Theatine, and cripple.Archdeacon with no right—Jiron.
A bishop with little learning—Çamudio.
A notorious excommunicate—Tenorio.
Right well they deserve the Purgatory
Of Hell, these three friends;
For they are the enemies of God—
Jiron, Çamudio, and Tenorio.
Who was hanged from a beam?—An artilleryman.
On what was that action based?—On the slave-girl.
Of what did the homicide deprive him?—His life.
Unjustly lost
It was; but still I lament
That he should lose in one moment—
That artilleryman—his slave-girl and his life.
He who thought to pay from his profits—tributes;
And he who in hanging dogs saw—fetters;
And he who caused the mulatto women to bear—daughters:
All these simpletons
Must come to a halt;
Because the devil will carry off—
Tributes, fetters, and daughters.9
For so great malice, there is no—justice;
Nor for so many injuries—words;
Nor for so many follies—cures.10
All these misfortunes,
We Christians must suffer;
For powerless we see—
Justice, words, and cures.
What results finally?—Resolution.
And from these evil things?—Punishments.
And from so great discontent?—Torment.
Not in vain do I lament,
Seeing the sincere11 Church
Become otherwise because of Corcuera—
Suffering, punishments, and torment.
Letters from Governor Hurtado de Corcuera
Ecclesiastical
Most potent Sir:
Although I have related to the tribunal of the holy Inquisition of Mexico the disorders that have happened in this city this year which were caused by the fathers of St. Dominic, and helped and strengthened by the father commissary of the Holy Office, Fray Francisco de Herrera—who has endeavored to avenge his passions and those of his religious through the authority of so holy a tribunal, but overstepping the manner of procedure and prudence that that holy tribunal has in all its actions—yet I have thought it best to have recourse to your Highness as to the supreme authority, so that you with the ruling hand may apply an efficacious remedy to the said disorders. Therefore, I shall give your Highness an account of them in this letter, in detail, although briefly.
The archbishop of Manila and the three orders of St. Dominic, St. Francis, and St. Augustine, were united against me. They went about holding meetings, as they thought by that method to avenge themselves for the injuries which they imagined that they had received because they were not granted whatever they wished or what suited their whims. They were convened in an assembly, where they must have discussed nothing else than their own restless notions and the disturbance of the community and opposition to the government. For that reason, the bishop of Nueva Segovia, Don Fray Diego Duarte, with the ecclesiastical cabildo, all the clergy, and the fathers of the Society of Jesus, refused to attend the said meeting. The archbishop and the three orders were very angry that the fathers of the Society did not attend, although they took no notice of the fact that the bishop of Nueva Segovia, the ecclesiastical cabildo, and the clergy (who also were notified to attend the meeting) were likewise absent; and they made their anger evident, since the first topic that was discussed in the said meeting was [a plan to unite] and conspire against the fathers of the Society. They issued a decree against them (which I enclose herewith)12 in which they disfellowshipped them from the other orders, and commanded that no one should go to their houses, or to feasts or other public ceremonies; that those of the Society should not be admitted into their convents for these functions; that they should not be allowed to preach in the cathedral, or in any other place outside their own houses; and other things like this. They all show the aversion and even hatred which they have for the fathers of the Society. That decree was a cause for great scandal throughout this community. It was approved and signed by the said father commissary, Fray Francisco de Herrera, thus making himself a party to all the quarrels and disturbances that resulted from the said decree. Consequently, he could ill be a dispassionate judge. The fathers of the Society were silent, and overlooked such things, coming from that source. Some days afterward, the archbishop, in accordance with the decision of the said meeting, had the fathers of the Society notified of an act, ordering them, under penalty of major excommunication, late sentencie, and a fine of four thousand Castilian ducados, not to preach outside of their houses throughout his archbishopric, not even in the barracks and guardhouses. The fathers of the Society tried to procure means of peace, but none of them succeeded. Seeing that there was no hope of peace, and recognizing the injury that the archbishop was doing them at the instigation of the three orders and the father commissary, they were forced to speak out against the archbishop through their judge-conservator, Don Fabian de Santillan y Gavilanes, schoolmaster of this holy church and a person of good standing in this city. The three orders, especially that of St. Dominic, took this cause against the fathers of the Society as their own—although it did not concern them, but was, on the contrary, in favor of all. The fathers of the Society were defending what the orders were defending, since they were defending their privileges and immunities, which are common to all the mendicant orders. But the orders did not think of this, nor that they were putting out both their eyes (as says the proverb) in order to put out one of the Society. The aversion and hatred that they show against the fathers of the Society is incredible, doing them all the ill turns possible in all things, and talking maliciously of them. The orders had recourse by a plea of fuerza to the royal Audiencia, which declared that the judge-conservator had not employed it, and that he was legally appointed. Thereupon, seeing that they had no means by which to embarrass the judge-conservator, they tried to make use of the authority of the Inquisition, the fathers of St. Dominic threatening the judge-conservator with it. Those fathers spread the report that they would seize him, and get even with him. At this juncture the father commissary summoned him, and such was the aspect of affairs that the said judge asked the said commissary for a testimony that he had not been summoned for anything that could prejudice his person, in order that he might not be left with any stain. The judge-conservator had made complaint against the provisor, Don Pedro de Monroy, for having declared that neither Luther nor Calvin, nor any other heretics, did so much harm as did the members of the Society. That was a calumny and insult, the remedy for which the judge thought concerned him. The father commissary entered the lists, and asked for that cause. The judge sent him the original complaint, reserving the testimony, to present it to the holy tribunal of Mexico. The said father commissary asked for the testimony, and it was also sent him. The purpose of the father commissary seems to have been to deprive him of all the papers, as your Highness will see from the following.
At this juncture the archbishop held a meeting with the religious of the three orders of St. Dominic, St. Francis, and St. Augustine. There under title of a protest, an insulting defamatory libel was made, according to report, not only against the Society of Jesus, but also against the judge-conservator himself, because he was judge-conservator; and against the royal Audiencia, because it had declared his appointment legitimate. The judge-conservator brought force to bear against the archbishop in
This is a very obscure stanza, although the allusions were doubtless well understood in Manila. The second line might be translated “And who in hanging apples, saw tares;” although the translation as given above is to be preferred.
There is evidently a play on the word “cura,” which may mean either “cures,” or “priests” [
This may be another play on words, for “sinzera” may be the adjective “sincere” or the two words “sin zera,” “waxless,” and hence in this last meaning, an allusion to the third line of the third stanza.
This has been already given in Vol. XXV, pp. 216–219.
