendoza, 47. 221. Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, note 18, 125; ibid., 57; Dusenberry, The Mexican Mesta, 32. 222. Bustamante, Don Antonio de Mendoza, 58. 223. Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, 137–158; ibid., 73–85. Conqueror Hernán Cortés, Marqués del Valle, rightly accused Mendoza of having triggered the Indian rising in Mixtón, since he had made a gigantic demand of people and food supplies for his

148 —

RESHAPING NEW SPAIN

expeditions: AGI, Justicia, 258, documents of charges for the visit; AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against Mendoza, charge 35. 224. Bustamante, Don Antonio de Mendoza, 64–65. 225. Ibid., 64. 226. Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, 126. 227. Bustamante, Don Antonio de Mendoza, 51; ibid., 128. 228. Portilla, Hernán Cortés, 116, 121. 229. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, doc. 7, prepared by Antonio de Mendoza for the visit, dated January 8, 1547: 79; AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against Antonio de Mendoza, charge 34. 230. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 97–98. 231. AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against the Viceroy, testimony of an official of “hacer toneles.” 232. Efraín Trelles Arestegui, Lucas Martínez, Vegazo: Funcionamiento de una encomienda peruana inicial (Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 1983), 60. 233. AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Mendoza, testimony of an official of “hacer toneles.” 234. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 45–46. 235. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charges against Viceroy Mendoza, Marqués del Valle (Hernán Cortés) on the residencia he demanded for the Viceroy, Valladolid, 1543; testimonies against the Viceroy, witnesses: Alonso Vázquez, regidor of Veracruz, and Hernando de Vergara. 236. Ibid., charges against Viceroy Mendoza, witness: Alonso Vázquez, regidor of Veracruz. 237. Ibid. 238. Ibid., testimonies of the visit to Viceroy Mendoza, witness: Diego de Zárate, the Bishop of Oaxaca’s brother. 239. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, 98. 240. Ibid., 100. 241. AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, testimony of Hernando de Vergara. 242. Ibid., testimonies of charge against the Viceroy, witness: Pedro de Villegas. 243. María Justina Sarabia Viejo’s “Posibilidades de la especiería mexicana en la economía mundial del siglo XVI,” in Andalucía y América en el siglo XVI (Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 1983), 396–399; Sarabia Viejo, Don Luis de Velasco, 403–405. 244. Sarabia Viejo, “Posibilidades de la especiería,” 397–398. 245. Silvio Zavala, Asientos de la gobernación de la Nueva España (México City: Archivo General de la Nación, 1982), 58. 246. Ibid., 166.

— 149

A ROYAL OFFICIAL AS ENTREPRENEUR

— 3 —

A ROYAL OFFICIAL AS ENTREPRENEUR The Case of Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada

In this chapter I stress the entrepreneurial activity carried out by one of the first officials of New Spain, Lorenzo de Tejada, based on the Crown’s political power in Mexico. It might appear that an apparently isolated case does not enable us to obtain sufficient elements for analysis and valid conclusions to interpret the process of securing colonial society. In this official’s personality, however, added to his entrepreneurial capacity and the functions deriving from his post in the upper hierarchy, we find that he created a wide range of socioeconomic relations with other officials and colonists. He thus formed a dense network extending into various sectors of society, the consequences of which can only be understood in the light of the conditions of that time. I have attempted to trace and outline these relations in a way that allows a closer look at the origin and development of the enterprises other Spaniards carried out, either alternatively or in a relationship with these. Tejada’s interest in Indian lands fits within a tendency that arose from the very beginning of colonial domination. It affected the Indian population directly, and Tejada is merely one example among many others. To analyze in detail his entrepreneurial behavior also entails meticulously observing economic behavior within the framework projected by the political game. Even in its legislative attempts, this

— 151 —

— 151


game created situations difficult to put into practice or that involved the decline of some social sector. It is difficult to know anything of licenciado (lawyer) Lorenzo de Tejada’s biography before his arrival in Mexico in 1537, on his appointment as oidor (judge). The information existing in the General Archives of the Indies about the time he was oidor and an active entrepreneur in New Spain allows us to build a more or less complete image of his presence in both spheres, showing that one did not exclude the other. Among the few things we know about Tejada is that he was appointed oidor for Mexico, replacing Vasco de Quiroga, on April 4, 1537. He was surely not well off when he started in the office, since he borrowed 85 gold ducats from scribe Alonso de Cazalla to undertake his journey to New Spain. From the documents in which these liabilities appear, we know Tejada was from Santo Domingo de la Calzada, in the province of Rioja, Spain. On his arrival in Mexico, the salary the Crown assigned him—the same as for the rest of the oidores—from 1535 on was 500,000 maravedís per year. By 1550 this wage was considered insufficient and therefore was raised to 650,000 maravedís per year, “to which were added 150,000 more as cost of living allowance as of January 1st, 1550. This was however not paid afterwards.”1 Regarding Tejada’s economic activities, I have found that the authors who speak of him only mention incidentally and in a general way his properties and businesses without considering them as a whole, although several authors agree that he was an outstanding personality. Arthur Aiton, for example, considers him one of the first investors in land in the New World. It is important to emphasize that the Crown forbade officials from engaging in economic ventures during the term of their office, especially from 1550 on.2 I am particularly interested in three aspects of Oidor Tejada’s economic activity in Mexico: (1) his land and property, (2) his agricultural enterprises and commercial activity conducted through a tianguis (market) in Mexico City, and (3) the Indian labor he used. The analysis of these spheres of economy in New Spain is important not only to understand how he accumulated his patrimony and the wealth it could bring but also because his economic activities are related to the problems of commercialization of lands and Indian labor in the mid-sixteenth century. I will also stress the relationship that arose between the oidor’s economic activity and the exercising of his administrative functions, since this tie shows the complexity of social life and the development of the new colonial order.

152 —


TWISTING THE LAW: APPROPRIATION OF INDIAN LANDS Royal Grants of Land It was under the administration of the first viceroy of Mexico, Antonio de Mendoza, that Oidor Tejada undertook his entrepreneurial activity. Initially, the oidor’s economic activities were centered on acquiring lands to set up an agricultural venture in the Valley of Mexico, specifically in Tacuba-Chapultepec. Charles Gibson mentions that at that time there were three basic forms by which Spaniards could obtain lands. The first was through purchase and exchange. The second was by directly receiving royal grants—known as mercedes of land—of sites for mills, water rights, land for cattle, and similar uses. These grants were made by the viceroy on behalf of the king to a private individual, whether a Spaniard or an Indian, as well as to the Indian towns. Normally, most such grants were given to Spaniards. These mercedes were only to be given if they did not affect a third party, and the corregidor (official in charge of the district) was responsible for seeing that this was so, especially in the lands close to Indian towns. The third method was through the use of privileges by some encomenderos (those who possessed grants of land), colonists, and political authorities of the colony. As we can see, the first two methods are relatively legal operations, whereas the third is not.3 In the case of officials and powerful Spaniards, in general and because of their prestige, they used the first two mechanisms simultaneously to obtain lands they were interested in and thus disguise their actions. In Tejada’s case, this is what happened. In fact, in Tejada’s process of accumulating lands (mainly traced through Indian statements at the residencia [court] hearing against the oidor, in the documentary reserve of the General Archives of the Indies), most of the lands he obtained were from Indian communities, whereas a very small part belonged to Tlatelolco Indian nobles. For greater clarity in this chapter, and because I am dealing with a very early period—earlier than the widespread transformations in Indian property in the mid-sixteenth century—I think it is relevant to use the term collectively exploited lands when referring to those that belonged to towns and satisfied the different demands for tribute. The fact that Tejada took over Indian lands was damaging to Indian interests and an infringement of the laws in force, which prevented Spaniards from possessing such lands. Oidor Tejada tried to disassemble this infringement, however, by using legal loopholes. From the contrast between Tejada’s statements and arguments for the defense and the testimonies and accusations formulated by Indians during the residencia hearings on the oidor in 1554, I

— 153


would emphasize the apparently legal ways an authority such as Tejada used to take over Indian lands and that, on a smaller scale, other colonists were able to employ with this aim in mind. Likewise, to calculate the injury stemming from this type of activity in the Indian towns affected, we must take into account the terrible situation involving Indian property after the Spanish conquest.4 To take a closer look at the mechanisms used by Tejada in acquiring lands, we must go beyond the legal formulas in force that regulated colonists’ access to land. As the analysis focuses on finding out the means used in each case to give a legal appearance to dispossession, I will stress the agricultural and territorial policy followed during Viceroy Mendoza’s administration. During the years when Lorenzo de Tejada was engaged in agricultural ventures, a political conjuncture officially encouraged colonists to devote themselves to agriculture. Recall, to see the truth of this statement, the official encouragement to found the city of Puebla de los Angeles during the Second Audiencia administration (see Chapter 1). Both the Crown and the authorities tried at that time to foster the colonists’ interest in agricultural ventures. Earlier in the Second Audiencia, the Crown had delegated to its members a major role in granting gifts of land.5 The Second Audiencia’s presiding judge, Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal, however, foresaw the danger for Indian lands and therefore recommended that the Crown limit grants of land to Spaniards to two caballerías (1 caballería equaled 106 acres), adding that no one should be allowed to have more “neither by means of purchase nor by donation, nor by any other title.” Otherwise, in a very short time—for the price set by the Spaniards or even without any payment—they would encroach on the lands of Indian nobles and communities, “given the docility and the submissive nature of these people.”6 Fuenleal was right: the distribution of lands by means of royal grants, in general, harmed the lands that belonged to native communities, as occurred in Tacuba in 1560 where “it could be said that Indians were barely able to settle around their church.”7 Even so, at the beginning of Mendoza’s administration the colonists’ interest in acquiring lands was facilitated by the prerogative conceded by the Crown to the first viceroy in 1535 to grant caballerías of land to conquistadores (Spaniards who took part in subduing campaigns) and early settlers. This is clear from the royal orders in October 1535, which mentioned the need some colonists had expressed to obtain lands in Azcapotzalco, Tacuba, and Tenayuca. For this the Crown ordered that the Municipal Council of Mexico City should be given permission to distribute caballerías of land in that area, as long as this measure was not detrimental to third parties. In addition, in other

154 —


royal orders in 1538, the Crown mentioned to Viceroy Mendoza that it was “important that the Spaniards should go into cultivating the land and sowing wheat and vegetables and plants, and they should thereby see what was most fitting for the population and perpetuity of New Spain.”8 In those years, as I have pointed out, the conquistadores clamored for a general repartimiento (labor distribution) in perpetuity. Meanwhile, the Crown put the distribution of lands among Spaniards into practice. This required a set of decrees. One of the most important was that Antonio de Mendoza should simplify the unit of measurement for a caballería to bring about some homogeneity in the size of royal grants of land. Thus it was that as of 1536 it was determined that the caballería would be equivalent to an area 552 times 1,104 ordinary varas (1 vara = 0.84 meter).9 During the years of Mendoza’s administration, the distribution of land to colonists increased considerably, as grants of land to Spaniards provided a way out of the colony’s internal social tensions. In other words, Spanish groups were compensated through land concessions for the loss of control over the encomienda (grant) system, which the Crown took over little by little. At the outset, a great deal of this distribution was made to the detriment of Indian lands located in the Valley of Mexico. Witnesses at the time asserted that Mendoza distributed lands to Spaniards in direct detriment to Indian property, mentioning that the areas of Tacuba, Tacubaya, and Azcapotzalco were the most affected.10 In fact, of the 218 grants of land the viceroy granted to Spaniards during 1542–1543, over half corresponded to grants to encomenderos. In this sense, and as was seen in Chapter 2, the granting of corregimientos also meant a compensation for some encomenderos, although there is no doubt that the gifts of land offered more comprehensive gratification since there were not enough corregimientos to satisfy the demands of all the conquistadores and new settlers. In addition, the colonists’ access to land facilitated the increase of agricultural estates and orchards that could produce staples such as wheat to supply the Mexico City market. It is a well-known fact that at this stage and for a number of economic reasons, the Indians refused to grow wheat. And their refusal, in a certain way, justified the establishment of Spanish farms and undoubtedly accelerated the acquisition of lands.11 In fact, in those years agricultural development in the colony received great support from the Crown for economic reasons. In 1535 Andalucia suffered a severe drought that caused a drop in the production of wheat, affecting the supply of the cereal to the Indies. In part for this reason, the Crown was interested in seeing that enough wheat was grown in New Spain to meet the demand of the islands and the mainland during years of dearth.12

— 155


Another factor that should be stressed is the encouragement the Crown gave to agriculture during Mendoza’s administration through the distribution of lands, which favored the development of mining when the settlers were selfsufficient in agricultural products.13 Thus, the first grants of caballerías of land outside the Spanish districts were given to encomenderos who wanted to cultivate lands near Indian towns and also to mine owners who needed them to feed their workers.14 In general, the Spaniards’ interest in obtaining lands was clear after the development of a Spanish colonial market that did not depend mainly on the encomienda for its supply. Thus, Tejada’s property was one of the first agricultural exploitations that contributed to the development of this colonial market, although it might seem too soon to talk of this since in some authors’ opinion agriculture was not developed in Spanish towns until 1550, with notable exceptions.15 I believe both Tejada’s ranch and other agricultural and stock-raising ventures in the hands of royal officials and encomenderos willing to invest their capital in land during those years are far more than an early exception. Therefore, they represent antecedents worth taking into account for the study of colonial landed property and later agricultural development.16 Tejada’s eagerness to obtain lands in the Tacuba-Chapultepec area in the Valley of Mexico is not an isolated case. In 1527 some colonists had expressed interest in that area, especially in the lands close to the towns stretching from Coyoacán to Tenayuca. Its great fertility and strategic position near Mexico City made Tacuba especially coveted by some Spaniards.17 It is difficult to locate the exact position of the lands Tejada took over (see Map 4). The notaries’ records used as evidence in his defense, as well as testimonies from the time, show that they were in a place called Ximilpan. This land was also somewhere between Tacuba, the edge of the Mexico City ejido (community land), the road to Tacuba, and the edge of Chapultepec. A contemporary of Tejada’s located them between the ejido of Mexico City and the town of Tacuba, near Chapultepec. Lorenzo de Tejada increased his lands in that area over a period of approximately six years, from 1539 to 1545 (see Map 4).18 Furthermore, these lands in Ximilpan belonged in part to Indians and nobles of Tlatelolco, settled in barrios (subdivisions) of Tacuba, and to the Indians of Tacuba.19 The acquisition of these lands was justified by the oidor through the simultaneous use of legal operations such as royal grants, purchase, and swaps of land—mainly with Indians. Based on the existing laws, Tejada acquired lands in Tacuba without needing recourse only to royal grants of land there, and, naturally, at no time did he admit that his lands had increased at the cost of

156 —


Map 4 (Source Table 5). Lands Acquired by Oidor Tejada

Indian landownership. The purchase of Indian lands by Spaniards was restricted by the law because of the large number of transactions carried out, generally in circumstances not favorable to the Indian communities (e.g., forced sales or paying very little for the lands). As for the mechanism of land ex-

— 157


change, we know of no special sanctions. Through viceregal approval, however, Tejada justified the use of this mechanism to get his lands, allowing for the possibility that it was a transaction that could be carried out through the vigilance of the viceroy or the Audiencia. But, in fact, it did not seem to be regulated as a purchase of land from Indians.20 A second problem consisted of the fact that the exchange or swapping of lands was difficult to control. Some Spaniards, for example, succeeded in exchanging with Indians of the Valley of Mexico less valuable lands for other, more fertile ones and, above all, ones close to an important market, such as that of the city.21 With the aim of justifying his Tacuba property legally, the oidor had recourse to the purchase and exchange of lands. As can be seen in Table 3.1, the oidor enjoyed practically no royal grant of land for cultivation in Tacuba. Of the five royal grants handed over to him in that area and in Azcapotzalco, only one corresponded to lands in Azcapotzalco (which remained in his hands for a very short time). Of the four that remained, two were not for cultivated land (one was a grant of water rights and the other referred to the building of a mill). The other two, which were indeed farmlands, had not been originally granted in his name (see Table 3.1a). It is therefore not surprising that to obtain his lands in Ximilpan, the oidor proved that he had carried out eleven purchase and exchange operations. Unlike the intricate movement just described, the lands he enjoyed in Chalco were totally legalized through three royal grants (see Table 3.1b). Probably by that time the attractive lands in the Tacuba area were held by a large number of Spaniards. Tejada stated that when he arrived in New Spain in 1537, between Chapultepec and Cuajimalpa forty-four caballerías of land had been distributed to Mexico City residents.22 When Tejada started acquiring land in Tacubaya, a significant number of Indians were still living on them. Francisco Gudiel, an owner in the area, stated in 1554 that on the land where Tejada had his estate, formerly there had been “many” houses of Indians from Tacubaya, Tlatelolco, and Mexico City.23 Perhaps this native and Spanish occupation led the oidor to decide to have recourse to purchase and exchange as a more credible legal form for accrediting his possessions.24 Through the notarial documents Tejada presented as evidence in his defense during Tello de Sandoval’s visit in 1544 and the residencia hearing to which he was subjected in 1554, we know indirectly that, in addition to Tejada, between the years 1538 and 1545 at least the Spaniards listed here and one native interpreter had lands in the area where the oidor had settled—the rich agricultural lands of Tacuba-Chapultepec and Tacuba-ejidos of Mexico City.

158 —

Means of Acquisition

Bought from don Hernando, “On the way to Ximilpan” indio gob. De Tlatelolco1

Merced virrey Mendoza

Traspaso of merced virrey Mendoza2

Trueque with Diego de Cateca, gobernador of San Pablo, México

Merced virrey Mendoza3

Trueque with Indians of México y Santiago

11/Sep/1540

15/Sep/1540

18/Sep/1540

16/Feb/1541

18/Jun/1541

27/Jun/1541


San Miguel “the limits of México City”

Trueque with Fco. Rodríguez Odrero

22/Jul/1540

Ximilpan, “beside the ejido* of México City”

Chalco Atengo

Chapultepec

Ximilpan, “behind Chapultepec”

“On the way to Ximilpan and Tepeselulco”

1) “near Chapultepec” 2) Ximilpan 3) Ximilpan 4) Ximilpan

Bought from Fco. Rodríguez “Pago from Ximilpan,” “to Odrero and Pedro the limits of México City” Rodríguez Parrón

“Calzada* from Atutlauaca to Azcapotzalco”

Location

22/Apr/1540 Bought from four Indians from Santiago Tlatelolco barrios*

2/Feb/1540

24/Nov/1539 Merced virrey Mendoza

Date

Table 3.1 Rural Lands Acquired by Oidor Tejada

¼ caballería

1½ caballerías

135 brazas by 100 brazas (cultivated)

½ caballería

280 brazas by 30 brazas


2 small huts* and 20 “square” brazas* 3 small huts and 20 brazas 2 small huts and 20 brazas

2½ caballerías

1½ caballerías*

Extension

In exchange for Tejada’s lands in Chalco (supra)

Fco. de Triana took possession on behalf of Tejada

In exchange for Tejada’s lands in Azcapotzalco; with the alcalde’s permission

To plant trees from Castilla

Merced of water for land

Cost: 14 pesos of common gold With the alcalde’s permission

Exchanged for lands also located in San Miguel

Cost: 3 pesos of common gold Cost: 1 peso and 4 tomines of gold Cost: 3 pesos of common gold Cost: 3 pesos of common gold

Cost: 60 pesos of gold mines

Bounded by Indians’ lands Nontransferable

Observations


— 159



Merced virrey Mendoza

Trueque with Juan de Manzanares

8/Feb/1543

9/Nov/1543

18/Sep/1545

20/Jan/1552

½ caballería

The swap had taken place eight years earlier

Taken away from Cristóbal Sánchez Gálvez because he had sold it

Land for a mill; Francisco de Melgar took possession on behalf of Tejada

Hernando Alonso took possession on behalf of Tejada

In exchange for Tejada’s lands in Chalco; Viceroy Mendoza gave permission

Cost: 3 pesos common gold With the alcalde’s permission

In exchange for the land Tejada bought from Pedro Osorio

Observations

*See Glossary. Source: AGI, Justicia, 237, fols. 679–861 (“Escrituras para descargos del juicio de residencia del oidor Tejada”). 1. The lands were bought from this Indian by Francisco Gudiel Barbero, Tejada’s frontman. 2. Originally, this merced de tierras had been given to Pedro Rodríguez Parrón on August 9, 1538; according to Tejada, Rodríguez Parrón wanted to yield those lands to him, so the men went to the viceroy to make the necessary arrangements. 3. This corresponds to the merced real of three caballerías, which was delivered in two parts. Real Cédula from May 13, 1540. 4. On July 16, 1544, Viceroy Mendoza granted Tejada a merced to build a mill in the irrigation ditch “from the river of Tacuba,” thereby granting permission for all necessary dams and sluices to be built.

Royal road that stretches to Tacuba

Cuajimalpa, “behind” Chapultepec


1½ caballerías

“In the pathway of Tacuba, 15 cuerdas* by adjoining with the cuerdas of 2½ caballerías Tejada Adjoining the ejido 280 brazas by 120 brazas of México City”

Trueque with two groups of Indian neighbors of México City

9/Dec/1542

From Chalco Atengo to Tenango

In the limits of “México City” 40 brazas “all around”


Extension

10/Nov/1542 Bought from indio Miguel del Barrio de Stgo.

Trueque with Antonio Bravo “Above the llanos* of Chapultepec”

21/Oct/1541

Location


Date


“In acequia* of Tacuba River”

Cuajimalpa “behind Chapultepec”

16/Jul/1544 Merced virrey Mendoza2

18/Sep/1545 Merced virrey Mendoza

Taken from Cristóbal Sánchez Gálvez

To build a mill

To plant “árboles de Castilla”

Bounded by Francisco Rodríguez/Cristóbal Pérez Romano

Bounded by Pedro Valenciano/tierras de indios/royal road that stretches to Tacuba/ Tejada’s lands

Francisco Rodríguez/Pedro de Vargas

They also received the merced with lands in the area: Alonso de Mérida, Pedro Valenciano, Francisco de Rincón, Francisco Sánchez, Francisco Rodríguez, Francisco Gudiel, Alonso Gutiérrez

Bounded by Tomás de Rijoles’s lands/one irrigation ditch

Bounded by maizales* from “indios macehuales”*

Neighboring Lands

On November 9, 1544, Francisco de Melgar took possession on behalf of Oidor Tejada

Participating “Partners”

*See Glossary. Source: AGI, Justicia, 237, fols. 679–861 (“Escrituras para descargos del juicio de residencia del oidor Tejada”). 1. Originally, this merced de tierras had been granted to Pedro Rodríguez Parrón on August 9, 1538. According to Tejada, Rodríguez Parrón wanted to yield those lands to him, so the men went to the viceroy to make the necessary arrangements. 2. The merced granted to Tejada allowed him to build all necessary dams and sluices.

½ caballería

½ caballería

Ximilpan “behind Chapultepec”

18/Sep/1540 Traspaso de merced virrey Mendoza1

Merced of water for cultivation lands

“On the way to Ximilpan and Tepeselulco”

15/Sep/1540 Merced virrey Mendoza

Observations

“Road from 1½ caballerías Bounded by Indians’ Coatlayuaca lands; nontransferable to Azcapotzalco”

Extension


Location

“Road from 1½ caballerías May be the same one Coatlayuaca granted on November to Azcapotzalco” 24, 1539, land



Date

Table 3.1a Royal Grants to Oidor Tejada: Azcapotzalco and Chapultepec-Ximilpan

162 —


8/feb/1543

Neighboring Lands

1½ caballerías (Given by Mendoza); lands that belonged to “Juan el Tuerto” and to the Indian principal of Chapultepec/Indians’ lands

Extension

From Chalco 1½ caballerías Atengo to Tenango

Chalco Atengo

Location

Hernando Alonso, procurador del oidor Tejada, took possession; interpreter: Hernando de Tapia; attendants: Damián y Bartolomé, “indios principales,”* alcalde y alguacil* of Tlalmanalco, respectively; distribution performed by Martín de Peralta

Francisco de Triana took possession on behalf of Tejada; distribution performed by Martín de Peralta; scrivener: Juan de Manzanares


*See Glossary. Source: AGI, Justicia, 237, fols. 679–861 (“Escrituras para descargos del juicio de residencia del oidor Tejada”). 1. A merced real of three caballerías, given in two parts; Real Cédula, May 15, 1540.



18/jun/1541

Date

Table 3.1b Royal Grants to Oidor Tejada: Chalco



1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Alonso de Mérida Pedro Valenciano, encomendero Pedro Vargas Francisco, locksmith Francisco del Rincón Francisco Sánchez Francisco Rodríguez Francisco Gudiel Alonso Gutiérrez Hernando de Tapia, Indian interpreter for the Audiencia Antonio Ortiz, Audiencia interpreter Juan de Manzanares, encomendero Antonio Bravo, encomendero Licenciado Diego Téllez, encomendero Cristobal Pérez Román Gerónimo Trias had rights over a stream Pedro Rodríguez Parrón

We know from another source that between 1538 and 1550, in the pago (a particular district of land, especially vineyards or olive groves) of Cuajimalpa, on the edge of Tacuba, these persons had lands and mills: 18. Antonio Isidro (through a royal grant of land made in 1538; the following year he also received a royal grant for a cattle ranch) 19. Juan Cano, conquistador and encomendero of Tacuba (through a royal grant of land made in 1546) 20. Diego de Nuñez (received two royal grants of land in 1538 and 1542) 21. Antonio de la Cadena, encomendero (through a royal grant of land made in 1554; he bought some land from Indian nobles of Coyoacán in 1548 and in 1550 from Juan de la Peña Vallejo) 22. Alonso Ortiz de Zuñiga (through a royal grant of land) 23. Francisco Luzena (through a royal grant of land made in 1544) 24. Alonso de Malvenda (through a royal grant of land in 1544) 25. Juan de la Pena Vallejo (bought land from a Spaniard in 1545, and in 1555 received a royal grant of land) 26. Licenciado Hernando de Santillán, Audiencia oidor (royal grant of a mill) 27. Gonzalo (Hernando) de Salazar, treasury official (had a mill before 1551)

Thus, within the territorial limits of Tacuba and before the mid-sixteenth century, there were twenty-seven properties belonging to Spaniards, which for the most part were lands. Some of these owners, in turn, probably purchased them from the Tlatelolco Indians.25 Furthermore, in those years the lands of ChalcoAtenco were not of special interest to the Spanish group. Their distribution

— 163


started in significant fashion in 1580.26 There it was sufficient for Tejada to receive a royal land grant, by means of which he took lands from the Indians. Unlike Tacuba, at no time did any Spaniard declare having lands near Tejada in that area of Chalco. From this discussion we can see not only the importance of the Tacuba lands for the Spaniards from that time on but also, above all, the difficulty Tejada had in settling there—especially in the Mexico City ejidos—without affecting the interests of some Spaniards and particularly those of the Indians. Roughly speaking, and as seen through Tejada’s notarial documents, this process of acquisition developed as follows. In 1539 he received a royal grant of lands in Azcapotzalco; the following year two more were granted to him in Tacuba (a royal grant of water rights and a transfer of a royal land grant). In 1540 he made an exchange of lands with a Spaniard in Tacuba, and in 1541 he made his first exchange with Indians. In this last case the exchange was made with the Indian governor of San Pablo, Mexico City, who had lands in Tacuba. For this exchange Tejada used his lands in Azcapotzalco (see Table 3.1). Through another royal grant he obtained in Chalco in 1541, he exchanged lands with Tlatelolco Indians for ones they had in Tacubaya. In 1542 the oidor again exchanged some of his lands in Chalco with Mexico City Indians for others they had in Tacuba. In the years 1543–1545 he obtained two royal grants: one of land in Cuajimalpa, the other on the highway to Tacuba (royal grant of a mill). With regard to the procedure of acquiring lands through purchase, he bought three plots in Tacuba in 1540 and the following year bought another one in that area from a Tlatelolco Indian. These notarial documents do not reflect the size of the lands the oidor acquired in the area, nor do they coincide with Indian accusations of Tejada having dispossessed them of lands, as they stated during the oidor’s residencia hearing. I believe the notarial documents presented as proof by Tejada during his residencia hearing, although not false, legalized the dispossessions the Indians denounced at the hearing—accusations that will be seen further on. Some scribes and interpreters of the Audiencia played a major role, as did members of the Mexico City Municipal Council (some of whom, in turn, had real estate in Tacuba) in Tejada’s justification, through various notarial documents, of his possession of lands that originally belonged to Indians from Tacuba, Chalco, and Tlatelolco. I will pay special attention to this matter because of the importance of the machinery and mechanisms of Spanish colonial domination and because it has not normally been dealt with in the existing historiography. Thanks to these officials, the oidor was able to prove and present notarial documents testifying to legal possession of lands in Tacuba, Chalco,

164 —


and Azcapotzalco. For example, Tejada bribed some lawyers of the Audiencia in Mexico who were dealing with the lawsuits of his mining partner, Pedro de Sandoval, “offering favors to them.” Likewise, he was a friend of the chief constable, Juan de Samano, the first encomendero of that name in Zinacantepec, near Toluca. The oidor was accused of having sold him the office of chief constable of Mexico City for 10,000 ducats, so it is not difficult to think he may also have bribed scribes and interpreters.27 To see this matter in full detail, I have located people’s names who are linked to the oidor’s private interests and who through their office—emphasizing interpreters and scribes—or as witnesses appear in the notarial documents on the oidor’s lands. In general, it is of interest to study the relationships—normally of an economic and sometimes a family type—existing between certain interpreters, scribes, corregidores, and others and high-ranking royal officials with encomenderos, estate holders, and similar dignitaries. After all, the former translated statements, signed documents of purchase and exchanges, and measured and sanctioned royal grants of land, mills, water rights, and cattle ranches. That is, they were in charge of applying the mechanisms that gave a legal character to the business carried out by the most powerful socioeconomic and political sector of the colony. Some persons belonging to that social circle, in addition to having influence and power, possessed a formal legal defense. At least this is what occurred throughout Tejada’s process of taking over lands in Chalco and Tacuba. Although the Indians protested and tried to assert their rights, requesting the return of their lands, it was not easy to prove that their pictorial records—or “paintings,” as they were termed in the documents of the time—had greater veracity than the deeds drawn up before a royal scribe or the testimony given by some corregidores.28 Moreover, some of the Audiencia interpreters and one royal scribe had economic interests in common with the oidor, and their names appear frequently in the notaries’ records sanctioning the purchase and exchange of lands by Tejada. One of the clearest examples is Juan de Manzanares, who appears alternately as royal scribe or as witness in several notarial documents (see Table 3.1c). Manzanares arrived in Mexico in 1537 together with Tejada, and he stated that he was a relative of the oidor.29 In 1548, with the backing of licenciado Tejada, Manzanares married the daughter of the encomendero of Hueypustla, Pedro de Valenciano,30 who also had a relationship with the oidor, since he shared with him a royal grant of water rights in Tacuba where he also had lands (see Table 3.1a). Over a period of ten years, Tejada handed over to Manzanares “many” Indians and laborers “for his agricultural work.” This

— 165

166 —

Bought from Fco. Rodríguez Odrero and Pedro Rodríguez Parrón

Means of Acquisition Extension

Bought from “Pago de don Hernando, Ximilpan” indio gob. de Tlatelolco1

4) Ximilpan

3) Ximilpan

1) “Near Chapultepec” 2) Ximilpan

Price: 60 pesos of mined gold

Observations

Cost: 3 pesos of common gold; with the alcalde’s permission

Cost: 14 pesos of common gold; with the alcalde’s permission

Exchange took place before el alcalde ordinario Juan de Burgos; interpreter: Antonio Ortíz

Witness: Juan de Manzanares; scrivener: Hernán Sánchez


Bounded by lands of Tlatelolco/Alonso de Tejada (that he bought from don Diego)/ Francisco Rodríguez Odrero/Alonso de Mérida

Exchange took place before el alcalde ordinario Jerónimo Ruiz de la Mota/interpreter: Pedro de Molina/witnesses: factor Hernando de Salazar, Juan de Arana/scrivener: Alonso Díaz de Gibraleón

Bounded by Indians from Exchange took place before el Tlatelolco/Alonso de alcalde ordinario Jerónimo de Mérida Medina/interpreter: Antonio Ortíz/scrivener: Juan de Manzanares

Bounded by Francisco Rodríguez/other lands of Tejada

Bounded by Francisco Rodríguez Odrero/ Francisco Enrique

Neighboring Lands

Source: AGI, Justicia, 237, fols. 679–861 (“Escrituras para descargos del juicio de residencia del oidor Tejada”). 1. The lands were bought from this Indian by Francisco Gudiel, Tejada’s frontman.

40 brazas “all around”


2 small huts Cost: 3 pesos of and 20 “square” common gold brazas Cost: 1 peso & 4 tomines of gold Cost: 3 pesos of common gold Cost: 3 pesos of common gold

“Pago de 2½ caballerías Ximilpan,” “at the limits of México City”

Location

10/Nov/1542 Bought from “In the limits Miguel, Indian of México from the City” Barrio de Stgo. Tlatelolco

11/Sep/1540

22/Apr/1540 Bought from four of the Indians of a neighborhood of Santiago

2/Feb/1540

Date

Table 3.1c Rural Lands Bought by Oidor Tejada in Ximilpan



“agricultural plot” consisted of some land in the area of Tacuba (see Table 3.1d) and a cattle ranch on the borders of the dioceses of Michoacán and Jalisco.31 In addition, one of the charges against Tejada during his residencia hearing was that he and Manzanares had a wine-trading company.32 Manzanares also appears as the scribe in some of the notarial records that legalized transactions of lands: a distribution of those corresponding to the royal grant Tejada received in Chalco (June 18, 1541; see Table 3.1b), a confirmation of purchase (June 12, 1541; see Table 3.1c), and an act of swap or exchange (July 22, 1540; see Table 3.1c). Manzanares signed as witness to a purchase of land (February 2, 1540; see Table 3.1c) and a swap (October 21, 1541; see Table 3.1d). Finally, he himself exchanged lands with Tejada by verbal agreement (January 20, 1552; see Table 3.1d). As has been mentioned, the use of Indian language (especially Nahuatl) interpreters (nahuatlato) was an important supporting instrument in Tejada’s legalization of his purchases and exchanges of Indian lands. In this sense, nahuatlato Hernando de Tapia and Antonio de Ortíz not only appeared in a large number of transactions, but both were also rewarded for their services. This was especially so in the case of Tapia, who had a close relationship with the oidor. Tapia was a “Spanish-speaking Indian interpreter of the náhuatl language” who offered his services to a number of colonists in their purchase of Indian lands, especially in the area of Tacuba. During the oidor’s residencia hearing, Tapia declared, with regard to his relationship with Tejada, that “he was always most of the times in business with Indians, as their interpreter in Licenciado Tejada’s house.”33 In exchange for his services, through a royal grant of land from Viceroy Mendoza, Tapia received lands in Tacuba bordering those of the oidor (see Table 3.1d).34 Tapia appears as interpreter in two exchanges Tejada carried out with Indians from Tlatelolco (June 27, 1541, and December 9, 1542; see Table 3.1d) and for the bestowing of the royal land grant in Chalco (February 8, 1543; see Table 3.1b). The Spaniard Antonio Ortíz, in addition to being interpreter for the Royal Audiencia, was deputy corregidor in Chinantla, Oaxaca, probably as compensation for his salary. Although I am not aware of the exact circumstances, I know Tejada unofficially handed over to Ortíz part of the lands of the Tlatelolco Indians located on the edge of Chapultepec. We can assume this was a payment for his services as interpreter in negotiations with Indians.35 Ortíz appears as nahuatlato in two purchases of land (April 22, 1540, and September 11, 1540; see Table 3.1c) and in an exchange (February 16, 1541; see Table 3.1d). Interestingly, Ortíz had some differences with the oidor, and during the visit of

— 167

Means of Acquisition Extension

1¼ caballerías

Ximilpan, “beside the ejido of México City”

“Above the ground of Chapultepec”

27/Jun/1541 Trueque with Indians from México and Santiago

21/Oct/1541 Trueque with Antonio Bravo


135 brazas by 100 brazas (sembrada)

“San Miguel 186 brazas within the limits by 36 brazas of México City”

Location

16/Feb/1541 Trueque with Chapultepec Diego de Cateca, Indian gob. from the barrio San Pablo, México1

22/Jul/1540 Trueque* with Fco. Rodríguez Odrero

Date

Table 3.1d Rural Lands Acquired by Oidor Tejada Through Swaps

Before alcalde ordinario Andrés de Barrios/ interpreter: Antonio Ortíz/ witnesses: Francisco de Jerez, Juan de Zaragoza

Witnesses: Juan Franco, Juan de Manzanares; scrivener: Gonzalo Ruiz

Chalco lands bounded by don Before Viceroy Mendoza/ Juan, governor of Santiago/ interpreters: Pedro de ”tierra que se señaló al indio, Molina, Hernando de Tapia cuya era la tierra donde se hizo el alberca junto a Chapultepec”/ ”tierras de indios que están señaladas a su majestad”; Ximilpan lands bounded by Alonso de Mérida/arroyo de Gerónimo Trias/Francisco Gudiel/Hernando de Tapia

In exchange for lands Boundaries: lands bounded by Tejada bought from each other /lic. Telléz/Francisco Pedro Osorio Cerrajero

In exchange for Tejada’s lands in Chalco (supra)


F. R. Odrero’s lands bounded by Witness: Juan de Arana/ some other lands that belong to scrivener: Juan de Tejada /other lands that belong Manzanares to Odrero himself; Tejada’s lands bounded by “heredad” Tejada/ Indians’ lands

Neighboring Lands

In exchange for Chapultepec lands bounded by some of Tejada’s other lands that belong to lands in AzcaTejada/Francisco Gudiel/ potzalco; with the Francisco Rodríguez Odrero; alcalde’s permission. Azcapotzalco lands bounded by Tomás de Rijoles

Exhanged them for lands also located in San Miguel

Observations

Trueque with Indians from México


Indicates that the swap took place eight years before

“On the path 15 cuerdas by In exchange for to Tacuba, 2½ cuerdas, Tejada’s lands bounded by 280 brazas by in Chalco; Viceroy Tejada’s land”; 120 brazas Mendoza gave “bounded with permission the ejido of México City” Manzanares lands bounded by “camino” to molinos de Pedro de Sandoval/Francisco Gudiel/ Pedro de Sandoval

Tacuba lands bounded by arroyo de Gerónimo Trias/Alonso de Mérida; Chalco lands bounded by lands appointed by the king / other lands that belong to Tejada

*See Glossary. Source: AGI, Justicia, 237, fols. 676–861 (“Escrituras para descargos del juicio de residencia del oidor Tejada”). 1. The lands were bought from this Indian by Francisco Gudiel, Tejada’s frontman.

20/Jan/1552 Trueque with Juan de Manzanares

9/Dec/1542

Before Viceroy Mendoza/ land measurer: Juan Franco/interpreters: Pedro de Molina, lands Hernando de Tapia


Tello de Sandoval to the viceroy and the Audiencia in 1544, he revealed some irregular transactions of Tejada’s. Although the oidor’s response was rapid, he forgot that Ortíz’s name appeared in notarial registers of his business dealings—or at least it appears so since Tejada presented a suit against Ortíz before the Audiencia accusing him of having sold Indian free men as slaves, having collected excessive tribute from the Indians of one town, abusing the Indians of the mines in Chiautla, and, above all, having “falsely interpreted business with Indians.”36 There is also knowledge of another interpreter of the Audiencia who appears in Tejada’s papers—Pedro Molina, a Spaniard. He was deputy corregidor in Tlapa (Guerrero) and probably encomendero of Santiago Camotlan (Oaxaca) until 1545.37 Molina took part as interpreter in a purchase between the oidor and some Indians (November 10, 1542; see Table 3.1d) and in two exchanges of lands carried out by Tejada (June 27, 1541, and December 9, 1542; see Table 3.1d). I have not found any economic benefit Molina may have received thanks to the influence of the oidor. Against any logic deriving from the nature of the corregidor office, of the three people appearing at some time to have received land on behalf of the oidor—acting as his agents—two were corregidores and one, Hernando Alonso, was simultaneously Tejada’s attorney. In the case of Francisco Melgar, corregidor in the town of Sochiguatla (Hidalgo) and in Tonaltepeque (Oaxaca), it is sure he took over, on Tejada’s behalf, a site for a mill in Tacuba (July 16, 1533; see Table 3.1a).38 Furthermore, Hernando Alonso, corregidor in Molango (Hidalgo), received, on behalf of Tejada, a part of his royal grant of lands in Chalco (February 8, 1543; see Table 3.1b).39 It is interesting to stress this, as Alonso was the oidor’s attorney. Tejada received one more element of legal backing for his real estate business from the Mexico City Municipal Council. The council tried to maintain its right to distribute lands (through royal grants of land sanctioned by him), but that claim was limited as of 1535 when the viceroy managed to centralize the process of land disposition. In 1532 the Audiencia had declared that municipal jurisdiction extended only as far as five leagues from the city. Seven years later, during Mendoza’s administration, that jurisdiction was increased to fifteen leagues. It was during this period, however, that the real limits of the city—surrounded as it was by encomiendas and corregimientos—were established. In Tejada’s time the jurisdiction of the Municipal Council reached as far as the limits of Tacuba (see Map 4). Hence, it is no surprise that when the oidor purchased or exchanged land in Tacuba with Indians, he would require the

170 —


service of an ordinary constable.40 Only on two occasions did he have recourse to the viceroy (June 27, 1541, and December 9, 1542) as a result of acquisitions of land—in the province of Chalco, which was farther away than the Tacuba area and outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Mexico City Municipal Council. Leaving aside the fact that Oidor Tejada tried to give a legal form to these purchases and exchanges of Indians’ lands in Tacuba within the limits of Mexico City, the Municipal Council of the capital was predisposed not to respect Indian ownership of those lands.41 The constables before whom the transactions were carried out were especially inclined to favor the oidor, not only because of his political influence but also because of economic and social interests they had in common. Of the four Mexico City chief constables with whose authorization Tejada arranged purchases of Indian lands, three had orchards on the road from Tacuba to Chapultepec: Juan de Burgos, present in one purchase (April 22, 1540; see Table 3.1c); Jerónimo de Medina (September 11, 1540; see Table 3.1c); and Jerónimo Ruiz de la Mota (November 10, 1542; see Table 3.1c). In addition, Andrés de Barrios, who was present when Tejada arranged an exchange of land (February 16, 1541; see Table 3.1d), was Oidor Hernando de Santillán’s father-in-law and did commercial business with Juan de Manzanares, Tejada’s nephew—namely, a money deposit the Indians of Oaxaca had made in Barrios. At the same time, all of these constables were important encomenderos: Medina had half of Tlanchinolticpan and Cuimantlán as encomienda; la Mota was encomendero of Chiuapa and Mitlaltongo and also possessed various estates; Barrios had half of Meztitlán in encomienda; and Burgos was encomendero of half of Teutenango, Hueytenango, and Cuzamala and its villages.42 Up to now, I have followed the notarial documents Tejada presented during his residencia hearing in an attempt to find some of the oidor’s social and economic relations with persons who assisted him in the formal obtaining of lands and who were part of a group with common interests—all without forgetting what a high office Tejada held, which no doubt enabled him to enjoy many privileges when carrying out his business ventures. This set of documentary references runs counter to Indians’ testimonies, which are so opposed in their statements to the notarial evidence presented by the oidor. In fact, the Indians’ pictorial records (presented at the residencia hearing on the oidor) differed substantially from the legal proof presented by Tejada. In none of the Indians’ statements does there appear any land purchase or exchange carried out by mutual agreement (see Table 3.2). Rather, we find that three large Indian communities in the Valley of Mexico—Chalco, Tacuba, and Tlatelolco—presented complaints against Oidor Tejada for dispossession of their lands. These

— 171


testimonies of Indian commoners and nobles contain valuable data that enable us to take a closer look at how Indians perceived the dispossession they had been subjected to.

Appropriation of Lands in Chalco Indians’ denunciations accusing Tejada of having taken over their lands are not isolated cases. A large number of lawsuits against Spaniards were filed because of problems of landownership.43 In the case of Tejada, however, the accusations are especially serious because he was an authority whose obligation was to protect Indians’ interests and to outline and put into effect policies on the Indian communities. With regard to the Indians’ statements against Tejada, we will see how this conflict was perceived in two cabeceras (main towns) of Chalco: Tlalmanalco and Tenango (Tenango-Tepopula), which were dispossessed of land by the oidor (see Table 3.2). This conflict worsened because of the complicity of the viceregal authority, as we will see.44 The Indians of Tlalmanalco, a cabecera of Chalco, declared before the Audiencia in 1554—during the residencia hearings on the oidor—that Tejada had asked the former Indian governor of Tlalmanalco, Don Francisco de Sandoval, and other native nobles to give him a certain sabana (plain, flat land)— “which is in Tapalcatetelco” and that “belonged” to the local Indians—but the native authorities refused the oidor’s request.45 Nevertheless, with the support of the viceroy, Tejada managed to obtain this land between 1540 and 1544. To achieve this, the viceroy sent Martín de Peralta, a judge responsible for distributing lands, to Tapalcatetelco to have him measure them. Once the measuring had been carried out, Peralta handed over the lands to the oidor. The governor of Tlalmanalco, Don Hernando de la Cerda, mentioned that Licenciado Tejada had brought a royal order from his Majesty that Don Antonio de Mendoza, the Viceroy, give him lands to work without detriment and that Don Antonio sent a certain Peralta, now deceased, to the town Tapalcatetelco and the limits [of] that town of Tlalmanalco to see whether the land was available. And although the above-mentioned witness and the other Indians contradicted this, saying that they were their lands and cultivated and that they had sown them in that season and every year of those past, the lord Viceroy ordered them to give [the lands] to Licenciado Tejada who then possessed them.46

The Indians added that at no time had they been paid, nor had anything been handed over to them in exchange for their lands. Neither did the Audiencia 172 —


and the viceroy listen to them when they complained, in spite of the fact that when they lost the lands the nobles and Indians had gone to demand justice from Viceroy Mendoza, who “never compensated them therefor.”47 To the dispossession of these lands in Tlalmanalco others were added, located in Calnahuac (the same area of Chalco), which were also measured and handed over to Oidor Tejada by Martín de Peralta. It was mentioned that Tejada had taken more land from this town in “Anchestac.” With regard to this last place, the Indians did not mention the use made of that land or what use it was put to when it passed into Tejada’s hands.48 As mentioned earlier, the Tlalmanalco Indians stated that the lands of Tapalcatetelco and Calnahuac were cultivated by them and added that they paid the royal tribute from this land’s products. Joan de Santiago, a local Indian, declared that he was in charge of collecting tribute from the Indians of Tlalmanalco, “who worked on the lands of Calnahuac and he asked for tribute from them and the Indians replied that they could not pay it as the lands that they paid tribute on had been taken over by Licenciado Tejada, and now they had nothing to pay tribute on.”49 Shortly afterward, it became more complicated for the Indians of Tlalmanalco to recover their land, since Tejada used part of Calnahuac for an exchange of land with Tlatelolco. Thus, licenciado Tejada “gave and transferred the above-mentioned lands to certain Mexico City Indians in exchange for others that Licenciado Tejada took from them alongside his estate in Ximilpan and that the Indians of the afore-mentioned town felt injured thereby.”50 Mexico City Indians, however, did not mention that these lands were exchanged for theirs. On the contrary, there is testimony by a Spaniard who mentioned that Tejada had exchanged some Tlalmanalco lands with Tlatelolco and added that the Indians of Santiago Tlatelolco and Mexico City had told him that those lands were populated and cultivated. Therefore, they were not the type of lands—by being populated—the viceroy had decided would be distributed to Spaniards.51 The lands of Tlalmanalco located in Tapalcatetelco were also difficult to recover for the Indians. While they remained in Tejada’s power, he did not expel the Indians and allowed them to continue cultivating their lands, alongside the fields of maize and beans the oidor had there. These Indians stopped giving tribute to the king and to their caciques (local Indian rulers), which attracted others who went to settle there. Therefore, the lands belonging to Indians in Tapalcatetelco and that were destined for the payment of royal tribute became private property and were worked by them but now as renteros or terrazgueros (lessees or sharecroppers).

— 173

Length: 2,000 brazas Width: 80 brazas

Length: 4,000 brazas Width: 200 brazas

Length: 6,000 brazas Width: 300 brazas (15 suertes of 400 brazas long and 20 brazas wide)

Eight suertes (each suerte of 400 brazas long and 20 brazas wide)

Santiago de México “Hacia Azcapotzalco”




Length: 1,300 estadales Width: 400 estadales

Tenango (Chalco) Cuchitacán

“big part”

Length: 400 estadales Width: 80 estadales

Tlalmanalco (Chalco) Sierra de Anchestac

“big part”

Length: 800 estadales Width: 100 estadales

Tlalmanalco (Chalco) Calnaguaque

Tacuba Guaonteo

Length: 1,010 estadales* Width: 1,640 estadales Width: 2,240 estadales

Tlalmanalco (Chalco) Tapalcatetelco

Tacuba Tlaltenango

Land Dimensions

Town

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

Payment

Table 3.2 Oidor Tejada’s Land Appropriations in the Valley of Mexico

Lands that belonged to Santiago private individuals and neighbors; given to Azcapotzalco Indians (400 brazas), Tomás de Rijoles, and Antonio Ortíz




Tacuba lands/distributed between macehuales/principales

Tacuba lands/distributed between macehuales/principales

Tenango lands, from which royal tribute was paid: 400 cargas de maíz (maize) per year; Tejada traded them with the Santiago and México Indians for other lands

C

Tlalmanalco lands, from which royal tribute was paid; Tejada gave these lands to Tlatelolco

Tlalmanalco lands, from which royal tribute was paid; later sold to Pedro de Sandoval

Characteristics

14 big suertes; three were 400 brazas long and 20 brazas wide; the rest were 300 brazas by 20 brazas wide

18 big suertes (each is 880 brazas long and 20 brazas wide) He promised a similar number of lands in a place not stated

Trueque for lands in Tenango They used to belong to Indian principales

Indian barrio* /lands that belonged to Indian principales

*See Glossary. Source: AGI, Justicia, 237; testimonies of Indians from Tlalmanalco, Tenango, Azcapotzalco, Tacuba, and Santiago Tlatelolco.

Santiago de México Términos Chapultepec

Santiago de México Jimilpa


Francisco de Triana, a Spanish gardener who served as interpreter for Tejada and worked for the oidor on his ranch in Tacuba, commented on having “heard . . . the nobles of Tlalmanalco complain [that] Licenciado Tejada had taken the lands and not only the lands but also the macehuales [Indian commoners].” The Indians said in their statements that there were from 80 to 100 houses on those lands before they became Tejada’s. With these Indians and others who settled there, Tejada cultivated them a medias (sharing the lands with the Indians).52 Tejada justified the presence of Indian terrazgueros on his lands, citing as proof that formerly on those lands there had been some “adobe huts and straw huts” of Indian terrazgueros, not macehuales, which the governor of Tlalmanalco had placed there. He also said those Indians had been placed there because the lands belonged to Moctezuma, and as such, after the conquest they remained fallow. The oidor added that the Indians remained as tenants on his lands, and he limited himself to “receiving the rent they owed him as tenants, as is customary among them and in Spain, I [am] providing the land and the seed.” In Tejada’s opinion, if those Indians “have not paid royal tribute along with the Indian towns within whose limits these lands fall, it is not my fault and I did not tell them to do so, but the governors have overlooked doing so.”53 The oidor took special care to remark that he never collected tribute from the Indians settled on these lands, “neither royal nor personal tribute,” repeating that the only thing he received from them was the rent, in products. As a witness who favored Tejada mentioned: [T]he rent that Tejada received from what they grow is fair as Licenciado Tejada gave them the land and seed and if he had received anything else from them, the witnesses would have seen and known about it and it could not have been otherwise because they [the witnesses] had conversed and been in Licenciado Tejada’s house and once the abovementioned rent had been received. And dealing and conversing with the Indians, [the witnesses] saw that the Indians took that land for rent and as renteros remained there.54

The oidor’s emphasis on the distinction between macehual and terrazguero Indians is interesting. If he had stated that they were macehuales from that place, it would have been implicit that the lands were theirs, whereas in mentioning that they were terrazgueros, there remained only the possibility that they paid rent for the lands. The Indians’ statement pointed out that the lands belonged to Tlalmanalco, and therefore the Indians the oidor wanted to pass off as terrazgueros were the very Indians who were residents of the place and the owners of the land mentioned. Alonso de Zorita explains that the Indians 176 —


sometimes rented out lands of the calpulli (barrio) to another calpulli, and with the income of this rental some community needs were covered.55 In any case, the lands of Tapalcatetelco were not given back to the Tlalmanalco Indians. Shortly before leaving, the oidor sold the lands to a mine owner from Taxco, a relative of his named Pedro de Sandoval, against whom the Indians continued their legal action in 1554–1556 to have the lands returned to them (a witness says, “I heard tell that he [Tejada] had sold them or left them in trust to Pedro de Sandoval which I heard from Spaniards whose names I do not remember . . . and after Sandoval had these lands, a lawsuit was brought which is at present pending in Spain and that is what I know of that inquiry”).56 Like Tlalmanalco, the town of Tenango accused Tejada of having dispossessed it of its lands. The Indians of Tenango stated that around 1539, a Spaniard named Pedro Tejuelo and another whose name was Melgar measured and fixed the boundaries of the lands of the place located on the borders of “Xuchitacan” for Oidor Tejada and that he had not paid or exchanged anything for those lands. As in the case of Tlalmanalco, the Tenango lands were destined for the payment of royal tribute, and from them “they [the Indians] used to [obtain] four hundred loads of maize, as well as other things and fruit which they harvested and kept for themselves, in addition to the tribute of maize.” It appears that the collecting of this tribute was not easy because the Indians mentioned these fanegas of maize, which “they obtained with effort.”57 A noble of Tenango, Don Pablo de Santiago, stated that in the “Xuchitacan” lands taken by Tejada there used to be Indians with their houses and that land was cultivated. When Don Pablo and other Indians saw the two Spaniards taking measurements of those lands, they asked Tejuelo “why he was doing that, that the Indians would attack them and they had sowed the land, and the latter replied that they were measuring it for Licenciado Tejada.”58 The dispossession of lands suffered by the town of Tenango was made worse because Tejada, seeking better profit, exchanged them for others the Indians of Santiago Tlatelolco had in Tacubaya-Chapultepec (see Table 3.2). Thus, the natives of Chalco declared that some Mexico City and Tlatelolco Indians had come to their lands to sow them. The Tlatelolco Indians told those of Chalco that Tejada had handed the lands over to them in exchange for some they had in Tacuba. The Tlatelolco Indians even harvested for themselves the maize cultivated by Tenango, which was destined for the payment of royal tribute.59 The Tlatelolco Indians also declared that Tejada had indeed obliged them to exchange eighteen large lots of land they possessed in Ximilpan for the

— 177


lands in “Xuchitacan,” Tenango (see Table 3.2). In addition, the Tlatelolcans asserted that they had accepted the Tenango lands against their will and under pressure from the oidor.60 Francisco de Triana (who knew the Chalco lands because he had measured them beforehand) declared that Tejada had forced the Tlatelolco Indians to exchange their lands for those in Chalco, a matter I will go into in more detail in the section on Tlatelolco. The gardener also mentioned that Tejada had obtained the lands as a grant of three caballerías of land the king had made him and added that when he had taken over the Chalco lands, Tejada had not paid anything to the Indians.61 From the Indians’ testimonies we can conclude that the lands Tejada exchanged with the Tlatelolco Indians—and which Francisco de Triana locates in Chalco—are the lands of Calnahuac (Tlalmanalco) and Xuchitacan (Tenango). The latter place seems to have been the more affected of the two. With regard to the size of the lands declared by the Indians of Chalco, they were provided in estadales (3.35 meters approximately) (see Table 3.2). The Indians declared that each estadal measured 3 varas (1 vara = approximately 33 inches).62 In its claims for return of the lands, Tenango, like Tlalmanalco, had asked Viceroy Mendoza for justice. Not only did the viceroy refuse to listen to the town’s lawyers, however, but he asked the governor to give them other lands. Don Pablo de Santiago, the Indian lord of Tenango, asserted, however, that their native governor had given them no lands.63 In general, disbelief was the Indians’ first response when they realized Tejada was dispossessing them of their lands. Francisco de Sandoval, then Indian governor of Tlalmanalco, replied when they told him Tejada was going to keep the lands, “how extraordinary, it’s a joke. That Spaniard must be joking.”64 The statements made by Tlalmanalco and Tenango Indians seem to indicate that the lands taken over by the oidor belonged to Tlalmanalco, and it was from them that the Indians obtained the tribute for the king. A general idea in historiography is that the lands that had once belonged to Moctezuma were used to pay the royal tribute, and the Spanish tribute in general, once the conquest was consolidated.65 With regard to this problem, in general the royal tribute was not always obtained from the old imperial plantations but also came from the lands of the native communities. In the case of the Tlalmanalco and Tenango Indians, their statements indicate that, indeed, it was from the town lands that they harvested the produce to pay the royal tribute. It is not known what type of lands the Indians affected mentioned (whether belonging to the community or not).

178 —


We can begin to comprehend the magnitude of the problem in which these Indians found themselves as a result of Tejada having appropriated some of their lands. It is important to locate in time the statements of the Indians of these towns and, in general, of all those who made statements against the oidor. The actions they tell about took place between the years 1540 and 1545. This places us just before the great epidemic of 1545–1546 and well before the congregation policy that was more widespread toward the end of the sixteenth century. These two events influenced the transformation of royal policy with regard to Indian property.66 Although these actions meant far-reaching changes for Indian society, the transformations had started with the beginning of the colony. Spanish military-judicial tradition allowed the conquistadores to obtain the ownership of lands that by customary law were the economic support of the Aztec empire, especially those that supplied tribute to religious authorities or to the Aztec emperor. But sometimes the patrimonial lands of the Aztecs, as well as those yielded to their allies, remained fallow after Cortés’s conquest.67 This forced some Indian towns to reorganize the production of surplus and to open up new lands to cover the tribute in maize.68 In the case of the Tenango Indians, who lost part of their land in Xuchitacan to the oidor, this brought about the depopulation of that place, and the Indians had serious problems paying the royal tribute. In an attempt to recover the lands, the Indians decided to make a public claim. Of special interest is Alonso Zorita’s comment about how Indian community lands were affected by the private interests of the Spaniards supported by the authorities. Here Zorita describes—without intending to do so—the case of Tejada and the Indians of Chalco: [T]hese were common lands of the calpullec [territorial unit] or barrios. There has been, and still is, disorder in those which have been given and are still being given to Spaniards; because on seeing or learning that some of them are not being plowed they request them of the person governing, and the person appointed to go and see them does little in favor of Indians. And if some good Christian be appointed the person asking for these lands has ways of preventing it and insists that another person should be appointed. . . . [T]hus, it would seem they go to the person requesting them because they are without prejudice to third parties and unplowed. Even if there are signs of their having been plowed and the people from the barrio or the calpulli declare the contrary, and although they allege . . . it is of no use to them and [Spaniards and Spanish authorities] say they are doing it out of slyness.69

— 179


According to what Zorita mentions, we should recall the special friendship between Viceroy Mendoza and Tejada. It is probable that the latter, in spite of his post as oidor, could not have justified the dispossessions carried out in Tlalmanalco and Tenango if he had not had the legal cover provided by the lands granted to him by Mendoza. In fact, as can be surmised from the testimonies of the Tlalmanalco and Tenango Indians, Viceroy Mendoza was involved in taking over these lands. This is confirmed by the fact that the viceroy delegated the distribution of the lands to Judge Martín de Peralta and also by the scant attention he gave to the Indians’ accusations. During Tello de Sandoval’s visit, Mendoza was accused of granting lands populated by Indians in Chalco to Tejada, “for which reason they no longer paid tribute.”70 This charge was doubtless difficult to prove, since it consisted of royal grants to Tejada and implied that the land had been distributed without affecting the community of Tlalmanalco. The viceroy denied the charge and declared that on those lands there had been a few terrazguero Indians.71 Furthermore, the oidor was useful to the viceroy in some of his own business ventures, as in 1540 when he was commissioned by the Crown—at Mendoza’s suggestion—to visit the viceroy’s cattle ranches. It is therefore feasible to accept that the relationship between the two was of mutual benefit.72 The land Mendoza granted the oidor (through a royal merced), consisting of three caballerías of land, was officially distributed in two parts (see Table 3.1b). The lands claimed by Tlalmanalco and Tenango formed this royal grant received by Tejada. In general, these grants had to fulfill certain conditions (that the lands be cultivated, that they could not be taken away for six years, and similar requirements), the most important of which being that these grants of land should not be detrimental to the interests of a third party.73 To watch out for this condition, investigations were carried out before granting the land, requiring that a formula be drawn up of the outline of the limits, throwing of stones (an ancient sign of land possession in Spain; the Indians soon adopted this act), and granting their lands possession.74 According to this procedure, the viceroy appointed Peralta as a judge to carry out the investigation and grant the royal concessions to Tejada in Chalco. What he did was hand over the lands of Tlalmanalco and Tenango to the oidor. The royal grant of three caballerías of land Tejada received in the section of Chalco that was handed over to him consisted of two parts, a caballería and a half each (Table 3.1a). Thus, Peralto carried out the distribution of lands to Tejada and declared that his possessing them did not affect any third party. Peralta, as the viceroy’s delegate to carry out this investigation, had the necessary authority to prove that the royal grant made to Tejada should not be

180 —


at the cost of lands of any private individual, especially those of the towns that, according to Indian laws, could not be alienated.75 Serving as legal mediator, however, Peralta facilitated the dispossession of lands belonging to the natives of Tlalmanalco. Peralta not only carried out the distribution of land to Tejada. A Mexico City resident mentioned that Viceroy Mendoza handed over lands to several Spaniards in the places pointed out by them, usually to the detriment of the Indians, and Martín de Peralta was appointed to distribute them. For having carried out these distributions, the new land beneficiaries paid Peralta for his services.76 The way the viceroy trusted him suggests Mendoza’s interest in delegating commissions that seemed important to him. Undoubtedly, Mendoza wanted to exercise control not only over the granting of royal gifts but also over those who benefited from them. We can see the expression of this practice in the distribution of lands to his retainers or to those who formed part of his circle—as is the case with the oidor—even in areas that did not possess the legal requirements for being granted to colonists. Some of the ties binding this circle were old ones. Peralta came to New Spain with Viceroy Mendoza in 1535, forming part of the retinue of servants and retainers accompanying him on his voyage. In 1536 the viceroy handed over to him an encomienda in Oaxaca, and between 1536 and 1543 he received appointments as corregidor, first in Tepeapulco and later in Otumba.77 Moreover, Hernando de Tapia, whose friendship with Tejada has been mentioned, was also present in the distribution of the Tapalcatetelco lands. Tapia said the Mexico City Indians exchanged lands with Tejada for those of Chalco, himself serving as interpreter between the governor of Tlalmanalco and Mendoza. In order to demonstrate that they were fallow lands, he declared that they were pointed out as Moctezuma’s lands that were distributed to Tejada, adding that in his presence this was confirmed by the four cabeceras of Chalco: Tlalmanalco, Tenango, Amecameca, and Chimalhuacán.78 Tapia’s statement that Tejada’s lands in Chalco were lands formerly belonging to Moctezuma is important. At the beginning the distribution of royal grants was made on lands the Crown could legally distribute through the viceroy in 1535: those that had belonged to Moctezuma and those that had been used for pagan cults.79 Hence the oidor constantly repeated that the lands granted to him in Chalco had belonged to Moctezuma—alleging, to prove this, that the Indian nobles themselves had placed the lands at the viceroy’s disposition ever since his arrival. Here are Tejada’s own words on the subject: [A]nd in them [the lands he enjoyed in the area] the towns of that province, had no macehual nor did anything belong to them . . . as such

— 181


[they were] plantations that used to belong to Moctezuma and which did not belong to any town nor macehual. The governors and leaders of the towns of Tlalmanalco and Tenango, within which limits they fall, of their own free will, three years before I came to serve your Majesty in this royal Audiencia, pointed them out to the Viceroy, along with other plantations of the afore mentioned Moctezuma, for him to distribute them according to his will to Spaniards or whoever he wanted and the majority was fallow land, and what was cultivated was done by renteros, and in fact the governors and leaders enjoyed them in the meantime while the Viceroy distributed them.80

Thus, Tejada shielded himself behind the legal impossibility of the viceroy having granted as a royal gift lands belonging to a town. An additional element has to be taken into account in the legal sanctioning of land grants: the intervention of corregidores in the distribution.81 In the case of the Indians of Chalco, they were under the royal Crown. At that time the corregidor of the area was Francisco de Villaroel, encomendero of Totolapa (Oaxaca) and therefore one of the encomenderos who had at the same time the office of corregidor (see Table 2.3). The outcome of this specific land issue is not difficult to imagine: Indian claims, drowned in an impressive bureaucratic machinery, did not prosper. It is pathetic to see how even during the visit of Spanish judge Diego Ramírez, when he was in Acolman some Indians from Chalco showed him a pictorial record by means of which they denounced Oidor Tejada for having taken land away from them. Ramírez could not visit Chalco, however, because he only had the authority to inspect towns that were more than five leagues from Mexico City.82 Almost eighteen years after the oidor had taken these lands, between 1558 and 1560, the Council of the Indies ruled in favor of Tejada and against Tlalmanalco, alleging that the town had not enough proof to claim the lands as its own. Therefore, it was enough that Tejada’s documents regarding the royal grants of land were in legal order. Tenango made a public claim regarding the loss of its lands, which was still pending in the council in 1560.83 By 1560 the Indians of Tenango could not pay tribute to the Crown. It is difficult to say with certainty that this was because Tejada had taken their lands from them, but it is very probable that that situation influenced an accumulation of arrears in their payments. Thus, that year Tenango presented a memorandum requesting that the Crown forgive an old debt that Tenango owed the Crown—a debt of more than 8,000 fanegas of maize as tribute “since many years back”—which Tenango could not repay.84

182 —


Appropriation of Lands in Tacuba As has been mentioned, generally speaking Tejada did not focus his interest in the Chalco lands to cultivate them but to exchange them for lands in Tacuba that belonged to Indians from Tlatelolco, Mexico City, and Tacuba. A general description of the process followed by Tejada to obtain lands in Tacuba has been commented on by several Spaniards’ testimonies. The most complete report belongs to Tejada’s gardener, who was present at the development of this process and who even measured the lands for the oidor. Tejada started his investment in Tacuba by buying lands from Spaniards around 1541. Adjacent to them were barrios populated by Indians from Mexico City, Tacuba, and Santiago Tlatelolco.85 Once he became interested in these Indian properties alongside his own, the oidor called together the Mexico City, Tacuba, and Tlatelolco caciques and, using Francisco de Triana as an interpreter, offered to exchange their lands for others in Chalco. The oidor went as far as promising that he would give them double what they had in Tacuba. The caciques declined his offer, as the Tacuba lands were populated. It appears that Tejada pressured the caciques through Audiencia interpreters to accept the exchange (he “set certain nahuatlatos on the caciques”). Finally, they agreed to carry out the transaction, demanding for each braza of land in Tacuba double that amount in Chalco—although the deeds for the deal had already been drawn up before Mendoza. The Indians continued to protest, especially those of Tlatelolco, not only because the lands in Chalco were already inhabited and cultivated but because they were inferior to theirs in Tacuba, since they were far away. Above all, they complained about having been forced into the exchange without receiving double the amount of land in Chalco, as Tejada had promised according to the Indians’ statements. The Indians’ protests reached the viceroy, who was asked to render the exchange invalid as the Indians had been obliged to do it. In spite of these allegations, the viceroy did not agree to their petition and replied that they should ask Tejada for a more favorable distribution in Chalco, since the oidor “had plenty of land”—clearly alluding to the fact that he could give them more.86 Before the oidor settled in Ximilpan, there had been an Indian barrio there with land, plantations, and two small chapels, in addition to which the Indians had planted about 30,000 agaves. Triana calculated that there were about 400 houses, and he had been ordered to measure the lands twice, finding that they were 11,200 brazas long and 1,000 brazas wide.87 Another Spaniard, Pedro de Meneses, mentioned that the eviction of Indians from their lands was espe-

— 183


cially unfortunate. It appears that Tejada first ordered a vallado (fence) to be built around the barrio—with the idea to set up an agricultural estate—while the Indians’ casillas (huts) were destroyed. Meneses, surprised thereby—according to his statements—asked the macehuales what was happening. The Indian nobles of Santiago and Mexico City informed him that they had been ordered “to depopulate this barrio” for licenciado Tejada and that Tejada and the interpreters of the Audiencia had “forced” them to leave their lands and to exchange them against their will.88 Profiting from the confusion, Meneses offered the Indians more than Tejada had promised if they would sell him some land on the edge of Tlatelolco, which the Indians refused to do. According to Meneses, the Indians love their homes and their lands, and that this witness sees that the Indians do not want to sell their land [to him] nor any other Spaniard, and even if the land is fallow and unpopulated without houses, they have no desire to sell it and that they never wanted to sell it to this witness although he went to buy it with the money ready in his hands.89

In general, the Indians’ statements coincide with Meneses’s remarks, although there is one exception: the earlier testimonies mentioned that the Mexico City Indians also had an inhabited barrio in Tejada’s lands. Those Indians, however, presented no accusation against Tejada regarding dispossession of their lands during the residencia hearings on the oidor. There is only the statement of Don Diego, governor of Mexico City, presented by the oidor during Tello de Sandoval’s visit. In his testimony, made in 1546, the governor mentioned that the lands exchanged with Tejada in Tacuba were in fact inhabited by Indians from Mexico City and Santiago Tlatelolco but that the exchange was carried out without forcing them to do so.90 In my opinion, the Mexico City Indians may have exchanged their lands for those in Chalco in a transaction that was beneficial for both parties, or they may have received some other compensation for their lands; and, whatever mechanism was used, their dissatisfaction was not evident. In any case, with regard to the testimony of Don Diego, Mexico City governor, it seems that he was partial to the oidor, as he was accused of being a favorite of the viceroy and of the Audiencia—to which he was accustomed to hand over “all that was necessary for their official building works, and macehuales and many of the materials.” In exchange, Don Diego received political support from the oidores, especially Tejada. For example, when some Mexico City Indian leaders protested against the governor’s arbitrariness, they

184 —


were punished by order of Oidor Tejada and sent to work on the dock of Veracruz “for ten years and placed in iron chains, where it is hot and unhealthy land, where they are without their wives and children.”91

Appropriation of Lands in Tacuba Belonging to Local Indians The mechanisms used by Tejada are especially visible in the case of the Tacuba Indians, who said they had received nothing in exchange for their land. The leader and regidor (councilman) of Tacuba, Don Gaspar de Luna, confirmed in 1554 a record presented by the governor of Tacuba, Don Antonio, and the regidor Diego Díaz. It was stated there that in about 1540 (“more or less 15 years ago”) the oidor took a “large piece” of land in “Tlaltenalco” (Tacuba) and another in “Guaonteo” (Tacuba), “lands which this witness knows were common lands of that town and of the nobles and commoners.” He declared that those lands’ dimensions were unknown, although he could identify them if necessary “and said that he did not know the quantity that there was so as to state it here; that if your grace should send them he could point them out because [Tejada] took them over in many pieces, neither do we know the price that these lands were worth.”92 From the Tacuba Indians’ statement, we see that in the lands taken over by the oidor, one part belonged to the town of Tacuba and another belonged to the Indian nobles, and it was thus recorded in the charges against Tejada.93 For the Tacuba Indians, it was difficult to argue the loss of their lands from the legal point of view because the oidor refused to recognize them as the former owners. To curb the claims of the town of Tacuba over the lands, Tejada presented as evidence the statements of two Mexico City Indians who asserted that Tacuba had possessed no lands in the area where Tejada settled and that the former owners were only Mexico City and Santiago Indians. The lands seem to have been distributed between Mexico City and Tlatelolco since preHispanic times.94 Consistent with Tejada’s defense, during Tello de Sandoval’s visit the encomendero in Tacuba, Juan Cano, denied that the Indians in his charge had held lands where the oidor had located his estate. He testified that he had been for a time in Spain and that, on his return, he was informed by several people that the viceroy had handed over to the oidor lands belonging to the Tacuba Indians. Upset by this situation, Cano asked Viceroy Mendoza for explanations, and Mendoza told him he should inquire about the matter and that if the lands belonged to Tacuba, he was to return them. Cano added that he had asked Don Francisco, the governor of Tacuba, to tell him whether the lands the

— 185


oidor had in that area were those belonging to the Indians of Tacuba “and that Don Francisco said that the lands did not belong to Tacuba but to Mexico City and Santiago, and that the lords of Mexico, Moctezuma and his ancestors had given and distributed those lands in orchards and caballerías.”95 Cano, however, may have had little interest in the Indians recovering their lands, and his statement is suspicious. Cano’s wife, Isabel de Moctezuma, to whom the encomienda of Tacuba had originally been granted, mentioned in her 1551 will that before her marriage to Juan Cano she had held no lands in Tacuba. This fact is important and is related to a possible access to land by these encomenderos in 1541–1542—the period when Isabel Moctezuma married Juan Cano—which places us in a time before the oidor appropriated lands in that area. Furthermore, the native governor of Tacuba, Don Antonio Cortés Totoquihuaztli, denounced in 1552, among other abuses, that Juan Cano had taken over several orchards that belonged to Tacuba, one of which he sold before going to Spain (in the 1540s) for 1,200 gold pounds.96 Finally, Cano had to maintain good relations with the Audiencia and the viceroy since shortly before making his statement in Tejada’s favor he had been given the towns of Ocuyuca and Calpulaque (Toluca), which had been placed under the Crown on January 1, 1541, as encomienda. It is not surprising that Cano should choose to avoid a personal conflict with the oidor and preferred not to claim the lands for the Indians of his encomienda.97 These elements suggest that Tacuba’s claims to some of the lands the oidor took may be legitimate. The reason given by Tejada for refusing the Indians their rights as owners is not known, but we can suppose that, first, he exchanged the lands in Tacuba with the Tlatelolco Indians and, once in possession of them, expanded by acquiring adjacent lands belonging in part to the Tacuba Indians. It seems that a first objective was to justify legal possession, then later to expand at the cost of Indian property without the affected parties being able to prevent this. Don Hernando, governor of Tlatelolco, mentioned that the Tlatelolco and Tacuba Indians were the former owners of Tejada’s land. Although he added that the exchange with the oidor was legal and that the lands in Chalco were better than those in Tacuba-Chapultepec, he contradicted Tejada’s defense that the Tacuba lands were not affected by his action.98 As already mentioned, Tacuba was an Indian community that, from very early on, underwent a number of land losses to the colonists. A friar of the time mentioned that the “wrongs” suffered by the Indian towns in the vicinity of Mexico City were too many and, on occasion, were more serious than those suffered by towns farther away.99 This likely resulted from the fact that the labor of the Indian towns near Mexico City was within closer reach of the city

186 —


colonists and authorities. These towns were also more coveted for their vicinity to a market such as the viceregal capital and, in the case of Tacuba, for the exceptional fertility of the land. From very early on these factors made the towns closer to Mexico City more vulnerable to Spanish interests. Finally, the lands Tacuba lost to the oidor were never returned. The Council of the Indies came to a ruling in Tejada’s residencia hearings and said Tacuba had not presented enough evidence to prove its possession of the lands claimed.100 Still, in 1561, Tacuba, led by its native governor Don Antonio de Cortés Totoquihuaztli, denounced the dispossession it had undergone at the hands of Tejada: “[T]hose who have governed this New Spain have given and distributed in our land to the Spaniards, many orchards and caballerías of land worth more than one hundred thousand pesos, one of which Licenciado Tejada sold for 40,000.”101

Appropriation of Lands in Tacuba Belonging to Tlatelolco It is well-known that the Indian town most affected by the loss of lands perpetrated by the oidor was Santiago Tlatelolco, as it was dispossessed of a large amount of land at the edge of Chapultepec (see Table 3.2). To acquire part of these lands, the oidor carried out an exchange with the natives for lands in the area of Chalco. In some sense, and although in an unequal way, Tlatelolco was the only Indian town the oidor recognized as the owner of the lands he took. This can be explained in part by the importance of Tlatelolco. In the opinion of Delfina López Sarrelangue, Santiago Tlatelolco was “the richest” native “community of New Spain,” with a large extension of lands and water that formed its communal possessions. This is not surprising, since Tlatelolco had greater territorial limits than those corresponding to it according to his pre-Hispanic records, some of which were false. In spite of this, “[T]he royal Audiencia surprisingly often recognized their validity, thus legitimating the domain of the natives.”102 Tlatelolco’s ownership of the lands claimed from Tejada was not questioned, and their legitimate possession was recognized before the oidor took them over. This aspect is especially clear in the fact that Tejada, supported by the viceroy, tried to demonstrate that the Indians had exchanged them with him for lands in Chalco. From what stands out in this case, it was not enough for Tlatelolco to be an important native community with recognized rights over its land. The colonists, especially some officials, found legal loopholes that enabled them to reduce its property little by little. Years after Tejada had taken the lands, the Tlatelolco Indians declared in 1575:

— 187


They gave many lands in that area to Juan de Cuevas, secretary of the interior, and to Don Gonzalo Ronquillo, chief constable, and to Doña Luisa de Estrada, to Doña Francisca Mejía, the wife of Doctor Oseguera, oidor, all to our detriment as they were our patrimony and your Majesty should order them to be returned and appoint people and judge to do so and without it being necessary to bring legal action, because as we are poor disfavored Indians, the Spaniards easily defeat us and become rich from our patrimony.103

From the Tlatelolcos’ statements, it stands out that Tejada obliged them to exchange some of their lands, located at the edge of the ejido of Mexico City, for others in Chalco. These lands were inhabited and were the same ones Francisco de Triana referred to in his statement. Moreover, the oidor took some lands from them on the edge of Chapultepec that belonged to Tlatelolco commoners and nobles, and these were taken with the promise of a future exchange, which the oidor never carried out. Finally, taking advantage of a conflict over limits that Tlatelolco had with Azcapotzalco, probably at a place located on the road to the latter town, Tejada appropriated a part of those lands. Because of the confusing nature of the problem, first I will deal with the exchange of lands in Tacubaya (belonging to Tlatelolco Indians) for lands in Chalco, which has been seen in the section on the Chalco lands. Later, I will describe the problem of the lands taken from Tlatelolco in Chapultepec and, finally, explain what happened with the lands of that division, in conflict with the Indians of Azcapotzalco. The Tlatelolco Indians stated that they had been pressed to exchange their lands for others in Tenango-Tepolpula, specifically in Xuchitecan. The lands the oidor obliged the Indians to exchange comprised an inhabited native barrio. This was illustrated by a native testimony that agrees with the description made by Triana and the violence with which the Indians were evicted. Miguel Pitecate said that in the lands near Chapultepec, there were Indians settled in a place with an Indian lord: they had their church and agave plantations. Once the oidor had taken possession of those lands, however, all of that was destroyed, and the place became depopulated. In that place, the Indian added, Tejada set up his agricultural estate.104 It is probable, because of the distance between his lands in the part of Ximilpan “near Chapultepec” and those of Chalco, that the exchange was not agreeable to the Indians. An Indian from Tlatelolco mentioned that he had heard protests: The owners of these lands [were] crying out that the lands had been taken away from them against their will. That in order to leave their

188 —


houses to plow these lands that were given as a swap, it took two days to go there and two days to come back. Therefore they had not made use of them, neither had this witness seen them.105

Not only did the lands that the oidor exchanged with the Tlatelolco Indians form one of the Indians’ barrios, by forcing the Indians to occupy lands in Chalco, the oidor also caused the Indians to lose their crops in Ximilpan, form a new settlement that they had not wanted, and risk conflict with the Indians of Chalco.106 Furthermore, the impact of a forced coexistence between the Indians of Santiago and those of Chalco working the same lands—if both parties had arrived at an agreement—was difficult, since Indians of different communities, even in the colonial period, did not like to mix. Zorita points out that Indians from any calpulli did not like to mix with Indians from different calpullis. Therefore, the situation was not easy for the Indian communities forced to exchange lands—particularly if there was not only an exchange carried out through pressure from Tejada but also if the lands in question were far away from their homes and they were obliged to coexist with Indians from other communities.107 The very fact that the lands belonging to the Tlatelolcas in Ximilpan drew the attention of the oidor and other Spaniards leads us to suppose that they must have been more fertile than those in Chalco, apart from the privilege of being closer to the Mexico City market.108 It was in this Tlatelolco barrio that the oidor established his agricultural estate. Because of the nature of the appropriation, he tried to establish that the exchange had been favorable to the Indians. Thus, Tejada explained with relative success in his evidence for the defense that the Indians were not using those lands except to plant agaves, from which they obtained intoxicating drinks that incited them to violence: [T]hey had nothing else in them except agaves and up to 27 or 30 very poor huts of little value, and all of them were taverns where people drank pulque [a fermented drink] where God and the Republic were offended and even the natives themselves were injured because a large number of Negroes and Indians continually got drunk therein and after getting drunk injured themselves. . . . [B]y experience it is seen that most of the crimes which these natives commit stem from having got drunk on pulque which is made from the above-mentioned agaves.109

Thus, by skillful arguments the oidor attempted to use in his favor the fact that the Indians had planted agaves in the area, focusing on the fact that pulque was obtained from this plant. He overlooked the importance the agave plant represented for the Indians, however, as, after maize, it was the most important product of native agriculture from which they obtained the raw material for

— 189


making ropes, needles, sandals, and similar objects.110 In brief, taking advantage of the prejudices of the time and the lack of knowledge among Spanish colonists regarding the Indian world, Tejada presented a picture of violence stemming from the fact that the Tlatelolco Indians cultivated agaves in Ximilpan, which turned the area into a focus of danger and scandal for the Spanish estate owners of the surrounding region.111 An exchange of lands in Ximilpan for others in Chalco had a precedent. The lands of an Indian called Juan “the One Eyed” in Ximilpan were handed over to the treasurer of the Mint, Alonso de Mérida, a criado (a nobleman’s protégé) of the viceroy. In exchange, Juan “the One Eyed” was compensated with some lands in Chalco (see Table 3.1b). It was also recorded that in the same area Don Juan, an Indian who was governor of Tlatelolco, had lands. It is probable that Juan “the One Eyed” and Don Juan were the same person, as the name in these two modes was associated with lands in the same place (see Tables 3.1b, 3.1d). Furthermore, the lands handed over to Mérida may in reality have constituted another native barrio of the division of Tlatelolco, as was pointed out in some testimonies.112 In addition, some lands in Chapultepec were expropriated for the common good from an Indian leader by Viceroy Mendoza. This was done to build a reservoir to gather water from the spring of Chapultepec. In exchange, the lord received other lands in Chalco (see Table 3.1b). It appears that because the lands in Chalco were in a less attractive area for the Spaniards in those days, they were used to keep at a distance and legally dispossess Tlatelolco and Mexico City Indians through exchanges of their estates or barrios in the Tacuba area. There must have been several conflicts produced by the exchanges between Tlatelolco and Chalco. In fact, we have seen how the Indians of Tenango said that those of Tlatelolco had taken with little consideration the maize the former had cultivated on their land for their royal tribute. Likewise, those of Tlatelolco declared that the Indians of Tenango (Chalco) did not let them cultivate the lands they had been forced to take in that area, for obvious reasons. Meanwhile, the oidor remained distant from the conflicts his appropriation had produced between Tenango and Tlatelolco and obtained enough space in Ximilpan to build up his agricultural estate. Probably at the same time as the above-mentioned exchange, Tejada took over other lands belonging to Tlatelolco that were near Chapultepec (see Table 3.2). These lands belonged to commoners and native lords of Tlatelolco, and the oidor used a mechanism other than exchange to obtain them. The Tlatelolco Indians mentioned that these lands belonged to commoners and native lords. In general, the appropriation of lands belonging to Indian

190 —


nobles dated back to very early after the conquest, as the Spaniards refused to recognize—on any excuse—the rights of the nobles of the Valley of Mexico area to their lands.113 In 1554 an Indian of Tlatelolco said, regarding some lands, that they had been owned by the Indian nobles of Santiago after the Spaniards came to New Spain until Licenciado Tejada took them over more or less 13 years ago, according to this witness. And this witness saw that in those lands there were macehual Indians who had houses therein; and saw that those Indians left their homes empty-handed, complaining very much and saying that they had been evicted from their houses and that it had been oidor Tejada who had done this.114

It seems that the oidor had promised them in exchange other lands in a nonspecified place but that he had not fulfilled his promise. These lands were also in an area of interest to Tejada: the edge of Chapultepec (see Table 3.2). This taking over of lands by the oidor was accepted as such by the Council of the Indies, and Tejada was sentenced to pay the Indians what the lands were worth. As we have seen, however, he was not ordered to give them back.115 These lands taken from Tlatelolco, unlike those the oidor exchanged, belonged to nobles and macehuales. Tacuba also lost to the oidor lands belonging to nobles and macehuales (see Table 3.2). It appears that during the administration of Viceroy Mendoza, the native nobles’ property started to be more and more affected by the colonists’ initiatives.116 The oidor also took other lands from the Tlatelolco Indians located on the border between Tacuba and Azcapotzalco, taking advantage of his having been commissioned to investigate the land conflict on the road to Azcapotzalco between the local Indians and those of Tlatelolco. The development of this conflict is interesting not only because of the oidor’s intervention but also because it exemplifies how some Spaniards could have used to their own benefit the quarrels of Indian towns over the limits of land, generally stemming from the territorial boundaries that existed before the arrival of the conquistadores.117 I mention this as a probable source of the conflict between Tlatelolco and Azcapotzalco in which Tejada intervened. As is well-known, after the conquest there were differences regarding ownership of territory—both communal and private—between the towns, to which disinformation about them was added. The Spaniards’ private and political interests encouraged this disorder.118 Tlatelolco was also involved in problems of this type, as about 1542 it had differences regarding territorial limits with the Indians of Azcapotzalco. Oidor Tejada took advantage of this difference to occupy some of the lands, commissioned as he was to mediate the dispute. — 191


The statement of Martín de Mendoza, an Indian from the Santiago barrio, gives details of Tejada’s intervention. In 1554, during the residencia hearings on the oidor, he mentioned [t]hat 12 years ago the town of Santiago had a difference with Azcapotzalco about certain lands and that Licenciado Tejada, an oidor as he was of “this audiencia,” went to set terms and conclude the difference existing between these two towns and having seen these lands he entered and took from Santiago the pieces of land contained in this pictorial record. . . . [T]his witness has heard the owners complain many times and they have much sorrow and sadness . . . because of their lost lands.119

The Indians of Santiago mentioned that the oidor [t]ook certain pieces and plots of land from them . . . and that all of those plots belonged to private individuals and residents of Santiago who plowed and sowed them and . . . Licenciado Tejada never paid them anything for this land. And some of them now belong to the Indians of Azcapotzalco, which Licenciado Tejada gave to them in exchange for some building work they did for him. Another piece was given to Tomás Rijoles and another to Antonio de Ortíz, who were interpreters of the Royal Audiencia.120

The Indians of Azcapotzalco did in fact receive lands from Tejada, which were part of the possessions near Chapultepec that Tlatelolco had claimed from the oidor. Furthermore, whereas Santiago Tlatelolco requested the return of the lands, the Indians of Azcapotzalco did not, saying that Tejada possessed lands on the borders of Chapultepec of which he had handed 400 brazas over to them as payment for work they had done for him. Thus, Azcapotzalco stated [t]hat the residents of that town had made for . . . Licenciado Tejada, 2,400 brazas of fencing for the ranch Licenciado Tejada had near Chapultepec, in payment of which it would appear from the pictorial record that Licenciado Tejada had given them 400 brazas of land he had on the edge of that place and a house with which the Indians said they were well paid for the work done.121

The interpreters Rijoles and Ortíz had a relationship with Tejada, especially Antonio Ortíz, of whom I have already mentioned the interests linking him to the oidor. The two contradictory views—that of Azcapotzalco and that of Tlatelolco—regarding who was the true owner of the lands support the idea that, in fact, there was a conflict between the two Indian towns in those years

192 —


and that this was made use of by the oidor, who favored Azcapotzalco by granting it some lands on the site in dispute. The reasons for Azcapotzalco’s silence about its right to the lands and for it accepting that they belonged to the oidor are not known, but perhaps Azcapotzalco did not have enough arguments to wield in the dispute with Tlatelolco. This was especially so if their differences had to do with pre-Hispanic limits when the Aztec expansion had effectively restricted the AzcapotzalcoTepaneca territory. For example, Tlatelolco and Azcapotzalco had at least one other territorial conflict in 1561. The reasons for this are complex, and to resolve the conflict arguments based on traditional pre-Hispanic borders were used.122 Thus, we can see that the Indians’ statements on the loss of their lands and the notarial documents of the oidor differ radically. This may lead us to conjecture at a broader level that the relationships of general interest that prominent colonists and high-ranking officials established from early on with interpreters and scribes—some of whom formed part of the encomendero sector, as is the case of the scribe Juan de Manzanares—may help give an aura of legality to appropriations of Indian lands these colonists undertook. There is no doubt that the notarial documents on purchases and exchanges of lands between natives and Spaniards, especially in such an early period as that covered by this book, are invaluable sources. It is probable, however, that on many more occasions than one may suppose they were drawn up solely with the intention of giving legal form to appropriations of Indian lands—something the colonists and officials in Mexico carried out with astounding frequency.

AGRICULTURAL VENTURES: CHARACTERISTICS Once Oidor Tejada had obtained lands in Tacuba, he devoted himself to largescale agricultural production, primarily growing vines and wheat on the lands. Commercial agriculture was a profitable economic activity that rewarded his efforts to take over Indian lands in Ximilpan, part of the Tacuba area. The location of his property was unbeatable, as its proximity to Mexico City guaranteed the oidor an excellent market. In addition, the mining boom, which was just starting at that time, enabled him to trade with the first mining centers, some of which were near the estate. For example, the mines of Temazcaltepec, discovered in 1531, were near Toluca, and the mines of Taxco—whose exploitation started around 1532—although farther south in what is at present the state of Guerrero, were not an excessive distance from the Valley of Mexico and therefore from the oidor’s farm.123

— 193


Some of the physical characteristics and details of the building of the oidor’s farm are known, and this enables us to take a closer look at how an early agricultural estate in Mexico was built up (1542–1549). For example, Francisco de Triana, the oidor’s gardener, mentioned that wheat, maize, mulberry bushes, and fruit trees were planted on Tejada’s farm. He also mentioned that Tejada ordered a house and a “very good” tank to be built, adding that the king’s highway crossed the property. On one side of the road he had the crops of wheat, maize, and mulberry bushes and on the other side a large vineyard.124 The estate also had a road approximately 800 brazas long that the Indians of Azcapotzalco had built for Tejada.125 There also must have been an orchard. The oidor mentioned that he had planted on his lands around 400 mulberry bushes and 2,000 fruit trees and that he ordered some “huts” to be built for his slaves and also a stockyard. The oidor did not mention that the viceroy’s enthusiasm for the development of Tejada’s estate had led him to hand over to him 4,000 mulberry bushes, in spite of the fact that they were officially destined by the Crown for the residents of Puebla de los Angeles.126 Initially, on the lands where Tejada located his estate, there was an Indian barrio with houses and maguey plants (agaves). To cultivate his lands, the oidor decided to have the magueyes pulled up after having evicted the Indians, and for this purpose he hired the Indians of Azcapotzalco. For a whole year the town of Azcapotzalco devoted itself to “uprooting” the magueyes belonging to Tejada. Triana, who was in charge of this work, calculated that in 1544, between 200 and 500 Indians worked every day from 9 o’clock in the morning until they finished clearing the land.127 In exchange for this work, the Indians received forty-four copper coins (tipuzque), which they did not consider fair, although Triana mentioned that they made no protest about it out of fear of Tejada.128 Once the Ximilpan lands were free of agave plants, Tejada started to fence in his property. The place where wheat, maize, and mulberry bushes were cultivated was fenced off by the Indians of Azcapotzalco. Between 1,000 and 1,500 Indians from the town worked on this task for four to five months, a work of considerable dimension. As I mentioned before, the Indians were satisfied with the payment of land from the oidor. Triana, who was also in charge of this work, mentioned that the fence measured 1,500 brazas long by 1.5 brazas wide, although the Indians of Azcapotzalco stated in 1554—almost ten years after having carried out the work—that it really measured 2,400 brazas long.129 Another fence the oidor ordered the Indians of Mexico City to build was to surround the place where the vineyards were.130 Likewise, two walls of adobe and stone, which the Indians of Xochimilco built for Tejada, protected the fruit trees the oidor had on his estate.131 In that

194 —


same vineyard area, Tejada ordered the Indians of Texcoco to build a house of stone and wood. As Tejada commented, the house was for him to rest in when he went to visit his lands and to see how his vineyards were coming on. The site where the oidor had the vineyard was near Chapultepec, a privileged site to rest; thus it was not strange to have a house there.132 Alongside the house the Indians of Coyoacán made for Tejada a tank that had its own conduit through which irrigation water entered.133 Merely for the construction of this tank, the Indians of Mexicalcingo brought to Tejada’s estate 800 loads of tezontle (a vermilion-colored sandstone). Besides, an Indian “whitewasher” from Iztapalapa devoted himself for 120 days exclusively to working on the walls of the tank, which suggests that it was a tank of considerable size.134 In addition, Tejada had adobe houses built to lodge the workers and slaves of his estate. This work was done by the Coyoacán Indians. Adobe was surely supplied by Mexicalcingo, where 64 Indians from that town made 1,500 adobe bricks that were delivered to the oidor. Although the volume of this material does not indicate the size of the houses, the oidor continually lodged at least 120 Indian slaves with their families on his lands. So it is feasible that, however crowded the Indians may have been, the houses occupied a considerable amount of space.135 The larger buildings undertaken by the oidor on his estate were without doubt a water mill, a fulling mill, and especially an irrigation ditch—“for the cloth workshop”—on the edge of the town of Tacuba. The oidor’s water mill was made “of three types of stone,” and merely the work of opening up the road took three weeks’ labor of the Indians of Azcapotzalco. During that time Azcapotzalco sent 40 men every day to carry out this work. The Indians of Tepetitlan brought wheels for the mills from their town to the estate—a distance of three leagues—as part of an agreement the local encomendero, Bartolomé Gómez, had made with Tejada.136 The water mill and the fulling mill, of course, required running water. From the beginning of building up his properties, the oidor had stated on several occasions that both his estate and those of other residents of XimilpanChapultepec needed water, thereby justifying and rendering necessary the construction of an irrigation ditch that would bring water from Cuajimalpa to the Ximilpan area.137 From the mid-fifteenth century until the years 1560–1570, however, the water that arrived at Mexico-Tenochtitlán came from the rich springs of Chapultepec. It is therefore strange that estates alongside the woods of Chapultepec, such as Tejada’s, would lack water.138 Furthermore, the viceroy had already ordered that water from Cuajimalpa would be channeled through

— 195


lead pipes so that the colonists of the area could irrigate their lands.139 In any case, making use of the earlier benefit and great favor and friendship he enjoyed with Mendoza, the oidor ordered the ditch to be built.140 As of 1540, licenciado Tejada received, together with other Spanish residents, a royal grant of water for the benefit of the agricultural estates located in the Ximilpan-Chapultepec area, and this was granted by the viceroy himself.141 Thanks to this gift the oidor brought water to his lands by means of the irrigation ditch from sources springing from the Tepeajusco hill (Cuajimalpa) and that flowed into the Matalcingo River (“the great river of Toluca”). Before it reached that river, the water was diverted to the Tacuba River, from which it was sent to the estates.142 Therefore, the steps the ditch had to have to bring water this way must have implied a high degree of complexity in their design. For example, some parts had to be made two or three times: [The ditch) was all made of limestone and in parts drilled . . . where the water was to come from, being made again, so that the ditch was made two or three times, moving it from one place to another; and as the ditch was moved . . . Tejada likewise moved the bridges over it.143

According to Tejada’s gardener, Francisco de Triana, it was a “very fabulous” work. The gardener calculated that in some parts the ditch was between two and three estados (longitudinal measure equivalent to the height of a man) deep, adding that work of this kind might well cost 8,000 ducats in Castile.144 The length was also considerable, as it measured close to two leagues and had several bridges made of wood and earth.145 Only in the building of the part that made it possible to divert the water to the Tacuba River and thence to the oidor’s farm did Indians from five towns in the Valley of Mexico take part: Coyoacán, Tacubaya (subject to Coyoacán), Huitzilopochco, Mexicalcingo, and Culhuacan. Likewise, the town of Tacuba was in charge of building another part of the ditch that brought water from the hill of Tepeajusco.146 The calculations and approximations carried out by Tejada’s contemporaries with regard to the number of workers used by the oidor for this purpose help us imagine the technical difficulty and the size of the ditch. For example, one of the charges against Tejada during his residencia hearings mentioned that for the building of the ditch he used 350,000 Indians at different times.147 Triana calculated that the work on the ditch went on for two years and that— on average—300 men worked on it every day, although he asserted that sometimes the number of workers was as high as 1,000 per day.148 Furthermore, the work on the ditch was conflictive. In general, its construction was criticized especially by some local estate holders from whom

196 —


Tejada diverted the water that corresponded to them. Those most affected by the oidor’s ditch, however, were without doubt the Indians of Tacuba and Santa Fe.149 The Indians of the town of Tacuba explained, through their nobles, that the oidor had taken away the water Tacuba drew from a river called Tepocolate and that the oidor “put it in the big ditch for his mills, leaving them without water.”150 Like the Indians of Tacuba, those of Santa Fe stated that they were affected by the ditch. These Indians explained that “in the old days” a ditch had passed through Santa Fe, from which they irrigated their orchards and lands. But because of the work on Tejada’s ditch, the water that formerly reached Santa Fe was diverted to the oidor’s estate, their town remaining practically without water. In spite of the Indians’ protests before the viceroy and Oidor Ceynos, the problem was not attended to, and Santa Fe’s claim did not prosper.151 As if this were not enough, the ditch was repeatedly denounced by the members of the Mexico City Town Council. From 1544 to 1545 the regidores demonstrated the harm the ditch was doing to the city since, because of its great dimensions and its location, it blocked the exit from the capital in case of emergency. To gather more proof with regard to this complaint, the members of the council appointed Ruy González as regidor to carry out the necessary investigations on the matter. From the outset, González was against the oidor’s construction work. The outcome could not have been more unfortunate for the Town Council. Tejada, in response to these investigations and protests, ordered that González be imprisoned on a simple pretext. Although the regidor was imprisoned only for two days, the fact itself constituted a show of power on the part of the oidor and was evidently a warning to the regidores of the Town Council not to meddle in his affairs.152 In spite of the protests unleashed and the technical difficulty of the work, the irrigation ditch functioned normally approximately from the mid-1540s. Although officially the benefits of the royal gift of water from this ditch were shared between the oidor and other estate holders in Ximilpa-Chapultepec, it is obvious that the ditch had been built by Tejada and that he had at all times acted with full rights over the works. To prove this, we only have to see the notarial documents Tejada presented during the visit Tello de Sandoval made to the viceroy and the oidores (1544–1546), as well as during his residencia hearings (1554) (see Tables 3.3 and 3.4), in which the wages supposedly paid to the Indians for work on the ditch were paid by Tejada (see Table 3.3). Likewise, most of the estate holders who appeared as Tejada’s partners in the ditch work declared in 1554 that the oidor did not allow them to draw water from it for their lands, since he wanted to charge them for this service. Furthermore,

— 197


the colonists asserted that the oidor obliged them to give him the rights they legally had over the ditch water.153 In spite of this, the oidor repeatedly spoke of the great benefit the ditch provided for the owners of lands near his. Thanks to this, we have a description of the surroundings of his estate in the mid-1550s. The oidor mentioned that the water from the ditch irrigated forty-four caballerías of land shared by Spaniards in the neighborhood of Ximilpan. According to him, those lands had received no water at all before the ditch was built. He added that in the area there were large fields of wheat, vineyards, and Castilian trees that also benefited from the irrigation. It appears that the abundant production from the area allowed a better supply for Mexico City at “prices as low and reasonable as in Castile.”154 Licenciado Tejada also boasted that about 10,000 fanegas of “irrigated wheat” were harvested on the lands of the area that were in colonists’ hands as a result of the benefit of the ditch. He added that thanks to the ditch, some Spaniards also had four-wheel mills in that place, as was the case of Francisco Gudiel and the treasurer of the Mint, Alonso de Mérida. From another testimony we learn that there were other large-mill owners in the area at that time, such as the assistant of Royal Treasury official Antonio de la Cadena and treasury official Gonzalo de Salazar. Oidor Hernando de Santillán also received a gift of two sites for mills alongside the ditch. The potential was such that Tejada enthusiastically declared that there were “mills and instruments in the ditch where one could make with that water another 5 or 6 watermills and fulling mills, very close to the one I have made with which this city still comes . . . in great growth, could be supplied and well supplied even more.”155 It would be interesting to know the productivity of the oidor’s farm, but unfortunately data on this point are fragmentary and only allow us to hazard a few theories. Although the farm’s wheat output is not known, we do know that at least on one occasion, 1,880 Indians from Tacuba “weeded” Tejada’s “wheat fields.” We also know that the oidor twice gathered wheat from his estate with Indians from Tacuba, using 580 laborers one time and 1,580 the other. Likewise, the whole town of Azcapotzalco—including women and children—sometimes gathered, two or three times, the wheat from Tejada’s farm.156 As has been mentioned, at the beginning Tejada stated that the agricultural output from this estate, like those surrounding it, helped provide better supplies for Mexico City. It seems, however, that a large part of the wheat produced on the oidor’s farm was first taken to his mills, and later the wheat flour was transported by tameme to the mines of Taxco. Here the oidor was able to sell his produce at a better price (“he sold it at the highest price that people

198 —


were able to pay”). Perhaps as a result of these coincidences, it will be no surprise to learn that when Tejada sold his estate, he did so to a mine owner of Taxco (a relative of his) named Pedro de Sandoval—who in turn managed to harvest each year, on Tejada’s old lands, between 4,000 and 5,000 fanegas of wheat that, once it had been ground, was carried by tameme from the estate to the mines of Taxco and sold there. In 1542 the oidor visited the mines of Taxco, where he imposed strong limitations on trade with the idea of preventing “metal from being stolen.”157 Suspiciously, he expelled Spanish traders from the mines. We can therefore wonder whether the restrictions contained in the orders drawn up on the site were really aimed at eliminating possible competitors—for example, directly expelling all traders from the mines, arguing that the presence of superfluous goods led the miners to go into debt and sell on credit—and by this means monopolizing a large part of the market in the mining area. This would enable him to control the price of his product and obtain better profits. If this were true, it would be a clear example of how colonial officials were able to combine political power with economic benefits, at least to the detriment of the interests of some large local economic groups. In this case, not only the Spanish traders operating in Taxco were affected, but some mine owners with medium-sized operations were adversely affected by an increase in the price of wheat flour. Another agricultural venture to which Tejada devoted himself was vine cultivation. The vineyard on his estate must have had a considerable size and yield. Between 100,000 and 112,500 vine shoots were planted by the Indians of Tacuba on the official’s property, which may mean that a large part of his output went to the wine trade. In fact, the oidor was accused of having a commercial wine company, with his nephew, notary Juan de Manzanares, as a partner, by means of which they managed to increase the price of wine. From the official registers of the time, we can see that the price of wine did in fact rise: in 1541 an arroba (liquid measure varying between 2.6 and 3.6 gallons) of the product cost 3.5 pesos; by 1545 the same arroba was worth 4 pesos.158 Although it is not possible to establish a relation of cause and effect between Tejada’s company and an increase in the price of wine, it is interesting that the two events coincided in time. Moreover, the accusation brought against the oidor associated—rightly or wrongly—an economic situation to a cause that seems sufficiently widespread to have provoked an increase in the price. In other words, Tejada’s company was so large that it likely had the power necessary to regulate the market situation (something that would not have been possible for a small-scale business). In general, the trade in wine must have had a special

— 199


economic attraction. Therefore, another oidor, licenciado Francisco Ceynos, also devoted himself to wine trading in partnership with a business acquaintance.159 A good part of the main output of the oidor’s farm—vines and wheat—was not destined for satisfying the demands of Mexico City. It appears that the wheat went to the mines of Taxco, and the wine produced allowed the oidor to make money on the obvious scarcity of the product (commercialized, too, at least in part, in the mines of Taxco). We can therefore guess the importance the Taxco mining center represented for the development of the domestic market. Taking into account the declaration in which it is mentioned that the mine owner Sandoval transported to Taxco between 3,000 and 5,000 fanegas of wheat flour each year, we are speaking of very high consumption and a strong commercial movement in the mines. This commercial movement must have involved the white population capable of paying for goods in silver and at a very high price and was enough to attract the agricultural production of estate holders such as Tejada, who preferred to place their merchandise in Taxco in spite of their estates being close to Mexico City.160 Furthermore, Mendoza’s political interest in fostering agriculture at the time likely enabled some powerful estate holders, such as Tejada, to channel part of their agricultural output to places where profits were greater—for example, the silver mines—sometimes to the detriment of the Mexico City supply. Tejada’s interest as an official in devoting himself to commercial agriculture was not isolated. As was seen in the first part of this chapter, during Viceroy Mendoza’s administration the Crown, through the viceroy, encouraged agricultural activity in general among the colonists. But there is no doubt that Tejada’s participation in the development of estates in the Valley of Mexico served as an example to other Spaniards who had, to a certain extent, some relevance in the administration. For example, deputy treasury official Antonio de la Cadena mentioned that thanks to the spur Tejada, as agricultural entrepreneur, gave the colonists, he himself had gone into buying land and making a profit from it, paying 2,000 castellanos for it. In a moment of enthusiasm, de la Cadena mentioned that the Crown should oblige its colonial officials to become entrepreneurs. Furthermore, a large number of prominent Mexico City residents—from the important encomendero and Taxco mine owner Luis de Castilla down to the chief constable of Mexico City, Juan de Samano (people the oidor presented as his witnesses during Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the Audiencia in 1546)—agreed that an important element for the establishment of settlers in Mexico consisted of Crown officials taking part in economic ventures like the rest of the colonists.161 Tejada gave an example of how to invest in land and obtain very high profits. He knew how to make money from

200 —


a high office in bureaucracy, especially at the time of selling his estate for a good price. During all the time the oidor devoted himself to exploiting his agricultural estate, it provided him with high profits, even when he sold it before he returned to Spain. Some contemporary testimonies point out that Tejada sold his property to Taxco mine owner Pedro de Sandoval from 1549 to 1550 for a sum that was between 48,000 and 60,000 ducats. The sale included the oidor’s water mill and fulling mill. The sale was not concluded solely on the basis of the profitability of the estate, however, but also took place because Sandoval owed some people 150,000 ducats and therefore needed Tejada’s support in the Audiencia to face up to the demands presented by his creditors. Therefore, the value of the estate increased in terms of the power Tejada had in Mexico, which gave political benefits to the person who would pay a higher price for the property.162 If Tejada had devoted himself exclusively to developing his estate, that would have been enough for considering him one of the most important entrepreneurs in the Valley of Mexico during his time. As has been pointed out, however, he also showed interest in commercializing his products with the idea of obtaining the best economic benefits and was not satisfied with being merely a large-scale agriculturist. He sent the wheat from his estate to the Taxco mines and traded in wine, probably stemming in part from the vines he cultivated. The oidor also demonstrated his capacity as entrepreneur by perfecting his business talents through trading houses he owned in Mexico City.

OIDOR TEJADA’S TRADING VENTURES The fact that his lands were so close to Mexico City probably gave Tejada the idea of building his own trading houses, which enabled him to have a profitable outlet for his agricultural products as well as for trade with other articles. Moreover, it gave him the possibility to rent these trading houses to other merchants. The economic ties the oidor had established with some traders were also a factor that perhaps influenced this decision. Tejada had ties with some merchants in Mexico. One of them, Juan de Manzanares, was his nephew, and they were partners in a wine-trading company. On other occasions, the oidor received presents from traders in trouble. This was the case of a pirulero (a Spaniard, resident of Peru) called Ayala who when imprisoned, having been accused of owning a gambling house, sent the oidor’s daughter (Doña María) jewels and pearls in a more than probable attempt to bribe him.163

— 201

Not specified

33 persons 15 days

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

60 pesos paid The Tacuba estate for a month and 3 “tequitlatos”

Otumba

Otumba

Coyoacan

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

680 gold pesos in reales

Payment

The oidor’s estate; “holes” were made

The oidor’s orchard in Tacuba

11,600 “holes” were made in the oidor’s orchard One bridge One “bridge and conduit”

The oidor’s estate in Tacuba

The Chapultepec orchard

45 pesos, 18 tomínes

458 common gold pesos


45 pesos 126 pesos

50 pesos

3 tomínes* per laborer

100 tipuzque* gold pesos

To build an acequia in the 230 gold pesos road to Toluca Another acequia section 40 gold pesos Another acequia section that 12 gold pesos was “closed” (Tacuba)

6,860 laborers

Tacuba

To open and build an acequia in the Tacuba River for the oidor’s estate

Work Done/Place

Not specified

Number of Indians/Time

Coyoacan Huitzilopochco Mexicalcingo Culhuacan

Town(s)

Table 3.3 Indian Labor for Oidor Tejada According to Notarial Acts He Presented

Payment certificate: 11-VIII-1544; interpreter: Juan Gallego; made before Oidor Hernando Gómez de Santillán; Hernando Alonso, Tejada’s attorney, was present

Payment certificate: 22-VIII-1543; scribe: Antonio de Turcios; interpreter: Juan de Contreras; made before Viceroy Mendoza

Payment certificate: 9-IX-1543; scribe: Antonio de Turcios; interpreter: Juan de Contreras; made before Viceroy Mendoza

Payment certificate: 7-VIII-1543; scribe: Antonio de Turcios, Audiencia secretary; interpreter: Francisco Muñoz; made before Viceroy Mendoza

Payment certificate: 19-II-1544; scribe: Juan de Contreras

Payment certificate: 22-XI-1543; interpreter: Juan de Contreras; made before Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza

Payment certificate: 31-VIII-1545; interpreter: Hernando de Tapia; scribe: Alonso Sánchez; made before ordinary alcalde Juan de Burgos

Payment certificate: 24-I-1544, interpreter: Hernando de Tapia; scribe: Sánchez de la Fuente; made before ordinary alcalde Luis de la Torre

Observations

Masons and calpisque 4 days

1 Indian for 2 Mill construction in Tacuba 5 pesos, 5 tomínes Payment certificate: 22-VI-1545; scribe: Pedro de Requena months; another for the first Indian; Indian for 10 10 tomínes for the days second

30 Indians 5 days

Not specified

Area in Mexico

Texcoco

Tenayuca

Azcapotzalco


5 Indians 16 days

Jiquialco

Payment certificate: 8-III-1545; scribe: Diego Agundez; interpreter: Diego de Molina; witness: Rodrigo de Albornoz, accountant

5 pesos

Payment certificate: 7-XII-1545; scribe: Pedro de Requena; made before Hernando de Alvarado and Martín Oliver

2 common gold Payment certificate: 12-IV-1545; scribes: Juan Gallego pesos per Indian; and Diego Agundez; witness: Francisco Díaz food provided

Magueyes* removed from 44 common gold Payment certificate: 17-XI-1543; scribe: Juan Muñoz the oidor’s estate in Tacuba pesos Rico; interpreter: Francisco Muñoz; made before Viceroy The oidor’s estate in Tacuba Lands in “término Mendoza was fenced de Azcapotzalco”

The mill’s “conduit” “for water to be carried to the mulberry trees”

Mill construction in Tacuba

Mill construction in Tacuba ½ peso per Indian Payment certificate:: 12-IV-1545; scribe: Diego Agundez; plus one fanega* interpreter: Juan Gallego; witness: Francisco Díaz of maize for the macehuales

The oidor’s estate in Tacuba 16 pesos, 2 tomínes (in common gold) plus 52 cuartos* (4 maravedíes* each)

Payment certificate: 16-XII-1544; interpreter: Alonso Banegas; scribe: Diego Agundez; tribute assessors: Fernando Puñalero and Juan de Manzanares

52 Indians 10 days

8 pesos

Tepexpa

Weed part of the oidor’s sown lands in Ximilpan

Payment certificate: 25-II-1544; scribe: Diego Agundez; interpreter: Juan de Contreras

Not specified

2 tomínes per tameme

Azcapotzalco

Three loads of “mulberry trees” taken from Alonso de Ávila’s ranch to the oidor’s estate in Tacuba

3 tameme*

Malazatepec

43 Indians 5 days

3 Indians 6 days

40 Indians 6 days

15 Indians 8 days

4 “tezoconques” Not specified (stonecutters) 4 days

3 whitewashers 4 days

28 Indians 5 days

Tepeji

Texcoco

Tenayuca

Uslazpa

Tenayuca

Tenayuca

Tenayuca

Not specified

Not specified

To weed the estate in Tacuba

“They worked on the mill’s conduit”

Whitewashed mill’s storeroom

4 pesos, 3 tomínes

6 reales

1 peso

31 pesos

7 pesos, 4 tomínes

12 tomínes plus food

Mill construction in Tacuba 6 pesos

100 Indians and Wheat weeded in ranch in 49 pesos, 5 caciques the oidor’s estate in Tacuba 2 tomínes 15 days

Totolapa

Payment

Fig trees and mulberry 1 tomín each trees taken from Atlixco to the oidor’s estate in Tacuba

Work Done/Place

13 tameme


Atlixco (Barrio de Santa María)

Town(s)


Payment certificate: 27-VI-1546; scribe: Antonio de Turcios

Payment certificate: 22-XI-1545; scribe: Juan de Manzanares; witnesses: Agustín Guerrero and Fco. Díaz

Payment certificate: 22-XI-1545; scribe: Juan de Manzanares; witnesses: Agustín Guerrero and Fco. Díaz

Payment certificate: 9-IX-1545; scribe: Juan de Manzanares; witness: Francisco de Melgar

Payment certificate: 22-XI-1545; scribe: Juan de Manzanares; witnesses: Agustín Guerrero, assayer at the Mint House, and Francisco Díaz

Payment certificate: 2-III-1546; scribe: Francisco de Herrera

Payment certificate: 27-IV-1545; scribe: Pedro Garcés; interpreter: Juan Fraile

Payment certificate: 5-VII-1546; scribe: Juan Muñoz Rico; interpreter: Hernando de Tapia

Payment certificate: 22-XII-1543; scribe: Juan Muñoz Rico; witnesses: Martín de Oliver and Miguel de Zuluaga

Observations

Tameme1

2 tameme

40 Indians

40 Indians 6 days

20 Indians 5 days

2 masons 36 days 1 Indian 11 days

40 Indians 6 days

Macehuales1

Not specified

Not specified

Jilotepec

Not specified

Tepeji

Tenayuca

Uslazpa

Texcoco

Cuautitlan

Coyoacan

Tepentachi

Tacuba


10 tameme

Indians de la Estancia de Alonso de Avila

1½ gold pesos

½ tipuzque peso each

1½ tipuzque pesos each

½ tomín each per day 5½ tomínes

25 tostones* and a tomín

60 silver reales

5 gold pesos

Picked wheat from sown lands on the oidor’s estate


Cultivated an orchard in 14 pesos the garden in Chapultepec Built orchard’s fence 2 pesos

Cultivated a plot in the oidor’s estate in Ximilpan

Mill construction in Tacuba 1 silver cuartillo* each per day

Not specified

Not specified

The acequia in Tacuba

The acequia in Tacuba

Mill construction in Tacuba 60 tomínes and 40 cuartos

Two fig trees brought from Oaxaca

Two fig tree loads were carried

Took mulberry trees to Mexico City

Payment certificate: 31-XII-1548; scribe: Francisco Díaz; interpreter: Juan Gallego

Payment certificate: 20-VIII-1543; scribe: Pedro de Requena; interpreter: Fco. Muñoz; tribute assessors: Juan Franco and Pedro de Vergara

Payment certificate: 19-XI-1544; scribe: Baltasar del Salto; interpreter: Hernando de Tapia

Payment certificate: 23-XI-1544; scribe: Diego Tristán; interpreter: Juan de Contreras; made before ordinary alcalde Luis de la Torre

Payment certificate: 5-VIII-1544; scribe: Juan de Ugarte

Payment certificate: 8-XI-1545; scribe: Gerónimo López; witness: Fco. de Melgar

Payment certificate: 8-XI-1545; scribe: Gerónimo López; witnesses: Fco. Sánchez and Pedro Ruiz de Haro

Payment certificate: 19-IV-1544; scribe: Gerónimo López; witness: Fco. de Olivares

Payment certificate: 20-II-1544; scribe: Gerónimo López; witness: Fco. de Olivares

Payment certificate: 21-I-1544; scribe: Baltasar de Castro; witnesses: Pedro de Salcedo and Fco. Melgar

Payment certificate: 19-I-1544; scribe: Baltasar de Castro; witnesses: Pedro de Salcedo and Fco. Melgar

1,440 laborers

Not specified

Tameme1

Tacuba

Mexicalcingo

Texcoco

45 pesos

Payment

14,800 bricks were taken to Mexico City for the oidor’s stores


Worked a plot in 9.5 common Azcapotzalco gold pesos Another work not specified 2 common gold pesos

The “new” acequia and common bridge were built

Work Done/Place

Payment certificate: 3-II-1552; scribe: Francisco Díaz; interpreter: Juan Fraile

Payment certificate: 20-VIII-1543; scribe: Pedro de Requena; interpreter: Luis de León; witness: Juan Ramírez, scribe

Payment certificate: 22-VI-1548; Alonso de Villaseca paid on behalf of the oidor; scribe: Hernán Gómez; witness: Marcos Roquete

Observations

* See Glossary. 1. Time and number not specified. Sources: AGI, Justicia, 260: Visita by licenciado Tello de Sandoval in 1543–1547 on the Audiencia of México; Oidor licenciado Lorenzo de Tejada’s descargo documents; “traslado” (copy transcription) of his notarial certificates. AGI, Justicia, 237: Residencia taken in 1553–1560 by licenciado Diego López de Montealegre, oidor of that Audiencia and appointed judge for that matter. Residencia taken from oidor Lorenzo de Tejada; documents for his descargos; “Traslado” (copy transcription) of his notarial certificates.


Town(s)


12,000 rodrigones

200 “cuaminilas” (small, round sticks)

180 loads of firewood

300 loads of quicklime for the ranch

1,028 loads of lime

800 large planks “such as those that were brought for the boarding of the marquis’ house” for the mill

Atlapulco

Atlapulco

Coyoacan

Tacuba

Tolapatotonilco

Coyoacan


830 loads of lime

800 loads of lime for mills

Izquintlapilco

40 lime “cahizle”* for sown lands

5 “strips of bed clothes”

Acatlan

Izquintlapilco

16 loads of palm leaves each with “two hundred cogollos”*

Malinalco

Ajacuba

54 loads of lime for Mexico City 2 pesos, 6 tomínes

Atilalaquia

8 common gold pesos

53 common gold pesos, 1 tomín


5 pesos

13 reales

12 pesos, 8 reales each


41 pesos in tostones

40 pesos in tostones

1½ common gold pesos

4 common gold pesos


350 loads of lime

Texcoco

Remuneration

Description

Town

19-XI-1544; scribe: Baltazar del Salto; interpreter: Hernando de Tapia

1-IV-1545; scribe: Melchor de Valdés

10-XII-1542; interpreter: Juan de Contreras

22-XI-1545; scribe: Juan de Manzanares; witness: Francisco Melgar, Tejada’s attorney

10-IV-1543; scribe: Juan de Manzanares; interpreter: Juan Gallego

10-IV-1543; scribe: Juan de Manzanares; interpreter: Juan Gallego

16-V-1546; scribe: Juan de Zaragoza; interpreter: Juan Gallego; witness: Gerónimo López, his encomendero

27-II-1545

10-III-1544; tribute assessor: Alonso de Villaseca; witness: Domingo Martín

10-III-1544; tribute assessor: Alonso de Villaseca

23-IV-1545; interpreter: Juan Fraile

14-IV-1545

12-III-1545; interpreter: Tomé López, Texcoco neighbor nahuatlato*

Observations

Table 3.4 Material Indian Towns Contributed to Oidor Tejada’s Building Works According to Notarial Acts

Description

Stone and tezontle* for the oidor’s orchard

Wood and rodrigones delivered and taken to the oidor’s ranch

Rodrigones, wood

Rodrigones, wood

Rodrigones, wood

17 “shovels”1 120 “small beams” 80 “spade and hoe shafts”

60 brazas of “heavy stones” for a house near the tianguis*

309 loads of lime

210 “wooden sticks” of “lake plants from the Choquía Lagoon”

Town

Otumba

Jalataco

Atlapulco

Oquila

Capuluaque

Coyoacan

Mezquique

Atitalaquia

Chaltengo


9½ common gold pesos



3 pesos 6 pesos 1 peso


6 common gold pesos, 4 tomínes


57 common gold pesos, 1½ tomínes

59 pesos, 6 tomínes1

Remuneration

12-XII-1543; interpreter: Hernando de Tapia

28-II-1545; interpreter: Juan Gallego

28-II-1543; scribe: Antonio de Turcios, secretary of the Audiencia; interpreter: Francisco Muñoz; before Viceroy Mendoza

7-VII-1543; scribe: Antonio de Turcios, secretary of the Audiencia; interpreter: Francisco Muñoz; before Viceroy Mendoza

21-VII-1543; scribe: Antonio de Turcios, secretary of the Audiencia; interpreter: Juan de Contreras; before Viceroy Mendoza




22-XI-1543; scribe: Antonio de Turcios, secretary of the Audiencia; interpreter: Juan de Contreras; before Viceroy Mendoza

Observations

Grass for Tejada’s house






565 brazas of lawn for Tejada’s houses and 800 fanegas of sand and lime

Area in Mexico

Area in Mexico

Area in Mexico

Area in Mexico

Area in Mexico

Area in Mexico

Area in Mexico


3,090 beams to be placed in the tianguis

Tlalmanalco

165 common gold pesos, 5 tomínes, 6 grains






182 gold pesos


3 cuartillos per plank

235 planks of cedar and different woods, stones, and laborers for his houses

Tlalmanalco


50 five-braza-long cypress beams 50 pesos

400 beams, “4 brazas and one palmo* long”

Amecameca


300 beams taken to the “tianguis’ 150 common gold pesos urban plots”

200 beams for the oidor’s houses in Mexico

Amecameca


Tlalmanalco

14,800 bricks taken to Mexico City

Texcoco

4 pesos

Tlalmanalco

Tezontle soil taken to the oidor’s estate in Chapultepec

Mexicalcingo

21-III-1550; Alonso de Villaseca was granted legal power to pay

8-XI-1549; the oidor himself paid

28-III-1549; Gracián de Bársola was granted legal power to pay

29-XII-1551; Alonso de Villaseca was granted legal power to pay

17-XI-1549; the oidor himself paid; interpreter: Hernando de Tapia

6-IV-1549; Gracián de Bársola was granted legal power to pay

29-XII-1551; Alonso de Villaseca was granted legal power to pay

12-IX-1548; Alonso de Villaseca was granted legal power to pay

14-I-1551; Alonso de Villaseca was granted legal power to pay

2-IV-1549; Alonso de Villaseca was granted legal power to pay

22-VI-1549; Alonso de Villaseca was granted legal power to pay

24-V-1549; Gracián de Bársola was granted legal power to pay

12-X-1549; Alonso de Villaseca was granted legal power to pay

3-II-1552; scribe: Francisco Díaz; interpreter: Juan Fraile

20-VIII-1543; scribe: Pedro de Requena; interpreter: Luis de León

210 —

100 brazas of lawn for Tejada’s house

49½ brazas of “heavy stones”

Area in Mexico

Xochimilco

1½ pesos per braza


Remuneration



Observations

*See Glossary. 1. Payment includes work by the town. See Table 3.3. Sources: AGI, Justicia, 260. Licenciado Tello de Sandoval’s visit in 1543–1557 to the Audiencia of Mexico; Descargo documents for oidor licenciado Lorenzo de Tejada; Transcription of his notarial certificates; AGI, Justicia, 237; Residencia on oidor Tejada in 1553–1560, by licenciado Diego López de Montealegre, oidor of the same Audiencia and appointed judge for that matter; Documents for his descargos; Transcription of his notarial certificates.

Description

Town




Tejada had a personal interest in trade, a branch he handled with a certain expertise. Merchant Francisco Gallego commented, complainingly, that licenciado Tejada bought Negro slaves sent to supply the colony at a low price and later sold them at a much higher one. The oidor’s profits in this business must have been considerable. In late 1532 a Negro slave was worth between 45,000 and 50,000 maravedis.164 In general, the basic motive that brought Tejada into the circle of merchants in Mexico was that of promoting joint affairs. In fact, with traders Jerónimo de León and Alonso de Villaseca, he maintained a society that had commercial connections in Spain, too.165 Tejada’s economic interests were especially linked to one of the richest men in New Spain, Villaseca, whom the oidor had accompanied to “work” silver in the Mint. Furthermore, at the same time the two had interests in the recently discovered mines of the Zacatecas area: in 1550 Tejada appears as a mine owner in Guachinango with four houses for his slaves. In 1551 Villaseca was also mentioned as a mine owner in Zacatecas. It is probable that the treasurer, Alonso de Mérida, was also involved in Tejada’s company for “working” silver in the Mint, and in 1551 he also had mining interests in Zacatecas.166 Certainly, few merchants would let pass the opportunity to associate themselves with a high-ranking official. The traders who established businesses with Tejada found it very profitable—from many points of view—to undertake ventures with an oidor (or with any other high-ranking colonial official). Thus, for example, Tejada provided Villaseca with enough Indians to build him houses in Mexico City that were worth 7,000 ducats. Moreover, the oidor legally helped the trader obtain cattle ranches in the Valley of Toluca.167 Likewise, thanks to his influence, the official made it easier for Villaseca to rent a large part of the royal tribute, especially in “clothing,” from the profitable encomienda of Meztitlán. Mérida, the encomendero of the town and treasurer of the Mint, had close ties of friendship with Tejada. In addition, the two had adjacent estates in Ximilpan. Thus, the oidor served as mediator for the tribute being rented out to Villaseca.168 Thanks to the oidor, another trading partner of his, Jerónimo de León, received around 100 Indians who were in the Mexico City and Tlatelolco prisons to work in the merchant’s textile mills. This was commented on by León to the visitor of Indians, Diego Ramírez, stating that because of the cocoliztli (epidemic sickness that affected the Indians) plague (1545–1548) he needed labor, a problem Tejada solved for him. Finally, the oidor handed over Indians for personal service to Juan de Manzanares over a period of ten years to work for him in his “farming ventures.”169 Thus, once again we see that the economic power enjoyed by the oidor was backed by his political power.

— 211


One of the clearest guidelines for understanding the interest Tejada had in mid-sixteenth-century colonial commerce can be seen in the trading houses he built in the district of San Juan Moyotlán, very close to the Indian market of San Hipólito, which was set up under Mendoza’s government in 1540.170 This project probably began before Tejada started diversifying his interest in acquiring urban plots. To obtain the pieces of land necessary for building his trading houses in Mexico City, Tejada used three methods: (1) a royal gift of plots from Viceroy Mendoza, (2) the purchase of plots from private individuals, and (3) the mediation of his partner, Alonso de Villaseca, who would appear as a frontman. In 1543, Tejada received a grant of a plot in Mexico City, located alongside the Indian market of San Hipólito in the San Juan neighborhood. The plot bordered on a house belonging to Villaseca and the houses of Tomás Rijoles, both of whom were friends of Tejada’s. In 1547 he bought an unknown amount of urban land from licenciado Alamán. In 1543 and 1544 Villaseca obtained grants of plots from the Town Council. These plots the trader transferred (we do not know in what way) to the oidor, although doubtlessly the ties of interest linking Tejada and Villaseca facilitated the procedure. Other plots of land were transferred to Tejada by Diego Tristán. That resident also received the concession of plots in the area, which he then transferred to the oidor (see Table 3.5). Probably, he also had a friendship tie with Diego Tristán. The only thing we know is what Tristán declared, namely, that he often visited the official’s house.171 Moreover, the oidor pressured Gregorio de Rivas to sell some plots of land to Villaseca. These bordered on those Tejada already had in the market area and rapidly passed into his hands. The oidor mentioned that he bought some plots of land from the following people: licenciado Alamán, Antonio de Turcios (secretary of the Audiencia), Alonso de Villaseca, Gaspar Melchor, and Diego Tristán, among others whose names he does not mention.172 On these plots, oidor Tejada built one of the most beautiful mid-sixteenthcentury structures in Mexico City. The structure as a whole covered about thirty-eight houses and trading houses in the Indian market area. Testimonies from the time described how he constructed a magnificent complex consisting of trading houses named after himself. To gauge the importance of this building work, we only have to mention that in 1568, Martín Cortés (Marqués del Valle and son of conquistador Hernán Cortés) had only twenty-seven trading houses in Mexico City—eleven houses fewer than Tejada had twenty years before.173 The best description of the oidor’s trading houses doubtless comes from the humanist Francisco Cervantes de Salazar who, in one of his dialogues, has his characters (named Zuazo and Zamora Alfaro) comment:

212 —


ZUAZO: Now look at that superb and beautiful building called Tejada’s trading houses, the like of which there are few in the world. The name is taken from the use to which they are put and the person who built them. ALFARO: I never saw anything so beautiful, the ground floor of the building is triangular. Some wide and long arcades form two of its sides, held up by large equidistant columns, and on the other side, it is limited by a ditch of water. Under the arcades there are trading houses so alike that if it were not for their numbers, one could [not] distinguish one from another. Their interior, which is also the same in all of them, is set out with such art that one can only admire how there is a complete house on such a small plot of land with a gateway, yard, stables, dining room, kitchen and all the rest. ZAMORA: Above the gateway one sees the second floor of the trading houses, and due to those large windows, almost all of the rooms on that floor receive sunshine and light. Behind it is the ditch which is common to all the trading houses. It is closed by adobe walls everywhere and they widen out at the extreme ends of the arcades, to form something like small wharves, to which one can go down by a stone stairway.174

This description is not only valuable because it stems from a contemporary of the oidor. Cervantes de Salazar must have known the building of the trading houses very well, as he was a cousin of Villaseca’s—in whose house he lodged in Mexico City and whose protection he received. And there is no doubt he knew Tejada. Probably, he also followed more or less closely the construction of the trading houses, and his enthusiasm for the architectonic form of this building is obvious in the paragraphs quoted.175 The oidor mentioned that his trading houses were for the “benefit” of the city, since when he started building there was a scarcity of “dwelling places.” In his attempt to demonstrate that benefit, Tejada mentioned that before the building was started the San Juan neighborhood was a “rubbish patch of the city, with latrines and swamps,” but from the time his houses were built “a great benefit has followed for these trading houses having been populated and being a reason for people to settle there and houses and buildings being constructed in the neighborhood.” Furthermore, he added that his building was “the most sumptuous and best constructed, strong and lasting in all of México City.”176 A friar named Juan de la Puerta wrote a memorandum to the Crown in which he complained of Tejada’s abuses against the Indian population when carrying out his enterprises: “[S]hops in Mexico City, nearly 40 trading houses, each one of them also serving as a dwelling place for a resident, because they

— 213


have all the rooms necessary, plus a stock-yard and stables and a room for guests and all of this was built by the Indians of Mexico City and its surroundings.”177 Around the trading houses there was also a landing stage the oidor ordered to be built so canoes with merchandise could arrive there directly, in addition to which there was “a trough for washing horses.”178 The oidor commented that before the landing stage was built, no more than 4 canoes could fit into the place, but from the time of his initiative 400 canoes could land there. He mentioned that it was all made of limestone and that he had ordered “to deepen the ditch of water and widen it” (this refers to the ditch that ran behind the trading houses, as Cervantes de Salazar had mentioned). On the subject of the “trough site,” he said he had very good stone entrances made. All of this had cost him 1,500 pesos.179 It is probable, however, that the trading houses did not turn out to be so profitable, in the opinion of some residents and regidores of the city and of the Indian neighborhood of San Juan. For example, the building of the landing stage and the trough site was not approved by the Town Council of Mexico City whose regidores ordered that the building be stopped. Tejada’s reaction was violent and targeted especially regidor Ruy González—who, it seems, continued to survey the works undertaken by Tejada—and also involved Mayor Alonso de Bazán in the conflict.180 Furthermore, there were complaints from Spanish residents who said the oidor stole material and houses for his works. For example, the scribe of mines, Juan de Cuevas, explained that he took 7,000 bricks from a Mexico City resident’s plot, as well as some residents’ houses. González arrested the Indians of Xochimilco for taking “some” stone that they had transported for municipal building works to the plots where Tejada was building his trading houses. Tejada had ordered this transfer and sent orders that the Indians should be freed.181 In addition, the location of the trading houses—near the Indian market of San Hipólito—may have made it become a market parallel to that of San Juan. It is not possible to show precise and immediate consequences of this trade for Indian commerce, although in general the trend was for it to become weaker. Charles Gibson points out that in the late sixteenth century the Indian government had lost almost all of its original authority over economic life within the city. The regulation and supply of markets now corresponded totally to the Spaniards, as did the control over the native and white economies and over the average exchanges that affected both of them.182 Actually, in both political and economic senses, the support of Spanish trade directed toward the search for solutions to the supply of Mexico City was

214 —


an important subject. At that time, especially in the Valley of Mexico, there were problems that led to a rise in the price of foodstuffs. One of the most important problems, no doubt, was the drop in the Indian population as a result, among other factors, of the cocoliztli plague in the period 1545–1548. Enrique Florescano also adds that “the suppression of bearer service and very especially the formation of an urban market in Mexico City . . . fostered the development of speculation and the proliferation of retailers.”183 This last point enables us to understand in part Tejada’s interest in his trading houses but, above all, to see the negative effect enterprises of this type produced in any attempt to bring down the cost of foodstuffs. Mendoza’s policy, however, seems to have favored this situation or, at least, was not very effective in controlling it. Data gathered by the Audiencia of México and Nueva Galicia in 1550–1551 “coincide in admitting that the basic products had tripled in price over the last five years, in spite of the Viceroy’s orders.”184 In this sense, we should try to imagine the viceroy’s position vis-à-vis the oidor’s project and construction of the trading houses. An interesting work studied the renaissance Viceroy Mendoza conceived for Mexico City, especially influenced by the architectonic ideas of the fifteenthcentury humanist Batiste Alberti, and how he encouraged the construction of buildings according to that model.185 The plan for Tejada’s construction work may well be part of that project; the architectonic style of the oidor’s building according to the description by Cervantes de Salazar reinforces this idea. Moreover, the favor Tejada received from the viceroy in general and the friendship uniting them are elements to be taken into account. Maybe Mendoza took part in the design of the trading houses or at least made suggestions about it, as the viceroy also directed some construction plans during his administration in New Spain.186 Moreover, the trading houses are something more than an outstanding architectural work. Shortly after 1549, in part because the Crown forbade officials to devote themselves to private enterprise (see the section on labor), the oidor decided to sell his trading houses to Villaseca, who paid 40,000 pesos for them.187 Only some of the trading houses passed into Villaseca’s hands, however, since the trader really helped Tejada as a frontman.188 Both accepted—when confronted with the restraining orders sent by the Crown in 1549 against the oidores having enterprises—that the sale be carried out, and Villaseca was no doubt the most suitable person. In fact, Villaseca was a partner of Tejada’s in this building venture; the trader, for example, was in charge of collecting the rent from the trading houses that had been rented out to other private individuals.189

— 215


Part of the trading houses went to Villaseca, the rest to Tejada. Thus, in 1576 the Crown permitted Lorenzo de Tejada, the son of the oidor who had the same name as his father (a resident of Santo Domingo de la Calzada, his father’s hometown), to sell in Seville twenty-one trading houses located in Mexico City, which he had inherited at the death of the oidor. The buildings were bought from Tejada’s son by Juan Domingo de Tudela, a trader residing in Seville, for 20,000 ducats free of sales tax.190 The description of Tejada’s building work—the irrigation ditch, the estate, and his trading houses—brings to light an important question about the labor required by the Spaniards to create enterprises of this type and about the legal forms required during that time (1537–1550), when the Crown’s tendency was to establish the system of hiring Indian labor by the colonists as opposed to having them provide personal service. In its legal aspect, the problem was defined by the New Laws (1542) and the Royal Orders of 1549, in which personal service was eliminated. In the case of the oidor, however, his enterprises required a considerable contingent of workers and a large quantity of material to be transported to Mexico City, either by tameme or by water, using canoes across the lagoon. Specifically, the process of building the trading houses cannot solely be understood from the idyllic description Francisco Cervantes de Salazar wrote on this work. The social repercussions from these types of enterprises led to a profound deterioration in the Indian towns that were obliged to take part in them. At the same time, they illustrate the complexity of the forms by which, in their beginnings, colonial power and administration were settled.

INDIAN LABOR USED BY TEJADA IN HIS ENTERPRISES In this section I will focus on the Indian labor Tejada used in building up his agricultural estate. It is necessary first, though, to mention in general terms some aspects of the Indian labor policy carried out by Mendoza in those years. Indian labor during the period covered by this study has been widely analyzed, mainly by Silvio Zavala.191 In the instructions the Crown sent to Mendoza, Indian labor occupies a predominant place. With regard to free Indians and slaves destined for work in the mines, above all, there is an interest that coincides with the Crown’s interest in its fiscal policy.192 Specifically, the Crown pointed out that Indians in the corregimiento system should do personal service in the mines, although it recommended that this should entail the least possible “abuse of the natives.”193 Likewise, the Crown ordered that for the greater benefit of the Royal Treasury, an inquiry should be made to find

216 —

Diego Tristán

Purchase from Licenciado Alamán

Purchase from Gregorio Riva

14-VII-1547

Unavailable

Bounded by “Tejada’s stores”

Unavailable

Next to “Mexico City tianguis”

Near “Mexico City tianguis”

Next to “Mexico City tianguis”

1½ urban plots

Unavailable

1 urban plot

“part of an urban plot”

some “demasías”

100 by 50 “demasías”*

1½ plots

Size

*See Glossary. Source: AGI, Justicia, 237, fols. 679–861, “Escrituras para descargos del juicio de residencia del oidor Tejada.” 1. By grant real granted in Valladolid on March 9, 1545. Prince Philip gave Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada a lot with the same purpose. It seems to confirm the grant by Viceroy Mendoza in 1543.

Alonso de Villaseca

Licenciado Tejada

Grant: corregimiento Mexico

13-I-1547

Alonso de Villaseca Diego Tristán

Grant: corregimiento Mexico

21-II-1544

Next to “Tejada’s urban plot”

Next to “Mexico City tianguis”*

Licenciado Tejada Alonso de Villaseca

Location

On Behalf of

12-VIII-1546 Grant: corregimiento Mexico

Grant [merced]: Viceroy Mendoza

Grant: corregimiento* Mexico

27-IX-1543 1

3-XII-1543


Date

Table 3.5 Mexico City Lands Acquired or Possessed by Oidor Tejada


— 217


out whether it was suitable that royal officials, on behalf of the Crown’s interest, should send Negro slaves or Indians to the mines. Finally, it was mentioned in the instructions that the viceroy should inform the Crown “of the way” or form of “making” slaves in New Spain, recalling that with regard to Indian slaves taken in war, the former authorities of New Spain had been sent various decrees. The Crown recommended that the viceroy inform it of this matter, as well as of the “way in which, at present, Indians should be used as bearers.” Moreover, the viceroy and the Audiencia were reminded that the Indians should be protected from any excesses the Spaniards might commit against them, for which it called attention to the legislation on the matter.194 As is well-known, before the New Laws personal service had been an important part of the tribute provided by Indians in encomienda.195 For example, the encomenderos used to exchange tribute in-kind for labor in the mines, and, in addition, the Indians in the corregimiento system were also occasionally channeled to this service. During his administration, Mendoza favored Indians working in the mines, although he ordered that the service should be rationalized and issued several decrees in that regard.196 He also regulated the work of the tameme, although always defending their use even after the use of tameme had been regulated in a more restrictive way by the New Laws.197 During this period encomenderos, the viceroy, and royal officials agreed that the mines were a priority. In a letter to the king, Mendoza mentioned that “the main support of this land and what makes it possible for your Majesty to receive revenue from it, are the mines.”198 The Royal Orders on Indian labor manifested in the New Laws, and the later prohibition of personal service in 1549, also made it possible to define a trend—from 1550 on—in which the distribution of services or forced rental was the means for channeling Indian labor.199 Furthermore, with regard to the personal service the viceroy and the Audiencia received, before the promulgation of the New Laws these officials had the right to receive service from the Indians, consisting of transporting and delivering to them hay, wood, and ocote (torch pine).200 After 1549 it was forbidden for the colonists and officials to use this or any other unpaid service from the Indians. To carry out this order, the well-known royal decree of February 22, 1549, doing away with personal service, was issued.201 We know that before 1544 the viceroy made ample use of this right, and during Tello de Sandoval’s visit he was accused of abusing the Mexico City and Santiago Indians who had delivered wood and hay in greater quantity to him than that which corresponded to the service they should provide to the viceregal house. In addition, 120 Indians per day were sent for service in his house.202

218 —


An accusation of greater seriousness against the viceroy was formulated by the Indians of Michoacán who, during Sandoval’s visit, said they were forced to deliver provisions and supplies in general, as well as providing Indians to serve as tameme to the men of the expedition the viceroy sent to the north on discovery ventures. When traveling through some of the towns of Michoacán, the expedition members sent out under Vázquez de Coronado forced the local Indians to hand over these tameme and provisions. The Indians explained that this took place with the consent of the area corregidor, Gonzalo Gómez de Betanzos. Some Indians stated, however, that later Don Luis de Castilla had paid them on behalf of the viceroy. In the viceroy’s expedition under Coronado, among many other Indians from different Indian towns, 414 Indians from the Mexico City area went with him (of whom only 144 returned).203 These were the circumstances that prevailed with regard to Indian labor, of which Tejada benefited to build up his agricultural estate. This labor he used between 1542 and 1549, that is, during the time between the promulgation of the New Laws (1542) and the later general prohibition against using Indian personal service (1549). Other prohibitions from then on affected the activities in which this labor force was occupied, such as the Royal Orders of April 29, 1549, that legally prevented officials from having commercial ventures and agricultural estates, among other private benefits.204 From the time of the New Laws, the need to obtain Indian labor brought about a search for personal service. In spite of the fact that from early times the Crown had tried to establish the policy of remuneration of Indian labor, personal service in practice made it unnecessary for the Spanish colonists to have recourse to this formula in order to obtain it. The political circumstances of this period, however, made it necessary to pay for the native labor. Thus, some testimonies from the Indian towns that worked for Oidor Tejada mentioned that before 1543–1545 approximately, “there was no pay nor was there a rate for it,” but from that date on “each macehual is paid a quartillo of silver for each day’s work.”205 Thus, and from the point of view of the relevant legislation, there was an attempt to see that labor was remunerated. Mainly because of the interests of the local economic groups and the needs of the Royal Treasury, however— interests that did not permit greater rationalization in the appropriation of Indian labor—the system of forced hiring, or repartimiento, took form around 1550. From the labor and material Tejada required from some native towns in the Valley of Mexico, two important aspects stand out. The first refers to the cost of labor and material the oidor used in his enterprises, which was enormous as

— 219


we have seen. If he had paid the wages specified in the legislation, as well as for the material, his enterprises would hardly have turned out to be profitable, and even though he had devoted himself to carrying out some initiatives in the economic domain, they would doubtless have been on a lesser scale. The second interesting aspect involves the legislation itself, especially the legal formulas—notarial documents—the oidor used to avoid responsibility vis-à-vis the legislation without the need to challenge it openly. Therefore, the oidor tried to establish and prove, by means of the presentation of a large number of notarial documents (both during Tello de Sandoval’s visit in 1546 and in his residencia hearings in 1554), how from the outset he had hired Indian workers and come to an agreement with them about wages for the work carried out. There is no evidence of this in the Indians’ testimonies, however (see Tables 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, and 3.7). It is important to analyze the labor and material the Indians contributed to Oidor Tejada, not only to find out the magnitude of his enterprise but also because the study of this case enables us to consider the forms of recruiting Indian workers the colonists used immediately prior to and after the promulgation of the New Laws. In addition, it provides an indicator of the large numbers of Indians these early enterprises demanded. In spite of the fact that the case of Tejada is atypical—his high political position made it possible for him to have greater opportunities than other Spaniards—the demand for Indian labor was a constant necessity in the colonizers’ enterprises, although perhaps on a different scale than that required by Tejada. At that time, Indian labor represented the most important way of generating wealth appropriated by the settlers, to an extent that has perhaps not been sufficiently stressed. A Dominican in Mexico wrote to the Crown in 1588, when the Indian population had dropped alarmingly, that “the wealth of this land up to now has been the infinite multitude of Indians.”206 We should ask whether the colonists’ entrepreneurial drive in those years would have been as intense if they had paid the wages officially assigned for Indians, as well as for the materials the towns handed over for the construction work. A comparison of the oidor’s statements with those of the Indians as to the work carried out in his enterprises and the wages received makes it possible to verify—although only in a quantitative form—the limited number of Indian workers who did, in fact, receive wages according to what was stipulated by law in the mid-sixteenth century. Contemporary testimonies point out the considerable number of Indians the oidor used in his enterprises. The charges made against Tejada during his residencia hearings (1554) offer comprehensive figures on the number of Indi-

220 —


ans used in his building projects and on his estate. There it is said that over a period of fifteen years, 15,000 Indians worked every year merely on his estate at Ximilpan. On the construction and delivery of material for the building of the irrigation ditch to that estate, it is said that he used Indians from some towns in the Valley of Mexico, amounting to 350,000 days’ work, in a rota labor assignment.207 I have made approximate calculations of the labor—working days and material—the official used. I gathered this information from the Indians’ testimonies and the notarial documents the oidor presented during Tello de Sandoval’s visit (1546) and in his residencia hearings (see Tables 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, and 3.7). With regard to these figures, we must take into account that the work carried out started between 1539 and 1541 at the Ximilpan estate. This was the three-year period before the great plague of the cocoliztli (1545–1548), which led to a great drop in the Indian population of New Spain. The work, however—both on the estate and in the trading houses—continued during the epidemic, although probably to a lesser extent. In addition, at all times—giving greater validity to Indian testimonies—the figures for the central Mexico population worked on by Sherburne Cook and Woodrow Borah are implicit, especially those covering the years 1532–1548, where it is shown that the population dropped from approximately 16.8 million natives to 7.8 million.208 Through the testimonies and pictorial records of the Indian towns, we can see the work carried out on Tejada’s estate (which includes the work on the irrigation ditch, mills, crops, and other tasks) during the years 1539–1546, as well as the wages received by the Indians for that work. The oidor used for his estate labor from seven towns in the Valley of Mexico: Azcapotzalco, Coyoacán, Culhuacan, Huitzilopochco, Iztapalapa, Mexicalcingo, and Tacuba.209 Indian labor applied to different tasks was distributed as follows. Tejada received a total of 17,968 days’ work from the Indians of Azcapotzalco, for which he paid 139 gold pesos.210 At least 14,400 days’ work was necessary for building a fence with a length of 2,400 brazas (approximately 3,032 meters). Coyoacán contributed 72,800 days’ work for the oidor’s constructions—among which were those from its subject town, Tacubaya—for which the oidor paid 260 pesos. The irrigation ditch required the work of 60 men for approximately two and a half years.211 From the town of Culhuacan, 75,700 days’ work was obtained, for which Tejada handed over 140 pesos.212 From the town of Huitzilopochco he used 67,920 days’ work, for which he also paid 140 pesos. Iztapalapa participated with only 120 days’ work on the part of a native official, who received 2 pesos. From the town of Mexicalcingo, Tejada used 282,664 days’ work, paying only 25 pesos. The labor of 200 Indians for two and a half

— 221


years was required for “breaking up” the soil, and 100 men worked for four years on the irrigation ditch.213 Finally, Tacuba contributed a total of 1,131,640 days’ work, in exchange for which it received as payment only 728 pesos. Most of this work was for the construction of 2,400 brazas of fallow land (approximately 908,400 days’ work) and opening up 400 brazas of land (150,400).214 No statement presented by the Indian towns mentions having carried out work in Tejada’s trading houses. In total, the oidor used on his agricultural estate 1,648,812 days’ work between 1540 and 1546, for which he paid only 1,434 pesos of common gold (see Table 3.6). If he had paid the official wage of a silver quartillo, the oidor should have paid about 51,522 pesos of common gold. That is, counting only the wages of the Indians who worked on his estate, the oidor saved 50,088 pesos of common gold. Tejada’s notarial documents, however, show a different version of the labor he used on his estate. They record the labor of eleven towns on the estate, nine of which belonged to the Valley of Mexico. Of the two remaining ones, Tepeji and Totolapa, the former was in Tula and the second is difficult to locate, as there are several towns, both within and outside the Valley of Mexico, with that name. Thus, four towns more than those declared by the Indians appear as having been hired for work on the estate. Likewise, the towns of Culhuacan and Iztapalapa, which in their testimonies and pictorial records appear as having taken part in work for the oidor, are not recorded in the notarial documents. With regard to Azcapotzalco, the notarial documents reflect that it contributed 1,664 Indians, for whom 52 pesos were paid.215 From the town of Coyoacán, 15,552 Indians were sent to his estate, and they were paid 466 pesos. From the town of Cuautitlán, 240 days’ work was used, and 7 pesos were paid. Tejada admits that he received from Huitzilopochco 4,480 days’ work, for which he handed over 140 pesos. From Mexicalcingo he received 4,780 days, handing over 149 pesos for the service. A total of 3,584 days’ work was contributed by Otumba, Tejada paying 112 pesos for this.216 The oidor admitted that Tacuba had contributed 32,064 days’ work, for which it was given 1,002 pesos. According to the oidor, Tenayuca had provided a total of 630 days’ work on his estate, earning 20 pesos. The town of Tepeji totaled 472 days’ work, for which it earned 8 pesos and 6 reales.217 The town of Tepentachi provided a total of 512 days’ work, receiving 16 pesos.218 Finally, the town of Totolapa provided 1,572 days’ work and was paid 49 pesos. In the notarial documents it is seen that Tejada used a total of 65,633 days’ work on his estate, for which he paid 2,049 pesos. To these figures we should

222 —


add a number of days’ work used by the oidor whose destinations—trading houses or estate—we do not know, as they are not mentioned in the documents. In this regard, it was written that the Indians of Culhuacan provided 4,480 days’ work and received 140 pesos. From Mexicalcingo, Tejada used for his estate 4,780 days’ work, which increased to 4,848 thanks to the days that were not specified, for which the global wage the oidor paid to that town amounted to 151 pesos and 4 reales.219 This is the case of Tenayuca, which from the 630 days’ work destined for the estate increased its number to 776 in total, the wage therefore increasing to 24 pesos. Also recorded in the documents are 520 days’ work from the town of Tepexpa, without any indication of the place where the work was carried out for the oidor and for which 16 pesos were paid. So the totals shown in Tejada’s notarial documents are 70,847 days’ work, for which Tejada paid 2,211 pesos. With regard to the service of tameme to the oidor on his estate, we only have the testimony of the town of Mexicalcingo, where it is said they sent 2,000 tameme on three different occasions for which they received no wage at all, and that of Texcoco, in which it was stated that 1,500 Indian bearers transported 15,000 bricks.220 As for the service of tameme contributed by the towns for the construction of the trading houses, only one mentions the amount given and the wages received for it. The town of Mixquic sent to Tejada’s trading houses 448 tameme, for whom he paid 112 pesos. The towns of Amecameca, Cuitlahuac, Culhuacan, and Tlalmanalco record sending materials for the trading houses by means of tameme without specifying the number or the wage, although the latter should be included in the payment of material. The oidor’s notarial documents regarding the work of tameme hired for his estates and trading houses are rather different. In principle, he accepts that in his orchard alone he used 3 tameme from the town of Malazatepec, paying each one 2 tomínes; another 13 from Atlixco, paying them 13 tomínes (both quantities have been rounded out to 1 common peso);221 and 2 tameme from Xilotepec, to whom he paid 1½ pesos.222 For his trading houses he hired 125 tameme from the town of Texcoco, to whom he paid 31 pesos.223 Furthermore, 10 tameme from a private estate transported mulberry bushes for him to Mexico City, for which he paid 1½ pesos in copper coins. In total, according to notarial documents, the oidor used 153 tameme on his estates and his trading houses, for which he paid 33 pesos and 2 tomínes. The Indians did not state that any distinction had been made between a day’s wage and the work carried out by a native official (bricklayers, stonemasons, and other specialists), unlike what Tejada does, according to what is seen in the documents of proof at his residencia hearings. Thus, it appears that

— 223


he hired stonemasons from Tenayuca who provided a total of 28 days’ work, paying 1 peso, whereas Texcoco completed 163 days’ work, between whitewashers and bricklayers, for which Tejada paid 13 pesos. The town of Uslazapa did 220 days’ work and received as payment 43 pesos. In total, in specialized work the oidor used 415 days’ work and invested 1,500 pesos. Finally, I have made an approximation of the total cost, both of material and labor, concentrated in the buildings erected for Tejada. According to what we can see from the Indian testimonies, both the estate and the trading houses cost 2,888 pesos, including wages for days worked, bearers, and materials. Moreover, Tejada’s notarial documents reveal that the total invested in his enterprises was 4,126 pesos (see Tables 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, and 3.7). These results suffice to recall the price the estate and the trading houses reached at the time they were sold to understand the benefit from labor that was practically free and that was used disproportionately and with a great deal of compulsion. Tejada recruited Indian workers fundamentally by offering to pay them, accompanied by pressures—threats of imprisonment of their nobles and governors and of ill treatment. The offers of pay were simply not fulfilled as a matter of principle (see Tables 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, and 3.7). On the peculiarities of the recruitment of workers employed by the oidor, there are testimonies for several cases. For example, the Indians of Amecameca explained in 1554 that Tejada had ordered them some years before to take beams to Mexico City for the trading houses he was building in San Juan. Shortly afterward, Tejada summoned three nobles from that town, retaining them for ten days against their will to pressure the town to deliver the beams sooner. The nobles were ill treated and detained without food.224 The beams Amecameca had to send measured between 2 and 3 brazas wide. The work must have been considerable, as Gibson mentions in the case of Coyoacán that 340 Indians transported 17 wooden beams in 1548 by order of Cortés for the construction of the house of Oidor Quesada.225 Obviously, we cannot say that the beams provided to Tejada were of the same width as those demanded by the marquis (Hernán Cortés), but they cannot have been very different, as they were destined for the building of houses in the same time period. Therefore, their transport must have required a considerable number of workers. Furthermore, when the Indians of Tacuba worked on building the irrigation ditch, the town governor, Don Francisco, was arrested and transferred to the royal prison by some Mexico City constables the oidor had sent for that purpose. For four days the governor remained a prisoner because, in Tejada’s opinion, he had not sent enough workers for the building of the ditch. Francisco

224 —

1,500 tameme

Tameme1

Tameme1

Tameme1

100 men; 2 years and 5 months

200 men daily 2 months

800 men; 1½ days

1,200 men; 1 day

64 “workmen”

200 men daily 1 week

Not stated

200 men daily 2 years and 6 months

100 men daily; 4 years (60 men per day for 2 years, absences excluded)

Not stated

Not stated

40 men daily; 3 weeks

Texcoco

Amecameca

Amecameca

Tlalmanalco

Coyoacan

Mexicalcingo

Mexicalcingo

Mexicalcingo

Mexicalcingo

Mexicalcingo

Mexicalcingo

Mexicalcingo

Mexicalcingo

Cuitlahuac

Azcapotzalco

Azcapotzalco


Number of Workers

Town

None

260 pesos and 40 pesos for Tacubaya (“sujeto” of Coyoacán)

None

None

2 tomínes per 100 beams

None

Payment

A piece of “wedge” made for Tejada’s mills

A 2,400-braza palisade built on the oidor’s estate near Chapultepec

80 brazas of stones brought from Mezquique to Mexico

Construction of acequia “that comes from the mills”

Within Azcapotzalco boundaries, 400 brazas of square-shaped land plowed

Grass carried for the fence

A 200-braza-long grass fence placed in the orchard

Made 1,200 clay bricks; each person made 25 bricks

1,200 slabs carried to the orchard, 8 leagues distant


He paid with land

4 reales (there is no charge)


None

None

None

None

None

800 loads carried from Tezontal to the orchard, 4 leagues distant None

Acequia works; cleaning and purification; a huge canoe was built to be used as the acequia’s way in a channel

Acequia works; 1,600 brazas opened; ordered by the viceroy

Wood taken for his stores in Mexico

300 four-braza-long beams worth 4 tomínes were carried

600 beams taken to Mexico in groups of 100

15,000 bricks brought from Texcoco for his stores in Mexico

Description and Place

Table 3.6 Indian Towns’ Work for Oidor Tejada According to Indian Testimonies


— 225

Number of Workers

“at times with their wives and children”

1 whitewasher 120 days

60 men; 2 years, 6 months, 3 weeks

100 men daily 2 years and 6 months

Not stated

100 men daily for 2 years; 60 men daily for 5 additional months

Not stated

Not stated

Not stated

24,000 Indians

Not stated

20,000 Indians

20,000 Indians

Town

Azcapotzalco

Iztapalapa

Tacubaya

Culhuacan

Culhuacan

Ochilobusco

Mezquique

Mezquique

Mezquique

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba


10,000 “holes” dug in the oidor’s vineyard


A 2,400-braza ditch dug in the oidor’s Azcapotzalco lands

12,000 “holes” made in the vineyard to plant vine shoots; each hole required 2 Indians for a day

13 brazas of “heavy” stones carried to Mexico

40 “corner” stones carried to Mexico

110 brazas of “light” stones carried from Mezquique to Mexico

Acequia works

5 brazas of stones carried for Tejada’s houses

Work in the acequia that reached the mills; 800 brazas of acequia opened

Acequia works

Work in the “big swimming pool in the orchard”

They picked wheat 2 or 3 times Once he paid Another time he paid

Description and Place

40 pesos

40 pesos

See above

20 pesos for this and the next job

19 pesos, 4 tomínes (there is no charge)




1 common gold peso per braza (there is no charge)


40 pesos (v. Coyoacán)

2 pesos

48 pesos 41 pesos

Payment

Not stated

9,600 Indians (800 per day) Worm and locust extermination in the oidor’s orchard 2 weeks

26,400 Indians

7,200

20,000 Indians

20,000 Indians

24,000 Indians

24,000 Indians

1,800 “jornales” “at different times”

“Almost the whole town” Between 5 and 6 weeks

“Most of the town” 1 week

1,880 “workmen”

580 “laborers”

4,180 “laborers”

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

Tacuba

None


43 pesos, ½ tomín paid to 1,360 Indians; he did not pay the rest (15 pesos, 3½ tomínes were missing)

10 pesos

See above2

240 pesos for this and the next job

40 pesos

40 pesos

40 pesos

40 pesos

Unknown

40 pesos

40 pesos

None

40 pesos

40 pesos

1. No amount is stated. 2. Payment also included materials; see Table 3.7. Sources: A.G.I., Justicia, 237; Residencia hearing on oidor Tejada, by Commission Judge licenciado Montealegre, 1553–1560; Charges and descargos against oidor Tejada.

Harvested the oidor’s wheat

Harvested the oidor’s wheat

Weeded the “oidor’s wheat fields”

Irrigation of a 540-braza-long acequia

Made “a big fence where the big house is”

“Preparation” and cleaning of an acequia that ran through Cuajimalpa to the oidor’s estate





Worked in the acequia “of water that springs from the Tepeajusco hill”


400 brazas (200 by 200) of land plowed in Tacuba boundaries


16,000 Indians

Tacuba


24,000 Indians

Tacuba

Material

15,000 bricks 600 beams (100 were 2 brazas long and 300 were 4 brazas long plus others)

80 oak beams (2 brazas long) 235 oak planks 880½ braza pillars

800 loads of “tezontle” 1,200 slabs 1,600 clay bricks

130 brazas of stones

89 brazas of heavy stones

110 brazas of light stones

43 beams 43 beams 20 beams 20 large beams 60 boards 60 beams 83 beams 80 beams 34 beams 40 beams 40 beams

Town

Texcoco Amecameca (Chalco head town)

Tlalmanalco (Chalco head town)

Mexicalcingo

Cuitlahuac

Culhuacan

Mezquique

Xochimilco

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No No No

No No

No

Yes Yes 1

Payment

There is no charge; for his Mexico City houses; he paid 2 common gold pesos For 40 brazas he paid 9 reales each; for 49 brazas he paid 12 reales each There is no charge; for his Mexico City houses; he paid transportation plus 82 pesos, 4 tomínes There is no charge; he paid 10 pesos, 6 tomínes There is no charge; he paid 10 pesos, 6 tomínes There is no charge; he paid 5 pesos There is no charge; he paid 10 pesos There is no charge; he paid 30 pesos There is no charge; he paid 30 pesos There is no charge; he paid 40 pesos, 6 tomínes There is no charge; he paid 40 pesos There is no charge; he paid 22 pesos There is no charge; he paid 20 pesos There is no charge; he paid 20 pesos

For Tejada’s orchard For Tejada’s orchard For Tejada’s orchard

To build stores Price: 1 peso per oak board Price: 2 tomínes per plank Price: three pillars = 1 tomín

To build stores; bricks made by subject head towns Two brazas long: 2 tomínes each Four brazas long: 4 tomínes each Noblemen were arrested to build the stores

Characteristics

Table 3.7 Materials Indian Towns Delivered to Oidor Tejada According to Native Testimonies

There is no charge; he paid 40 pesos; each peso bought 2 loads of grass For 4 years; each load was 1 cuartillo; he owed 1,807½ tomínes He paid 160 pesos; he owed 5 pesos; each braza was 2 tomínes There is no charge; he paid 20 pesos

Each load was 1 tomín; cloth had to be sold to buy tezontal, which was used for the orchard’s bridges Each load was 1 tomín

For the orchard’s vineyard He paid 10 pesos; each “cuartón” was 1 tomín

1. No amount is stated. Source: AGI, Justicia, 237, Residencia hearing on oidor Tejada; Indian towns’ testimonies of charges and descargos.

Yes No Yes Yes

No

640 “pesos of grass” 3,615 “pesos of grass” 660 brazas of lawn “Some” sand

40 loads of lime

Parcialidad de Mexico

No

12 loads of henequen cloth

Santiago de Mexico

Yes1 Yes

There is no charge; he paid 35 pesos There is no charge; he paid 35 pesos There is no charge; he paid 10 pesos There is no charge; he paid 45 pesos There is no charge; he paid 45 pesos There is no charge; he paid 11 pesos There is no charge; he paid 15½ pesos There is no charge; he paid 13½ pesos There is no charge; he paid 6 pesos There is no charge; he paid 4 pesos There is no charge; he paid 3 pesos, 6 tomínes There is no charge; he paid 1 peso, 2 tomínes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

8,000 stakes and 200 “cuartones” of 1½- and 2-braza boards

There is no charge; he paid 8 pesos There is no charge; he paid an intermediary 2 pesos per braza The oidor declared he had not asked for them; each braza was 1 peso

Yes Yes Yes

Tacuba

14 beams 99 brazas of light stones 19½ brazas of light stones and 10 brazas of black stone 40 brazas of heavy stone 34 brazas of stones 10 brazas of stones 45 brazas of stones 45 brazas of stones 11 brazas of stones 11 brazas of stones 9 brazas of stones 4 brazas of stones 6 pillar foundations 6 pillar foundations 2 pillar foundations


was freed only when Gaspar de Luna, a lord of Tacuba, and other nobles went to see the oidor, promising him that the Indians he requested would be sent to the building site.226 This makes it possible to point out the way in which Tejada controlled a considerable labor force from different towns destined to work on the irrigation ditch. As has been mentioned, five Indian towns from the Valley of Mexico worked on Tejada’s ditch at the same time, whereas the Indians of Tacuba were in charge of another part of the ditch. We have seen how the oidor pressured the Indians of that town to work on the ditch. The way he controlled the work of the five towns responsible for the rest of the ditch is well-known. The Indians of the Valley of Mexico had a long experience of collective labor. That situation, however, had been rapidly and radically taken advantage of by the Spaniards ever since their arrival.227 The internal colonial process encouraged the colonists to create and perfect methods of control that permitted an effective use of Indian labor outside any legislation. In Tejada’s case this is clearly seen. With regard to the control Tejada had over the work of the five towns in charge of part of the building of the ditch, there were two interesting characteristics. The first was that he sent native constables from Mexico City to see that the Indians were not absent from the work destined for him. The second was that he placed a Spanish foreman to see, in a wider sense, that the work was going on as it should, with the power to punish Indians who from the outset were obliged to devote themselves to building the irrigation ditch. Thus, the oidor placed Indian constables from Mexico City “who were over them [the Indians].” These constables had orders to fetch the Indians, even dragging them out of their homes when they had been missing for a significant number of days from the worksite and taking them back by force.The oidor appointed a Spaniard, a trusted retainer of his named Marcos Romero, to be in charge of the building of the ditch. Romero was one of the people who, as a frontman, sold houses in the barrio of San Juan for the official. This was a place where, as we have seen, he built his trading houses (see Table 3.5).228 During the two years it took to build them, Romero punished the Indians who turned up late to work or who did not go to work by tying them to a pole and whipping them.229 The work on the ditch was very hard; when the Indians “broke the newly quarried limestone, they sometimes bled from the mouth and died of exhaustion, and this is what the nobles of these towns said.”230 It is not surprising that the Indians from the towns that worked on the ditch sometimes fled to other places. According to the Indians of Mexicalcingo, Romero was more than a little responsible for this. The governor and nobles of the town mentioned that

230 —


Licenciado Tejada had placed on the ditch a Spaniard who made the Indians work on it. When some Indians failed to come to work, this Spaniard tied them up later and kept them tied there all that day and likewise the Indians said that because of the ill-treatment from the Spaniard, and for the hard work they had to do, many of the residents of the town of Mexicalcingo left the place and went to live elsewhere.231

Probably this was not the only occasion that the oidor, for lack of other methods, used coercion to recruit workers. In spite of the fact that no testimony reflects the work (number of days worked, towns used by Tejada) on the building of the trading houses, there is a report by Friar Juan de la Puerta in which he points out that the Indians of Mexicalcingo complained by means of a pictorial record. They showed how an interpreter of Tejada’s who was in charge of the work on the trading houses tied up the Indians “Bayonne fashion” because they did not want to come to work.232 Although the Indians from the towns that worked for Tejada under such conditions could protest to the Audiencia about their situation, it was undoubtedly difficult for them to bring legal action of this type. And this can be extended to the possible claims made by other towns against encomenderos, estancieros, and others with enough power to prevent the normal course of Indian petitions. The Indians of Azcapotzalco, for example, during Tello de Sandoval’s visit (1544–1546), tried to bring their complaints against Tejada before the visitor (see Table 3.6 and note 128). To do so, they had to have recourse to the interpreter of the Audiencia, Antonio de Ortíz, who offered to help them for reasons that are not known. The interpreter, to see that some Indians from Azcapotzalco could place their demands before Sandoval, had to insist that the Indians go to his home where he disguised them “in Spanish clothing” and led them before Sandoval. By means of this stratagem, the Indians of Azcapotzalco were able to expose their problem without the oidor and his people learning about it.233 In general, protests from Indians received little attention from Tejada, whose reactions were normally violent. On one occasion the wives of some Indians from Mexico City went to complain to Tejada at his home about the excessive tribute their husbands had to pay, in spite of the fact that they were local Indians and therefore exempt from paying tribute because the Indians of Mexico City–Tenochtitlan had been granted this concession. Not only did the oidor not listen to their protest, but he hit them with a stick and threw them out.234 Furthermore, it has been mentioned that Tejada sometimes promised to pay the Indians for services rendered and later this was not done according to

— 231


what had been agreed on (see Table 3.6). It was thus for the Indians of Mexicalcingo, Huitzilopochco, Culhuacan, and Coyoacán who were in charge of building the oidor’s ditch (see Tables 3.6 and 3.7). From the testimonies of the Coyoacán Indians, we know that around 1541, Viceroy Mendoza ordered the governor of Coyoacán and other nobles of the town to send Indians to work on Oidor Tejada’s ditch. The viceroy promised that once the building work was completed, someone would be appointed to assess the work carried out by the Coyoacán Indians, and they would be paid according to that assessment.235 As can be seen in Table 3.6, the number of days’ work Coyoacán and its subject town Tacubaya contributed to the building work is very large. In spite of the commitment by the viceroy, the pay was not enough and the Indians protested.236 This method was also applied to the rest of the Indian towns that worked on the ditch (see Tables 3.6 and 3.7). Significant in that event are the personalities, the object of the contract, and the result. It was the viceroy of New Spain who established the working conditions and the payment. The construction work required thousands of days’ work for which the Indian towns contributed men. It was the viceroy, as well as Tejada, who failed to fulfill the obligation of paying for the work. Likewise, the Indians of Mexicalcingo declared that Juan Franco and Francisco Sánchez Puñalero were the persons who assessed the work the town had done on the ditch. If this is true, one of the persons in charge of carrying out the evaluation—Puñalero—in addition to being one of the estate owners of Ximilpan whose lands would benefit from the ditch, as has been said, was a friend of the oidor. Franco, a master builder of the city, received a corregimiento from the viceroy, and his son received the office of constable.237 In addition, in the oidor’s notarial documents with regard to Tejada’s payment to the towns for the work on the ditch, it is mentioned that the interpreter was Hernando de Tapia, whose friendship with the oidor we have already seen. The interpreter appears in several of the oidor’s documents (see Table 3.3), and the name of Tejada’s partner, Alonso de Villaseca, appears in several notarial documents, also paying Indians on behalf of Tejada (see Table 3.3). The case of Tacuba deserves special consideration. The Indians of that town several times supplied a large number of workers. On Tejada’s agricultural estate the Indians of Tacuba completed a total of 1,648,748 days’ work, for which they were paid 1,434 pesos. That labor was used over an especially short period of time, and during one day there might have been 24,400 Indians working in his vineyard planting vine shoots (see Tables 3.6 and 3.7). It would have been impossible for Tejada to have paid the days’ work on his different enterprises if he had been forced to do so according to the estab-

232 —


lished wage. The comment a cacique of Azcapotzalco made to a Mexico City resident regarding the Indian labor Tejada benefited from was not far from the truth: “[I]f all the people taking part on his building works were paid one cocoa bean per person . . . one could fill a house with cocoa.” Actually, the Indian labor the Spaniard used, even after the decrees stating that Indians were to receive a wage for their work, was in many cases impossible to pay according to the royal legislation. In the opinion of some of his contemporaries, licenciado Lorenzo de Tejada left New Spain with a considerable fortune. Many other Spaniards, however, left Spain for the colonies, obtaining equal or even more wealth. What is fundamental in the case of the oidor is not only his desire to obtain personal benefit. Through his enterprises, the official is an excellent sample for getting to the bottom of the methods used by the settlers in their attempt to secure colonial society. When Tejada took the land from the Indians, it was not a question of dispossession before the law or an encroachment of their lands, which in midsixteenth-century Mexico would have brought complaints and demands, with even some friars supporting the Indians and writing a memorandum to the Crown asking for justice. This situation is different. All the documents that certify Tejada as owner of those lands adhere to the respective legislation, as does the procedure in general: royal gifts of caballerías of land, whose measurements and distribution were carried out before the corregidor of the place; presentation of acts of purchase of Indian lands that point out Tejada’s property and show its adherence to the letter of the law. Furthermore, statements from encomenderos, corregidores, interpreters, and officials—even the viceroy himself—give backing to the oidor’s affirmations that the lands claimed by the Indians were his property. The oidor’s knowledge regarding native property was far from superficial. For example, when he tried to reject the claims of the Indians of Chalco over his lands, he stated that they had formerly been lands belonging to Moctezuma and were therefore fallow. An effort of this type to contest the overwhelming quantity of Indian pictorial records—which the Indian towns only dared to present once Tejada had embarked for Spain—could not have been made if there had not been a delicate situation (to defend or conceal) and full ignorance of the basic ties among the Indian towns, their lords, and the land. What can we think? Perhaps that the Indians falsified their testimonies and that the lands legally belonged to the oidor? Although it is true that Tejada’s lands were in order with regard to the juridical deeds that certified him as owner, it is also true, for example, that the royal grant of lands in the Chalco

— 233


area was carried out on lands cultivated by the Indians. The royal grant was made by the viceroy, yet another example of the friendship and interests uniting him to the oidor and of the complacent way the colonial authorities who were relatives, friends, and retainers of Tejada’s looked on and certified his ownership before a scribe. In that sense, legality meant more than a stamped paper. It was the protective cover for a dispossession and the way of preventing the simple grabbing of lands from leading to a sentence unfavorable to the official in the Council of the Indies or even causing his dismissal. The weight of the written word vis-à-vis the codices or Indian pictorial records is undoubtable. The Indians’ testimonies based on their records and the oral testimonies presented by the governors and nobles of the Indian towns before the Audiencia against the oidor were complete. They specified the size of the properties, the way in which they were dispossessed of them, the use given to them, and, above all, the link uniting the Indians to their lands, which was so difficult for the officials to grasp. These pictorial records, however, were rendered invalid in the final decision. The lands were not returned to the towns, and Tejada was able to sell them to a mine-owner relative of his before returning to Spain. Regarding these lands, the oidor showed the way to use Indian labor, paying wages that, in most cases, did not represent the real value of the work performed by the Indians. The possibility of obtaining large profits from his enterprises depended on him using large numbers of Indians to work for him and the possibility that such a labor force would be free of cost, in spite of the laws to the contrary. How important might Oidor Tejada’s behavior have been in the New Spain of his times during his years as judge? How important might the development of his unquestionable talent as entrepreneur have been? I believe that because of the context in which it occurred, the case of this royal official cannot be merely dismissed as one of simple corruption. There are two reasons for this. The first is that, at the time when he carried out his business deals, the oidor was part of the search for alternative ways to accumulate wealth on the part of the Spanish population. The second is that, in fact, his high office may have made it easier for him to carry out his enterprises; however, on a lower scale, other encomenderos, royal officials, mine owners, and similar groups went into different fields of the economy in an attempt to survive without depending exclusively on the encomienda and personal service. Like Tejada, they bought or exchanged lands, tried to hire Indian labor before the authorities, and engaged in similar practices. All of this obviously did not happen or, at least, did not become immediately widespread. But by the end of the sixteenth century the

234 —


encomenderos and their sucessors who did not diversify their interests and continued only to request a repartimiento in perpetuity ended up receiving a royal pension. Between this way out and that of people like Tejada, we can gauge the reality of the colony, which, far away from Spain, generated other ways of satisfying the colonists’ aspirations of accumulating wealth. This used to occur at the cost not only of the native population but also outside the narrow path royal policy in New Spain marked for this society.

NOTES 1. Schäfer, El Consejo Real, 501; Archivo de Protocolos de Sevilla, Libro del año de 1538, oficio XV, Lib. I—escribanía: Alonso de Cazalla, fols. 535, 643. On February 21, 1538, Oidor Tejada, along with Alonso de Espinoza, purchased linens and tapestries worth 112,500 maravedíes. On March 4 he borrowed, along with Miguel Ruiz, 85 gold ducats to undertake his journey to New Spain “para el despacho de sus personas”: Lewis Hanke, Los virreyes, “Instrucción a Antonio de Mendoza: 17-IV-1535,” chapter 27, 30–31; Sarabia Viejo, Don Luis de Velasco, 39 (quotation). 2. Aiton, Antonio de Mendoza, 113; Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 162– 163; Zavala, El servicio, 473–482; Sarabia Viejo, Don Luis de Velasco, 41, 53–55. 3. Gibson, The Aztecs, 274–276. 4. Ibid., chapter 10. 5. Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 86. 6. Ibid., 260–261. 7. Gibson, The Aztecs, 274 (quotation); Pérez Rocha, La tierra, 53. 8. Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 86; Real cédula from October 27, 1535, in de Puga, Provisiones, fols. 108v–109; Real cédula, Valladolid, August 23, 1538, in de Puga, Provisiones, fol. 117v. 9. Chevalier adds that in spite of this regulation, eighty years later it was to recall this measure in a faraway province like Tabasco, where it was not known: Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 86; Gibson, The Aztecs, 275, and table 20, p. 276, in his book. 10. Archivo General de Indias (hereafter AGI), Justicia, 258, “Visita hecha el año de 1543 a 1547 al virrey de la Nueva España y presidente de la Real Audiencia de México, Don Antonio de Mendoza, a los oidores de ella . . . Por el licenciado Françisco Tello de Sandoval del Consejo de su Majestad, en el de Indias, Visitador General de la Nueva España,” testimonies of charges against Mendoza during Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the Viceroy and the Audiencia in 1544. Witness Andrés de Tapia, Mexico City neighbor, asserted that Viceroy Mendoza distributed lands to some people where they chose to have them, in detriment to Indians, mainly from the areas of Tacuba, Tacubaya, and Azcapotzalco; Hernando de Vergara mentioned that at his arrival the viceroy granted land that used to belong to the Indians to some private individuals. Gibson pointedly notes that for the Spaniards, Indian lands turned out to be a new benefit to be exploited, especially during the late sixteenth century: Gibson, The Aztecs, 407. Viceroys both in Mexico and in Peru limited the encomenderos’ economic and political monopoly—cautiously at first and then more strongly—and later they sought the development of a new, growing aristocracy

— 235


whose wealth was mainly grounded on land control and not on direct control over Indians: Robert G. Keith, “Encomienda, Hacienda and Corregimiento in Spanish America: A Structural Analysis,” Hispanic American Historical Review 51, 3 (Duke University, August 1971): 443. 11. Miranda, La función económica, 26–27; Gibson, The Aztecs, 322. 12. De Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, fols. 110–110v; Enrique Florescano, “El abasto y la legislación de grano en el siglo XVI,” Historia Mexicana 14, 56 (April–June 1964): 571–572. 13. Jesús Ruvalcaba Mercado, “Agricultura colonial temprana y transformación social en Tepeapulco y Tulancingo,” Historia Mexicana 33, 132 (April–June 1984): 428– 429. 14. Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 87; Miranda, La función económica; Gibson, The Aztecs, 272. 15. Florescano, “El abasto,” 591. 16. See Chapter 2, which refers to Viceroy Mendoza’s cattle ranch, and the section in this chapter on Oidor Santillán, who also had an important cattle ranch. Emma Pérez Rocha, in La tierra, p. 51, offers a list of officials who owned lands in Tacuba; some of these grants date from 1544. Also see Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 154. 17. Pérez Rocha, La tierra, 53, 80; Gibson, The Aztecs, 273–274. 18. AGI, Justicia, 237, “Residencia tomada el año de 1553 a 1560, al licenciado Lorenzo de Tejada y Doctores Gómez de Santillán, Antonio de Mejia y Françisco Herrera, oidores de la Audiencia de México, por el Licenciado Diego López de Montealegre, oidor de la misma audiencia, Juez nombrado para este efecto,” residencia hearing on Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada, “Escrituras para descargos del juicio de residencia del oidor Tejada,” fols. 679–861; AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies of charge against Oidor Tejada, declarations of the Indians from Tacuba and Santiago Tlatelolco; AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charge against Oidor Tejada, witness: Pedro de Meneses. 19. Gibson has pointed out that a remarkable aspect in the nahuas’ possession of land was geographical extension and the considerable distance between possessions that belonged to specific individuals: Gibson, The Aztecs, 263. 20. Although law regulations protected Indian lands, purchases and exchanges disguised the actual despoilment by Spaniards of lands that used to belong to Indians. José María Ots Capdequí, El régimen de la tierra en la América española durante el periodo colonial, vol. 43 (Ciudad Trujillo: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Santo Domingo, 1946), 99. Ots Capdequí, El estado español en las Indias (Santo Domingo: Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo, 1986, 2nd ed.), 136. On land purchase, there was the problem of Indians selling the towns’ common lands or being forced to sell lands for symbolic or practically nonexistent payments: Gibson, The Aztecs, 274. A real cédula from Madrid, February 11, 1540, allowed colonists in New Spain to purchase lands that belonged to the native nobles as long as an oidor intervened in the purchase: Francisco de Solano, Cedulario de tierras compilación de la legislación agraria colonial (1497–1820) (México City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México [hereafter UNAM], 1984), 165–166. 21. Gibson, The Aztecs, 274–275. 22. AGI, Justicia, 260, “Visita hecha el año de 1543 a 1547 al virrey de la Nueva España y presidente de la Real Audiencia de México, Don Antonio de Mendoza, a los oidores de ella . . . Por el licenciado Françisco Tello de Sandoval del Consejo de su

236 —


Majestad, en el de Indias, Visitador General de la Nueva España”; questionnaire of Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada’s descargos in 1546, question 14, on the fact that in some hills in Chapultepec, Santa Fe, and Cuajimalpa, Mexico City neighbors had distributed among themselves up to forty-four land caballerías, which were not being worked or were in “calmas” because there was no water. 23. Ibid., 237, Francisco Gudiel’s testimony of charges. 24. Little more than twenty years later, in 1563, a viceroyal ordenamiento forbade all land granting in that area: Gibson, The Aztecs, 274. 25. The oidor mentioned some names when he wanted to prove that the Indians were used to selling their lands. AGI, Justicia, 260, question 48: before Tejada exchanged lands with the people from Tlatelolco, these Indians had, next to the lands that would become the oidor’s, far better lands with more houses, magueyes, and trees than any of the oidor’s lands—however, the Indians sold the better lands to Alonso de Mérida, Francisco Sánchez Puñalero, Francisco Rodríguez Odrero, Gudiel Barbero, and Pedro Valenciano; a man called Robledo, calcetero (cloth) by trade, is also mentioned, although his land boundaries are not mentioned in Tejada’s notarial certificates. On the first seventeen landowners in the list, see Tables 3.1a, 3.1b, and 3.1d, and AGI, Justicia, 237, Escrituras. On the remaining landowners, see Pérez Rocha, La tierra, appendix 4; on how the Jésus del Montes ranch was established, see Pérez Rocha, La tierra, 142–145. 26. Gibson, The Aztecs, 279. 27. AGI, Justicia, 237, charges against Tejada; on the Sámano encomienda, see Table 2.1 in this book and Gerhard, A Guide, 175. 28. Lockhart offers an example that shows the network of family and interest ties in a family of encomenderos in Toluca who managed to have most of the local political and religious administration positions in the late sixteenth century. Lockhart describes the typical case when the encomendero is a member of the cabildo, his uncle is alcalde mayor in the region, his younger brother is a priest in a nearby location, an illegitimate brother is involved in local land businesses, and he has a Spaniard with no aspirations working as a mayordomo in the encomienda: James Lockhart, “Capital and Province, Spaniard and Indian: The Example of Late Sixteenth-Century Toluca,” in Ida Altman, James Lockhart et al., eds., Provinces of Early Mexico: Variants of Spanish American Regional Evolution (Los Angeles: UCLA, Latin American Center Publications, 1976), 106. 29. Manzanares declared he was a Mexico City neighbor born in Oidor Santo Domingo de la Calzada’s birthplace, in the kingdoms of Castile. He arrived in New Spain with the oidor and regarded him as “señor y que su padre de este testigo fue casado con una tía de su mujer del dicho licenciado segunda vez“: AGI, Justicia, 260, Oidor Tejada’s testimonies of descargo, witness: Juan de Manzanares. 30. Ibid., 237, testimonies of charges, witness: Luis Gómez, who stated that at Pedro de Valenciano’s death, the oidor forced Valenciano’s daughter to marry Manzanares; averiguaciones to Juan Pérez, conqueror, and the encomendero’s albacea, who declared that Valenciano’s daughter had married willingly in the presence of the oidor, that the day Valenciano died, Tejada arrived at his house with some priests to perform the wedding ceremony. Manzanares had the repartimiento since 1548: Gerhard, A Guide, 29. 31. AGI, Justicia, 237, charge 42; AGI, Justicia, 238, “Residencia tomada el año de 1553 a 1560, al licenciado Lorenzo de Tejada y Doctores Gómez de Santillán, Antonio de Mejia y Françisco Herrera, oidores de la Audiencia de México, por el Licenciado

— 237


Diego López de Montealegre, oidor de la misma audiencia, Juez nombrado para este efecto”; residencia hearing on Oidor Hernando de Santillán, file related to Oidores Gómez de Santillán’s and Tejada’s involvement mainly in the boundary conflict between the dioceses of New Galicia and Michoacán: Bishop of Michoacán’s probanzas (legal record of proof), fols. 39–39v. 32. Ibid., 237, charge 42. 33. Ibid., testimonies of descargos, witness: Hernando de Tapia, Indian interpreter in the Audiencia. 34. About that, interpreter Tapia mentioned: “el virrey hizo merced a este testigo de otra cuarta parte de caballería junto a la del dicho licenciado Tejada, hacia esta ciudad de México y por las otras partes hizo la dicha merced a otras personas”: ibid., 237 and 260, Oidor Tejada’s testimonies of descargos, witness: Hernando de Tapia, who mentioned, among many other things, that he used to take walks in Tejada’s lands and that he knew all his properties. 35. Ibid., 258, list of corregimientos granted by Antonio de Mendoza; ibid., 237, testimonies of charges, witnesses: Indians from Tlatelolco. 36. Ibid., 260, the oidor’s documents of descargo. 37. Ibid., 258, Relación de corregimientos; Gerhard, A Guide, who records him as Pedro de Molina, so I only venture the chance that he might be encomendero in spite of the date coincidence. In 1545 the repartimiento was passed on to the Crown. 38. AGI, Justicia, 258, Relación de corregimientos. 39. Ibid. 40. Gibson, The Aztecs, 272; Gerhard, A Guide, 181. 41. On the Spanish cabildo’s little interest in the fact that the Indians should not lose their lands, see Gibson, The Aztecs, 273. 42. AGI, Justicia, 237. On Andrés de Barrios’s business with Manzanares, there is Alonso Franco’s testimony: “que antes que muriese el dicho Andrés de Barrios dijo a este testigo que de ocho mil pesos, poco más o menos, que habían depositado en él [los indios de un pueblo de Oaxaca] que qué haría de ellos y este testigo le dijo que los diese a ciertas personas tratantes, y el dicho Barrios le dijo a este testigo, que bien sería dar la mitad al dicho Manzanares, y después supo este testigo del dicho Manzanares, que el dicho Andrés de Barrios le había dado cuatro o cinco mil pesos de los del dicho depósito para que tratase con ellos, y se quiere acordar este testigo que el dicho Manzanares le dijo que dio cierto interés al dicho Andrés de Barrios.“ On the Mexico City alguaciles, see Porras, El gobierno, 195–198, 204–209, 357–359, 410–412; on the alguaciles’ encomiendas, see Justina Sarabia, Don Luis de Velasco, who provides a complete and useful list of towns that were in encomienda, 238–259. On Juan de Burgos’s encomienda, see Table 2.1 in this book. 43. Borah, El Juzgado, 58; Delfina López Sarrelangue, “Las tierras comunales indígenas de la Nueva España en el siglo XVI,” in Estudios de Historia Novohispana, vol. 1 (México City: UNAM, 1966), 141. 44. Gibson mentions the Spaniards considered Chalco a province with only four cabeceras—Tlalmanalco, Chimalhuacán, Tenango, and Amecameca: Gibson, The Aztecs, 44; Biblioteque Nationale, Paris, Fonds Mexicain, ms. 26. 45. AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies and “pinturas” used as testimonies of charges by the town of Tlalmanalco against Tejada, witnesses: Leonardo de Sandoval, Juan Pérez, Juan de Santiago, Indians from Tlalmanalco, and Don Hernando de la Cerda, Indian governor.

238 —


46. Ibid., Don Hernando de la Cerda’s declaration, “gobernador del dicho pueblo”: Tlalmanalco, fols. 228r–229r; testimonies and “pinturas” of charges of the town of Tlalmanalco against Tejada, witness: Leonardo de Sandoval from Tlalmanalco; charge 44. 47. Ibid., testimonies and “pinturas” of charges of the town of Tlalmanalco against Tejada, witnesses: Juan Pérez from Tlalmanalco and Governor Hernando de la Cerda. 48. Ibid., general charge 45. 49. Ibid., testimonies and “pinturas” of charges of the town of Tlalmanalco against Tejada, witness: Joan de Santiago from Tlalmanalco; general charge 45. 50. Ibid., testimonies and “pinturas” of charges of the town of Tlalmanalco against Tejada, witness: Don Hernando de la Cerda, governor of Tlalmanalco. 51. Ibid., 258, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Pedro de Meneses, Mexico neighbor. 52. Ibid., testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana. 53. Ibid., 260, questionnaire of his descargos, question 31; descargo for charge 34. 54. Ibid., questionnaire of Oidor Tejada’s descargos, question 103. 55. Zorita, Los señores, 31. Sometimes mayeques have been considered equal to terrazgueros. Zorita mentions, however, that the “señores supremos e inferiores” y otros “particulares, tenían tierras propias patrimoniales y en ellas sus mayeques o tlamaites . . . que sirven y tributan a los señores de las tierras que labran,” y que estaban adscritos a las tierras, y que “los renteros que están en tierras ajenas pagaban por ellas renta al señor de ellas, como se conciertan, y son diferentes a los mayeques, porque toman a renta las tierras por un año o dos o más, y no dan otra cosa al señor de ellas”: Zorita, Los señores, 120, 126. Borah, for example, does not make this distinction: “The unfree peasants (mayeque, tlalmaitl, or terrazgueros) rented land from private owners”: Woodrow Borah, “Some Problems of Sources,” in H. R. Harvey and Hans J. Prem, eds., Explorations in Ethnohistory: Indians of Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984), 24. 56. AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies and “pinturas” of charges of the town of Tlalmanalco against Tejada, witnesses: Don Hernando de la Cerda, governor of the said town of Tlalmanalco; Leonardo de Sandoval from Tlalmanalco; and Joan Pérez, Indian from Tlalmanalco. 57. Ibid., testimonies and “pinturas” of charges of the town of Tenango, cabecera of Chalco, against Tejada. The witnesses showed a painting and testified: Don Pablo de Santiago; Don Diego de Puça, principal from Tenango; and Martín de Ledesma from Tenango; general charges of the visit 46 and 47. 58. Ibid., witness: principal Pablo de Santiago. 59. Ibid., witnesses: Diego Puça, principal of Tenango, who declared what has been mentioned before; Pablo de Santiago, principal of Tenango; and Martín de Ledesma from the same town. 60. Ibid., testimonies and “pinturas” of charges of the Tlatelolco Indians against Tejada, witnesses: Martín Vázquez, regidor of the Santiago area, who presented the “pintura”; Pedro, Indian from the barrio of Santa Catalina; and Toribio from the Santiago area, from the barrio of Santa Ana; general charges 52 and 53. 61. Ibid., 258, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana. 62. Ibid., 237, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Pablo de Santiago, principal from the town of Tenango.

— 239


63. Ibid. 64. Ibid., testimonies and “pinturas” of charges of the town of Tlalmanalco against Tejada, witness: Joan de Santiago from that same town. 65. Gibson, The Aztecs, 195. 66. Ibid., 282–283; Borah, The Indian; Borah, The Aboriginal Population; Ernesto de la Torre Villar, “Las congregaciones de indios como una fase de la política de colonización y población en América,” in Estudios sobre política indigenista española en América, 3 vols. (Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, 1975), vol. 1, 313–329. 67. Margarita Menegus Bornemann, Del Señorío a la República de indios. El caso de Toluca 1500–1600 (Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, 1991) (I am using the Spanish version of this book: “La evolución de la propiedad indígena en México, los pueblos del Valle de Toluca: comunidades indígenas y haciendas, un análisis de la propiedad de la tierra en México durante los siglos XVI a XIX,” PhD thesis, University of Valencia, 1989), 202–204. 68. Ibid., 200. 69. Zorita, Los señores, 32–33. 70. AGI, Justicia, 259, “Vista hecha el año de 1543 a 1547 al virrey de la Nueva España y presidente de la Real Audiencia de México, Don Antonio de Mendoza a los oidores de ella . . . Por el Licenciado Françisco Tello de Sandoval del Consejo de su Majestad, en el de Indias, Visitador General de la Nueva España,” charges against Viceroy Mendoza, charge 43. 71. Hanke, Los virrey es españoles, interrogatory prepared by Antonio de Mendoza for the visit, 94. 72. In Chapter 2 I mention Tejada’s visit to the viceroy’s ranches: provision of the real cédula dated April 24, 1540, in AGI, Justicia, 259, documents of descargo for the Viceroy. Likewise, during Tello de Sandoval’s visit, Viceroy Mendoza testified in favor of the oidor: AGI, Justicia, 260, Oidor Tejada’s testimonies of descargo, witness: Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza. 73. Gibson, The Aztecs, 275–276; Chevalier, La formación de latifundios, 86–87. 74. Gibson, The Aztecs, 276. 75. Ibid., 259–260. 76. AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, charge 1; AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charges against Viceroy Mendoza, witness: Hernando de Tapia, Mexico neighbor. 77. Ibid., 259, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, charge 1. Among Peralta’s privileges as justice official he received a vara de alguacil, charge 26 of the visit. On his appointments as corregidor, see Table 2.3; ibid., 258, testimonies of charges against Mendoza, witness: Hernando de Tapia, Mexico neighbor. 78. Ibid., 237, testimonies of descargos, witness: Hernando de Tapia, Indian interpreter in the Audiencia; ibid., 260, Oidor Tejada’s testimonies of descargos, witness: nahuatlato Hernando de Tapia. 79. Gibson, The Aztecs, 258. On the other hand, a new element is that there may have been lands for the support of papas (Indian priests) during pre-Hispanic times: AGI, Justicia, 158, “Averiguación sobre si los indios deben pagar Diezmo,” 1556, “Relación de las preguntas.” 80. AGI, Justicia, 260, Oidor Tejada’s descargos, descargo for charge 34; questionnaire for the oidor’s descargos, question 25; AGI, Justicia, 237, Oidor Tejada’s descargos, descargo 44 on Tlalmanalco and 45 on Tenango. 81. Chevalier, La formación de latifundios, 87.

240 —


82. AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies of charges against Oidor Tejada, testimony of Diego Ramírez, commissioned by the Crown to visit the Indian towns. 83. Ibid., Consejo’s verdict in Oidor Tejada’s residencia hearing, verdict on charges 44, 46, and 47. 84. AGI, México, 96, memorial dated March 8, 1560, Juan de Córdoba, Dominican friar, on behalf of the Indians, governor, principals, and common people in the town of Tenango in New Spain. 85. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witnesses: Francisco de Triana, Pedro de Meneses, and Marcos Romero; AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witnesses: Alonso de Bazán, Mexico City neighbor; Gonzalo Ruiz, Mexico City regidor; and Francisco Gudiel, landowner in Tacuba; AGI, Patronato, 231, volume 20, n.d.g. (ca. 1550–1556), Presentation. Friar Juan de la Puerta mentions Tejada’s land propriety in Tacuba. 86. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charge against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana. 87. Ibid. 88. Ibid., witness: Pedro de Meneses, Mexico City neighbor. 89. Ibid. 90. Ibid., 237, “papeles presentados por Tejada para sus descargo”; testimonies of charges against Tejada, witnesses: Don Diego, governor of Mexico City, and Don Hernando, governor of Tlatelolco, who declared that the Indians in the barrios of Mexico, Tlatelolco, and Tacuba were the former owners of Tejada’s lands, which were also heavily populated by Indians. He added that the land exchange with the oidor had been legal and that the Chalco lands were far better than the TacubaChapultepec lands. 91. AGI, Patronato, 231, volume 20, n.d.g., Presentation. 92. AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies and “pinturas” of the Tacuba Indians, witnesses: Gaspar de Luna, principal and regidor; Martín de Sandoval, principal; and Pedro Tequipan; general charge of the visit 38. 93. Ibid., charge 38 against Tejada. 94. Ibid., Oidor Tejada’s descargos, Mexico City, September 19, 1554, descargo 38; ibid., 260, Oidor Tejada’s descargos, August 14, 1546, testimonies for his descargos, witnesses: Bartolomé from Mexico City, from the barrio of San Juan; Diego from the barrio of San Esteban, who declared the Indians had owned not a single part of Tejada’s lands in Tacuba; ibid., 260, Oidor Tejada’s descargos, August 14, 1546. 95. Ibid., 260, Oidor Tejada’s testimonies of descargo, witness: conqueror Juan Cano, Mexico City neighbor and encomendero in Tacuba. 96. Ibid., 1029, Antonio Cortés, cacique, “y los demás principales del pueblos de Tacuba, sobre que se ponga el dicho pueblo en la Corona Real y se les conmute los tributos en otra parte”; see also Pérez Rocha, La tierra, 48; Don Antonio Cortés Totoquihuaztli of Tlacopan’s letter to Charles V, December 1, 1552, Pérez Rocha, La tierra, 151–153. On the other hand, there exists an interesting testament of this Indian noble where the land legacy for his heirs can be noted: Bibliotheque National, Paris, Mexicain, ms. 115. On the date of Juan Cano and Isabel de Moctezuma’s marriage, see Amada López de Meneses, “Dos nietas de Moctezuma, monjas de la Concepción de México,” Revista de Indias 12, 47 (January–March 1952): 81–100. 97. It is not known whether Tacuba made claims over the lands during Tello de Sandoval’s visit, since part of the general charges file and the testimonies of charges against the oidores disappeared, and there are only Spaniards’ declarations that assert

— 241


this fact: AGI, Justicia, 258. This can mean that the Indians did not make claims at that time or that their demand was lost along with other testimonies. In any case, the information is completed with the file of Oidor Tejada’s residencia hearing, in which their demands do appear, information that is used in this book. 98. AGI, Justicia, 237, documents presented for his descargos, parts of the interrogatory to some witnesses during the 1544 visit, witness: Don Hernando, governor of Tlatelolco. 99. AGI, Patronato, 231, volume 20, n.d.g., Presentation. 100. AGI, Justicia, 237, Consejo de Indias’s verdict in Lorenzo de Tejada’s residencia hearing, verdict on charge 38. 101. AGI, México, 168, letter from the Tlacopan Indians to the Crown, February 20, 1561. 102. Delfina López Sarrelangue, “Una hacienda comunal indígena en la Nueva España: Santa Ana de Aragón,” Historia Mexicana 32, 1 (July–September 1982): 1–2. 103. AGI, México, 100, 1575, letter from the Tlatelolco Indians to the King in which they complain that the authorities had taken lands away from them. 104. AGI, Justicia, 237, Tlatelolco Indians’ testimonies against Tejada, witnesses: Miguel Pitecate from the barrio of Santiago in Mexico City; Martín Vázquez, regidor of the Santiago area; Francisco Vázquez, regidor in that same place, who presented the “pintura”; Pedro y Toribio, Indian from Santiago, from the barrio of Santa Catalina; and Diego Tecameca, Indian from the Santiago area of the barrio of Santa Ana; general charges 53 and 54. Consejo de Indias’s verdicts declare that as regards the exchange the oidor was found with “culpa grave” (guilty), and as regards the fact that he depopulated a barrio to seize those lands, he was found with “culpa muy grave” (very guilty). 105. Ibid., testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Pedro Comaltecha, Indian from the barrio of Santa Catalina, parcialidad de Santiago. 106. Ibid., witnesses: Martín Vázquez and Francisco Vázquez, regidores of the parte de Santiago. 107. Gibson explains that when adjoining communities were found in different ethnic zones, community limits and ethnic boundaries necessarily coincided: Gibson, The Aztecs, 23–24. Zorita explains how “no se permitía ni permite que los de un calpulli labren las tierras de otro calpulli, por no dar lugar a que se mezclen unos con otros ni salgan de linaje”: Zorita, Los señores, 31. 108. AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witnesses: Martín Vázquez, regidor of the parte de Santiago, and Francisco Vázquez, regidor of the parte de Santiago, mentioned that the lands in Chalco seemed “ruines” (bad) to them. 109. Ibid., 260, Oidor Tejada’s descargos, descargo for charge 16; questionnaire for his descargos, questions 43 and 44, 1546; ibid., Oidor Tejada’s descargos, descargo 54, where the oidor declared that in the exchanged lands, “había ciertas casillas, yo creo muy pobres,” en las cuales se hacía pulque y los indios se “emborrachaban . . . y después de borrachos se aporreaban y descalabraban.” He also declared the Indians had committed several crimes such as theft. 110. On how important maguey was for the Indians, see Florentine Codex, General History of the Things of New Spain, Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, 13 vols., ed. and trans. Charles E. Dibble and Arthur J.O. Anderson (Santa Fe, N.M.: School of American Research and the University of Utah, 1950–1982), vol. 11, 216–217; Gibson, The Aztecs, 317–318, 337. Maguey was also part of a ritual when it was planted: Hernando Ruiz de

242 —


Alarcón, Tratado de supersticiones y costumbres gentilicias que oy viven entre los indios naturales de esta Nueva España, in Fernando Benitez, ed., El alma encantada (México City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1987), “Tratado tercero. Supersticiones de labradores y sus conjuros. Conjuro primero. Para plantar magueyes,” 174–176. 111. AGI, Justicia, 237, Oidor Tejada’s descargos, descargo 54; Oidor Tejada’s testimonies of descargos, witness: Hernando de Tapia, who declared that in the exchanged lands there were tabernas that were meeting points for tramps—blacks and mestizos—and drunkards; AGI, Justicia, 260, Oidor Tejada’s testimonies of descargos, witness: Pedro Rodríguez, estanciero in the region, who declared that the Indians got drunk in the lands they had exchanged with Tejada, thus producing violence, and that the land exchange had been very “provechoso” (advantageous), since the problem had been eradicated. 112. Ibid., 259, testimony of charges against Oidor Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana. 113. Gibson comments that when the colony started the Spanish estate had respected the legitimacy of Indian private properties. Their complex distribution, the disintegration produced by the conquest, and the colonists’ boundless ambition, however, all contributed to diminish the Indians’ property: Gibson, The Aztecs, 264. 114. AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies of charges against licenciado Tejada, witness: Don Pedro Comaltecha, Indian from the barrio of Santa Catalina in Santiago; general charge 52. 115. Ibid., Consejo de Indias’s verdict in Oidor Tejada’s residencia hearing, verdict on charge 52. 116. See Chapter 2. 117. “The chief Tepaneca communities—Azcapotzalco, Tenayuca, Tlacopan (Tacuba), Toltitlan, Cuauhtitlan, Xaltocan, Tacubaya—were all vigorously attacked by these allies. The death of Maxtla and the conclusion of the Tepaneca War about 1433 permitted the rapid development of Acolhua power under Nezahualcoyotl as well as the semi-independent expansion of Tenochtitlan under Izcoatl. Azcapotzalco was reduced in importance, and by agreement with the Mexica and the Acolhuaque the town of Tacuba became the capital of the Tepaneca region.The post-war agreement produced the Triple Alliance—of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tacuba—and the Tepaneca territory was again limited to the western part of the Valley and adjacent areas to the west and south”: Gibson, The Aztecs, 17; also Pérez Rocha, La tierra, 14– 15. 118. Gibson, The Aztecs, 264–271. 119. AGI, Justicia, 237, testimony of charges, witness: Martín de Mendoza, Indian from barrio of Santiago. This Indian was also asked whether he owned any of the lands the oidor had seized, and his answer was negative. 120. Ibid., testimonies of charges against Oidor Tejada, witness: Don Diego, governor and principal of Santiago Tlatelolco, fols. 373v–375v. 121. Ibid., general charge 51, where it is recorded that in the conflict between Azcapotzalco and Santiago Tlatelolco, Tejada seized lands from Tlatelolco and that those lands belonged to private individuals from Santiago, who received nothing in exchange, and that he also distributed some of these lands to interpreters Antonio Ortíz and Tomás Rijoles. Verdict on charge 51 by the Consejo acquits the oidor but keeps for the Indians of Tlatelolco the right to demand what best suits them as regards these lands. Testimonies of charges: testimonies and “pinturas” of the Indians of Santiago Tlatelolco; inquiries, testimonies, and “pinturas” of the Indians of

— 243


Azcapotzalco, witnesses: Don Baltazar, governor of one region of Azcapotzalco; Pedro Zacarías, alcalde; Pedro Damián, regidor; Don Martín, principal of the same town; and Pedro Azaquate, mayor. 122. Gibson, The Aztecs, 24. 123. An interesting comparison can be made, since about the same time, in the Huamanga area (Peru) the colonists became interested in commercial agriculture. The sale of products was guaranteed in the Liman markets and in the silver mines in Potosí: Stern, Los pueblos indígenas. 124. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charge against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana, gardener. 125. Ibid., witnesses: Indians of Azcapotzalco. 126. Ibid., 260, Oidor Tejada’s descargos, questions for the witnesses in his favor, question 47; descargo 33. On the moreras destined for Puebla, see ibid., testimonies of charge against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana, the oidor’s gardener, who mentions that the oidor commented he had received for his ranch the moreras destined for Puebla. 127. Ibid., 258, testimonies of charge against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana, gardener. 128. Ibid., testimony of the town of Azcapotzalco. On the other hand, it is interesting to see on this matter an Indian manuscript painting made on a piece of maguey estraza (piece of textile) presented by the Indians from Azcapotzalco during Tello de Sandoval’s visit in 1543: AGI, Mapas y Planos, Mexico 8. 129. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charge against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana, gardener; AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies of charge and presentation of “pinturas” and diligencias of the town of Azcapotzalco, in charge of Don Baltazar, the town’s governor; Pedro Zacarías, alcalde; Pedro Damián, regidor; Don Martín, principal of the pueblo; and Pedro Azaquate, mayordomo: AGI, Justicia, 237, fols. 315r–316v. There is no doubt the Azcapotzalco Indians were satisfied with the payment from the oidor. They stated that Tejada had paid them with some lands located in the town’s boundaries, which were 400 brazas, so they “estaban bien pagados de la dicha obra”: AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charge against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana, gardener (see Table 3.2). 130. Ibid., 258, testimonies of charge against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana, gardener. 131. Ibid., 260, Oidor Tejada’s descargos, questions for the witnesses in his favor, question 71. 132. Ibid., 258, testimonies of charge against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana, gardener, who mentioned the house was built of stone and added the oidor paid 107 pesos of tipuzque to the Texcoco Indians for it to be built. Likewise, he added that the Indians of Texcoco, Mexico, and Santiago worked in the “acarreo” (bringing) of stone for the house, yet it is not known whether Tejada paid for the transportation. Ibid., 260, Oidor Tejada’s descargos, questions for the witnesses in his favor, question 73, in which the oidor denies that the house in his vineyards was made of stone and says it was made of adobe. At the time Chapultepec was a recreation site; in Cervantes de Salazar’s three well-known Latin dialogues there are descriptions of the Chapultepec forest in the mid-sixteenth century. From such descriptions we gather that the forest was surrounded by tall walls and had fountains and plenty of game, in addition to being a place of utmost beauty, favorite of the ancient Mexican gobernantes: Francisco Cervantes de Salazar, México en 1554 y túmulo imperial, Edición,

244 —


prólogo y notas de Edmundo O’Gorman (México City: Editorial Porrúa, 1982, 5th ed.), 63–64. 133. AGI, Justicia, 260, Oidor Tejada’s descargos in 1546, questions for the witnesses in his favor, question 76, descargo 28; AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana, gardener. 134. Ibid., 237, testimonies of charges and presentation of “pinturas” and diligencias of the town of Mexicalcingo by Don Diego and Don Baltazar, regidores of Mexicalcingo, and Don Miguel of San Marcos, alcalde of Mexicalcingo; charge 17, presentation of “pinturas” and diligencias of the town of Iztapalapa by Miguel, Indian from that place and encalador (whitewasher), who worked on the wall of the alberca “grande de la huerta” 120 days as “oficial que es.” 135. Ibid., 258, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana, gardener, who mentioned that the Indians of Coyoacán built adobe houses for Tejada; ibid., testimonies of charges and presentation of “pinturas” and diligencias of the town of Mexicalcingo by Don Francisco, governor of Mexicalcingo, and Don Baltazar, regidor of Mexicalcingo; charge 19, where the adobe delivery is mentioned; the number of his Indian slaves is recorded in charge 6. 136. Ibid., 260, Oidor Tejada’s descargos on the mill, testimony for the oidor’s descargos, witness: Gonzalo Ruiz, Mexico City neighbor and regidor; oidor’s descargos, descargo 38; ibid., 258, testimonies of charge against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana; on the work by Azcapotzalco, see ibid., 237, testimonies and “pinturas” of the Azcapotzalco Indians, witness: Don Baltazar, governor of the town; on the millstones provided by Tepetitlan, ibid., charges against the oidor, charge 2; on the batán (fulling mill), ibid., charges against Oidor Tejada, charge 1. 137. Ibid., 260, Oidor Tejada’s descargos, descargo 15. 138. Gibson, The Aztecs, 386. 139. AGI, Justicia, 237, charges against Tejada, charge 3, where it is mentioned that the oidor removed the caños the viceroy had ordered to be placed. 140. Ibid., 259, charges against Viceroy Mendoza in 1546. In charge 44 Mendoza was accused of having allowed Tejada to build his acequia in spite of the Mexico City cabildo’s complaints. 141. Copy of a merced originally dated September 15, 1540, in ibid., 260, documents for the oidor’s descargos, and ibid., 237, documents for Tejada’s descargos. 142. AGI, Justicia, 237, 260. 143. Ibid., 237, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Alonso de Bazán, Mexico City neighbor. 144. Ibid., 258, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana, gardener. 145. Ibid., 237, charges against Tejada, charge 18, where the acequia’s measurements are mentioned; ibid., 260, Tejada’s testimonies of descargos, witness: Gonzalo Ruiz, who mentions there were bridges in the acequia that allowed the way out from Mexico City not to be blocked. 146. Ibid., 237, testimonies of charge against Tejada, “pinturas” and diligencias of Coyoacán, witnesses: Don Juan, cacique and governor of Coyoacán; Don Antonio and Juan de San Lázaro, town alcaldes; Pedro de Paz and Miguel de la Cruz, town regidores; Miguel Huecametla, local alguacil; “pinturas” and diligencias of Mexicalcingo, witnesses: Don Juan, governor of Mexicalcingo; Don Diego, Don Baltazar, and Don Miguel of San Marcos, regidores of Mexicalcingo; Don Miguel and Don Cristóbal Clemente, local alcaldes; “pinturas” and diligencias of Tacubaya, witnesses:

— 245


Don Toribio, governor of Tacubaya; Don Pedro of Santiago, alcalde; Don Pedro of Santa María, regidor; Don Tomás of San Juan, principal; “pinturas” and diligencias of Culhuacan, witnesses: Don Baltazar, governor of Culhuacan; Pedro de Silva, alcalde; Andrés Juárez and Juan de Rivas, local regidores; Joan de Aguilar, alcalde; “pinturas” and diligencias of Huitzilopochco, witnesses: Don Francisco, governor of the town; Don Fabian and Diego Ramírez, regidores; “pinturas” and diligencias of Tacuba, witnesses: Don Antonio Cortés, governor of Tacuba; Don Martín, alcalde; Don Pablo and Don Diego Díaz, regidores; Don Martín de Sandoval and Don Benito de Alvarado, principals of Tacuba. 147. Ibid., charges against Tejada, charge 18; testimonies of charges, witness: Alonso de Bazán, Mexico City neighbor. 148. Ibid., 258, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana, gardener. 149. Ibid., 237, on the affected estancieros, number 3 mentions the oidor, with his acequia, ruined the water distribution that used to benefit some Spanish landowners in the region, to the point that some had to sell their properties because of the water scarcity; testimonies of charges against Tejada, witnesses: Alonso Gutiérrez, Juan Juárez, licenciado Francisco Gudiel, and Francisco Sánchez Puñalero, who owned lands in the same area where the oidor’s ranch was located and shared the water grant with Tejada. Water did not run through the witnesses’ lands, however, and Tejada forced them to pay for this service. 150. Ibid., “pinturas” and diligencias of the Tacuba Indians, witnesses: Gaspar de Luna, principal and regidor of Tacuba, and Don Martín de Sandoval, principal, charge 39. 151. Ibid., “pinturas” and diligencias of the Santa Fe Indians, witnesses: Pablo de Santiago, Pedro Lázaro, and Don Francisco, principals of Santa Fe, who said water used to reach the town in Moctezuma’s time and was now diverted by the oidor’s acequia. The Indians added that they could not irrigate their lands because of water scarcity; charge against Tejada 26. 152. Ibid., 258, Oidor Tejada’s documents of charges: copies of acts of the Mexico City cabildo on the issue of the oidor’s acequia, dated September 27, 1544, where ravines and roads were discussed; and March 5, 1545, on the Tacuba and Tacuba River acequias’ damage to Mexico City. At this meeting Ruy González was commissioned to make the necessary inquiries about the acequias and also agreed to discuss the issue with the viceroy. He had to wait, however, since Mendoza was ill and out of town. March 9, 1545, meeting: González reported the acequia was damaging to Mexico City; April 20, 1545, meeting: the same point is reported again; testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Ruy González, who insists on his rejection of the acequia. On regidor Ruy González’s imprisonment, see ibid., testimonies of charges, witnesses: Alonso Ortíz de Zúñiga, Mexico City neighbor; Doctor Quesada, Real Audiencia oidor; and Alonso de Bazán, Mexico City neighbor, who mentioned that the oidor locked up Ruy González, saying that the latter had not removed his hat as a sign of respect in his presence. González was Mexico City regidor starting in 1533. Porras mentions that González was obsessed about the defense of Mexico City: Porras Muñoz, El gobierno, 299. Tejada’s acequia problem can also be seen in Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 479–480. 153. AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witnesses: licenciado Francisco Gudiel and Francisco Sánchez Puñalero. 154. Ibid., 260, Oidor Tejada’s testimonies of descargos, descargo 15.

246 —


155. Ibid., descargos 15, 28, and 38; on the testimony where other local mill owners are mentioned, the witness is Mexico City teniente de factor (minor official in the Real Hacienda) Antonio de la Cadena. 156. Ibid., 237, testimonies of charge against Tejada, “pinturas” and diligencias of the Tacuba Indians, witnesses: Don Antonio Cortés, governor of Tacuba; Don Diego Díaz, Don Pedro, and Gaspar de Luna, regidores; and Martín de Sandoval, principal; “pinturas” and diligencias of the Azcapotzalco Indians, witness: Don Baltazar, governor of Azcapotzalco. 157. Ibid.; on Sandoval’s ranch, charges against Tejada: charge 15; on Tejada sending flour to Taxco, testimonies of charge, witness: Gonzalo Ruiz, Mexico City regidor. Apart from this, in 1542 the oidor made a visit to the mines in Taxco, where he forced severe limitations on commerce, apparently to prevent the “hurto de metales” (silver theft): Silvio Zavala, ed., Asientos de la gobernación de la Nueva España (Periodo del virrey don Luis de Velasco, 1550–1552) (México City: Archivo General de la Nación, 1982). On December 5, 1551, by order of Viceroy Don Luis de Velasco, the orders for the mines, dated October 4, 1542, were transferred by the oidor during his visit in Taxco; there were 18 chapters: ibid., 176–180; on the visit, Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 228–230. 158. AGI, Justicia, 237, on the amount of grapevines planted by Tacuba: testimonies of charges, “pinturas” and diligencias of the Tacuba Indians, witnesses: Don Antonio Cortés, governor of Tacuba; Melchor Vázquez, alcalde of the town; Don Pablo Gueytlalpan and Diego Díaz, regidores of Tacuba; and Martín de Sandoval and Benito de Alvarado, principals; AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana, gardener, who pointed out that the Tacuba Indians planted 100,000 vine shoots. On Tejada and Manzanares’s joint wine enterprise, see AGI, Justicia, 237, charges against the oidor, charge 42; Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, see “cuadro de precios agrícolas y ganaderos durante la administración del virrey Mendoza,” 104–119; the acts del cabildo where the wine arroba price is set are dated April 7, 1541, and July 30, 1545. 159. On Oidor Ceynos’s partnership with a wine tradesman called Pablo Martín who owned a store in Mexico City, see AGI, Justicia, 260, charges against Oidor Ceynos, charge 20, and Oidor Ceynos’s descargos, descargo on this charge; AGI, Justicia, 258, Tello de Sandoval’s visit to the viceroy and the Audiencia in 1546, charges against Oidor Ceynos, witness: licenciado Diego Telléz, Mexico neighbor. 160. On the development of the domestic colonial market, see Carlos Sempat Assadourian, El sistema de la economía colonial. El mercado interior. Regiones y espacio económico (México City: Editorial Nueva Imagen, 1983). The scarcity of studies on the Taxco real de minas during the colony is worth mentioning, especially studies that cover the sixteenth century. The only information available is in Manuel Toussaint, Taxco. Su historia, sus monumentos. Características actuales . . . (México City: Editorial Cultura, Publicaciones de la Secretaria de Hacienda, 1931). 161. AGI, Justicia, 260, Oidor Tejada’s testimonies of descargos, witnesses: Antonio de la Cadena, encomendero and teniente de factor (minor official of the Real Hacienda); Don Luis de Castilla, miner in Taxco and encomendero in Oaxaca; Juan de Sámano, alguacil mayor; Juan de Manzanares, landowner in Ximilpan and encomendero; Antonio de Carvajal, encomendero and regidor in Mexico City; factor and encomendero Hernando de Salazar; Gonzalo de Salazar, regidor in Mexico City; Hernando de Herrera, relator of the Audiencia; and Antonio de Turcios, Audiencia secretary. All of them favored the idea that royal officials were to be

— 247


allowed to become entrepreneurs. For information on these encomenderos and Tejada’s witnesses, see Tables 2.1 and 2.3 in this book; also see Zavala, La Encomienda; Gerhard, A Guide; Himmerich, “The encomenderos.” On Luis de Castilla being an important miner in Taxco, see Toussaint, Taxco. 162. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charges against Tejada, on the price of the ranch, witness: Alonso Ortíz who, before 1546, estimated that the oidor’s lands and the buildings constructed there were worth 20,000 pesos de oro de minas (mined gold); AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witnesses: Audiencia of México oidor Antonio Rodríguez de Quesada (oidor from 1546 to 1553) declared that Tejada sold his Ximilpan lands to Pedro de Sandoval, a miner, for 48,000 ducats; regidor and Mexico City neighbor Gonzalo Ruiz said the oidor had sold his “heredad” (estate) for 40,000 pesos de oro de minas; Antonio Ortíz, Mexico City neighbor, declared that Tejada’s lands were worth 20,000 pesos de oro de minas; general charges, charge 7, which includes information on the oidor having sold his lands, batanes, mills, and slaves to Pedro de Sandoval for 48,000 ducats. On Pedro de Sandoval’s debts, charges against Oidor Tejada, charges 7 and 8; Sandoval quarreled with other Taxco miners and was favored by the oidor, since he was married to one of the oidor’s nieces: charge 9; testimonies of charge, witnesses: Antonio de Castro and Diego González, Taxco mines neighbors, and Nicolás Alemán, Real Audiencia attorney. 163. Ibid., 237, charges against Tejada. 164. Ibid., on the oidor’s slave trade, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witnesses: Alonso de Bazán, Mexico City neighbor, and Francisco Gallego, tradesman; on a black slave’s price, ibid., 259, letter from the Viceroy to the Crown on April 30, 1537, in which the Viceroy mentions a black slave is worth that price. 165. Ibid., 237, charges against Tejada, charges 41 and 44; testimonies of charges, witness: Gracián de Badazola, public scribe. 166. On the company for labrar plata (working the silver) Villaseca and Tejada had, see ibid., charges against Tejada, charge 40. Tradesman Alonso de Villaseca, born in Arcicóllar in Toledo, was one of the wealthiest men in New Spain. He founded a mayorazgo (entailed estate) that was worth more than 1 million pesos to benefit his daughter; he also protected the Jesuits in Mexico and died in 1580. Biographical information on this well-known tradesman can be found in Cervantes de Salazar, México en 1554, note 173, 121–122; Joaquín García Icazbalceta, “Un creso del siglo XVI en México,” in Opúsculos varios (México City: n.p., 1896), 435–442. Villaseca had good connections with royal officials: ibid., 259, royal official Gonzalo de Aranda was accused of lending money from the Caja Real (royal treasure) to tradesman Alonso de Villaseca; memorial dated March 24, 1547, “El tesorero Juan Alonso de Sosa, sobre cosas que dizque hacen en perjuicio de la Real Hacienda, después que Gonzalo de Aranda entiende en ella”: AGI, México, 68, Oidor Vasco de Puga’s letter to the King, May 20, 1560, where Puga mentions it is rumored that Viceroy Luis de Velasco wants his son to marry Alonso de Villaseca’s daughter, who has a hacienda worth 400,000 ducats. On Tejada and the rich tradesman Alonso de Villaseca having mines in Zacatecas, see AGI, Guadalajara, 5, “Suma de la visita a las provincias y ciudades del nuevo reino de Nueva Galicia . . .” by licenciado de la Marcha, oidor and alcalde mayor of the Real Audiencia of Compostela in New Galicia, from December 3, 1549, to December 7, 1550; José Francisco Román Gutiérrez, “Sociedad y frontera: la creación de Nueva Galicia” (unpublished manuscript); and on Villaseca, see Zavala, Asientos de la gobernación, 141, which mentions that in 1551 Viceroy Velasco was informed by miners Alonso de Villaseca, Alonso de Mérida, and Don Luis de Castilla,

248 —


among other Ixmiquilpan and Zacatecas miners, on the need to build a road that connected Ixmiquilpan and the camino real (royal road) from Mexico City to Zacatecas. 167. AGI, Justicia, 237, charges against Oidor Tejada, on the house that was worth 7,000 ducats, charge 39. Cervantes de Salazar mentions in his diálogos one of rich tradesman Alonso de Villaseca’s houses, who was also Cervantes de Salazar’s first cousin: Cervantes de Salazar, México en 1554, 56; Cervantes de Salazar, México en 1554, note 173, 121; on the estancia, see AGI, Justicia, 237, charge 39. We know that Villaseca devoted himself to cattle raising in the Toluca area: Silvio Zavala, El servicio personal de los indios en la Nueva España, 1550–1575, vol. 2 (México City: El Colegio de Méxíco–El Colegio Nacional, 1985), 116; and he also had cattle ranches in the Xilotepec area: Chevalier, La formación de los latifundios, 127. 168. AGI, Justicia, 237, charges against Oidor Tejada, testimonies of charge, witnesses: Diego Ramírez, visitor of the Indian towns; Alonso Ortíz de Zúñiga, Mexico City neighbor; Juan de Guevara, Audiencia scribe; and Luis Gómez, Mexico City neighbor. 169. Ibid., 1554, on the Indians he delivered to Jerónimo León, testimonies of charges, witness: Diego Ramírez, visitor of Indian towns, charge 44; on the Indians he gave to Manzanares, charge 42. 170. Ibid., Oidor Tejada’s charges and descargos; on the San Hipólito market having been created in the 1540s, see Gibson, The Aztecs, 395. 171. AGI, Justicia, 237, Tejada’s testimonies of descargos, witness: Diego Tristán. 172. Ibid., testimonies of charges against Tejada, in which the oidor is accused of pressing Gregorio de Rivas so he sold an urban land that belonged to him, witnesses: Luis Gómez, Mexico City neighbor; Ruy González, regidor and neighbor; and Juan de Cuevas, mine and record scribe, who mentioned that Tejada took houses from several Mexico City neighbors; on the oidor’s reference, ibid., Tejada’s descargos. 173. AGI, México, 256, “informe sobre los bienes del Marqués del Valle [Hernán Cortés] para los oficiales reales,” after their properties had been taken away from them because of the famous conjura (plot against the king) in which he participated in 1568 during the summer. 174. Cervantes de Salazar, México en 1554, 52–53; see note 154, 116–117, which mentions the chance—which I believe is true—that the stores belonged to Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada. Kubler also comments on that building: George Kubler, Mexican Architecture of the Sixteenth Century, vol. 1 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948), 204–205. Cervantes de Salazar, México en 1554, note 154, 116–117. 175. On Cervantes de Salazar being Alonso de Villaseca’s first cousin, see Cervantes de Salazar, México en 1554, xi. 176. AGI, Justicia, 237, Oidor Tejada’s descargos, 1554. 177. AGI, Patronato, 231, vol. 20, Presentation al Consejo de Indias. 178. AGI, Justicia, 237, charges against Oidor Tejada, 1554. 179. Ibid., Oidor Tejada’s descargos in 1554, the oidor’s testimonies of descargo, which also were mentioned by Alvaro Ruiz, procurador, Alonso Pérez, bachiller, and Juan Vázquez de Salazar, factor. 180. Ibid., charges against Oidor Tejada. On the conflict between the cabildo and the oidor, it seemed the cabildo members’ positions on Tejada shifted, since they praised the oidor’s good job in a letter on January 26, 1552; see Sarabia Viejo, Don Luis de Velasco, 43. 181. AGI, Justicia, 237, charges against Oidor Tejada, 1554, testimonies of charge, witnesses: Juan de Cuevas, mine and record scribe, and Ruy González, regidor. One

— 249


of the charges on Tejada during the residencia hearing clearly states that since he was “muy ambicioso” (very ambitious) he used to take materials for his constructions from his neighbor. 182. Gibson, The Aztecs, 395; Janet Long-Solis, “El abastecimiento de chile en el mercado de la ciudad de México-Tenochtitlan en el siglo XVI,” Historia Mexicana 34, 4 (April–June 1985): 701–714. Long-Solis mentions that in about 1554, Indian markets were as poor as the Indians themselves, 710. Florescano mentions the Indian markets’ decay after 1555, and from that year he also dates the development of the Spanish mercantile market: Florescano, “El abasto y la legislación,” 593. 183. Florescano, “El abasto y la legislación,” 598. A text that agrees with the idea that the cocoliztli (sickness in Nahuatl) epidemic produced a crisis in city supplies is Long-Solis, “El abastecimiento de chile,” 710. 184. Sarabia Viejo, Don Luis de Velasco, 426. 185. Guillermo Tovar y de Teresa, La ciudad de México y la utopía en el siglo XVI (México City: Seguros de México, S.A., 1987). The author, to find Alberti’s architectural influence on Mendoza, used a copy of Alberti’s “Tratado de arquitectura” (Latin edition, Paris: 1512), annotated by Mendoza in June 1539; the book’s first edition dates from 1485, 13. 186. Tovar y de Teresa, La ciudad de México, 102. 187. AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies of charges against Oidor Tejada, witnesses: Juan de Guevara, scribe, and Doctor Quesada, oidor of the Audiencia of México, who adds there is a certificate that proves this. 188. Ibid., witness: Juan de Carvajal, alcalde ordinario. 189. Ibid., witness: Luis Gómez, Mexico City neighbor. 190. AGI, México, 1090, Book C. 8, fols. 118–119. The sale was performed under the supervision of the officials of the Casa de Contratación. 191. Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1. 192. According to Miranda, chapters 2, 3, and 5 in the Crown’s instruction to Viceroy Mendoza show that from the discovery of mines the Crown was interested in increasing the Real Hacienda with gold and silver from the recently found deposits in New Spain, particularly in the Taxco region: Miranda, El tributo, 90–91. Miranda refers to chapter 2, in which the Crown orders that the towns in the province were to be visitados, so there was a tribute assessment report and a report on the Indians’ possibly being able to pay more gold and silver, and to chapter 3 on the chance that tribute in-kind could be exchanged for money. 193. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, instruction to Viceroy Mendoza, April 25, 1535, chapters 5 and 6, 24–25; AGI, Indiferente General, 415, “Registros-Asientos y Capitulaciones generales para descubrimientos y poblaciones, año de 1535,” asientoRegistro for Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza, in which the already mentioned instruction chapters are included. 194. Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, instruction for Viceroy Mendoza, April 25, 1535, chapters 5 and 6, 24; chapter 13, 27; chapter 21, 29, respectively; expansion of the instruction for Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza, July 14, 1536, chapter 9, 34; chapter 13, 36; for an antecedent of legislation on Indian labor, see de Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, Toledo, December 4, 1528, Ordenanzas Reales de la Nueva España, fols. 33v–36v. The Crown used fifteen points to regulate the use of tameme, as well as the service of Indian women at the encomenderos’ houses, Indian labor in mines, the use of Indians from the coasts as tameme, Indian labor in construction, war slaves, and restrictions for the use of Indians in Spaniards’ constructions during their harvests.

250 —


195. Miranda, La función económica, 5, 10. 196. Miranda, El tributo, 95–96. On the viceroy’s mining legislation, which was the first to exist, see AGI, México, 19, 1; a 1546 copy of the orders in AGI, Justicia, 259, as part of the documents presented by the viceroy for his descargos; also in Cuevas, Documentos inéditos, 52–54. Arthur Aiton, “Ordenanzas hechas por el Sr. Visorrey don Antonio de Mendoza, sobre las minas de la Nueva España, año de MDL,” Revista de Historia de América 14 (June 1942): 73–95, consists of forty-nine orders. Aiton considers that the orders’ influence can be seen throughout the mining expansion to the north of Mexico near the turn of the sixteenth century. On the other hand, during Tello de Sandoval’s visit, Mendoza declared that some orders “de la manera que habían de tener los indios que servían a minas y comida que se les había de dar”: Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, interrogatory prepared by Antonio de Mendoza for the visit, January 8, 1547, question 288, 107. 197. Biblioteca de la Real Academia de la historia, Volume 85, fols. 305–310, copy of a “Parecer del virrey Don Antonio de Mendoza acerca de los servicios personales y Tamemes”; also see Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 165–166, who considers this document dates from about June 10, 1549. 198. AGI, Justicia, 259, copy of a letter Viceroy Mendoza sent to the King, originally dated in “postrero abril” (end of April) in 1537. Indians’ service in mines was forbidden during the viceroy’s last year in office (1549), so it can be asserted that during Mendoza’s period Indian labor in mines was legally sanctioned: real cédula de Valladolid, January 7, 1549, in de Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, fols. 129–129v. 199. Zavala, El servicio personal, vol. 1, 19. 200. Ibid., vol. 2, 439; Muro Orejón, Las Leyes Nuevas, chapter 22, 12. 201. De Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, fols. 122v–124. 202. AGI, Justicia, 259, charges against Viceroy Mendoza, charge 33; AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charges against Viceroy Mendoza, witnesses: Don Diego, governor of Mexico; Don Juan, cacique of the parcialidad of Mexico; and Don Hernando, governor of Tlatelolco. 203. Ibid., 258, testimonies of charges against Viceroy Mendoza, witness: Don Juan, cacique of the parcialidad of Mexico. On the Michoacán issue, witness: Don Ramiro, principal of Michoacán from Pátzcuaro. The interpreter of his testimony was the well-known Friar Alonso de la Veracruz, the principal of Tzintzunzan, who also testified. On the friendship and business relation between the viceroy and Don Luis de Castilla, see Chapter 2. 204. We find these concrete prohibitions in the Leyes Nuevas–Barcelona, November 20, 1542: chapter 22: “ninguna persona se pueda servir de los indios por vía de naburía ni tapia ni otro modo alguno contra su voluntad”; chapter 24: “Yten mandamos que sobre el cargar de los dichos indios las audiencias tengan especial cuydado que no se carguen” (except, when necessary, through payment and supervision that the charge is not overwhelming); chapter 26, Indians who are encomendados in royal officials have to be placed in corregimiento; chapter 36 forbids the viceroy or governor to start new discovery campaigns, in Muro Orejón, Las Leyes Nuevas. On the 1549 general prohibition, “Carta y sobre carta para que los oidores no tengan grangerías,” real cédula de Valladolid, April 29, 1549, countersigned in Valladolid, April 26, 1550, and May 2, 1550, in de Puga, Provisiones, cédulas, fols. 177v–178v. For these regulations, also see Recopilación de Leyes de los Reinos de las Indias, Edición facsimilar (Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica, 1973), Book 2, title 16. Audiencia members were only allowed to bring from Spain to Mexico what

— 251


was necessary for themselves and their homes, and everything had to be registered under their name: Valladolid, May 2, 1550. The oidores had the same Indian service allowed by legislation to the rest of the colonists and also had the same restrictions: Toro, September 21, 1551. The oidores, as well as their wives and children, were forbidden to engage in trade: May 2, 1550; presidents and oidores, as well as their families, were forbidden to have a friendly or familiar relationship with lawyers and officials of the Hacienda Real and to accept gifts: Valladolid, April 29, 1549, and April 16, 1550. They could not own, either directly or indirectly, houses of their own in order to rent them, as well as estancias, lands, orchards, and tiendas in their resident cities or in any other part of the Audiencia district: Valladolid, May 2, 1550. 205. AGI, Justicia, 237, residencia hearing against Oidor Tejada, 1554. Several Indian testimonies declared thus. 206. George Baudot, “La percepción histórica del drama demográfico de México en el siglo XVI,” in Quinto Centenario, vol. 1 (Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1981), 3–24. The Dominican is Friar Pedro de Pravia in the arzobispado (archbishopric) of Mexico City, letter to the King dated December 9, 1588, 14–16. Baudot emphasizes how this Dominican friar admits that it was more important to the Spaniards to have the Indian labor than to have all the silver, 16. 207. AGI, Justicia, 237, charges against Tejada. Rota labor assignment refers to the number of Indian days’ work (jornadas) and not to the number of Indian laborers (jornaleros). This comes from the Coatequitl (Indian institution of labor assignment) and also from the fact that the Indians were not paid individually, but the community as a whole was paid. Charge 4, in which the oidor is accused of having taken to his heredad (estate), over a period of fifteen years, 15,000 Indians every year who did not receive a salary or food and worked against their will. The charge adds that many of these Indians died because of the work’s strenuousness and their ill treatment by the oidor’s “negros y calpisque.” The jornales are estimated based on information gathered from charges 18 and 19, which mention that Tejada used 350,000 Indians to build the acequia. I have taken into account that the work was rota labor, so I prefer to estimate accumulated jornadas of work instead of Indians’ individual work. Rota work, of preHispanic origin, was still in force during that time: Gibson, The Aztecs, 224. 208. Cook and Borah, The Indian Population; Lesley Byrd Simpson and Sherburne F. Cook, The Population of Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960); Borah, The Aboriginal. 209. On the years when Tejada made a more intensive use of Indian labor, see AGI, Justicia, 258, charges against Tejada; AGI, Justicia, 260, testimonies of charges on Tejada; testimonies of descargos for the oidor that point at the cattle estancia and the acequia as finished works, unlike the tiendas; AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies and “pinturas” of several towns in the Valley of Mexico, which mention that their inhabitants started several works for the oidor around 1539. As regards the principle used to estimate the jornales: 1. For a one-year estimation I eliminated holidays, taking them, when there is no specification in Indian testimonies, as the 52 Sundays in one year. Likewise, I also took the celebrations frequently included in the religious calendar, such as Good Friday, James’s Day, and so on, which make a sum of 10 days, the possible number of celebrations in a year. If we subtract all Sundays and the 10 celebration days, we get 303 working days per year. Cappelli’s calendar can be seen to realize that the estimation of holidays per year is acceptable for the time: A. Cappelli, Cronologia, Cronografia e Calendario Perpetuo dal principio dell’era cristiana ai nostri giorni (Milan: Editore Ulrico Hoepli, 1969, 3rd ed.), 2. When labor time is stated

252 —


as “half a year,” or six months, I used the average of 365 days, rounding to the lower figure, with 182.5 days as a result, to which I subtracted 31 holidays, which means we have 151 working days. 3. When time units are less than six months and more than one, I have taken months as 30 days, so a five-month period adds up to 150 days, and I have considered 28 holidays, which means, for example, 122 working days in five months. On the principle for salary estimations: 1. When the oidor mentions having paid but the number of jornales he used is not in his records—actas notariales—I divided the payment sum by ¼ real per jornal, since that was the official wage for one jornada of Indian work after the Leyes Nuevas. One peso would thus pay 32 jornales’ salaries for any kind of work, except work explicitly mentioned as specialized (masons, stonecutters) and tameme work, since these kinds of work officially had higher wages: 2 tomínes or 2 reales paid for a tameme jornal and ½ peso paid for an Indian’s specialized work in a mill. All these references are taken from the oidor’s notarial certificates. 2. Salary is rounded to the lower figure, so sums in tomínes are not taken into account in salary records. They are added in a different operation for them to be included in the final sum, however, so paid salaries roughly coincide with the corresponding jornales. Finally, I always refer to Tables 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, and 3.7 in this book. 210. Azcapotzalco: 1. Part of these jornales, 14,400, belongs to the construction of a 2,400-braza-long fence: see Table 3.6, Azcapotzalco, where the number of laborers is not stated. I made an estimation of the needed jornales based on the Mexicalcingo declaration, where 200 men were needed for a week to build a 200-braza fence. This means that with the same number of laborers, 12 weeks would have been needed to build a 2,400-braza fence, which renders a sum of 14,400 jornales. The oidor paid with lands for the fence construction. 2. The Indians declared that they picked wheat on two or three occasions (see Table 3.6, Azcapotzalco); on one occasion Tejada gave them 48 pesos and on another 41 pesos. In the final estimation I multiplied those pesos by jornales of cuartillo. As already mentioned, sometimes the number of laborers is not stated, yet we do know they were paid (see Table 3.6). 211. Tacubaya: The calculation of jornales and salaries in Tacubaya is included in Coyoacán’s declaration, since that town took part in the construction with one-fifth of the total work needed—60 men for 2 years, 6 months, and 3 weeks. 212. Culhuacan: The salary declared by the Indians is part of Tejada’s payment to four towns, a sum of 680 pesos (see Table 3.3), which the oidor declared he paid. Knowing that Coyoacán received 260 pesos from that sum, I divided the rest among the three remaining communities, which is 140 pesos per town, and in this case my estimation coincides with the received payment declared by the Indians. 213. Mexicalcingo: 1. Information provided by the governor of Mexicalcingo about the brazas of land they worked on—see Table 3.6, Mexicalcingo section. He mentions that 30 townsmen worked every day for two years and six months, except celebrations, which gives a sum of 22,710 jornales, worth 709 pesos in salary. The testimony of Indian “pinturas” notes, however, that there were 200 men for two years and six months, which renders 151,400 jornales, or 4,731 pesos in salaries. The difference between the two sums of jornales is 128,690. 2. The same governor tells that when the acequia was being built (see Table 3.6, Mexicalcingo), after subtracting all absences, 60 men worked every day for two complete years “quitadas las fiestas” (without festivities), which allows a twofold assumption: if celebrations are yet to be subtracted, it would be 606 days, or 36,360 jornales = 1,136 pesos in salaries; or if celebrations are already subtracted, it would be 730 days, or 43,800 jornales = 1,368

— 253


pesos. According to the testimony from the “pinturas,” in sum, 100 men worked in the acequia for four years, which amounts to 121,200 jornales = 3,787 pesos. The difference between this figure and the higher one gathered from the governor’s estimation is 77,400, and the lowest is 84,840. 214. Tacuba: The Indians declared that on two occasions most of the town worked for the oidor. They do not include the number of people or of worked jornales, so I have taken the higher figure related to the number of Indian days’ work used by the oidor on one day (26,400), which suggests that, in this case, the number equals the number of Indians on that working day, which amounts to 26,400 Indians. Based on these elements, I made an estimation of the sum of jornales in the working week when it is claimed that “casi todo el pueblo” (almost all the people in town) worked— see Table 3.6, Tacuba. I also calculated the sum of jornales needed to work a 2,400braza ditch (zanja) and 400 brazas of land, work carried out by an indeterminate number of Indians. I based this calculation on the Mexicalcingo case, where for two years and six months 200 Indians worked 400 brazas of square-shaped land. If we assume equal working conditions, the resulting number of jornales needed to work those 2,400 brazas would be 908,400, which implies a payment of 28,387 pesos and 4 reales, plus 151,400 jornales for the remaining 400 brazas, which would imply a payment of 4,731 pesos and 2 tomínes. The sum of those two payments is 1,059,800 jornales, and 33,118 pesos and 6 tomínes. Since my calculation is a surmise, there is no trace of it in the sum of jornales I am using for Tacuba. Nevertheless, if it were taken into account, the result would be 113,640 jornales calculated for Tacuba, plus the previous estimation would be 2,040,040 jornales, which should have been paid with 63,751 pesos and 2 tomínes. Each Indian who worked in any of Tejada’s enterprises would have worked 77 days. 215. Azcapotzalco: The 52-peso salary mentioned by Tejada consists of 44 pesos for “pulling” magueyes and 8 pesos for weeding, although laborers are not mentioned, so I converted each cuartillo into the same amount of jornales. 216. Otumba: The figure for work refers to two invoices. The first records a payment of 100 pesos de oro común (common gold) but does not include the number of laborers or the performed tasks. The second mentions a number of 33 Indian laborers for 15 days, who were paid 3 tomínes each, or 99 reales, or 12 pesos. Both amounts and tasks are recorded only in Tejada’s notarial testimonies and are not found in the Indians’ declarations. 217. Tepeji: According to the April 19, 1544, notarial payment certificate, Tejada proved he paid 8 pesos and 6 reales to 40 Indians. From this salary I gathered that those Indians must have worked for 7 days, information that is not recorded in the payment certificate. 218. Tepentachi: Tejada declared two payments, one for 14 pesos and another for 2 pesos, but he did not declare the number of laborers. I converted them into common jornales—a silver cuartillo per jornal—to avoid obviating the notarial testimonies. 219. Mexicalcingo: I converted all into jornales and rounded to the lowest salary, so the 4 reales must be added to the final sum of salaries paid by the oidor. 220. Mexicalcingo: The service of tameme was used on three different occasions. The first records 800 tameme who needed 1½ days to carry 800 cargas of tezontle to a place 4 leguas away. Another time 1,200 tameme carried large slabs to the orchard, and it is said they traveled 8 leguas. The third time the number of tameme is not stated, but it is recorded that they carried turf for the fence. It is never mentioned that they

254 —


received a salary (see Table 3.6). On Texcoco, see Table 3.6, where the Indians mention they transported 15,000 bricks and that each Indian had to carry 10 of them. 221. Malazatepec: This town gave him three tameme who transported three cargas of moreras (mulberry bushes). Each tameme was paid two tomínes. 222. Xilotepec: An indeterminate number of tameme transported cargas or fardos (loads) with higuera (fig trees). He paid half a peso of tipuzque each. Since there are no specific statements on numbers and salaries, this is not included in the final sum. 223. Texcoco: Tejada makes clear he paid for the transportation of 14,800 ladrillos (bricks) to Mexico City, which amounted to 31 pesos and 2 tomínes, which implies 125 tameme who received 2 tomínes each. 224. AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies and “pinturas” of the town of Amecameca, witnesses: Josepe de San Francisco, alcalde, and Diego Hurtaz, principal, who declared he had been among the retained people, charge 42. 225. Gibson, The Aztecs, 222. 226. AGI, Justicia, 237, testimonies and “pinturas” of the town of Tacuba, witness: Gaspar de Luna, principal, charge 40. 227. Gibson, The Aztecs, 221. 228. AGI, Justicia, 258, testimonies of charges against Tejada, witness: Francisco de Triana. 229. Ibid. 230. Ibid. 231. Ibid., 237, testimony and “pinturas” of the town of Mexicalcingo, witnesses: Don Francisco, governor of Mexicalcingo; Don Diego, regidor; Baltazar de Huahuatl, regidor; and Miguel de San Marcos, alcalde. 232. AGI, Patronato, 231, volume 20, n.d.g., Presentation. 233. AGI, Justicia, 260, Oidor Tejada’s descargos against Antonio Ortíz, an interpreter who was temporarily removed from his office in the Audiencia at Tejada’s request. 234. Ibid., 237, general charges against him. 235. Ibid., testimonies and “pinturas” of the Coyoacán Indians; ibid., 258, testimonies of charges against the oidor, witness: Francisco de Triana. 236. Ibid., 258. 237. Ibid., 237, testimonies and “pinturas” of the Mexicalcingo Indians; Hanke, Los virreyes españoles, charges against Viceroy Mendoza during Tello de Sandoval’s visit, 1546.

— 255

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

The policy the Crown tried to impose in New Spain was sometimes altered by its governors, who adapted it to fit the reality in the New Spain territory. In this sense, it appears there was some autonomy with regard to important decisions on problems that had no easy solution, and this depended on the people appointed to carry out the policies. The Spanish officials’ interest in Mexico, however, cannot be isolated from the direction those policies took in practice. In just a few years, institutions that were vital for safeguarding royal jurisdiction, such as the corregimiento—an efficient institutional means for limiting the lordly pretentions of some encomenderos and introducing royal authority into the Indian communities—had to be adjusted in part to local interests. This had to be done without diminishing royal jurisdiction but in fact by opening up new perspectives for Spanish settlers. The latter, through their enterprises based mainly on Indian labor and tribute, produced wealth and helped to establish the colonial system and also to benefit the Royal Treasury. During the Second Audiencia administration, Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal and the other oidores tried by all means within their scope to establish a colonial system in which royal jurisdiction was the most relevant element. Their political project centered on curbing the dissatisfaction of the encomendero

— 257 —

— 257

CONCLUSIONS

group affected by the new turn in the Crown’s policy toward the institution of the encomienda. This dissatisfaction stemmed, at least in part, from the way the First Audiencia had acted. By placing its private interests and those of its cronies above the Crown’s interests, it had given rise to a great danger within the colonial system: that the problems with the Franciscans and Juan de Zumárraga, as well as the decline in Indian society, among other causes, might lead the Indians to rebel. In any case, the possibility of a rapid extermination of the Indian population would have prevented any attempt at stable colonial settlement (as was the case in Santo Domingo). The king’s response to this situation was to dismiss those governors and invalidate the grants of encomienda the first oidores had made. Both means were important against the lordly pretentions of some conquistadores and notable settlers. The appointment of the bishop of Santo Domingo, Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal, as presiding judge of the Second Audiencia in New Spain was no accident. If there were any doubt about this, it would be enough to go over the policy he and the rest of the Audiencia members applied in the colony. They centralized lawsuits on Indian affairs, skillfully reducing the jurisdiction of the protector of Indians who had so clumsily attempted to restrain the First Audiencia and, above all, had promoted the corregimiento rather than the encomienda. This implied a conflict between the Second Audiencia members, especially its presiding judge, and the encomenderos in general. The latter saw the possible crystallization of their increasingly distant lordly pretensions in a society with strong tendencies toward political centralization thanks to governors such as this Audiencia. The local power groups, however, most of which were made up of encomenderos, were what allowed the survival of colonial domination by creating a series of enterprises necessary for the benefit of the Royal Treasury and local economic well-being. In addition, through the defense of their interests they annulled the possibility of an Indian rebellion, which was always a threat. Vis-à-vis these groups, especially the encomenderos, the Audiencia compromised on some issues. Fuenleal and the rest of the oidores attempted to combine the colonists’ interests with those of the Crown, as long as royal jurisdiction was at no time jeopardized. These doubtful compromises were reflected in a policy toward the Indians that, through the work of the Second Audiencia, projected the “benevolent” face of Spanish domination. By means of the colonial system rationalization, the Indian population was not exterminated because of excessive Spanish demands of tribute and labor from the communities, as well as by the cultural decline the conquest and the beginning of the colonizing process had caused

258 —

CONCLUSIONS

within those communities. Nevertheless, the measures helped a little to avoid the excesses the Spanish population was accustomed to imposing on the Indians: Indian slavery was not eliminated, and paid Indian labor was not accepted as a counterpart to the system of forced labor, which was that of personal service. In general, the need for labor and tribute from the Indian communities had its own system and only allowed the rationalization—with governors interested in colonial establishment through royal jurisdiction—of the mechanisms of exploitation and the reduction of the encomenderos’ lordly pretensions without the one situation excluding the other. The extension of royal jurisdiction the Second Audiencia orchestrated helped lessen the social and political excesses existing before its arrival, and the colony stabilized—at least until the arrival of the first viceroy of New Spain. The Audiencia’s measures with regard to the encomienda and the corregimiento, however, provided no solution to the colonists’ dependence on Indian society, and the need to harmonize the interests of the former with those of the Crown led to a policy more benign toward local private interests. In fact, the first viceroy partially allied himself with those interests and, by granting encomiendas and making it possible to buy them, enabled a group close to him with interests in different ventures—mining, stock raising, trade—to have access to some Indian towns. Likewise, whereas the Second Audiencia had no wish to compensate the encomendero group but wanted to safeguard royal jurisdiction by appointing corregidores, the viceroy—at least in part—used his position to reward some encomenderos with common interests or persons he believed should enjoy the benefit of a post without considering whether they were encomenderos at the same time. Thus, he handed over to the encomenderos the possibility of acceding to Indian communities with jurisdictions that, although small, enabled them to make a profit at the time of surveying the concession of land grants through access to tribute and labor of the towns entrusted to them, provoking therewith the neglect of royal jurisdiction. In general, it might appear that this situation formed part of the viceroy’s skillfully crafted policy to control for some time the dissatisfaction that prevailed among the encomenderos as a result of the establishment of the institution of corregimiento. Although this might have been the case, there is no doubt that Mendoza linked his private interests to those who, like himself, were interested in obtaining great benefit not only from the encomienda Indians but also from enterprises such as agricultural and stock-raising estates, sugar mills, textile mills, trade, and similar ventures. The viceroy, entrusted with looking out for the Crown’s interest and safeguarding royal jurisdiction, was better able than any authority before him to encourage private interests and the

— 259

CONCLUSIONS

establishment of the colonial system. Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada’s economic administration in Mexico in the first half of the sixteenth century can be placed within this framework of personal benefit and the promotion of entrepreneurial activity. By studying the case of the oidor, we can see that the local authorities’ interests did not have the same magnitude regarding immediate effects as those of the colonists. Some measures Mendoza introduced to develop agriculture and stock raising, for example, may not have been a priority if there had not also been a shared interest that led to the development of agricultural and stock-raising activities. When Tejada decided to formalize ownership of the land he had in Tacuba, several legal mechanisms such as notary deeds, gifts of land, and similar means that were organized, centralized, and encouraged by the viceroy—and that had been used in part and thus transformed by the Second Audiencia—eased the way for him. Such forms of acquiring property, however, functioned not only for an individual case or for that of just a handful of colonists but must have been more common than we can imagine. Hence the importance of trying to reconstruct the ties between local political decisions and personal interests. Lorenzo de Tejada used to say he was an example for other colonists. He was sure his behavior had contributed to defining the style and the paths the colonizing process should take. He was convinced that if the colony were to be long lasting, it would depend on successful enterprises such as his own, as he expressed during his residencia hearing: [I]n the way in which what was formerly extremely sterile, without water or any use, now, through my industry, example and diligence, is fertile and delightful . . . the real populating and perpetuating of this land that is of such concern to your Majesty and which he entrusts to us, consists of this.1

NOTE 1. AGI, Justicia, 237, descargos from oidor Tejada.

260 —

COMMENTS ON THE SOURCE MATERIAL

The sources used in this work are taken mainly from the Audiencia de Mexico and Justicia sections of the General Archives of the Indies. This study is based on the analysis of the residencia hearings on the members of the Second Audiencia in 1536, contained in file 232 of the Justicia section: “Residencia tomada el año de 1535 y 1536 a los licenciados Juan de Salmerón, Alonso de Maldonado, Francisco Ceynos y Vasco de Quiroga, oidores que fueron de la Audiencia de México, [hearing taken by] Licenciado Francisco de Loaysa, oidor de aquella Audiencia, juez nombrado para este efecto.” It is also based on the series of residencia hearings carried out in 1554 on the members of the Audiencia and on the material provided by the general visit by Francisco Tello de Sandoval to New Spain in 1544. From the Justicia section, the most outstanding points are the hearings on Oidores Lorenzo de Tejada and Hernando de Santillán, the documentation for which is found in files 237, 238, 239, and 240 in the Justicia section: “Juicio de residencia tomado el año de 1553 a 1560 a el licenciado Lorenzo de Tejada y doctores Gómez de Santillán, Antonio de Mejia y Francisaco Herrera, oidores de la Audiencia de México por el Licenciado Diego López de Montealegre, oidor de la misma audiencia, juez nombrado para este efecto.” The hearings

— 261 —


are complete, with all the statements made at the sessions and the instruments brought by witnesses (Spaniards and Indians) for the prosecution and the defense for each of the officials involved. The residencia hearings on Oidor Hernando de Santillán are found in files 238 and 239. They provide valuable information, among other matters, on a cattle ranch the oidor had in the area of Xilotepec and on the problem of boundaries between the dioceses of New Galicia and Michoacán. This singularity stems from the fact that among the accusations against Santillán was that he was partial to the bishop of New Galicia in the legal action the Audiencia brought against him for having collected tithes from the cattle ranchers located on the borders of these two dioceses for his own diocese. Furthermore, the residencia hearings on Oidor Lorenzo de Tejada, in file 237, contain data on statements and accusations from several Indian towns—especially in the Valley of Mexico area—that claimed they had been dispossessed of their lands and forced to provide labor without proper remuneration. This documentation was very valuable to me, among other reasons, because of the precise information regarding the limits of the lands claimed and the payment the Indians had not received. Furthermore, as of the second half of the sixteenth century, no residencia hearings were found on the oidores of the Audiencia of México—sometimes there were merely a few sentences—either because the files were lost or because no hearings were carried out. Another of the main sources, the general visit Tello de Sandoval made under royal order to the Audiencia and the viceroy of New Spain between 1543 and 1547, is made up of twenty files numbered 258 to 277 in the Justicia section: “Vista hecha el año de 1543 a 1547 al virrey de la Nueva España y presidente de la Real Audiencia de México, Don Antonio de Mendoza, a los oidores de ella, el Licenciado Alonso Maldonado, el Licenciado Francisco Ceynos, el Licenciado Francisco de Loaysa, el Licenciado Lorenzo de Tejada . . . el fiscal Cristóbal de Benavente, a los alguaciles mayores: García Lopero de Cardenas, Juan de Sámano, Gonzalo Cerezo y a sus tenientes, a los realatores: el licenciado Juan Alvarez de Castañeda y Hernando de Herrera, a los escribanos de Cámara: Antonio de Turcios y Juan de Baeza, a los abogados, a los escribanos de número, a los regidores a los alcaldes ordinarios y demás ministros de justicia, a los oficiales de Real Hacienda.” These contain statements made at the hearing, interrogations, memoranda for the prosecution and the defense, and similar documents and are essential material for the study of the early years of New Spain. They provide documentation on the social, political, and economic relations Viceroy Mendoza and the oidores es-

262 —


tablished, which is found from files 258–266 to those of the last Audiencia scribe in files 272 and 273. The research carried out was mainly on the files containing the testimonies and evidence for the prosecution and defense of Viceroy Mendoza—numbers 258, 259, and 260—and those on the Audiencia, numbers 258–261. As part of the visit, there is very exact and important material on Viceroy Mendoza’s actions in certain New Spain areas. Equally relevant is the material on his visit, as it is the only one of its kind that exists—a sixteenth-century account of the Audiencia and the viceroy of New Spain. Only Aiton and Pérez Bustamante, in their biographies of Viceroy Mendoza, have worked on this material, and then only on a very small portion of it. There were few letters from the Audiencia and Viceroy Mendoza to the Crown during the period of this study, since I could only have access to those corresponding to his administration. Because of this lack and having limited my search to the Audiencia de Mexico section, I found only an insignificant number of letters sent by the Audiencia to the king during Mendoza’s administration. In that Audiencia of México section, I also handled some files with letters and other files with letters sent by private individuals from the vast territory of the Audiencia of México—for example, file 95, corresponding to 1519–1544; file 96, covering 1545 to 1558; file 168, with letters sent by private individuals to the king from 1515 to 1570; and file 19, with letters and matters concerning the viceroys that were seen by the Council of the Indies and that covered 1536 to 1576. Also in the same section, in file 92 I found letters from and files on visitors from the years 1544 to 1670.

— 263

APPENDIX

Name1

Position

Date2

Salary3

APPENDIX Appointment of Corregidores and Lieutenants in New Spain Towns, 1535–1546

Name1

Position

Aguabila y la Mitad de los Aguatuinicamanes Sevilla, Francisco de Corregidor Sevilla, Francisco de Corregidor

Date2

Salary3

8/10/1543 8/11/1544

200 200

Aguatlán y Su Partido Alemán, Johan Alemán, Johan Audelo, Antonio de Audelo, Antonio de Gutierrez, Alonso Ordoñez, Sancho Ordoñez, Sancho Ordoñez, Sancho Sosa, Juan de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

5/27/1545 7/29/1546 3/27/1539 9/7/1540 1/30/1537 12/2/1541 11/24/1542 4/1/1544 1/31/1538

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Amatlán y Su Partido Albornoz, Juan de Camas, Bartholome de Camas, Bartholome de Camas, Bartholome de Torres, Francisco de Torres, Francisco de Villalobos, Gabriel de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

1/25/1537 6/10/1541 6/17/1542 6/25/1543 8/12/1544 8/19/1545 1/27/1538

130 130 130 130 130 130 130

— 265 —

— 265

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Amnatlepeque Sodia, Christobal Sodia, Christobal Tofino, Bartolome Xuarez, Gonzalo Xuarez, Gonzalo Xuarez, Gonzalo Xuarez, Gonzalo Xuarez, Gonzalo

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

1/1/1544 3/23/1545 4/3/1542 9/27/1536 12/1/1537 2/7/1539 7/12/1540 8/26/1541

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Aquila Ruiz de Monjaraz, Martin

Corregidor

3/3/1545

200

Asuchitlán Altamirano, Juan Altamirano, Juan Audelo, Antonio de Audelo, Antonio de Audelo, Antonio de Gomez, Francisco Molina, Antonio de Molina, Antonio de Molina, Antonio de Molina, Antonio de Moreno, Francisco Moreno, Francisco Peñas, Aparicio de Peñas, Aparicio de Vargas, Francisco de Vargas, Francisco de Vargas, Francisco de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

9/16/1536 9/19/1537 12/2/1541 12/5/1542 2/13/1544 6/17/1545 2/8/1539 6/18/1540 6/20/1541 6/26/1543 12/1/1537 2/8/1538 7/12/1544 7/14/1545 10/16/1538 10/21/1539 11/23/1540

300 300 250 250 250 250 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 300 250 250

Atitalaque Flores, Diego Flores, Diego Flores, Diego Flores, Diego Flores, Diego Flores, Diego Gómez de Almazan, Johan Robledo, Diego de Toledo, Diego de


4/6/1538 4/10/1539 8/4/1542 8/11/1543 8/30/1544 9/28/1545 3/11/1537 8/2/1541 6/29/1540

140 140 140 120 120 120 140 140 140

Atlatlauca y Maxinaltepeque Marín, Johan Mata, Alonso de Mata, Alonso de Regidor, Pedro Sánchez, Andres Sánchez, Andres Velázquez, Pero


6/20/1545 2/7/1539 5/12/1540 12/23/1543 6/19/1541 6/17/1542 12/1/1537

200 200 150 200 150 150 200

Name1

266 —

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Atlatlauca y Suchiaca Cisneros, Christobal de Cisneros, Christobal de Herrera, Alonso de Villegas, Pedro de Villegas, Pedro de Villegas, Pedro de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

4/28/1537 5/1/1538 2/9/1544 10/22/1539 10/22/1540 12/23/1542

200 200 200 200 200 200

Atoyaque y Su Partido Alcocer, Antonio de Alcocer, Antonio de Carvajal, Francisco de Carvajal, Francisco de Castañeda, Alonso de Castañeda, Alonso de Gutierrez, Francisco Gutierrez, Francisco Hernández, Francisco Hernández, Francisco Hernández, Francisco Nava, Antonio de Nava, Antonio de Proaño, Diego de Urdaneta (El Capitán) Urdaneta (El Capitán) Urdaneta (El Capitán) Villarreal, Antonio de Villarreal, Antonio de

Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente

1/1/1536 1/25/1537 12/4/1536 8/20/1535 1/24/1540 4/30/1541 4/1/1541 4/24/1542 2/12/1538 2/5/1539 3/4/1540 11/24/1537 12/2/1538 4/30/1542 2/6/1543 2/9/1544 9/12/1545 2/9/1544 7/18/1545

120 120 300 300 200 200 120 120 120 120 120 200 200 200 300 300 300 120 100

Axacuba4 Marroquino, Lorenzo Marroquino, Lorenzo

Corregidor Corregidor

9/14/1536 9/15/1537

200 200

Cacualpa Contreras, Alonso de Contreras, Alonso de Contreras, Alonso de Contreras, Alonso de Loaysa, Johan de Madalena, Johan Garcia de la Madalena, Johan Garcia de la Millán, Juan Millán, Juan Molina, Gil de Molina, Gil de Ortega, Alonso de Ortega, Alonso de Portillo, Hernando de Portillo, Hernando de Vargas, Francisco de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor

11/30/1537 3/1/1539 12/5/1539 1/19/1541 11/27/1536 2/1/1538 1/24/1537 7/8/1544 7/11/1545 2/5/1539 7/20/1540 7/12/1544 7/14/1545 9/22/1541 9/27/1542 4/1/1542

200 200 200 200 250 150 150 200 200 150 150 120 120 120 120 200

Name1

— 267

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Corregidor Teniente

5/24/1543 10/15/1543

200 120

Capula Castilleja, Francisco de Castilleja, Francisco de Castilleja, Francisco de Castilleja, Francisco de Estrada, Francisco de Estrada, Francisco de Gutiérrez, Rodrigo Gutiérrez, Rodrigo Toledo, Alonso de Vargas, Andres de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

3/4/1536 3/5/1537 3/5/1538 3/5/1539 7/3/1543 7/12/1544 10/20/1539 10/24/1540 12/2/1541 11/11/1545

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Cenpuala (Cempoala) y Su Partido Salinas, Johan de Salinas, Johan de


8/27/1544 9/7/1545

200 200

Chapultepeque Buyca, Alonso de Buyca, Alonso de


7/12/1544 7/15/1545

300 300

Chiconautla Cisneros, Christobal de Cisneros, Christobal de López de Agurto, Sancho López de Agurto, Sancho López de Villalobos, Ruy López de Villalobos, Ruy Tello de Medina, Johan Tello de Medina, Johan Vargas, Johan de Vargas, Melchor de


10/21/1539 10/26/1540 9/10/1537 9/10/1538 12/2/1541 12/3/1542 7/9/1544 7/17/1545 2/5/1537 9/22/1536

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Chilchota Abiña, Gregorio de Abiña, Gregorio de Carrasco, Pedro Carrasco, Pedro Dorantes, Andres Ribera, Diego de Ribera, Diego de Salzedo, Bartholome de Santillán, Francisco de Santillán, Francisco de Troche, Francisco Troche, Francisco

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente

4/27/1541 4/1/1542 5/28/1544 5/29/1545 l l/26/1537 6/23/1543 7/8/1544 7/9/1546 2/7/1539 5/11/1540 1/1/1542 3/6/1543

150 150 100 100 250 150 150 100 150 150 100 100

Chinanta Dorantes, Andres Dorantes, Andres


8/11/1544 —/—/1545

300 300

Name1 Vargas, Francisco de Xerez Alonso, Martin de

268 —

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Teniente Teniente Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente

8/18/1544 7/31/1545 9/20/1536 12/5/1537 12/9/1540 12/17/1541 12/19/1542 12/22/1543 9/7/1537 9/13/1538 11/7/1539 12/23/1542 2/13/1543 9/1/1536 9/15/1537

100 100 300 100 100 100 120 120 300 300 300 250 300 100 100

Ciguatán y Ciguatepeque Becerra, Diego Cárdenas, Gines de Cárdenas, Gines de Valdivieso Valverde, García de Valdivieso Valverde, García de Valdivieso Valverde, García de Martín de Leyva, Christobal Matheos, Alonso Matheos, Alonso Rivas, Gregorio de las


1/6/1536 2/13/1544 6/13/1545 5/2/1540 5/6/1541 11/12/1542 6/26/1546 3/13/1537 3/14/1538 3/24/1539

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Cinacua y Su Partido Aviña, Gregorio de Aviña, Gregorio de Fernández, Blas Fernández, Blas Gallego, Johan Gallego, Johan Godoy, Antonio de Godoy, Antonio de Godoy, Antonio de Rangel, Alonso Rangel, Alonso Ribera, Diego de Rodríguez, Diego Troche, Francisco Troche, Francisco Troche, Francisco Villadiego, Gaspar de Villadiego, Gaspar de

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Teniente Teniente

6/22/1543 7/8/1544 11/29/1536 11/26/1537 7/14/1545 7/26/1546 3/5/1540 2/24/1541 3/30/1542 2/7/1539 12/1/1537 1/26/1536 7/14/1545 2/11/1539 5/10/1540 8/18/1545 12/2/1541 12/16/1542

150 150 120 120 100 100 200 150 150 200 200 200 100 120 100 100 100 100

Cítela Flores, Gerónimo Flores, Gerónimo


12/10/1541 12/5/1542

200 200

Name1 Estacio, Johan Estacio, Johan Malvenda, Alonso de Ortíz, Antonio Ortíz, Antonio Ortíz, Antonio Ortíz, Antonio Ortíz, Antonio Quesada, Luis de (Don) Quesada, Luis de (Don) Quesada, Luis de (Don) Quesada, Luis de (Don) Quesada, Luis de (Don) Ximenez, Garci Ximenez, Garci

— 269

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente

7/17/1544 8/8/1545 10/3/1545 9/17/1544 9/19/1542 9/20/1543

200 200 120 120 120 120


1/28/1540 4/22/1541 1/11/1538 1/15/1539 4/24/1542 5/28/1543 9/30/1536 8/7/1544 8/11/1545

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Corregimiento de Cimatla y Tepecimatlán Toledo, Johan de Corregidor

2/19/1546

300

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Teniente Teniente

11/24/1537 2/1/1539 6/9/1540 12/16/1541 12/16/1542 9/14/1536 7/17/1544 7/24/1545

120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

El Corregimiento de Cimatla y Tepecimatlán Aya, Johan de la Corregidor Aya, Johan de la Corregidor Gómez de Villafañe Corregidor Gómez de Villafañe Corregidor Muñoz de Castañeda, Alonso Corregidor Muñoz de Castañeda, Alonso Corregidor Sotomayor (El Bachiller) Corregidor Sotomayor (El Bachiller) Corregidor Toledo, Johan de Corregidor

12/31/1535 1/31/1537 7/28/1540 8/2/1541 2/4/1539 2/4/1540 9/12/1542 9/15/1543 2/11/1545

300 300 250 250 200 200 250 250 300

El Corregimiento de Guautlán y Su Partido Cruz, Johan de la Corregidor Cruz, Johan de la Corregidor Mata, Alonso de Corregidor Morales, Christobal de Corregidor Morales, Christobal de Corregidor Quintana, Hernando de Corregidor Quintana, Hernando de Corregidor Sierra, Hernando de Corregidor Sierra, Hernando de Corregidor

10/22/1539 10/27/1540 3/7/1536 7/10/1544 7/11/1545 5/16/1537 7/7/1538 10/28/1541 12/20/1542

150 150 230 150 150 230 230 150 150

Name1 Flores, Gerónimo Hidalgo, Gonzalo Pineda, Diego de Pineda, Diego de Rodas, Agustín de Rodas, Agustín de Coquitlán y Su Partido López Patiño, Johan López Patiño, Johan Maldonado, Gutierre Maldonado, Gutierre Marmolejo, Antonio Marmolejo, Antonio Morales, Christobal de Xerez, Juan de Xerez, Juan de

Cucamaloaba (Cuzamaloapan) Hernández, Diego Hernández, Diego Hernández, Diego Hernández, Diego Hernández, Diego Soltero, Alonso Toro, Juan de Toro, Juan de

270 —

APPENDIX

Name1

Position

Date2

Salary3

El Corregimiento de Soconusco Alemán, Johan Arias de Sayavedra, Hernando (Hernandarias) Cataño, Christobal Cataño, Christobal Guzmán, Martin de Guzmán, Martin de Guzmán, Martin de Guzmán, Martin de Guzmán, Martin de Maldonado, Rodrigo (Don) Pomar, Jeronimo de Ramírez, Diego Ramírez, Diego Sobrino, Pero Sobrino, Pero Tofiño, Bartolome Tofiño, Bartolome

Teniente Corregidor

9/15/1542 5/1/1536

150 330

Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente

2/7/1539 1/1/1536 6/19/1537 7/7/1538 9/7/1540 9/14/1541 9/18/1542 8/19/1539 8/16/1540 10/24/1543 2/27/1545 7/14/1544 7/15/1545 1/22/1537 1/23/1538

150 150 330 330 300 300 300 300 150 300 300 120 120 150 150

El Corregimiento de Tetiquipaque Cervantes, Alonso de Cervantes, Alonso de Colmenero, Johan Esteban Colmenero, Johan Esteban Colmenero, Johan Esteban Franco, Pero Franco, Pero Ginoves, Lorenzo Villalobos, Gabriel de Villalobos, Gabriel de


5/4/1543 5/24/1544 12/6/1538 12/7/1539 12/7/1540 9/15/1536 11/13/1537 3/29/1542 5/23/1545 —/—/1546

140 140 140 140 140 140 140 150 140 250

El Corregimiento de Tlapa Arellano, Tristan de (Don) Arellano, Tristan de (Don) Gómez, Alvar Gómez, Alvar Gómez, Alvar Molina, Pedro de Molina, Pedro de Molina, Pedro de Ramírez, Diego Ramírez, Diego Ramírez, Diego Ramírez, Diego Ramírez, Diego Rueda, Francisco de Sánchez Franco, Diego Sánchez Franco, Diego Sandoval, Johan de Sandoval, Johan de

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor

1/1/1536 1/31/1537 2/9/1538 2/7/1539 9/3/1539 11/15/1540 11/16/1541 11/21/1542 9/3/1538 9/4/1539 9/7/1540 9/9/1541 9/13/1542 2/1/1536 7/12/1544 7/14/1545 8/12/1544 8/19/1545

300 300 150 150 150 150 150 150 250 250 200 200 200 150 150 150 300 300

— 271

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

El Pueblo de Amula y Su Partido Allo, Diego Arana, Johan de García, Andrés García, Andrés García, Andrés García, Andrés Godoy, Johan de Godoy, Johan de Godoy, Johan de Guevara, Diego de (Don) Ramírez, Garci Ramírez, Garci Ramírez, Garci Ramírez, Garci Ramírez, Garci Salamanca, Christóbal de Salamanca, Christóbal de

Teniente Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

12/23/1536 8/20/1545 8/17/1538 8/26/1539 7/2/1541 7/13/1542 6/26/1543 7/8/1544 7/9/1545 4/11/1539 7/16/1540 7/26/1541 7/29/1542 8/13/1543 8/16/1544 11/25/1536 9/15/1537

120 300 120 120 120 120 100 100 100 250 250 250 250 250 300 300 300

El Pueblo de Calpa5 Buica, Alonso de Funez, Pedro de Pomar, Antonio de Pomar, Antonio de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

3/10/1539 1/30/1536 2/18/1537 2/27/1538

200 200 200 200

El Pueblo de Capulalco Hermosillo, Johan de Hermosillo, Johan de Pérez, Johan Ramírez, Gonzalo Ramírez, Gonzalo Ramírez, Gonzalo Ramírez, Gonzalo Santiago, Alonso de Santiago, Alonso de


12/1/1537 12/7/1538 9/14/1536 7/21/1540 8/2/1541 9/1/1542 9/10/1543 5/18/1545 7/8/1546

100 100 170 100 100 100 100 100 100

El Pueblo de Chiautla Altamirano, Johan Altamirano, Johan Díaz, Miguel Díaz, Miguel Pineda, Diego de Salazar, Hernando de (El Factor) Salazar, Hernando de (El Factor) Salazar, Johan de Vargas, Francisco de Vargas, Francisco de Vargas, Luis de Zamora, Alvaro de Zamora, Alvaro de Zamora, Alvaro de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente

11/18/1538 10/22/1539 11/16/1540 11/16/1541 3/30/1542 10/20/1542 10/20/1543 9/3/1545 9/22/1536 12/31/1537 3/1/1546 2/20/1537 3/3/1538 3/4/1539

200 200 200 200 100 400 400 100 200 200 200 120 120 120

Name1

272 —

APPENDIX

Name1 Zamora, Alvaro de Zamora, Alvaro de

Position Teniente Teniente

Date2

Salary3

3/3/1540 3/1/1541

100 100

El Pueblo de Chicutepeque Díaz de Vargas, Gonzalo Díaz de Vargas, Gonzalo Díaz de Vargas, Gonzalo Díaz de Vargas, Gonzalo Méndez, Alonso Méndez, Alonso Sánchez, Luis Sánchez, Luis Sánchez, Luis


9/25/1536 9/22/1537 10/30/1538 10/26/1539 7/11/1544 7/14/1545 11/16/1540 12/15/1541 11/27/1542

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

El Pueblo de Chilapa y Su Partido6 Aya, Johan de Barrionuevo, Velasco de Barrionuevo, Velasco de Ramírez, Gonzalo Villarroel, Antonio de Villarroel, Antonio de

Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor

—/—/— —/—/— —/—/— —/—/— —/—/— —/—/—

300 150 150 150 300 300

El Pueblo de Chilula (Cholula) Arias de Sayavedra, Hernando (Hernandarias) Caballero, Hernando (Licenciado) Cadena, Antonio de la Cadena, Antonio de la Cadena, Antonio de la Cadena, Antonio de la Elgueta, Hernando de Elgueta, Hernando de Elgueta, Hernando de Hinojosa, Francisco de Hinojosa, Francisco de Muñoz, Diego Núñez Mercado, Johan Rodas, Agustín de Sandoval, Álvaro de Sandoval, Álvaro de Sandoval, Álvaro de Sandoval, Álvaro de Sandoval, Álvaro de

Corregidor

7/7/1543

300

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente

2/22/1545 2/7/1539 3/3/1540 3/3/1541 3/9/1542 11/24/1536 12/1/1537 12/1/1538 2/21/1545 3/17/1546 8/6/1540 6/1/1546 4/29/1539 9/12/1541 12/12/1537 12/2/1536 9/15/1542 10/30/1543

300 300 250 250 250 300 300 300 120 120 120 300 120 120 120 120 120 120

El Pueblo de Cuyceo7 Delgado, Alonso Delgado, Alonso Hernández, Gonzalo León, Álvaro de Penas, Aparicio de Penas, Aparicio de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente

11/11/1539 11/20/1540 10/17/1538 3/8/1535 3/27/1539 6/27/1540

150 200 200 120 120 120

— 273

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Santillán, Francisco de Santillán, Francisco de


9/26/1536 9/15/1537

200 200

El Pueblo de Cuzcatlán Arroyo, Antonio de Arroyo, Antonio de Gómez de Villafañe (?) López Marroquino, Pero López Marroquino, Pero Sandoval, Alvaro de Ugarte, Hernando de Ugarte, Hernando de Ugarte, Hernando de


9/22/1541 9/22/1542 9/15/1536 10/17/1543 2/16/1545 6/2/1546 12/1/1537 12/4/1538 7/30/1540

200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

El Pueblo de Escateupa (Ixcateopan) y Tenango Alcocer, Antonio de Teniente Alcocer, Antonio de Teniente Caballero, Francisco (Licenciado) Corregidor Caballero, Francisco (Licenciado) Corregidor Cisneros, Christobal de Corregidor Coronel, Johan Corregidor Coronel, Johan Corregidor Corzo, Francisco Teniente Corzo, Francisco Teniente Corzo, Francisco Teniente Corzo, Francisco Teniente Cruz, Johan de la Corregidor Espinoza, Johan de Corregidor Espinoza, Johan de Corregidor Rodas, Agustín de Teniente Rodas, Agustín de Teniente

7/14/1544 8/22/1545 8/20/1541 8/20/1546 8/18/1542 8/11/1544 8/20/1545 2/7/1539 6/10/1540 6/1/1541 8/8/1542 2/5/1537 2/6/1538 2/7/1539 9/1/1536 11/24/1537

100 100 200 200 200 200 200 120 120 120 120 200 200 200 120 120

Name1

El Pueblo de Guaniqueo Hurtado, Diego

Corregidor

8/11/1544

200

El Pueblo de Guaxolotitlán Arellano, Tristan de (Don) Arellano, Tristan de (Don) Camas, Bartholome de Fernández de Prado, Johan Fernández de Prado, Johan Ginoves, Lorenzo Mezquita, Martín de la Mezquita, Martín de la Mezquita, Martín de la Sánchez, Andrés Sánchez, Andrés Sánchez, Antón Sánchez, Antón

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente

9/3/1544 9/23/1545 2/7/1539 3/14/1542 9/11/1543 2/19/1537 11/15/1540 1/7/1542 1/12/1543 9/17/1544 9/25/1545 2/11/1538 1/28/1537

300 300 100 100 100 250 200 200 200 100 100 100 100

4/11/1539

150

El Pueblo de Guazpaltepeque (Guazpaltepec) Abarca, Pedro Teniente

274 —

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor

1/21/1538 1/30/1539 1/30/1540 4/27/1541 4/27/1542 4/28/1543 7/5/1542 7/6/1543 7/6/1544 7/28/1540 8/31/1541 8/11/1544 8/21/1545

300 300 200 200 300 300 150 150 150 150 150 300 300

El Pueblo de Jonotla y Quecale (Quezalesal) y Tetela Almaguer, Antonio de Corregidor Almaguer, Antonio de Corregidor Almaguer, Antonio de Corregidor Almaguer, Antonio de Corregidor Almaguer, Antonio de Corregidor Becón, Pedro Teniente Becón, Pedro Teniente Castillo, Alonso del Corregidor García, Andrés Teniente García, Andrés Teniente Loaysa, Gonzalo de Corregidor Loaysa, Gonzalo de Corregidor Martín de Xerez, Alonso Teniente Martín de Xerez, Alonso Teniente Pérez de Zamora, Johan Teniente Pérez de Zamora, Johan Teniente Villaquiran, Tome de Corregidor Villaquiran, Tome de Corregidor Ximon, Rodrigo Teniente

11/28/1537 11/27/1538 12/5/1539 12/22/1540 9/23/1541 7/12/1544 7/13/1545 9/23/1536 2/8/1537 2/6/1536 9/11/1542 9/12/1543 7/14/1540 9/13/1541 2/7/1538 1/31/1539 3/26/1545 4/5/1546 10/12/1543

200 200 200 200 200 120 120 200 120 120 200 200 100 100 120 120 200 200 100

El Pueblo de Metateyuca (Metlatoyuca) y Su Partido Castillo, Bernaldino del Corregidor Castillo, Bernaldino del Corregidor Catalán, Johan Corregidor Catalán, Johan Corregidor Cuellar Verdugo, Johan de Corregidor Cuellar Verdugo, Johan de Corregidor Díaz de Aux, Miguel Corregidor Díaz de Aux, Miguel Corregidor Díaz de Aux, Miguel Corregidor Díaz de Aux, Miguel Corregidor León, Álvaro de Teniente León, Álvaro de Teniente León, Álvaro de Teniente León, Álvaro de Teniente León, Álvaro de Teniente

8/9/1544 8/22/1545 11/16/1540 12/4/1541 2/6/1543 2/7/1544 9/16/1536 9/7/1537 10/17/1538 10/21/1539 10/17/1538 10/21/1539 11/16/1540 3/28/1542 5/22/1543

250 250 200 200 250 250 300 300 300 200 120 100 100 100 100

Name1 Albornoz, Bernardino de Albornoz, Bernardino de Albornoz, Bernardino de Albornoz, Bernardino de Benaventes (El Licenciado) Benaventes (El Licenciado) Chacón, Johan Chacón, Johan Chacón, Johan Díaz, Bartolomé Díaz, Bartolomé Maldonado, Rodrigo (Don) Maldonado, Rodrigo (Don)

— 275

APPENDIX

Name1 Molina, Antón de Molina, Antón de Rodríguez Parrón, Pero Rodríguez Parrón, Pero

Position Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente

Date2

Salary3

9/26/1537 9/16/1536 7/12/1544 7/15/1545

120 120 120 120

El Pueblo de Molango Alonso, Hernando Alonso, Hernando Alonso, Hernando Carvajal, Francisco de Carvajal, Francisco de Ceciliano, Johan Ceciliano, Johan Ceciliano, Johan Ceciliano, Johan Escobedo, Pedro de Escobedo, Pedro de Macias, Alonso Pomar, Antonio de Pomar, Antonio de Rivas, Gregorio de las Rivas, Gregorio de las Sánchez, Diego Sánchez, Diego Sánchez, Diego

Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente

3/30/1542 3/31/1543 4/28/1544 7/21/1538 9/9/1539 11/16/1540 12/1/1541 12/2/1542 2/13/1544 5/27/1546 5/17/1545 5/8/1537 7/4/1544 8/19/1545 1/8/1537 2/8/1538 2/7/1539 2/9/1540 3/3/1541

100 100 100 200 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 200 200 200 120 120 120 100 100

El Pueblo de Ocotlán Asencio, Pedro Asencio, Pedro Asencio, Pedro Asencio, Pedro Asencio, Pedro Camas, Bartolomé de Camas, Bartolomé de Ginoves, Lorenzo Ginoves, Lorenzo Ginoves, Lorenzo


1/1/1536 2/9/1537 5/18/1541 5/18/1542 5/19/1543 8/9/1544 8/18/1545 2/7/1538 2/22/1539 5/13/1540

200 200 200 200 150 150 150 200 200 200

El Pueblo de Ocoytuco Cisneros, Christóbal de Rosales, Francisco de


8/9/1544 9/28/1545

200 200

El Pueblo de Otumba Alguacil, Bartolomé Alguacil, Bartolomé Alguacil, Bartolomé Alguacil, Bartolomé Cerón, Jorge Jaso, Johan de Jaso, Johan de Loaysa, Francisco de Loaysa, Francisco de

Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

2/5/1539 2/11/1540 3/1/1541 4/8/1542 10/12/1538 9/14/1536 9/15/1537 11/15/1540 11/14/1541

130 130 130 130 300 320 320 300 300

276 —

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor

11/15/1542 9/17/1536 9/15/1537 6/25/1543 11/14/1543 10/21/1539

300 130 130 130 300 300

El Pueblo de Sochiguautla Alonso, Rodrigo Borges, Pedro Borges, Pedro Borges, Pedro Borges, Pedro Cangas (?), Johan de Cantillana, Hernando de Cantillana, Hernando de Cuellar, Johan de Cuellar, Johan de Estrada, Francisco de Hidalgo, Hernando Hidalgo, Hernando Melgar, Hernando de Melgar, Francisco Montaño, Francisco de Pacho, Pedro Pacho, Pedro Pacho, Pedro Xerez, Martin de

Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente

2/12/1536 7/19/1540 7/20/1541 9/15/1542 11/9/1543 11/10/1540 3/1/1538 2/5/1539 2/12/1536 2/12/1537 3/12/1539 7/12/1544 7/14/1545 5/23/1545 5/26/1546 3/4/1538 12/2/1541 2/13/1544 12/5/1542 2/12/1537

120 100 100 100 100 200 120 120 200 200 200 120 120 200 200 200 200 200 200 120

El Pueblo de Talistaca8 Gómez de Villafañe Gómez de Villafañe Vitoria, Alonso de Xerez, Rodrigo de Xerez, Rodrigo de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

9/14/1537 9/11/1538 9/23/1536 7/9/1544 7/15/1545

250 250 250 250 250

El Pueblo de Talnocopan (Tlanocopan) López, Bartholomé

Corregidor

9/24/1544

200

El Pueblo de Tapazcolula (Teposcolula) Ledesma, Johan de Nava, Antonio de Nava, Antonio de Peña Fiel, Francisco de Peña Fiel, Francisco de Rodríguez, Diego Rodríguez, Diego Rodríguez, Diego Velázquez, Francisco Velázquez, Francisco Xerez, Rodrigo de

Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

8/1/1542 9/16/1542 9/3/1543 7/19/1544 7/30/1545 —/—/— 7/7/1540 7/28/1541 5/15/1545 7/1/1546 5/6/1539

120 250 250 120 120 120 100 100 250 250 250

Name1 Loaysa, Francisco de Muñoz, Diego Muñoz, Diego Núñez, Pero Peralta, Martin de Saavedra, Lope de

— 277

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3


6/26/1540 7/21/1541

250 250

El Pueblo de Tataluaba y Tuctepeque Milán, Johan Milán, Johan Milán, Johan Milán, Johan Ruiz, Gonzalo Ruiz, Gonzalo Sandoval, Pedro de Sandoval, Pedro de


10/22/1539 10/27/1540 11/16/1541 11/28/1542 5/8/1537 5/9/1538 7/26/1544 7/28/1545

150 150 150 150 200 200 150 150

El Pueblo de Tecuiquilco (Tecuicuilco) Albornoz, Johan de Albornoz, Johan de Albornoz, Johan de Baltodano, Christóbal de Baltodano, Christóbal de Coria, Pedro Martín de Coria, Pedro Martín de Coria, Pedro Martín de Coria, Pedro Martín de Coria, Pedro Martín de Guevara, Pedro de Guevara, Pedro de Mezquita, Martín de la Mezquita, Martín de la Ruiz de Rojas, Marcos Velázquez de Acuña, Diego

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

2/6/1538 2/14/1539 8/28/1540 11/22/1544 1/11/1546 2/11/1537 2/11/1538 11/16/1540 4/1/1541 8/14/1543 9/17/1541 9/17/1542 11/27/1535 1/30/1537 6/12/1545 10/2/1543

200 200 150 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 300 200 150 150

El Pueblo de Tenayuca9 Loaysa, Francisco de Loaysa, Francisco de Valdivieso, Johan de Valdivieso, Johan de


7/8/1544 7/21/1545 9/15/1536 9/16/1537

250 250 250 250

El Pueblo de Tepeapulco Bazán, Pedro de Bazán, Pedro de Carrillo, Jorge Carrillo, Jorge Cerón, Jorge Cerón, Jorge Cerón, Jorge Cerón, Jorge Fuenllana, Luis de Fuenllana, Luis de Peralta, Martín de Peralta, Martín de Rixoles, Tomas de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente

11/26/1537 2/5/1539 7/16/1544 7/12/1545 3/16/1540 3/17/1541 3/17/1542 7/30/1546 7/12/1544 7/12/1545 1/21/1536 2/16/1537 2/12/1540

200 200 250 250 200 200 200 200 100 100 250 250 100

Name1 Xerez, Rodrigo de Xerez, Rodrigo de

278 —

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor

3/11/1541 3/14/1542 3/12/1543 1/21/1536 12/3/1537 12/24/1538 3/18/1543

100 100 100 120 120 120 200

El Pueblo de Teucacoalco (Teozacoalco) Aguilar, Hernando de Aguilar, Hernando de Albornoz, Johan de Albornoz, Johan de Colmenero, Johan Esteban Muñoz, Alonso Sánchez, Bartolomé Sánchez, Bartolomé


11/29/1537 1/28/1539 6/9/1543 6/14/1544 3/29/1539 6/16/1545 8/9/1540 8/30/1541

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

El Pueblo de Teucapotlán (Teuzapotlán) Asencio, Pedro Asencio, Pedro Castilla, Luis de (Don) Castilla, Luis de (Don) de Lema, Hernando López de Cárdenas, García (Don) López de Cárdenas, García (Don) López de Cárdenas, García (Don) Maldonado, Francisco


2/11/1545 —/—/1546 11/11/1540 11/19/1541 12/6/1535 1/24/1537 1/30/1538 2/7/1539 10/27/1543

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

El Pueblo de Teutalpa e Yztepeque Alamilla, Francisco de Alamilla, Francisco de Alamilla, Francisco de Alamilla, Francisco de Dorantes, Andres Funez, Pedro de Funez, Pedro de Villalobos, Gregorio de Villalobos, Gregorio de


10/22/1539 10/26/1540 11/16/1541 11/21/1542 9/20/1536 5/1/1538 4/11/1537 7/9/1544 7/21/1545

150 150 150 150 200 200 200 200 200

El Pueblo de Teutenango y Su Partido (?) Del Castillo, Johan Calderón, Rodrigo Castillo Maldonado, Alonso del Delgado, Alonso Delgado, Alonso Gómez de Almazan, Johan Gómez de Almazan, Johan Gómez de Almazan, Johan Ciciliano, Johan Ciciliano, Johan


8/17/1545 11/10/1535 7/9/1544 5/16/1542 7/8/1543 3/27/1539 5/17/1540 5/11/1541 1/12/1537 1/21/1538

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Name1 Rixoles, Tomas de Rixoles, Tomas de Rixoles, Tomas de Rodríguez, Pero Rodríguez, Pero Rodríguez, Pero Turcios, Antonio de

— 279

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

El Pueblo de Teutila Bazán, Alonso de Beas, Johan Gracian de Beas, Johan Gracian de Beas, Johan Gracian de Medel, Johan Méndez, Alonso Montesinos, Alonso Paredes, Christóbal de Paredes, Christóbal de Salamanca, Christóbal de Salamanca, Christóbal de Sotomayor (El Bachiller) Sotomayor (El Bachiller) Vázquez de Mercado, Gines Vázquez de Mercado, Gines Xerez, Rodrigo de

Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

12/5/1542 7/16/1540 7/28/1541 7/18/1542 8/21/1543 7/8/1539 1/27/1546 1/24/1537 5/28/1538 10/15/1539 10/25/1540 4/1/1536 6/1/1537 9/6/1544 9/10/1545 7/8/1539

250 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

El Pueblo de Teutitlán Calderón, Rodrigo Calderón, Rodrigo Carrasco, Gonzalo Carrasco, Gonzalo Carrasco, Gonzalo Lema, Hernando de Lema, Hernando de Medel, Johan Medel, Johan Sánchez, Luis Sandoval, Alberto de Terrazas, Hernando de Terrazas, Hernando de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Teniente Corregidor Corregidor

1/15/1540 3/5/1541 3/29/1542 5/17/1543 5/24/1544 11/24/1537 11/29/1538 12/12/1536 1/3/1539 9/23/1536 11/19/1535 5/24/1545 7/28/1546

200 200 200 200 200 200 200 120 120 250 140 200 200

El Pueblo de Tonalá de Izucar10 Becerra, Diego Boyza, Alonso de Cárdenas, Gines de Carrillo, Diego Carrillo, Diego Ortiz, Antonio Salto, Balthazar del Salto, Balthazar del

Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente

1/1/1537 1/20/1536 2/22/1537 8/9/1544 8/11/1545 3/3/1535 7/12/1544 7/12/1545

150 200 200 200 200 150 120 120

El Pueblo de Totolapa Alguazil, Bartolomé Bibanco, Johan de Bibanco, Johan de Cantillana, Hernando de Cantillana, Hernando de Samaniego, Lope de Samaniego, Lope de

Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor

2/14/1538 6/30/1545 7/31/1546 1/4/1536 1/4/1537 1/17/1537 1/21/1538

120 200 200 120 120 200 200

Name1

280 —

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Corregidor Teniente

5/28/1544 8/20/1544

300 150

El Pueblo de Uchichila Arevalo, Francisco de (El Licenciado) Gómez de Betanzos Gómez de Betanzos León Romano, Luis de León Romano, Luis de León Romano, Luis de Santillana, Francisco de Velázquez de Salazar, Johan Velázquez de Salazar, Johan Velázquez de Salazar, Johan

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

8/26/1545 9/22/1539 11/16/1540 12/10/1541 12/1/1542 12/13/1543 2/28/1537 10/10/1536 9/7/1537 9/3/1538

300 300 300 300 300 300 150 350 500 500

El Pueblo de Uchilobusco (Churubusco)11 Becerra, Diego Becerra, Diego Gutiérrez de la Caballería, Diego Gutiérrez de la Caballería, Diego Marmolejo, Antonio Marmolejo, Antonio Sayaveedra, Luis (Don)

Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor

11/27/1537 12/10/1538 12/4/1538 2/7/1539 1/14/1540 1/24/1541 9/16/1536

100 100 150 150 100 100 250

El Pueblo de Ucila Ávila, Gaspar de Belbas, Pedro de Belbas, Pedro de Oliber, Francisco de Oliber, Francisco de Robledo, Hernando de Robledo, Hernando de Vargas, Luis de Vargas, Luis de


9/25/1536 8/8/1542 9/6/1543 8/9/1544 8/12/1545 5/4/1541 1/14/1540 12/6/1537 12/10/1538

200 200 200 200 200 150 150 200 200

El Pueblo de Yguala Carvajal, Antonio de Colio, Diego de Colio, Diego de Flores, Gerónimo Flores, Gerónimo Lema, Hernando de Lema, Hernando de Lema, Hernando de Lema, Hernando de López, Alonso López, Alonso López, Alonso López, Alonso López, Alonso Quijado, Alonso

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente

1/26/1537 2/13/1545 2/16/1546 9/1/1538 9/5/1539 9/27/1540 9/28/1541 9/29/1542 10/31/1543 9/14/1536 9/14/1537 2/—/— 2/27/1540 3/10/1541 3/30/1542

250 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 120 120 120 100 100 100

Name1 Villarroel, Antonio de Villarroel, Antonio de

— 281

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente

5/25/1543 4/20/1537 7/31/1538 7/14/1544 7/17/1544

100 220 220 100 100

Epatlán Cansino, Diego Cansino, Diego Hidalgo de Montemayor, Gonzalo Hidalgo de Montemayor, Gonzalo Macias, Alonso Macias, Alonso Ordoñez, Sancho Sánchez, Luis Sánchez, Luis


9/14/1536 10/5/1537 11/17/1542 11/19/1543 11/16/1540 11/15/1541 8/25/1545 10/12/1538 10/21/1539

200 200 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Guamelula García Rengino, Pero García Rengino, Pero Gómez de Villafañe Hernández, Pedro Hernández, Pedro Malvenda, Alonso de Malvenda, Alonso de Osorio, Baltasar Osorio, Baltasar


7/21/1540 7/26/1541 5/14/1539 9/18/1542 9/19/1543 8/26/1544 8/18/1545 2/12/1537 2/7/1538

200 200 250 200 200 200 200 250 250

Guatepeque Godoy, Luis de

Corregidor

8/30/1544

140

Guatinchán (Cuauhtinchan) Almaguer, Antonio de Almaguer, Antonio de Carreño, Cristóbal Carreño, Cristóbal Luxan, Alonso de Luxan, Alonso de Mata, Alonso de Mata, Alonso de Montesfinos, Alonso de Montesfinos, Alonso de Rodas, Agustín de

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente

7/31/1546 6/15/1545 6/2/1545 6/21/1546 2/6/1543 2/6/1544 6/19/1542 6/17/1541 2/15/1543 2/16/1544 9/13/1541

200 200 120 120 200 200 200 200 120 120 120

Guatlatlauca (Huatlatlauca) y Su Partido Castillo, Alonso del Castillo, Alonso del Castillo, Alonso del Castillo, Alonso del Cepeda, Francisco de Cepeda, Francisco de Hernández, Gonzalo


12/17/1537 12/18/1538 1/10/1540 3/5/1541 6/8/1543 6/9/1544 3/29/1542

200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Name1 Quijado, Alonso Ramírez, Diego Ramírez, Diego Villalón, Pedro de Villalón, Pedro de

282 —

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Vargas, Pedro de Vargas, Pedro de


6/8/1545 7/14/1546

200 200

Guatusco (Huatusco) Buyca, Alonso de Cárdenas, Gines de Cárdenas, Gines de Gallego, Francisco Gallego, Francisco Gallego, Francisco Moran, García de Moran, García de


6/12/1542 1/12/1540 6/8/1541 6/13/1543 8/20/1544 8/28/1545 11/27/1537 12/2/1538

150 150 150 150 200 200 150 150

Guaxocingo (Huexotzinco) Arellano, Tristan de (Don) Arellano, Tristan de (Don) Carvajal (?) (Capitán) Carvajal, Antonio de Gómez de Betanzos, Gonzalo Gómez de Betanzos, Gonzalo Guevara, Pedro de (Don) Guevara, Pedro de (Don) Hernández de Trigueros, Pero Hernández de Trigueros, Pero Hernández de Trigueros, Pero Molina, Gil de Molina, Gil de Sotomayor (?) (Bachiller) Sotomayor (?) (Bachiller) Ximénez, Rodrigo Ximénez, Rodrigo Ximénez, Rodrigo

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente

7/26/1538 7/29/1539 9/1/1536 4/17/1537 9/12/1542 9/13/1543 1/10/1545 2/25/1546 2/11/1539 6/14/1540 9/29/1541 9/1/1536 12/12/1537 9/14/1540 12/28/1541 2/7/1543 2/13/1544 6/2/1545

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 120 100 100 120 120 250 250 100 100 100

Guaxuapa (Huajuapa) y Su Partido Chávez, Christóbal de Chávez, Christóbal de Daca, Luis López de Alcántara, Pero López de Alcántara, Pero Soltero, Alonso Soltero, Alonso Soltero, Alonso Soltero, Alonso


10/4/1536 10/5/1537 5/29/1545 5/22/1543 5/24/1544 10/17/1538 10/21/1539 11/16/1540 3/24/1542

200 200 150 150 150 200 150 150 150

Guaxutla Audelo, Antonio de

Corregidor

3/17/1546

250

Gueguetepeque Corral, Juan Corral, Juan Peñalver, Juan de Ruiz, Pero


6/25/1543 8/12/1544 5/31/1542 9/4/1545

150 150 150 150

Name1

— 283

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Jacona y Su Subjeto Lemos, Juan de Lemos, Juan de Torres, Juan de Torres, Juan de

Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor

7/12/1544 7/24/1545 8/19/1545 8/16/1544

120 120 200 200

Jaso y Teremendo Angulo (?) (Licenciado) Ávila, Luis de Girón, Arias Girón, Arias Girón, Arias Moguina, Pedro de Ximénez Madero, Alonso Ximénez Madero, Alonso


12/2/1541 3/3/1543 9/28/1538 10/30/1539 11/2/1540 7/30/1542 2/27/1536 3/16/1537

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

La Mitad de Maxinalco Castañeda (?) (Licenciado) Castañeda (?) (Licenciado) Pérez, Alonso Ponce, Pero Ponce, Pero Serrano, Johan Serrano, Johan Serrano, Johan Serrano, Johan


9/19/1536 11/29/1537 6/16/1545 2/9/1543 2/7/1544 12/3/1538 12/12/1539 2/28/1541 3/1/1542

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

La Mitad de Teutalco y Centeupa Alguacil, Bartolomé Calderón, Rodrigo Calderón, Rodrigo Lema, Hernando de Martín, Domingo Martín, Domingo Martín, Domingo Salinas, Christóbal de Vázquez, Johan Vázquez, Johan


4/10/1536 6/14/1537 5/14/1538 9/9/1545 10/22/1539 11/16/1540 12/10/1541 6/9/1542 6/30/1543 7/10/1544

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Los Pueblos de Acatlán y Piaztla Acevedo, Alonso de Colio, Diego de Colio, Diego de Diez de Vargas, Gonzalo Diez de Vargas, Gonzalo Escobedo, Johan de Escobedo, Johan de García, Andres Hernández, Diego Hernández, Diego Martín Aguado, Pero

Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

11/12/1534 11/26/1537 11/28/1538 7/10/1544 8/12/1545 7/12/1544 7/14/1545 6/23/1543 1/16/1540 4/16/1541 10/6/1536

120 150 150 200 200 100 100 100 120 120 200

Name1

284 —

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor

1/30/1538 1/22/1537 2/5/1539 6/18/1540 6/20/1541 6/22/1542 5/2/1542 5/10/1543

120 120 120 120 100 100 150 150


9/2/1545 7/31/1544

80 80

Los Pueblos de Cenpuala (Cempoala) Tequecistlán y Otolcingo Ledesma, Johan de Corregidor 9/6/1536 Mateos, Alonso Corregidor 7/8/1544 Mateos, Alonso Corregidor 7/30/1545 Ojeda, Johan de Corregidor 1/17/1542 Ojeda, Johan de Corregidor 3/8/1543 Valadez, Bartolome de Corregidor 11/24/1537 Valadez, Bartolome de Corregidor 11/27/1538 Valdivieso, Pedro de Corregidor 12/10/1539 Valdivieso, Pedro de Corregidor 1/10/1540

140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140

Los Pueblos de Chichicapa y Tetiquipa Aragón, Pedro de Aragón, Pedro de Aragón, Pedro de Aragón, Pedro de Camas, Bartolomé de Camas, Bartolomé de Carvajal, Gregorio de Carvajal, Gregorio de Coria, Pero Martin de Núñez Mercado, Johan Núñez Mercado, Johan Rojas, Antón Sánchez, Anton Sánchez, Anton Sánchez, Anton Sánchez, Anton

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente —

2/7/1539 8/20/1540 8/30/1541 9/6/1542 2/5/1537 2/5/1538 2/13/1545 2/23/1546 1/21/1538 2/5/1537 2/6/1538 2/12/1545 2/7/1539 8/7/1540 9/6/1542 10/1/1543

170 150 150 150 120 120 150 150 130 300 300 120 120 120 120 120

Los Pueblos de Macuilsuchil e Teutitlán Aguilar, Hernando de Aguilar, Hernando de Aguilar, Hernando de Aguilar, Hernando de Aragón, Pedro de Colmenero, Johan Esteban Corral, Johan Sánchez, Bartolome Sánchez, Bartolome


8/9/1540 8/30/1541 10/1/1542 9/29/1543 1/17/1545 9/7/1536 2/23/1546 11/26/1537 1/14/1539

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Name1 Martín de Villanueva, Johan Martín de Villanueva, Johan Romero, Pero Romero, Pero Romero, Pero Romero, Pero Velázquez, Francisco Velázquez, Francisco Los Pueblos de Aguatuco y Ustopa Solórzano, Diego de Solórzano, Diego de

— 285

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Corregidor

6/20/1537

250

Corregidor

7/3/1538

250


10/21/1539 12/7/1543 4/11/1545 11/17/1540 1/1/1540 8/7/1546 2/4/1535

150 200 200 150 150 200 250

Los Pueblos de Tamacula (Tamazula) y Etlatongo12 Bazán, Alonso de Corregidor Bazán, Alonso de Corregidor Hernández de Sayavedra, Martín Corregidor Hernández de Sayavedra, Martín Corregidor Holguín, Diego Corregidor

11/27/1535 1/12/1537 1/20/1538 2/7/1539 7/16/1540

250 250 200 200 200

Los Pueblos de Tamacula (Tamazula), Tuspa, Capotlal Cervantes, Alonso de Teniente Cervantes, Alonso de Teniente Flores, Hernando Corregidor Flores, Hernando Corregidor Flores, Hernando Corregidor Guzmán, Manuel de Corregidor Guzmán, Manuel de Corregidor Moreno, Francisco Teniente Moreno, Francisco Teniente Moreno, Francisco Teniente Moreno, Francisco Teniente Moreno, Francisco Teniente Moreno, Francisco Teniente Nava, Antonio de Corregidor Ortiz, Andrés Corregidor Ortiz, Andrés Corregidor Ramírez, Garci Corregidor Romero, Pero Teniente

9/20/1536 11/29/1539 11/7/1540 11/19/1541 1/30/1542 7/3/1537 7/1/1539 5/8/1539 5/17/1540 6/4/1541 6/22/1542 7/12/1544 7/15/1545 2/23/1536 3/8/1543 3/15/1544 11/20/1545 6/27/1543

120 120 200 200 200 320 320 120 120 100 100 120 120 320 300 300 300 100

Los Pueblos de Xalapa Cintla y Acatlán Bonilla, Johan Carlos de Bonilla, Johan Carlos de Bonilla, Johan Carlos de Bonilla, Johan Carlos de Castañeda, Rodrigo de Castañeda, Rodrigo de Castilla, Johan de Castilla, Johan de Espinoza, Alonso de Espinoza, Alonso de

7/15/1541 9/16/1541 10/20/1542 11/2/1543 4/3/1542 6/22/1543 2/26/1545 2/26/1546 11/24/1537 2/5/1539

100 100 100 100 200 200 100 100 120 120

Name1 Los Pueblos de Mitla e Tacolula Arias de Sayavedra, Hernando (Hernandarias) Arias de Sayavedra, Hernando (Hernandarias) Asencio, Pedro Chávez, Christóbal de Chávez, Christóbal de Herrera, Francisco de Herrera, Francisco de Mezquita, Martín de la Santiago, Bernardino de

286 —

Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Espinoza, Alonso de Flores, Gerónimo López de Villalobos, Ruy Marquez, Francisco Oliver, Francisco de Oliver, Francisco de

Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

2/5/1540 9/15/1536 8/20/1540 7/10/1545 12/6/1537 12/19/1538

120 200 200 200 150 150

Matalcingo y Su Partido Palacios Rubios, Nicolas de Palacios Rubios, Nicolas de Valdenebro, Francisco de Valdenebro, Francisco de

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente

7/9/1544 7/15/1545 7/14/1544 7/18/1545

200 200 120 120

Mexicalcingo y Capotlán (Zapotlán) Carrillo, Jorge Castilla, Luis de (Don) Castilla, Luis de (Don) Castilla, Luis de (Don) Castilla, Luis de (Don) Ravanales, Juan de Ravanales, Juan de


6/17/1545 10/12/1538 10/21/1539 11/14/1540 11/19/1541 2/15/1543 2/15/1544

150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Micante Marmolejo, Diego de Najera, Juan de Vázquez, Alonso

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

1/13/1537 1/13/1537 6/8/1545

200 200 200

Nuchistlán (Nochistlán) Estudilla, Juan de

Corregidor

5/23/1545

150

Ocopletlayuca Martín de Mérida, Pero Salazar, Hernando de (El Factor)

Teniente Corregidor

3/3/1546 2/27/1546

130 400

Ocoyuca y Capuluaque13 Téllez, Francisco Téllez, Francisco Villarroel, Antonio de Villarroel, Antonio de Villarroel, Antonio de


9/15/1536 9/16/1537 10/21/1539 11/10/1540 1/1/1542

200 200 200 200 200

Oztotiquipac Martín, Domingo

Corregidor

7/24/1545

200

Pantla Almaraz, Antonio de Corzo, Francisco Corzo, Francisco Larios, Juan Larios, Juan Larios, Juan Larios, Juan


7/14/1539 12/2/1536 12/2/1537 7/30/1540 8/2/1541 8/5/1542 8/21/1543

150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Name1

— 287

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Papalotiquipac Darías de Saavedra, Hernan Darías de Saavedra, Hernan Darías de Saavedra, Hernan Guzmán, Martin de López Patiño, Juan López Patiño, Juan Medel, Johan Medel, Johan Medel, Johan Medel, Johan

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente

11/17/1540 11/20/1541 12/11/1542 7/9/1544 8/27/1543 8/27/1544 7/1/1540 6/8/1541 7/4/1542 9/3/1545

300 300 300 300 130 130 130 130 130 130

Piaztla Ycuala en Panuco Nieto, Francisco Nieto, Francisco Nieto, Francisco


9/17/1543 9/23/1544 11/23/1545

100 100 100

Pochutitlán y Su Partido Alamilla, Francisco de Briones, Johan de López de Villalobos, Ruy López de Villalobos, Ruy Olivera, Francisco de Olivera, Francisco de Villarroel, Pedro de


3/16/1536 5/23/1545 4/13/1537 7/17/1538 6/28/1540 9/14/1541 12/11/1544

200 200 200 200 150 150 200

Pochutla, Tonameca Barrionuevo, Rodrigo de Barrionuevo, Rodrigo de Canseco, Alonso de Canseco, Alonso de Chaves, Christobal de Chaves, Christobal de Chaves, Christobal de Muñoz, Juan Ramírez, Garci Ramírez, Garci


5/24/1545 6/8/1546 5/22/1542 5/24/1544 2/25/1539 2/4/1540 3/10/1541 2/10/1536 8/2/1536 1/9/1538

200 200 200 200 250 250 250 250 250 250

Quaquatlan Espinosa, Alonso de

Corregidor

9/17/1543

100

Quecalapa Nuñez Rincón, Pero

Corregidor

7/14/1545

150

Sicayan Trujillo, Melchor de

Corregidor

4/9/1543

100

Suchimilco (Xochimilco) Jaso, Johan de Jaso, Johan de Nava, Antonio de Porcel, Juan Porcel, Juan

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente

12/2/1541 12/7/1542 4/23/1545 4/9/1545 4/30/1546

300 300 300 100 120

Name1

288 —

APPENDIX

Date2

Salary3

Teniente Teniente

12/4/1542 4/1/1544

150 150

Tabalilpa Bonilla, Johan Carlos de Escobar, Christobal de Escobar, Christobal de

Teniente Corregidor Corregidor

1/2/1546 7/12/1544 7/14/1545

120 150 150

Tacacalca Manso, Melchor

Corregidor

5/15/1545

150

Tacotalpa Ávila, Francisco de Ávila, Francisco de Martínez, Alonso Nájera, Juan de Sant Vicente, Juan de Sant Vicente, Juan de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente

9/13/1543 12/31/1544 2/13/1546 9/9/1542 9/9/1542 9/17/1544

250 250 250 250 120 120

Talasco en la Provincia de Matalcingo14 Cuellar, Bartholomé de Cuellar, Bartholomé de Cuellar, Bartholomé de Cuellar, Bartholomé de Cuellar, Bartholomé de


8/1/1541 8/2/1541 8/4/1542 8/11/1543 8/11/1544

Tanpico (Tampico) y el Tamohi Castañeda (El Doctor) Gómez de Villafañe Gómez de Villafañe


5/8/1545 4/24/1543 4/26/1544

400 300 300

Tascaltitlán15 Ciciliano, Johan Flores, Diego Flores, Diego González de Valdivieso, Juan (Doctor) Vázquez de Coronado, Francisco


10/21/1539 3/8/1537 2/29/— 10/24/1538 3/11/1538

200 200 200 200 200

Tasco y Tenango Castilla, Don Luis de (Don) Castilla, Don Luis de (Don) Cuellar, Bartholomé de Cuellar, Bartholomé de Darías de Saavedra, Hernán Darías de Saavedra, Hernán García de la Magdalena, Juan García de la Magdalena, Juan García de la Magdalena, Juan Hernández de Trigueros, Pero Hernández de Trigueros, Pero Hernández de Trigueros, Pero Millán, Juan Osorio, Juan

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor

10/25/1542 10/27/1543 7/8/1537 7/8/1538 2/13/1545 1/27/1546 10/21/1539 11/4/1540 11/4/1541 2/13/1543 2/13/1544 6/16/1545 9/14/1536 9/6/1537

300 300 120 120 300 300 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 300

Name1 Rodríguez, Juan Rodríguez, Juan

Position

— 289

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3


9/7/1538 9/9/1539 6/10/1541

300 300 300

Tatatetelco López, Juan “El Viejo”

Corregidor

7/21/1545

200

Tecayuca Añasco, Juan de Añasco, Juan de Griego, Manuel Griego, Manuel Griego, Manuel León Romano, Luis de López de Siguenca, Francisco Miranda, Juan de Osorio, Baltasar Osorio, Baltasar Peñalosa, Johan Pimentel, Luis Manuel Pimentel, Luis Manuel Tercero (El Licenciado) Villalobos, Gregorio de

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

5/23/1544 7/24/1545 8/9/1538 8/20/1539 2/7/1540 7/9/1546 11/15/1543 2/26/1545 1/27/1540 3/5/1541 7/21/1546 4/17/1542 4/17/1543 1/25/1538 1/24/1537

300 300 120 120 120 300 120 120 300 300 120 300 300 200 200

Tecayuca Capotlán y Su Partido Bibanco, Johan de Bibanco, Johan de López, Gonzalo Pacho, Pedro Pacho, Pedro Salamanca, Juan de Salamanca, Juan de Salamanca, Juan de Valdevieso, Johan de Valdevieso, Johan de


1/9/1540 1/2/1541 9/20/1536 6/13/1545 6/28/1546 1/17/1542 1/15/1543 2/13/1544 11/29/1537 12/7/1538

140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140

Tecomabaca Arriaga, Juan de Arriaga, Juan de Delgado, Luis Salas, Gonzalo de Salas, Gonzalo de Santiago, Bernardino de Santiago, Bernardino de Santiago, Bernardino de Xerez, Rodrigo de Xerez, Rodrigo de


2/8/1539 7/29/1540 8/3/1541 5/16/1545 7/15/1546 9/9/1542 9/9/1543 2/7/1538 2/29/1536 2/28/1537

200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 250 250

Tecoman Alvarado, Hernando de Alvarado, Hernando de Nava, Antonio de


8/18/1544 10/12/1545 3/20/1540

200 200 150

Name1 Osorio, Juan Osorio, Pedro Osorio, Pedro

290 —

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Nava, Antonio de Núñez, Diego Núñez, Diego Tengillo, Alonso de


3/30/1541 3/29/1542 4/10/1543 2/3/1539

150 150 150 200

Tenguendín Castro, Antonio de Trujillo, Alonso de Trujillo, Alonso de Vargas, Andrés de Vargas, Andrés de


6/13/1545 11/13/1540 11/24/1541 12/18/1542 12/7/1543

150 150 150 150 150

Tepeaca y Su Sujeto Cherino, Lope Cherino, Lope


8/9/1544 8/21/1545

300 300

Tepeapa y Ayutla Niño, Andrés Rodríguez Pablos, Francisco Rodríguez Pablos, Francisco Rodríguez Pablos, Francisco Rodríguez Pablos, Francisco Rodríguez Pablos, Francisco Sánchez, Cristóbal Sánchez, Cristóbal


5/23/1545 9/21/1536 7/21/1540 8/4/1541 8/18/1542 9/15/1543 12/1/1537 3/4/1539

150 200 150 150 150 150 150 150

Tepeucila y Su Partido Gaytán, Juan Gaytán, Juan Valderrama, Miguel de Valderrama, Miguel de

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente

8/9/1544 8/11/1545 8/9/1544 8/12/1545

300 300 120 120

Tequecistlán y Su Partido Ojeda, Diego de

Corregidor

1/11/1541

140

Tequila Balante, Juan García Calleja, Iuan García Calleja, Iuan López de Herrera, Juan López, Álvaro Varela, Pedro


3/12/1537 6/17/1545 6/25/1546 10/23/1543 2/26/1538 9/24/1540

200 200 150 200 200 200

Tetabanco Herrera, Hernando de Herrera, Hernando de Herrera, Hernando de Núñez, Diego Salamanca, Juan de Salamanca, Juan de Salamanca, Juan de Salamanca, Juan de


1/29/1542 1/29/1543 1/11/1544 9/14/1536 11/27/1537 11/30/1538 12/12/1539 1/21/1541

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Name1

— 291

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3


6/2/1545 7/14/1546

150 150

Tetanxitaro y Tapalcatepeque Ávila, Luis de Ávila, Luis de Ávila, Luis de Ávila, Luis de Gutiérrez El Conde, Rodrigo Ojeda, Juan de Ojeda, Juan de Villarreal, Pedro de Villarreal, Pedro de


2/3/1539 4/5/1540 3/1/1541 2/20/1542 7/17/1545 10/1/1536 10/26/1537 6/30/1543 7/10/1544

200 150 150 150 150 200 200 150 150

Texupa Aguilar, Hernando de Cervantes, Alonso de Cervantes, Alonso de Mezquita, Martin de la Mezquita, Martin de la Mezquita, Martin de la Mezquita, Martin de la Núñez de Sedeño, Oían Núñez de Sedeño, Oían Núñez de Sedeño, Oían


6/1/1546 9/27/1536 9/17/1537 9/28/1538 10/6/1539 2/12/1544 6/8/1545 11/16/1540 1/1/1542 1/1/1543

200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Tezcuco Bizcayno, Joan Castilla, Don Luis de Gallegos, Balthazar de Gómez de Betancos, Gonzalo Hernándes Castellanos, Luis Jaso, Juan de Jaso, Juan de Jaso, Juan de Marmolejo, Antonio Marmolejo, Antonio Pablos, Juan Pablos, Juan Portillo, Hernando

Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente

1/16/1540 7/22/1537 9/11/1544 9/19/1545 9/16/1536 10/17/1538 10/11/1539 10/25/1540 11/24/1537 11/29/1538 11/19/1544 12/11/1545 7/20/1540

100 300 300 300 120 300 300 300 150 150 150 150 120

Tlacotepeque Aguado, Pero Martín Alcocer, Antonio de Alcocer, Antonio de Cerón, Jorge Cerón, Jorge Duran, Pedro Figueroa, Sancho de Figueroa, Sancho de López, Alonso

Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente

3/29/1542 2/5/1539 4/8/1540 4/14/1543 5/—/1544 7/15/1545 5/19/1545 7/7/1546 7/12/1544

150 120 100 200 200 120 200 200 120

Name1 Zamorano, Miguel Zamorano, Miguel

292 —

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente

9/15/1536 11/30/1538 12/2/1539 1/15/1540 3/5/1541 9/17/1537 9/1/1536 6/3/1541 6/7/1542 6/9/1543

250 200 200 150 150 120 120 100 100 100

Tlanalapa Guerrero, Agustín

Corregidor

7/23/1545

200

Tonaltepeque Corona, Francisco de Corona, Francisco de Melgar, Francisco de Melgar, Francisco de Melgar, Francisco de Melgar, Francisco de


3/26/1545 7/31/1546 11/10/1540 11/9/1541 11/14/1542 11/30/1543

200 200 200 200 200 200

Tonatico Guzmán, Rodrigo de Guzmán, Rodrigo de


7/21/1544 7/24/1545

250 250

Tula y Su Partido Cervantes, Juan de Cervantes, Juan de García de la Magdalena, Juan

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente

7/16/1544 7/17/1545 7/12/1544

300 300 150

Tustepeque y Quiamustla López de Cabrera, Juan Pérez Sandoval, Alonso


1/4/1544 6/12/1545

200 200

Ucareo y Araro Aranda, Martín de Aranda, Martín de Hernández, Gonzalo Hernández, Gonzalo León, Luis de León, Luis de León, Luis de León, Luis de López de Mendoza, Luis (Don) Madrid, Diego de Méndez de Sotomayor, Pero Méndez de Sotomayor, Pero

Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Corregidor Corregidor

9/24/1543 5/18/1545 1/10/1536 1/18/1537 1/19/1538 1/10/1539 1/20/1540 3/1/1541 8/9/1544 7/10/1545 1/5/1542 1/9/1543

100 100 200 200 200 300 300 300 300 120 300 300

Urirapundaro y Su Partido Abiña, Gregorio de Ávila, Luis de Castro, Antonio de

Corregidor Corregidor Teniente

7/9/1545 9/16/1536 11/27/1537

200 200 100

Name1 Nájera, Juan de Olguín, Diego Olguín, Diego Pérez de Aguilera, Antón Pérez de Aguilera, Antón Romero, Pedro Romero, Pedro Villanueva, Johan Martin de Villanueva, Johan Martin de Villanueva, Johan Martin de

— 293

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

12/4/1538 1/28/1540 3/3/1541 2/8/1542 7/24/1545 6/22/1543 6/11/1544 6/25/1543 4/29/1542 2/11/1540 4/27/1541 11/27/1537 12/3/1538

100 100 100 100 100 200 200 100 150 150 150 200 200

Uruapa y Guanajo Toledo, Alonso de Toledo, Alonso de


7/12/1544 9/10/1545

100 100

Uxitlán e Xilotlán Gutierre Maldonado Gutierre Maldonado Nortes, Alonso Nortes, Alonso Nortes, Alonso Nortes, Alonso Ramírez, Gonzalo Villagomez, Jorge de Villagomez, Jorge de


3/11/1545 4/15/1546 7/31/1543 1/23/1540 4/22/1541 7/14/1542 10/11/1536 11/27/1537 11/30/1538

200 200 200 150 150 150 200 200 200

Xalitla Cerrato, Sebastián Cerrato, Sebastián Macias, Alonso Macias, Alonso Rivas, Gregorio de las Rivas, Gregorio de las Rivas, Gregorio de las Rivas, Gregorio de las Valverde, Garcia de


7/23/1545 7/26/1546 12/5/1537 2/5/1539 5/14/1540 5/26/1542 5/27/1543 5/23/1541 7/14/1544

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Xicayán (Jicayán) López Patiño, Juan Medina, Francisco de Medina, Francisco de


10/24/1545 9/13/1543 9/17/1544

200 200 200

Xilotlán y Su Partido Cornejo, Francisco de Cornejo, Francisco de Monguia, Pedro de Monguia, Pedro de Monguia, Pedro de


2/8/1543 2/13/1544 1/12/1540 1/26/1541 1/30/1542

150 150 150 150 150

Name1 Castro, Antonio de Castro, Antonio de Castro, Antonio de Castro, Antonio de Díaz, Pero Godoy, Antonio de Godoy, Antonio de Osuna, Pedro de Palacios Rubios, Nicolas de Palacios Rubios, Nicolas de Palacios Rubios, Nicolas de Sandoval, Juan de Sandoval, Juan de

294 —

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3


6/30/1545 7/9/1546 10/7/1536 12/3/1537 12/15/1538

150 150 200 200 200

Ximetepeque Montaño, Francisco de Rixoles, Thomas de

Corregidor Teniente

4/24/1545 4/24/1545

200 130

Yagualica Díaz, Bartolome Díaz, Bartolome Hernández, Pero Hernández, Pero López, Bartholomé López, Bartholomé Lora, Gregorio de Lora, Gregorio de Pérez Espadero, Juan Pérez Espadero, Juan


2/16/1538 2/22/1539 7/16/1540 8/3/1541 11/17/1537 9/16/1536 7/16/1544 7/17/1545 9/15/1542 9/18/1543

200 200 150 150 200 200 150 150 150 150

Ycatlán y Su Partido Bracamonte, Álvaro de Bracamonte, Álvaro de Carrillo, Alonso Carrillo, Alonso Díaz, Melchor Ybarra, Miguel de Ybarra, Miguel de


5/6/1537 10/12/1538 7/9/1544 7/11/1545 11/7/1539 12/2/1541 1/30/1543

250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Ycucar (Izucar) Alguazil, Bartholomé Alguazil, Bartholomé de Angulo, Onthañón Flores, Gerónimo Hernández, Diego Hernández, Diego Holguín, Diego de Holguín, Diego de

Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor

7/12/1544 7/14/1545 8/14/1544 8/19/1545 12/2/1541 12/5/1542 12/2/1541 12/5/1542

150 150 300 300 150 150 300 300

Yzcuintepeque y Elotepeque Cervantes, Alonso de Cervantes, Alonso de Cervantes, Alonso de Núñez de Sedeño, Johan Peñalver, Johan de Peñalver, Johan de Salamanca, Juan de Xerez, Rodrigo de Xerez, Rodrigo de


2/4/1539 6/26/1540 7/21/1541 7/8/1544 1/9/1537 1/20/1538 7/8/1545 8/21/1542 9/15/1543

200 200 200 200 200 200 150 200 200

Name1 Ortiz, Johan Ortiz, Johan Ripa, Juan de Vega, García de Vega, García de

— 295

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Yzcuintlapilco Aguado, Pero Martín Aguado, Pero Martín Aguado, Pero Martín Aguado, Pero Martín Castillo Maldonado, Alonso García Rengino, Pero García Rengino, Pero Martín, Domingo Martín, Domingo Salamanca, Juan de Salamanca, Juan de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

2/8/1538 2/8/1539 2/4/1540 3/1/1541 3/14/1542 2/19/1536 2/19/1537 6/23/1543 7/3/1544 7/8/1545 7/24/1546

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Yzinguiluca Bravo de Lagunas, Johan Bravo de Lagunas, Johan Espinoza, Pedro de Ulloa, Alonso de Ulloa, Alonso de Vaca, Luis Vaca, Luis Vaca, Luis Vaca, Luis


3/13/1543 7/1/1544 7/4/1545 1/18/1537 1/18/1538 2/7/1539 3/3/1540 3/5/1541 3/9/1542

150 150 150 200 200 200 200 200 150

Yzmiquilpa (Ixmiquilpan) López, Francisco López, Francisco López, Francisco López, Francisco López, Francisco Madrid, Diego de Palenzuela, Rodrigo de

Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Corregidor

6/6/1538 8/2/1539 8/11/1540 9/14/1541 9/25/1542 7/9/1544 4/6/1538

120 120 120 120 120 120 120

Yztapa Corzo, Francisco Corzo, Francisco Guerrero, Agustín Guerrero, Agustín Guerrero, Agustín Guerrero, Agustín Guerrero, Agustín Gutiérrez, Diego Salinas, Bernardino de Salinas, Bernardino de Salinas, Bernardino de Salinas, Bernardino de Salinas, Bernardino de Serna, Juan de la Tovar, Pedro de Tovar, Pedro de

Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Teniente Corregidor Corregidor Corregidor

4/24/1544 5/8/1545 1/13/1540 1/13/1541 1/13/1542 1/8/1543 2/25/1544 2/27/1537 12/12/1537 12/18/1538 12/12/1539 9/7/1541 9/6/1542 6/17/1545 1/4/1538 1/15/1539

100 100 200 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 100 100 100 200 200 200

Name1

296 —

APPENDIX

Position

Date2

Salary3

Yztlauaca Cuellar Verdugo, Johan de Cuellar Verdugo, Johan de Cuellar Verdugo, Johan de Cuellar Verdugo, Johan de Pimentel, Garcia Manuel Pimentel, Garcia Manuel Serrano, Johan Serrano, Johan


9/1/1538 9/24/1539 9/25/1540 9/26/1541 7/9/1544 7/21/1545 4/13/1536 4/14/1537

200 200 200 200 300 300 200 200

Zongolica Bibanco, Johan de Bibanco, Johan de Malvenda, Alonso de Malvenda, Alonso de Pérez de los Rios, Diego Pérez de los Rios, Diego Roca, Lázaro de la Roca, Lázaro de la Roca, Lázaro de la Zarate, Bartolomé de


2/9/1543 2/9/1544 11/27/1537 12/2/1538 4/24/1545 7/21/1546 1/10/1540 5/17/1541 1/11/1542 9/30/1536

150 150 200 200 150 150 150 150 150 200

Name1

Source: AGI, Justicia, 258; “Relación sacada de los libros de la contaduría de su Majestad de los corregimientos que se han proveído en esta nueva España de los pueblos que están en su Real Corona por el Ilmo. don Antonio de Mendoza visorrei e governador en ella por su Majestad en todo el tiempo que ha corrido desde cinco de noviembre de mil quinientos treinta y cinco años en adelante que fue recibido en esta ciudad de México y comenzó a usar el dicho cargo la cual se saco en esta manera,” fols. 737r–794v. Notes: 1. Most personal names have been modernized, especially orthography changes: “ç” for “c” or for “z.” An exception was made by leaving the “x” when used in personal names. 2. Day/month/year. 3. Salary in pesos. 4. The town was given in encomienda to Gerónimo López on September 11, 1538. He was still the encomendero in 1546. 5. The town was given in encomienda to Diego de Ordaz on August 20, 1539. He was still the encomendero in 1546. 6. The town was given in encomienda to Diego de Ordaz on August 20, 1539. He was still the encomendero in 1546. 7. The town was given in encomienda to Gonzalo Ruiz, regidor, on December 3, 1541. He was still the encomendero in 1546. 8. Between the years 1538 and 1544 the town was the encomienda of the bishop of Oaxaca. Under the New Laws it became a corregimiento. 9. Between the years 1537 and 1544 the town was the encomienda of Juan Alonso de Sosa. Under the New Laws it became a corregimiento. 10. Between the years 1537 and 1544 the town was the encomienda of Juan Alonso de Sosa. Under the New Laws it became a corregimiento. 11. The town was given in encomienda to Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia on December 16, 1541. He was still the encomendero in 1546.

— 297

APPENDIX 1 2 12. Part of this town was given in encomienda toPosition Juan de Valdivieso onDate October 6, 1541. He3 Salary Name was still the encomendero of a portion of the town in 1546. The rest of the town was given in encomienda to Alonso de Contreras on December 17, 1541. He was still the encomendero in 1546. 13. The town was given in encomienda to Juan Cano on June 15, 1541. He was still the encomendero in 1546. 14. Salary was paid with the amount of tribute assigned to the town. 15. The town was given in encomienda to Francisco de Chávez and his wife on June 10, 1540. They were still encomenderos in 1546.

298 —

GLOSSARY

GLOSSARY

Acequia Irrigation channel Acequia real Main (royal) channel Acta notarial Notarial deed or certificate (for example, of payment, for purchase) Adobe Clay brick Albacea testamentario Executor; person named to carry out the provisions in a decedent’s will and to guard the decedent’s goods and properties Alcalde Judge and cabildo member of an Indian town Alcalde mayor Spanish official in charge of a district Alguacil Constable Arroba Measure of weight equal to 25 pounds or liquid measure varying between 2.6 and 3.6 gallons Audiencia Court and governing body or the area of its jurisdiction Averiguaciones Official interrogatories and inquiries in a lawsuit that involves two or more parties Bachiller Without university degree Barrio or collación Neighborhood, town subdivision, quarter Braza Unit of measure, usually two varas Caballería Unit of farmland; in Mexico it was equivalent to 106 acres Cabecera Head town of a municipality Cabildo Municipal council, both in Indian towns and in Spanish cities Cacique Local Indian rulers

— 299 —

— 299

GLOSSARY

Cahizle (cahiz) Weight measure used for plaster in the province of Madrid Calpisque Tax collector and administrative official, steward Calpulli Territorial unit or families occupying it Calzada Road Cámara real Place and office related to guarding the king’s gold, silver, and money Caño, caños Drinking or sewage water pipe or pipes Cargos Formal accusations against one or more persons in a lawsuit or during a visita—in the case of a royal official; charges Casilla Hut Castellano Spanish monetary unit Cogollo Bud from trees and other plants Comendodor Gentleman in military order Concierto Signed or unsigned agreement between two or more parties Conquistador Spaniard who took part in the subduing campaigns and wars against Indian towns and peoples Consejero de Indias Judge of the Royal and Supreme Council of the Indies Consejo de Indias Royal and Supreme Council of the Indies Contador Accountant Corregidor Spanish officer in charge of a district Corregimiento Institution or jurisdiction of a corregidor Criado Person who served in a house; a nobleman’s relative, protégé, or stepchild Cuartillo Unit of measure for liquids; also, one-fourth of a real Cuarto Spanish copper coin worth three cents of a peseta Cuerda Unit of measure equal to about eight and one-half varas Demasía No man’s land Derechos Fees Descargos Final arguments used by an accused person to counteract cargos Ejido Type of community land Embarcadero Wharf or pier Encomendero Possessor of an encomienda Encomienda Grant of Indians Escribano de minas Secretary or scribe Escritura Deed Estadol Land measure equal to approximately 3.35 meters Estancia Subordinate Indian community Estancia (sitio de) Farm or ranch Estancia de ganado mayor (sitio de) Cattle ranch Estancia de ganado menor (sitio de) Sheep or goat ranch Factor real Judge of the Real Hacienda Fanega Unit of dry measure, about 1.5 or 1.6 bushels Fiesta Community feast-day celebration

300 —

GLOSSARY

Gobernación Government Gold peso Monetary unit weighing about 1 ounce Granjería Estate that belonged to an entrepreneur Hacienda real Administrative area of the colony’s economy Información Witness inquiry in a lawsuit Ingenio Sugar mill Instrucción Order or orders given to colonial officials or administrators, mainly to viceroys Jacal Hut Jornada de trabajo Working day Jornal See note 207, Chapter 3 Junta eclesiástica Assembly of ecclesiastical authorities for discussing matters and policies Labrador Spanish farmer Labranza Plowed land Legua Unit of distance that is 5,572 meters and 7 decimeters long Leyes Nuevas Laws promulgated by Emperor Charles V in 1542–1543, under Friar Bartolomé de las Casas’s influence Licenciado Lawyer; person who has completed university studies Llano Area of flat ground Losa Slab; thin, flat stone, mainly carved Macehual Indian commoner Maguey Agave plant Maizales Corn field Maravedí Spanish monetary unit Mayeque Indian serf Mayordomo Steward, custodian; a highly trusted servant Memorial Report Merced de Tierras Royal grant for land Merced real Royal grant Mixcatlaylutla Judges in the marketplaces Moderación or moderar To diminish, to officially adjust the Indians’ tribute Morada Dwelling Nahuatlato Interpreter of Indian languages Obraje Workshop, especially on woolen cloth Ocotl or ocote Torch pine Oficial de la contaduría An administrative official at the Real Hacienda Oidor Judge of an Audiencia Ordenanza Order

— 301

GLOSSARY

Pago A district of land, especially vineyards or olive groves Palmo Measure of length that is one-fourth of a vara, divided into 12 equal parts, or fingers, that are about 21 centimeters each; it is supposed to be as long as a man’s open hand, from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger Parcialidad People gathering in alliance for a specific purpose, thus withdrawing from the rest and forming a separate group Peón Unskilled Indian worker, laborer Peso Monetary unit of eight reales Petate Rush mat Pinole A drink made of toasted maize Pintura, pinturas Name given by the Spaniards to the Indians’ codices and pictorial manuscripts Pirulero A resident of Peru Principal Member of the Indian upper class, Indian nobleman Procurador Attorney, defense counselor Provisión real King’s order Pulque Fermented drink from the maguey plant Quintos The royal fifth Real or tomín Monetary silver unit, one-eighth of a peso Real cédula Written authorization, royal decree Regidor Councilman in a cabildo Rentero Lessee, sublessee, or sharecropper Repartimiento Labor distribution Residencia Court or trial held at the end of a term in office Rodrigón, rodrigones Plant prop; stick, rod, or beam fixed next to a plant to provide rigid support for its stalks and branches Sabana Plain, flat land Solar Plot of urban land Suerte Field land Sujeto pueblo Subject town Tameme (tlamama) Indian bearer Tasación Tribute or tribute assessment record Tasar To assess; official term mainly applied to the assessment of the Indians’ tribute Tejuelo Thick sheet of metal in circular form (from Tejo) Teniente Lieutenant, a minor official for the Real Hacienda or in corregimiento Tequitlato Working people (from Nahuatl) Terrazguero Land lessee Testigo Witness Tezontle Volcanic rock Tianguis Indian market

302 —

GLOSSARY

Tipuzque Copper coins Tomín See real Tortilla Flat corn cakes Tostón Name given to the real de la cuatro in Mexico and in New Granada Tributo Tribute Indians had to pay to encomendero Tributo real Payment or tribute Indian towns had to pay to the king Trueque Swap; exchange Vallado Fence or palisade Vara Unit of measure, about 33 inches Vara de justicia Staff of office Virrey Viceroy Visita (real) Royal order to survey how a colony’s government works Visitador real Royal inspector Xixuipilli The number 8,000 Zanja Ditch

— 303

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiton, Arthur Scott. Antonio de Mendoza, First Viceroy of New Spain. Durham: Duke University Press, 1927. ———. The Secret Visita Against Viceroy Mendoza. Lancaster, Pa.: Lancaster Press, 1932. ———. “Ordenanzas hechas por el Sr. Visorrey don Antonio de Mendoza, sobre las minas de la Nueva España, año de MDL.” Revista de Historia de América 14 (June 1942): 73–95. Altman Ida, James Lockhart et al. Provinces of Early Mexico. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976. Arregui, Zamorano Pilar. La Audiencia de México según los visitadores. Siglo XVI y XVII. México City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (hereafter UNAM), 1981. Assadourian, Carlos Sempat. El sistema de la economía colonial. El mercado interior. Regiones y espacio económico. México City: Editorial Nueva Imagen, 1983. ———. “La despoblación indígena en Perú y Nueva España durante el siglo XVI y la formación de la economía colonial.” Historia Mexicana 38 (1989): 419–454. Baudot, George. “La percepción histórica del drama demográfico de México en el siglo XVI.” Quinto Centenario 1 (1980): 3–24. ———. Utopia e Historia en México. Los primeros Cronistas de la civilización mexicana (1520–1569). Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, S.A., 1983 [Utopia and History in Mexico: — 305 —

— 305

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The First Chroniclers of Mexican Civilization (1520–1569), Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 1995]. Borah, Woodrow. The Aboriginal Population of Central Mexico on the Eve of the Spanish Conquest. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963. ———. “Some Problems of Sources,” in H. R. Harvey and Hans J. Prem, eds., Explorations in Ethnohistory: Indians of Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984. ———. El Juzgado General de Indios en la Nueva España. México City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1985 [Justice by Insurance: The General Indian Court of Colonial Mexico and the Legal Aides of the Half-Real. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983]. Carreño, Alberto María. Un desconocido cedulario del siglo XVI perteneciente a la Catedral Metropolitana de México. México City: Ediciones Victoria, 1944. Castañeda, Carlos E. “Fray Juan de Zumárraga and Indian Policy in New Spain.” The Americas 5, 3 (January 1949): 296–310. Castañeda, Delgado Paulino. Don Vasco de Quiroga y su “Información en Derecho.” Madrid: Ediciones de José Porrúa Turanzas, 1974. Cervantes de Salazar, Francisco. México en 1554 y túmulo imperial [Edmundo O’Gorman, ed.]. México City: Editorial Porrúa, 1982, 5th ed. Chauvet, Fidel de J. Fray Juan de Zumárraga. O.F.M. México City: Publicistas e Impresores Beatriz de Silva, 1948. ———. “Fray Juan de Zumárraga, Protector of the Indians.” The Americas 5, 3 (January 1949): 283–295. Chevalier, François. Significación social de la fundación de Puebla de los Angeles. Puebla: Ediciones del Centro de Estudios Históricos de Puebla, 1957. ———. La formación de los latifundios en México. México City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1982. Colección de documentos inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organización de las antiguas posesiones españolas de América y Oceanía, sacadas de los Archivos del Reino y muy especialmente del de Indias. Madrid: Imp. de Quirós, 1864– 1889. Colección de documentos inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organización de las antiguas posesiones españolas de Ultramar, second series. Madrid: publicada por la Real Academia de la Historia, 1885–1931. Cook, Sherburne F., and Woodrow Borah. The Indian Population of Central Mexico 1531–1610. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960. Cuevas, Mariano. Documentos inéditos del Siglo XVI para la historia de México. México City: Ed. Porrúa, 1975. Durán, Diego (Fray). Historia de los Indios de la Nueva España e Islas de la Tierra Firme. México City: Editorial Porrúa, 1967 [The History of the Indians of New Spain, Civilization of the American Indian, vol. 210, trans. Doris Heyden. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994]. Dusenberry, William H. The Mexican Mesta: The Administration of Ranching in Colonial Mexico. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963. Encinas, Diego de. Provisiones, cédulas, capítulos de ordenanzas, instrucciones y cartas . . . tocantes al buen gobierno de las Indias y administración de la justicia en ellas. Madrid: Ed. Cultura Hispánica, 1945. 306 —

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Epistolario de Nueva España, 1505–1818, Francisco Paso y Troncoso, ed. México City: Antigua Librería Robredo de José Porrúa e Hijos, 1939–1942. García, Alfonso Gallo. “Alcaldes Mayores y Corregidores en Indias,” in Memoria del primer Congreso Venezolano de Historia, vol. 1. Caracas: Academia Nacional de la Historia, 1972, 301–347. ———. Manual de historia del Derecho Español. Antología de fuentes del Antiguo Derecho, vol. 2. Madrid: Artes Graficas, 1975–1977. García, Joaquín Icazbalceta. Colección de Documentos para la historia de México, vol. 2. México City: Librená de J. M. Andrade, 1856–1866. ———. “Un creso del siglo XVI en México,” in Opúsculos varios. México City: 1896, 435–442. ———. Biografía de D. Fr. Juan de Zumárraga. Primer Obispo y Arzobispo de México, 4 vols. Madrid: M. Aguilar, 1928. Gerhard, Peter. A Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Gibson, Charles. Tlaxcala in the Sixteenth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952. ———. The Aztec Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964. Hammond, George P., and Agapito Rey. Narrative of the Coronado Expedition, 1540–1542. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1940. Hanke, Lewis. Los virreyes españoles en América durante el gobierno de la Casa de Austria, vol. 1. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, vol. 256, 1976. ———. La lucha por la justicia en la conquista de América. Madrid: Ed. Istmo, 1988 [The Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949]. Haring, Clarence H. El imperio hispánico en América. Buenos Aires: Solar Hachette, 1966. Harvey, H. R., and Hans J. Prem, eds. Explorations in Ethnohistory: Indians of Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984. Herrejón, Carlos. “La información en Derecho de Vasco de Quiroga como fuente para el estudio de los indios,” in Pedro Carrasco et al., eds., La sociedad indígena en el centro y occidente de México. Zamora: El Colegio de Michoacán, 1986, 129–147. Himmerich, Robert Theron. “The Encomenderos of New Spain, 1521–1555.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, 1984 [Robert Himmerich Y Valencia, The Encomenderos of New Spain 1521–1555. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991]. Hirschberg, Julia. “La fundación de Puebla de los Angeles mito y realidad.” Historia Mexicana 28, 2 (October–December 1978): 185–223. ———. “Social Experiment in New Spain: A Prosopographical Study of the Early Settlement at Puebla de los Angeles, 1531–1534.” Hispanic American Historical Review 49, 1 (February 1979): 1–33. Keith, Robert G. “Encomienda, Hacienda and Corregimiento in Spanish America: A Structural Analysis.” Hispanic American Historical Review 51, 3 (August 1971): 431–446. — 307

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Leyes y ordenanzas reales de las Indias del mar océano (1574), 2 vols. México City: Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público, 1984. Lohmann, Villena Guillermo. El Corregidor de indios en el Perú bajo los Austrias. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica, 1957. Long-Solis, Janet. “El abastecimiento de chile en el mercado de la ciudad de México-Tenochtitlan en el siglo XVI.” Historia Mexicana 34, 4 (April–June 1985): 701–714. López Sarrelangue, Delfina. “Las tierras comunales indígenas de la Nueva España en el siglo XVI.” Estudios de Historia Novohispana 1 (1966): 133– 147. ———. “Una hacienda comunal indígena en la Nueva España: Santa Ana de Aragón.” Historia Mexicana 32, 1 (July–September 1982): 1–38. Lyss, Peggy K. Mexico Under Spain 1521–1556: Society and the Origins of Nationality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975. Matesanz, José. “Introducción de la ganadería en Nueva España 1521–1535.” Historia Mexicana 14, 4 (April 1964–June 1965): 533–567. Miranda, José. Las ideas y las instituciones políticas mexicanas. Primera parte, 1521– 1820. México City: Instituto de Derecho Comparado, 1952. ———. La función económica del encomendero en los orígenes del régimen colonial de la Nueva España (1521–1535). México City: UNAM, 1965. ———. El tributo indígena en la Nueva España. México City: El Colegio de México, 1980. Muro, Romero Fernando. Las presidencias-gobernaciones en Indias (Siglo XVI). Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 1975. Muro Orejón, Antonio. Las Leyes Nuevas de 1542–1543. Ordenanzas para la gobernación de las Indias y buen tratamiento y conservación de los Indios. Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 1961. Nadar, Helen. Los Mendoza y el renacimiento español. Guadalajara: Instituto Provincial de Cultura “Marqués de Santillana,” 1986. O’Gorman, Edmundo. “Sobre la facultad que tuvo don Antonio de Mendoza para hacer trueque y cambio de indios.” Boletín del Archivo General de La Nación, 3, vol. 10, no. 1 (January–December 1986). Ots Capdequí, José María. El Estado español en las Indias. Santo Domingo: 1986, 2nd ed. Pagden, Anthony. La caída del hombre natural. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1988 [The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of Comparative Ethnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982]. Parker Winship, George. The Coronado Expedition. Chicago: Rio Grande Press, 1964 [Washington, D.C.: 1896]. Peña, José F. de la. Oligarquía y propiedad en Nueva España, 1550–1624. México City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1983. Pérez Bustamante, Ciriaco. Don Antonio de Mendoza, primer virrey de la Nueva España (1535–1550). Santiago: Tipografía de “El Eco Franciscano,” 1928. Porras Muñoz, Guillermo. El gobierno de la ciudad de México en el siglo XVI. México City: UNAM, 1982. Portilla, Miguel León. Hernán Cortés y la mar del Sur. Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica, Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana, 1985. 308 —

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Puga, Vasco de. Provisiones, Cédulas, Instrucciones para el gobierno de la Nueva España, ed. facsimilar. Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica, 1945. Recopilación de Leyes de los Reinos de las Indias Mandadas imprimir y publicar por la Magestad Católica del Rey don Carlos II Nuestro Señor. Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica, 1973. Ricard, Robert. La conquista espiritual de México. México City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1986. Román Gutiérrez, José Francisco. “Sociedad y frontera: La creación de Nueva Galicia” (unpublished manuscript). Rubio Mañé, José Ignacio. El virreinato I. Orígenes y jurisdicciones y dinámica social de los virreyes. México City: UNAM–Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1983, 2nd ed. Sarabia Viejo, María Justina. Don Luis de Velasco virrey de Nueva España, 1550– 1564. Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 1978. Schaffer, Ernesto. El Consejo Real y Supremo de las Indias. Sevilla: Imp. Carmona, 1935, 2 vols. Scholes, Walter V. “The Diego Ramírez Visita in Meztitlán.” Hispanic American Historical Review 24, 1 (February 1944): 30–38. ———. The Diego Ramírez Visita. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1946. Simpson, Lesley Byrd. Los conquistadores y el indio americano. Barcelona: Ed. Península, 1970 [The Encomienda in New Spain: The Beginning of Spanish Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982]. Simpson, Lesley Byrd, and Sherburne F. Cook. The Population of Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960. Solano, Francisco de. Cedulario de tierras compilación de la legislación agraria colonial (1497–1820). México City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1984. Stern, Steve J. Los pueblos indígenas del Perú y el desafío de la conquista española de Huamanga hasta 1640. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1982 [Peru’s Indian Peoples and the Challenge of Spanish Conquest—Huamanga to 1640. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982]. Toussaint, Manuel. Taxco. Su historia, sus monumentos. Características actuales . . . México City: Editorial Cultura, Publicaciones de la Secretaria de Hacienda, 1931. Trelles Arestegui, Efraín. Lucas Martínez, Vegazo: Funcionamiento de una encomienda peruana inicial. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 1983. Warren, Fintan B. Vasco de Quiroga and His Pueblo-Hospitals of Santa Fe. Washington, D.C.: Academy of Franciscan History, 1963. ———. “The Construction of Santa Fe de México.” The Americas 21, 1 (July 1964): 69–78. ———. “Vasco de Quiroga, fundador de hospitales y colegios.” Missionalia Hispanica 63: 67 (January–April 1966): 25–46. Zavala, Silvio. La “Utopía” de Tomás Moro en la Nueva España y otros estudios. México City: J. Porrúa, 1937. ———. La encomienda indiana. México City: Editorial Porrúa, 1973.

— 309

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. Asientos de la gobernación de la Nueva España (Periodo delvirrey don Luis de Velasco, 1550–1552). México City: Archivo General de la Nación, 1982. ———. El servicio personal de los indios en la Nueva España, vol. 1. México City: El Colegio de México–El Colegio Nacional, 1984. ———. El servicio personal de los indios en la Nueva España, vol. 2. México City: El Colegio de México–El Colegio Nacional 1985 [7 vols., México: El Colegio de México–El Colegio Nacional, 1984–1995]. Zorita, Alonso de. Los señores de la Nueva España. México City: UNAM, 1963 [Life and Labor in Ancient Mexico: The Brief and Summary Relation of the Lords of New Spain by . . . , trans. and with an introduction by Benjamin Keen. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994].

310 —

INDEX

INDEX

Acámbaro, 122 Acapulco, 58 Acayuca, 36 Acculturation, 27, 31 Acolman, 182 Actopan, 89 Agave cultivation, 189–90, 194 Agriculture, 39, 260; colonial focus on, 154–56; common land and, 176, 179; encomienda and, 111–12; enterprises, 116, 118; labor used in, 222, 247(n158), 254(n215); livestock and, 119, 123, 144(n150), 145(n174), 146(n178); Tacuba, 187, 189; Tejada’s enterprises, 152, 153, 193–201; Tlatelolco, 189–90. See also Stock raising Aguatlán, 85 Ajacuba, 83, 85 Alamán, Licenciado, 212 Alberti, Batiste, 215 Albornoz, Bernardino de, 83 Albornoz, Rodrigo de, 54, 55, 73(n148), 129 Alcaldes mayores, 95, 96, 114, 125, 126 Alexander the Sixth, Pope, 2

Almaguer, Antonio de, 87, 98 Alonso, Hernando, 170 Altamirano, Licenciado, 83–84 Alvarado, Pedro de, 130–31 Amecameca, 181, 224 Amula, 88 Anchestac, 173 Ancon ranch, 120 Andalucia, 155 Andrade, Beatriz de, 124 Antilles, 4 Antonio, Don, 185 Apaceo, 122, 125 Arceo, 83 Archivo General de Indias, 7, 8 Archivo General de la Nación de México, 8 Arellano, Tristán de, 111 Astapa, 122 Atenco, 163 Aticpac, 112 Atlixco, 223 Atlixco, Valley of, 40, 129 Audiencias, 1–2, 6, 7–8. See also First Audiencia; Second Audiencia Ayala, Pirulero, 201

— 311 —

— 311

INDEX

Azcapotzalco, 93, 243(n117); labor from, 198, 221, 222, 231, 233, 253(n210), 254(n215); land appropriation in, 154, 155, 164, 165, 188, 191–93, 194, 235(n10), 243–44(nn121, 129); Tejada’s land in, 158, 194 Aztecs, tributes to, 53, 179 Baquizuata ranch, 120 Barrios, Andrés de, 93, 171, 238(n42) Bazán, Alonso de, 214 Bazán, Pedro de, 59 Bazán, Rodrigo, 38, 69(n100) Bejarano, Serván, 121, 145(n165) Betanzos, Friar, 27, 66(n57) Bravo, Antonio, 163 Bureaucracy: colonial, 3, 4–6, 21; social ties in, 92–95 Burgos, Juan de, 90, 171 Burkholder, Mark A., 5 Caballerías, 198; grants of, 154, 156, 158, 178, 180, 186, 233 Cabeza de Vaca, Alvar Nuñez, 130 Caciques, 23, 53, 183 Cadena, Antonio de la, 45, 70(n122), 72(n144), 112, 148(n206), 163, 198, 200 Calderón, Rodrigo, 83–84 Calnahuac, 173, 178 Calpan, 40 Calpisque, 38, 44 Calpulaque, 186 Cano, Juan, 163, 185–86 Cárcamo de Figueroa, Francisco, 109 Carlos, Don, 17 Carrizal ranch, 120 Carvajal, Antonio de, 36, 44, 68(n91), 70(n119) Carvajal, Francisco, 59 Carvajal, Juan de, 87 Casas, Bartolomé de las, 16, 39, 77 Castañeda, Rodrigo de, 45, 72(n144) Castile, 2, 3, 95, 96 Castilla, Luis de, 83, 85, 93, 94, 98, 111, 200, 219 Castillo, Alonso del, 98 Castillo, Bernardino del, 111–12 Castro, Baltazar de, 54, 72(n143) Cattle, 42, 117, 118, 153; agricultural lands and, 123, 144(n150), 145(n174); legal issues of, 119–20 Cazalla, Alonso de, 152, 235(n1) Centralization, in colonial government, 30– 31 Cerda, Hernando de la, 172

312 —

Cervantes de Salazar, Francisco, 244(n132); on trading houses, 212–13, 215, 216 Ceynos, Francisco, 13, 24, 37, 59, 61(n2), 65–66(n55), 94, 200; and Juan de Samano, 91, 93; on tribute issues, 54, 73(n163) Chalco, 1; land acquisition in, 163, 164, 165, 167, 171, 187, 188–89, 190, 233–34; Tejada’s land in, 158, 172–85 Chandler, Dewitt Samuel, 5 Chapultepec, 117, 153, 195, 244(n132); land acquisition in, 156, 158, 167, 177, 188, 190, 192 Charles V, 31, 77, 114 Chiautla, 170 Chichimecas, 124, 127, 147(n198) Chichomehuatepec, 112 Chiconautla, 46 Chilchota, 91–92 Chimalhuacán, 181 Chinantla, 167 Chiuapa, 171 Cholula, 40, 98, 112 Christianity, conversion to, 2, 27, 31 Cilacayopan, 84 Coatepec, 84, 85 Coatlán, 88 Cocoa production, 112 Cocoliztli, 221 Codices, 1–2, 165, 171, 234 Colima, 83, 131 Colonial system, 2, 8, 14, 153; agriculture, 154–56; bureaucracy, 3–6; centralization of, 30–31; corregimiento in, 42–51; encomienda in, 32–39; Puebla de los Angeles and, 39–42; Second Audiencia and, 15, 257–58; slavery and, 22–24; tribute in, 51–56 Colotepec, 88, 93 Commerce, 152, 171 Communities, Indian, 19–20, 189, 242(n107). See also Towns, Indian Conquistadores, 31, 45, 77, 179; and encomiendas, 33, 35, 36; land grants and, 154, 155; and Puebla de los Angeles, 40, 41, 42; repartimiento for, 26, 37 Consejo de Indias, 3, 4, 63(n24) Constables, 29 Contreras, Alcalde, 126 Conversion, 27, 28, 29 Coronado, Francisco Vázquez de, 83, 90, 93, 130, 134, 148(n219), 219 Coronel, Juan, 122, 129 Corregidores, 8, 27, 38, 70(n117), 85, 95, 123, 153, 155, 170, 181; activities of, 44–

INDEX

46, 71(nn 127, 128); encomenderos as, 34, 44, 47, 83–84, 99–108(table), 111–13, 115(map), 142–43(n111), 182; jurisdiction of, 114, 116; mobility of, 96–97; regulations on, 46–47; salaries of, 43, 52 Corregimiento, 13, 15, 57, 79, 83, 84, 259; Mendoza and, 77, 96–110, 111–16; origins of, 95–96; in Peru, 110–11; Second Audiencia and, 42–47, 51, 70– 71(nn117, 118, 119, 122, 128); tribute from, 26, 48–50(table), 52, 55 Cortés, Hernán, 46, 52, 55, 85, 131, 132, 148–49(nn206, 223); and encomienda, 32– 33; labor use, 58, 224; sugar industry, 129, 148(n206) Cortés, Martín, 212 Cortés Totoquihuaztli, Antonio, 186, 187 Council of the Indies, 18, 30, 32 Coyoacán, 117; Indian labor from, 195, 196, 221, 222, 232, 245(n135), 253(n212) Coyuca, 87 Crown, 3, 88, 116, 120, 136(n7), 139– 40(n62), 250(n192), 258; and colonial government, 5, 6, 28, 76; corregimiento and, 42–51, 97, 114; and encomienda, 32– 39, 76–77, 88; fiscal policy of, 216, 218; Indian labor and, 219, 250(n194); and Puebla de los Angeles, 39–42; tribute to, 31, 51–56 Cruz, Juan de la, 124, 146(n178) Cuajimalpa, 163, 164, 195–96 Cuauhtinchan, 87, 243(n117) Cuautitlán, 222 Cuernavaca Indians, 55 Cuestlahuaca, 112 Cuevas, Juan de, 54, 64(n35), 65–66(nn41, 55), 70(n122), 72(n143), 92, 188, 214 Cuimantlán, 171 Cuitlahuac, 54, 92 Culhuacan, 196, 221, 222, 223, 232 Cuzamala, 90, 171 Delgadillo, Diego, 28, 60–61(n1) Díaz, Diego, 185 Díaz de Aux, Miguel, 43, 46, 65–66(nn41, 55), 70(n117), 93 Diego, Don, 24, 59, 74(n164), 184–85, 341(n90) Dominicans, 4, 27–28, 66(nn57, 63) Dowries, 248(n166); encomiendas obtained through, 88, 89, 93, 112 Drunkenness, 27 Economic development, 116, 134–35; Mendoza and, 76–82

Economics, 20, 46; encomienda, 33, 36, 37– 38; politics and, 151–52 Economy: colonial, 5, 111–12; Indian labor and, 56–57; livestock raising and, 117– 26; Tejada’s enterprises and, 152, 260; textile industry and, 126–28; and trade, 132–33, 211–16; tribute in, 51–56 El Paso ranch, 120 Encomenderos, 4, 6, 8, 52, 69(n91), 234–35, 237(n28), 259; abuse of Indians by, 38, 69(n100); and corregimiento, 43–51, 98, 99– 108(table), 109, 110, 111–13, 142–43(n111), 182; and Crown jurisdiction, 35, 42; Indian labor and, 57–60; land and, 153, 155, 156; marriages of, 86–87; Viceroy Mendoza and, 76–82, 83, 84–86, 89–91; power of, 13, 14; relationships of, 92–95; and Second Audiencia, 36–37, 114 Encomiendas, 15, 111, 112, 113(map), 114, 115(map), 181, 258, 259; alternatives to, 39–43; labor for, 58–59; Mendoza and, 76–82, 116–35; purchase of, 89–91, 139(n53); regulation of, 4, 32–40; Indian towns and, 83–95 Epidemics (plagues), 84–85, 211, 221 Estates: labor used on, 222–23, 232–33; Tejada’s agricultural, 193–201, 211 Estrada, Alonso de, 90 Estrada, Luisa de, 188 Evangelization, 26 Exploration companies, 219; Mendoza and, 129–31, 134, 148(n219) Families, 237(n28); bureaucratic ties of, 92–93 Famine, 22 Farms. See Agriculture; Estates Ferdinand and Isabella, 15, 95, 96 Fiestas, 94–95 First Audiencia, 13, 15, 20, 21, 26, 33, 35, 52, 60–61(n1), 63(n24), 65(n39), 258; and Second Audiencia hearings, 28–29; and Zumárraga, 16–17, 18 Fiscal policy, Crown, 216, 218 Florescano, Enrique, 215 Franciscans, 40, 59, 66(n63); and First Audiencia, 18, 258; and Second Audiencia, 26–27, 28–29, 66(n56) Francisco, Don, 185–86; imprisonment of, 224, 230 Francisco (locksmith), 163 Franco, Juan, 232 Fruit trees, 194–95, 198 Fuenleal, Sebastián Ramírez de, 13, 14, 15, 18, 26, 31, 56, 58, 61(n2), 66(n57), 68(n95),

— 313

INDEX

118, 154, 257–58; and corregimiento, 44, 46; and encomienda, 34, 35, 37–38, 42, 77; Indian jurisdiction and, 29–30 Gallegos, Francisco, 211 Gambling, 94 Garces, Julian, 39 García, Pedro, 26, 65(n50) General Archive of Mexico, 8 General Archives of the Indies, 7, 8 Genovés, Cataño, 133 Genovés, Lorenzo, 112 Gold, as tribute, 77 Gómez, Gonzalo, 127, 128 Gómez, Rodrigo, 45–46, 71(n124), 86 Gómez de Avila, Rodrigo, 89 Gómez de Betanzos, Gonzalo, 219 Gómez Maraver, Pedro, 125 González, Ruy, 124, 197, 214, 246(n152) Grants, 198; land, 154, 155, 156, 158, 178, 180; ranch, 118–19; royal, 153, 164, 167, 181, 233–34; water, 196, 197 Guachinango, 211 Guaonteo, 185 Guaspaltepeque, 83 Guatemala, 23 Guaxolotitlán, 111, 112 Gudiel, Francisco, 158, 163, 198, 146(n149) Guerrero, 122, 183 Guerrero, Agustín, 127, 128, 133, 134, 145(n168) Guerrero, Juan Martínez, 86, 89 Guevara, Diego de, 125 Gutiérrez, Alonso, 163 Guzmán, Nuño de, 16, 28, 60–61(n1), 66(n59), 69–70(n112) Helgueta, Hernando de, 43, 65–66(n55) Hernandez de Navarrete, Pedro, 36–37 Hernando, Don, 186, 241(n90) Hidalgo, 83, 90, 119, 123, 146(n178) Horse raising, 117, 120, 121, 122–23, 133– 34, 144(n150) Hospitales-pueblo, 32 Huatlatlauca, 98 Huatulco, 131 Huejotzingo, 40, 41, 111 Hueypustla, 93, 165 Hueytenango, 171 Huitzilopochco, 196, 221, 222, 232 Huizuco, 55 Humanism, Christian, 6, 15 Igualapa, 112 Indians, 8, 13, 21, 46, 51, 63(n20), 65(n42), 69(n100), 78, 127, 180, 233;

314 —

access to justice system for, 19–20, 64(n30); appropriation of land from, 153–72; complaints against Tejada by, 171–72; encomienda and, 33, 34, 37–39, 79, 83–95; labor of, 165, 167, 202– 6(table), 214, 218–27, 230–33; land tenure and, 151, 243(nn111, 113); lawsuits by, 172–73; population decline of, 84–85; protection of, 4, 6, 14, 15–17, 38, 77, 258–59; and Puebla de los Angeles, 40–42; rights of, 19–20, 44, 45; stock raising and, 119, 123, 124, 145(n174), 146(n178); Tacuba lands and, 183–93; as tenants, 176–77 Infante, Juan de, 93 “Información de Derecho” (Quiroga), 31 Inheritance, of encomiendas, 86, 87–88 Interpreters (nahuatlato), 25–26, 83, 167, 176, 183, 192–93 Irrigation system: labor for, 221–22, 224, 230–31, 232; for Tejada’s estate, 195–98; and water rights, 246(nn149, 151, 152) Isidro, Antonio, 163 Ixcateopan, 122 Iztapalapa, 195, 221, 222 Jalisco, 88, 109, 130, 133, 167 Jiménez de Cisneros, Francisco, 16 Jiquilpa, 92 Jonotla, 87, 98 Juan “the One-Eyed,” 37, 190 Judges, 29, 38; alcaldes mayor as, 95, 96; stock raising issues and, 119–20. See also Oidores Jurisdiction, 28, 44; corregimiento and, 47, 51; of Crown, 34, 35–36, 38, 42, 47, 258; local, 29–31, 32; municpal, 170–71 Jurisprudence, colonial, 7–8 Justice system, Indian access to, 19–20, 64(n30) Justlaguaca, 111 Labor, 34, 109, 198, 250(n194); forced, 1, 14, 35, 41, 127–28, 185, 186, 230, 259; Indian, 14, 165, 167, 219, 244(n132), 247(n158), 251–52(n204), 253(n210), 254–55(n220); payment for, 231–33, 252–54(nn207, 209, 210–19); ranch, 122–23; Second Audiencia policy on, 56–60; tameme, 35, 46, 58, 109, 223, 250(n194), 254–55(nn220–23); Tejada’s use of, 194–95, 196, 202–6(table), 214, 218–27 Land, 2, 25, 44, 129, 235–36(nn10, 20), 244(n129); in Chalco, 172–81; grants of,

INDEX

233–34; Moctezuma’s, 181–82; Peralta’s distribution of, 180–81; for Puebla de los Angeles, 39, 40; rental of, 176–77; sales of, 235(n10), 237(n25), 248(n162); for stock raising, 119–20; in Tacuba, 183– 93; Tejada’s acquisition of, 153–72, 233; Tejada’s interest in, 151, 200–201; in Tlaxcala, 41–42 Languages, Indian, 8, 9 Lawsuits, 20, 165; Indian, 19, 24–26, 172– 73 Legal system, 2, 8; colonial, 3–4; land acquisition in, 164–65; Tejada’s manipulation of, 153–54, 164–65, 171– 72 León, 95 León, Jerónimo de, 211 León, Ponce de, 52 León Pinelo, Antonio de, 85, 111 Leyes de Burgos, 4, 33 Leyes Nuevas. See New Laws Livestock, 119. See also Cattle; Sheep; Stock raising Loa, Guillén de, 86, 87 Loaysa, Diego de, 88, 93 Loaysa, Francisco de, 61(n2), 63(n24), 65(n54), 94, 118; encomenderos and, 88, 93 López, Gerónimo, 41, 65(n41), 68(n91), 69(n100), 70(n122), 71(n124), 72(n143), 83, 85 Lords, Indian, 19, 20, 28–30, 44, 53 Lucas, Alonso, 90 Loyalty, 28, 31 Luna, Gaspar de, 185, 230 Luzena, Francisco, 163 Macehuales, 176, 182, 184, 191 Maguey cultivation, 189–90, 194 Malazatepec, 223 Maldonado, Alonso, 13, 54, 61(n2), 72(n143), 93, 94 Maldonado, Francisco, 60–61(n1), 93, 111, 112, 114 Malvenda, Alonso de, 163 Manzanares, Juan de, 91, 93, 163, 165, 167, 171, 199, 201, 211, 237(n29), 238(n42) Maravatío, 120, 121–22, 123, 145(n168) Marketplaces, 29, 152 Marriage, 45, 111, 248(n166); encomiendas and, 86–87, 89, 93 Martin, Don, 30 Matalcingo River, 196 Matalcingo Valley, 117

Matlacinco, 120 Matlatla, 122–23 Maturana, Alejo, 128 Mayeques, 25 Mayordoms, 38, 44 Mazatlán, 83 Medias, 176 Medina, Jerónimo de, 171 Medinilla, Pedro de, 87, 93 Mejía, Francisca, 188 Melchor, Gaspar, 212 Melgar, Francisco, 170 Mendoza, Antonio de, 6, 7, 59, 60, 61(n2), 68(n91), 94, 134, 185, 190, 200, 218, 250(n192), 251(n196), 259–60; corregimiento appointments and, 96–110, 111–16; encomienda and, 76–82, 83, 84– 87, 89–91, 92–93; exploration companies and, 129–31, 148(n219); Indian land claims and, 173, 178; land distribution by, 155, 156, 180, 181, 235–36(n10); stock raising, 117–26, 144(n158), 145(n167); and Tejada’s enterprises, 153, 172, 180, 196, 212, 232; and textile industry, 126–28; and trade, 132–33, 215; as viceroy, 75, 135(n1), 136(n7), 139–40(n62) Mendoza, Francisco de, 129, 134 Mendoza, Martín de, 192 Meneses, Pedro de, 45, 70–71(n122), 72(n143), 88, 93, 183–84 Mercedes, 153 Merchants, 201 Mérida, Alonso de, 90–91, 93, 163, 211; land acquisition by, 190, 198, 237(n25); Mendoza’s ranches and, 121, 145(n167) Mesta system, 118 Metepec, 83 Metlatoyuca, 112 Mexicalcingo, 98, 111, 195, 196; labor from, 221, 222, 223, 230–31, 232, 245(n135), 253–54(nn210, 213, 219, 220) Mexican Association of Cattle Breeders, 118 Mexico, Valley of, 153; Indian labor from, 219, 221, 222; land acquisition in, 156, 158, 174–75(table). See also various towns, locales by name Mexico City, 40, 68(nn91, 95), 84, 117, 152, 197, 198, 219, 230, 246(n152); labor in, 58, 177; land exchange in, 164, 173; marketplace judges in, 29–30; Municipal Council of, 36, 45, 64(n35), 118, 154–55, 164; slaves in, 24–25; trading houses in, 212–16

— 315

INDEX

Mexico City Indians, and Tacuba land, 183, 184–85, 186, 190 Meztitlán, 43, 90, 93, 171, 211 Michoacán, 43, 167, 219; encomiendas in, 83, 87, 91, 92; stock raising in, 117, 121, 123, 126; tribute from, 55–56 Mills, 153; Tejada’s, 170, 195; water for, 195, 197, 198 Mines, mining, 4, 85, 156, 170, 218, 247(n157), 250(n192); agricultural supplies for, 198–99; encomiendas and, 91–92, 93, 111, 112, 114; Indian slaves and, 23, 64(n36), 73(n158); Tejada and, 193, 211 Minzapa, 112 Mitlaltongo, 171 Mixcatlaylutla, 29 Mixquic, 223 Mixtón War, 109, 111, 125, 147(n198), 148–49(n223); slaves taken during, 127– 28, 147(n198) Moctezuma, 30, 31; lands of, 176, 178, 181–82, 186; tribute system of, 52, 53 Moctezuma, Isabel de, 186 Molango, 170 Molina, Pedro, 170 Monasteries, Dominican, 27–28 Montealegre, López de, 1 Montejo, Francisco de, 93 Morelos, 112 Moreno, Isidro de, 38, 55, 69(n100) Moscoso, Juan, 87 Mulberry trees, 118, 194 Municipal Council (Mexico City), 36, 45, 64(n35), 118; jurisdiction of, 170–71; land distribution, 154–55, 164 Municipal courts, 29 Nabori Indians, 128 Nahuatlatos, 83 Nahualitos, 25–26 Navidad, 131 Negros, as slaves, 211 New Galicia, 91, 130; Coronado in, 90, 130; stock raising in, 119, 125–26 New Laws (1542), 6, 10(n3), 77, 84, 86, 122, 216; corregimiento and, 97, 98; Indian labor and, 218, 219, 220, 251– 52(n204), 252–53(n209) Nobles, Indian, 31, 186, 224; controlling, 28–29; land control and, 153, 156, 176, 184, 190–91; local jurisdication and, 29– 30 Nopala, 111 Nuñez, Diego de, 163

316 —

Oaxaca, 58, 112, 114, 131, 171; encomiendas in, 88, 181; stock raising, 118, 123 Ocoaritareo ranch, 120 Ocotlán, 112 Ocuytuco, 112 Ocuyuca, 186 Officials, 3, 4–5, 20, 43, 139–40(n62), 247– 48(n161). See also by type Oidores, 1, 4, 5, 64(n30), 94, 152; corregidor appointments by, 45–46; false accusations against, 36–37; and judicial system, 20, 38; and Second Audiencia, 13, 17–18; slavery lawsuits and, 23, 24. See also by name Olive groves, 163 Olmos, Andrés de, 26 Ometepec, 112 Orchards, 171, 186, 194–95 Ordaz, Diego de, 42 Orduña, Francisco de, 72(n144), 112 Orizaba, 122–23, 129 Ortiz, Antonio de, 163, 167, 192, 231, 243(n121) Ortiz de Zuñiga, Alonso, 163 Oseguera, Dr., 188 Osorio, Pedro, 88, 109 Otumba, 46, 181, 222, 254(n216) Oztoticpac, 129 Ozumba, 122 Pachuca, 112 Pacification, 24 Pánuco, 43 Patlanola, 84 Patlatlan, 92 Paz, Alonso de, 88, 93, 94 Peña, Francisco de la, 5 Pena Vallejo, Juan de la, 163 Perales, Bartolomé de, 86, 87 Peralta, Martín de, 123, 172, 173, 180– 81 Pérez de Bocanegra, Hernán, 121, 122, 134 Pérez Román, Cristobal, 163 Personal service, 218; encomienda, 33, 34, 112; Indian, 14, 34, 40, 211, 219; in ranching, 122–23; of Tlaxcala Indians, 41, 42 Peru, 110–11, 131, 244(n123) Philip III, 94 Pictorial records (pinturas), 1–2, 234, 244(n128); land issues and, 165, 171 Pig raising, 117 Pitecate, Miguel, 188 Pizarro, Gonzalo, 131

INDEX

Politics, 32, 78, 117; corregidores and, 96– 97; economic development and, 116, 151–52; Franciscans and, 26–27 Population decline, 84–85, 221 Ports, 131, 132 Profit, 2 Protector, authority of, 16–18 Protectorate, 61(n6); elimination of, 15–16, 18–19 Puebla, 87, 109, 118 Puebla de los Angeles, 134, 194; founding of, 26, 39–40, 154 Puerta, Juan de la, 213–14, 231 Pulque, 189, 243(n111) Punishments, 27, 65–66(n55) Queretaro, 126, 146(n178) Quintero, Francisco, 92 Quesada, Oidor, 224 Quiroga, Vasco de, 13, 31, 32, 45, 55, 61(n2), 64(n30), 93, 126, 152; and labor policies, 59–60; and slavery, 21, 22–25, 64(n36) Quisimay, 124 Ramírez, Diego, 109, 182, 211 Ranches, ranching, 4, 112, 166, 180, 211; grants for, 118–19; Mendoza’s, 120–21, 144(n158), 145(n168); sales of, 121–22; income from, 125–26; Tejada’s, 156, 176. See also Stock raising Rebellion, 114, 147(n198). See also Mixtón War Rebolledo Hernandez, Ana, 36–37 Regidores, 29 Rent: of Indian lands, 176–77; of tribute, 211 Renouncement, encomiendas obtained by, 89 Renunciation, 79 Repartimientos, 26, 33, 34, 35, 43, 58, 68(n91), 77, 78, 87, 155; and encomienda grants, 83, 88; Fuenleal and, 37, 38 Residencia hearings, Tejada’s, 158, 163, 172 Revenue, 14, 36, 51 Rijoles, Tomás, 192, 212, 243(n121) Rincón, Francisco del, 163 Rivas, Gregorio de, 212 Rodríguez, Francisco, 92, 163 Rodríguez Magarino, Francisco, 87 Rodríguez Parrón, Pedro, 163, 243(n111) Romero, Marcos, 230–31 Ronquillo, Gonzalo, 188 Rosales, Francisco, 112 Royal Mint, 211; Alonso de Mérida and, 90–91

Royal Orders (1549), 216, 218 Royal Treasury, 6, 14, 23, 85, 257, 258; and encomienda, 33, 36; labor and, 60, 219– 20; tribute and, 51, 54, 55 Royal Tribunal, 58 Ruiz, Gonzalo, 83, 84, 248(n162) Ruiz de la Mota, Jerónimo, 72(n143), 171 Saavedra, Lope de, 43 Salamanca, Cristóbal de, 88, 93, 94 Salaries, 20, 57, 135(n1), 139–40(n62), 152; of corregidores, 43, 45, 46, 96; of interpreters, 25–26 Salazar, Gonzalo (Hernando) de, 127, 129, 163, 198 Salazar, Juan Velázquez de, 96 Salmerón, Juan de, 13, 31, 36, 61(n2), 68(n91); and Puebla de los Angeles, 40, 41 Samano, Juan de, 91, 92, 93, 165, 200 Sánchez, Francisco, 163 Sánchez Puñalero, Francisco, 232, 237(n25), 246(n149) Sandoval, Francisco de, 172, 178 Sandoval, Pedro de, 165, 177, 199, 201, 248(n162) Sandoval, Tello de, 6–7, 85, 93, 94, 110, 121, 128, 130, 197; Indian labor issues, 28, 220, 221, 231; and Tacuba lands, 185–86, 241–42(n97); as visitor, 135– 36(n5), 158, 170, 180, 184, 251(n196) San Hipólito, 212, 214 San Juan (Mexico City), 24–25 San Juan de Ulúa, 132, 133 San Juan Moyotlán, 212, 213–14 San Juan Itámaro, 129 San Miguel, 126 San Pablo (Mexico City), 25, 164 Santa Fe, 32, 197 Santiago, Pablo de, 177, 178 Santiago, 131 Santiago Camotlan, 170 Santiago Tlatelolco, 29, 173, 183; and Azcapotzalco, 192, 243–44(n121); land in, 177, 241(n90); Tacuba land and, 184, 185, 186, 187–93. See also Tlatelolco Santillán, Hernando de, 93, 124, 125(map), 146(n180), 163, 171, 198 Santo Domingo, 15, 16, 258 Scribes, 46 Second Audiencia, 6, 14, 61(n2), 70(n113), 110, 154, 251–52(n204), 257– 58; corregimiento and, 42–51, 70– 71(nn117, 118, 119, 122, 126, 128), 98, 109; Dominicans and, 27–28; on

— 317

INDEX

encomiendas, 34–42, 76, 83, 92–93, 114; Franciscans and, 26–27, 28–29, 66(n56); government centralization and, 30–31; Indian labor and, 56–60; Indian lands and, 172–73; Indian rights and, 19–20, 258–59; instructions to, 20–21; lawsuit inspection, 24–25; purpose of, 13, 15; on slavery, 21–24; social relationships and, 94–95; tribute policy of, 51–56; and viceroy, 75–76; Zumárraga and, 17–18 Sheep raising, 120, 121, 126, 128, 147(n197) Shipping industry, 131 Silkworms, 118 Silver production, 77, 85, 118, 211 Slavery, 21–23, 35, 211, 259 Slaves, 21, 28, 46, 63–65(nn28, 35, 36, 37), 73(n158), 211; freeing, 22–25; and Mixtón War, 127–28; selling selves as, 59–60 Sochiguatla, 170 Social relationships, bureacracy and, 94–95 Sosa, Juan Alonso de, 72(n143), 84–85, 124, 137–38(n31) Sotomayor, Pedro Díaz de, 112 Sotomayor, Pedro Méndez de, 121 Spain, 30; agriculture in, 155–56 Spice trade, 134 Stock raising, 116, 144(n150), 146(n178), 156, 260; Viceroy Mendoza and, 117– 126 Suchitlahuaca, 112 Sugar industry, 111, 129, 134, 148(n206) Sultepec, 85 Tacuba, 1, 112, 153, 176, 197, 260; labor from, 198, 221, 222, 224, 230, 254(n214); land appropriation in, 154, 155, 156, 158, 163–64, 165, 167, 170–71, 183–93, 235(n10), 241–42(nn90, 97); local Indians in, 185–87 Tacuba River, 196 Tacubaya, 84, 188, 243(n117); labor from, 196, 253(n211); land distribution in, 155, 177, 235(n10) Tajimaroa, 129 Talasco, 26 Talnocopan, 83 Tameme, 35, 46, 58, 109; use of, 223, 250(n194), 254–55(nn220, 221, 222, 223) Tapalcatetelco, 172, 173, 177, 181 Tapia, Hernando de, 163, 167, 181, 232, 238(n34), 243(n111)

318 —

Tataluava, 84 Taxation, 46, 132, 133 Taxco, 88, 201, 247(n157); mines in, 85, 93, 111, 193, 250(n192); and Tejada’s farm, 198–99 Taxco-Tenango, 109 Taymeo, 92 Tecamachalco, 122 Tecomastlahuaca, 112 Tehuacán, 109 Tejada, Lorenzo de (father, oidor), 1, 2, 91, 93, 94, 145(n16), 147(n197), 152, 235(n1), 247(n157), 260; acquisition of land by, 153–72, 217(table), 233–35; agricultural enterprises, 193–201; building projects, 207–10(table); Chalco land and, 172–85; enterprises of, 7–8, 134, 151, 260; and Indian lands, 176–77; Indian labor used by, 202–6(table), 216, 218–27, 230–33, 254(nn214–20); irrigation system of, 196–98, 246(nn149, 151); legal system and, 171–72; and Mendoza’s ranches, 120–21; Tacuba land and, 183–93; trading ventures of, 211–16 Tejada, Lorenzo de (son), 216 Tejada, María, 201 Telléz, Diego, 27, 65–66(n55), 88, 163 Telléz, Manuel, 88 Temazcaltepec, 193 Tempoal, 43 Tenango, 77, 90; corregidor of, 88, 112; land in, 172, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 188, 190 Tenants, Indians as, 176–77 Tenayuca, 84, 85, 154, 223, 224, 243(n117) Tenochtitlan, 4 Teotitla, 112 Teozapotlán, 111, 112 Tepaca, 56 Tepeajusco hill, 196 Tepeapulco, 119, 120, 123, 181 Tepecuacuilco, 109 Tepeji, 222, 254(n217) Tepemaxalco, 83 Tepetitango, 83 Tepetlaoztoc, 38, 43, 46, 69(n100) Tepexpa, 223 Tepeyacuilco, 88 Tepopula, 188 Teposcolula, 112 Terrazgueros, 176, 180 Territory, colonial control of, 2, 3 Testimonies, types of, 7–8 Tetequipa, 112

INDEX

Teutila, 88 Texcoco, 17, 111, 128, 134; labor from, 195, 224, 244(n132); textile industry in, 126, 127 Textile industry, 147(n197); Mendoza and, 126–28 Texts, Indian language, 8, 9 Tezuatlán, 123 Theft, by corregidores, 45–46 Tianguis, 152 Tithes, from ranches, 125–26 Tlacozautitlán, 124 Tlalmanalco, 1; land acqusition in, 172–73, 176–77, 180, 181, 182 Tlanchinolticpan, 171 Tlapa, 44, 56, 83, 90, 111, 170 Tlapalcatepec, 43 Tlaltenalco, 185 Tlatelolco Indians, land appropriation and, 163, 164, 167, 177–78, 183, 184, 186, 187–93 Tlatelolco, 1, 24, 37; Indian nobles in, 153, 156; land acquisition in, 164, 171. See also Santiago Tlatelolco Tlatelolco school, 27 Tlaxcala, 69(n108), 123; land tenure in, 41–42; and Puebla de los Angeles, 39, 40–41 Tlaxcaltitlán, 90 Tollimán, 124, 125 Toluca, 118, 186, 193, 211 Tonalá, 84, 85, 91 Tonaltepeque, 170 Torres, Hernando de, 87, 88 Totolapa, 222 Town councils, 21 Towns, Indian, 110, 124, 228–29(table); encomienda and, 79, 83, 92–95; labor from, 221–23, 225–33; land appropriation and, 186–87; purchase of, 89–91; swaps of, 91–92; and Tejada’s projects, 207–10(table); transfers of, 86–89 Trade, 132–33, 134; Tejada’s ventures in, 201, 211–16 Trading houses, 223; in Mexico City, 212– 16 Translators, 25–26 Transportation: of goods, 58, 109, 131–33; labor used in, 223, 224 Treasurer, Juan Alonso de Sosa as, 84–85, 137–38(n31) Triana, Francisco de, 176, 178, 183, 188, 194, 196, 244(n132) Trias, Gerónimo, 163 Tribute, 4, 14, 26, 31, 69–70(n112),

73(nn148, 163), 77, 95, 173, 176, 179, 182, 211; corregimiento and, 43, 48– 50(table), 85, 109; encomiendas and, 33, 34, 46, 69(n100), 77, 91–92, 112, 114; Second Audiencia policy on, 51–56, 77; Tlaxcala’s, 41, 69(n108) Tristán, Diego, 212 Tuctepeque, 84 Tudela, Juan Domingo de, 216 Tuetenango, 171 Tula, 222 Turcios, Antonio de, 124, 212 Tutepec, 111 Tututepeque, 83 Tuxpan, 43 Tuxtla, 129 Ucareo, 121 University of Salamanca, 3 Uprisings, 131, 148–49(n223). See also Mixtón War Valdivieso, Millán de, 54, 55, 72(n143) Valenciano, Pedro, 163, 165, 237(nn25, 30) Valles, Marqués del. See Cortés, Hernán Varela, Pedro, 132–33 Vargas, Pedro, 163 Vázquez de Tapia, Bernardino, 44, 64(n35), 65–66(nn41, 55), 68(n91), 70(n119), 72(n143) Velasco, Luis de, 98, 119, 130 Veracruz, 85, 112, 128, 129; ranching in, 120, 122; as port of trade, 132–33 Viceroy: and encomienda, 4, 78–79; role of, 75–76 Villaroel, Francisco de, 182 Villaseca, Alonso de, 211, 212, 213, 215– 16, 232, 248(n166) Vineyards, 163, 193, 194, 195, 247(n158); Tejada’s, 198, 199–200 Water, for Tejada’s estate, 195–97 Water rights, 153; Tejada’s irrigation system and, 196–98, 246(nn149, 151, 152) Wealth, 2, 6, 36, 127, 220, 233 West Indies, Castilian control of, 2, 33 Wheat production, 155, 193, 194, 198, 201 Widows, 86, 87–88, 111 Wine trade, 167, 199–200, 201 Wool mlls, 126–28 Work, regulating, 56–60. See also Labor Xalxucatitlán, 92

— 319

INDEX

Xilotepec, stock raising in, 119, 123–24, 125, 126, 146(n178) Ximilpan, 198, 211, 221; agave cultivation in, 189–90; Indian barrio in, 183–84, 248(n162); Tejada’s estate at, 193–201; Tejada’s land acquisition in, 156, 158, 166(table), 173, 177–78, 188, 193 Xochimilco, 194, 214 Xuchitacan, 177, 178, 179, 188 Yeitecomal, 92

320 —

Zacatecas, 211 Zacatlán, 44 Zacatula, 92, 117 Zamora, Alvarao de, 83 Zarate, Bartolomé de, 92 Zavala, Silvio, 85, 216 Zinacantepec, 91–92, 93, 165 Zorita, Alonso de, 43, 176–77, 179 Zumárraga, Juan de, 52, 258; as protector of the Indians, 16–17; Second Audiencia and, 17–18, 26

Reshaping New Spain: Government And Private Interests in the Colonial Bureaucracy, 1535-1550

The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government

New Parties in Government

Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy

Reshaping Australia's Local Government: Finance, Governance and Reform

Toward New Partnerships In Remote Sensing: Government, the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research

Defending Interests: Public-Private Partnerships in W.T.O. Litigation

Bentham and Bureaucracy

Reshaping Australia's Local Government: Finance, Governance and Reform

Bach, Beethoven and Bureaucracy

The new bureaucracy: Quality Assurance and Its Critics

The Innovative Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy in an Age of Fluidity: The Innovative Bureaucracy (Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organizations and Technology)

Colonial Self-Government, 1652-1689 (1st edition)

New Mexico Government

Bureaucracy and Development Administration

Bureaucracy and public administration

The Goths in Spain

Reshaping Reason: Toward A New Philosophy

Bureaucracy in From Max Weber

Reshaping Reason: Toward a New Philosophy

New Amsterdam (Colonial Settlements in America)

New Amsterdam (Colonial Settlements in America)

Etransformation in Governance: New Directions in Government and Politics

The Values of Bureaucracy

The Values of Bureaucracy

Private Capital Markets: Valuation, Capitalization, and Transfer of Private Business Interests

Policy Bureaucracy: Government with a Cast of Thousands

Apogee of Empire: Spain and New Spain in the Age of Charles III, 1759--1789

New Spain, New Literatures (Hispanic Issues)

Reshaping New Spain: Government And Private Interests in the Colonial Bureaucracy, 1535-1550

The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government

New Parties in Government

Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy

Reshaping Australia's Local Government: Finance, Governance and Reform

Toward New Partnerships In Remote Sensing: Government, the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research

Defending Interests: Public-Private Partnerships in W.T.O. Litigation

Bentham and Bureaucracy

Reshaping Australia's Local Government: Finance, Governance and Reform

Bach, Beethoven and Bureaucracy

The new bureaucracy: Quality Assurance and Its Critics

The Innovative Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy in an Age of Fluidity: The Innovative Bureaucracy (Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organizations and Technology)

Colonial Self-Government, 1652-1689 (1st edition)

New Mexico Government

Bureaucracy and Development Administration

Bureaucracy and public administration

The Goths in Spain

Reshaping Reason: Toward A New Philosophy

Bureaucracy in From Max Weber

Reshaping Reason: Toward a New Philosophy

New Amsterdam (Colonial Settlements in America)

New Amsterdam (Colonial Settlements in America)

Etransformation in Governance: New Directions in Government and Politics

The Values of Bureaucracy

The Values of Bureaucracy

Private Capital Markets: Valuation, Capitalization, and Transfer of Private Business Interests

Policy Bureaucracy: Government with a Cast of Thousands

Apogee of Empire: Spain and New Spain in the Age of Charles III, 1759--1789

New Spain, New Literatures (Hispanic Issues)

Recommend Documents