style="font-size:15px;"> “Costa” in Barrantes; but Sommervogel gives the name of no Jesuit, under either form, who could have gone from Manila in 1636.
2
The mass of contemporary material in Spanish archives on the contest between Corcuera (the civil arm of the government) and the Jesuits on one side, and the bishop and friars on the other, shows how important the matter was considered, and the virulence with which the fight was waged on both sides. The various documents relate the affair pro and con, and it is narrated in official, semi-official, and religious documents. The facts of the case are stated, somewhat succinctly, in a printed document, undated (although probably 1636 or 1637), signed by Licentiate Ruiz de la Vega, and addressed to the king, in which
1
“Costa” in Barrantes; but Sommervogel gives the name of no Jesuit, under either form, who could have gone from Manila in 1636.
2
The mass of contemporary material in Spanish archives on the contest between Corcuera (the civil arm of the government) and the Jesuits on one side, and the bishop and friars on the other, shows how important the matter was considered, and the virulence with which the fight was waged on both sides. The various documents relate the affair pro and con, and it is narrated in official, semi-official, and religious documents. The facts of the case are stated, somewhat succinctly, in a printed document, undated (although probably 1636 or 1637), signed by Licentiate Ruiz de la Vega, and addressed to the king, in which many of the letters between the various parties concerned (all given in this series) are given in full or extract, but nothing new is told. This document is in Archivo general de Indias, at Sevilla, in the patronato “Audiencia de Filipinas; cartas y espedientes del gobernador de Filipinas, vistos en el Consejo; est. 67, caj. 6, leg. 8.”
3
See Cerezo’s letter of that date, in Vol. XXIV, p. 308.
4
In the present translation we follow the printed original—using the copy belonging to the Academia Real de la Historia, Madrid—as per the above title-page. Our transcript was collated with the manuscript copy in the Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid, which may possibly be a contemporaneous copy of the original manuscript of the Memorial; but this manuscript (which bears pressmark MSS. 8990, Aa–47, of which it occupies folios 273–350), which appears to have been done hastily, bears the mark of inaccuracies that make the printed Memorial preferable. Where the difference is considerable, the reading of the manuscript is inserted in brackets after the other reading, and signed “MS.” These variations are here noted mainly as a guide to those who may use that manuscript. In almost every case the number of the paragraph is omitted in the manuscript, as are also sometimes the marginal headings of the paragraphs, and most of the other marginal notes. Reference has also been made in the translation to the published edition of the manuscript Memorial in Doc. inéd. Amér. y Oceanía, vi (Madrid, 1866), pp. 364–484, which has been edited somewhat; and to an evident reprint from the printed edition of 1637, in Extracto historial (Madrid, 1736), folios 215–264. Matter taken from the latter is signed “Ex. his.”
5
Avería was the tax or duty levied on goods shipped from Spain to America, or from America to Spain, to meet the expenses of the naval convoy to protect the fleet from pirates. See tit. ix of lib. ix, Recopilación de leyes de Indias which treats of the avería, entitled, “Of the tax, administration, and collection of the duty of avería.”—Edward G. Bourne.
6
Note in margin of Extracto historial: “Note: The numbers cited in these margins refer to this same memorial.”
7
At this point the manuscript and printed original both contain a partial reduplication, as follows: los vexinos y cargadores de Filipinas, que sin reconocer—es digo por solo no verse sujetos á denunciationes. It may possibly be regarded as a parenthetical expression added for the sake of force, and is translated: “the citizens and exporters of Filipinas, who without recognizing—it is, I say, for the sole purpose of not becoming liable to denunciations.” This clause is dropped in the Extracto historial reprint.
8
See Vol. xvi of this series, pp. 225–227.
9
The manuscript at this point contains a duplicate or confusion of words, as follows: Reyes tienen vnos Estados, porque los han menester, y otros digo el embiarles ministros della aunque los. This proves the manuscript only a clerical copy, as does also the fact that it is copied in the same hand as other manuscripts of this same collection; and it shows the carelessness with which this copy was made.
10
The progress made by the Mahometans in the eastern part of Asia was very slow. The inhabitants of Malacca were converted in 1276, those of the Moluccas in 1465, and those of Java in 1478, and those of the Celebes one year before Vasco da Gama rounded the cape of Good Hope. Nevertheless, after 1521, many of the inhabitants of these islands began to be converted to Catholicism.—See Doc. inéd. Amér. y Oceanía, vi, p. 375, note.
11
Empeño: This transfer, as may be seen from the treaty of Zaragoza (vol. 1, pp. 221–239), was part of the sale by Spain to Portugal of the spice-trade, right of navigation, and islands then in dispute between the two crowns; but various stipulations were made regarding it, so that the Maluco Islands were, in a sense, held as a pledge for the observance thereof.
12
This word is lacking in the manuscript.
13
At this point occurs a doublet of nine words in the manuscript—simply an error of the transcriber.
14
See this decree in vol. III, pp. 250, 251.
15
See this decree, with illustrations, in vol. IX, pp. 211–215.
16
See Vol. iv, p. 108.
17
This is the date in the original printed edition, but both the manuscript and the reprint in the Extracto historial give 1626.
18
At this point there is another lapsus calami by the transcriber of the manuscript, resulting in another reduplication.
19
Both the manuscript and the Extracto historial reprint say May 16.
20
See Vol. XX, p. 257.
21
This word is omitted in the manuscript.
22
Singapore signifies, in Malay, “place of lions”—although it would be more apropos to call it “the place of tigers,” which are so plentiful there (Doc. inéd. Amér. y Oceania, vi, p. 383, note).
23
This sentence is very blindly worded, but perhaps indicates, by anticipation, the point made in section 40, post—where India and the Philippines are mentioned as the “extremes” of the Spanish empire in the Orient. Or it may refer to the alternative presented near the end of section 2.
24
Grau y Monfalcón evidently made use of Leonardo de Argensola’s Conqvistas de las Islas Malvcas in this review of Oriental commerce.
25
Referring to Ptolemy Neus Dionysus, surnamed Auletes (“the Flute-player”), who ruled over Egypt from b. c. 80 to 51. One of his daughters was the famous Cleopatra VI, who so infatuated the Roman Cæsar and Antony.
26
This date in the manuscript is 1457, which is misprinted 1417 in the reprint of 1866 (Doc. inéd.).
27
See Sir Henry Middleton’s Voyage to Bantam (Hakluyt Society’s publications, London, 1855); that voyage took place in 1604–06.
28
This word is missing in the manuscript.
29
The cate is equivalent to 1.8 English pounds; 87 pounds equal one quintal, 100 catés one pico, and 40 picos one koyan (Doc. inéd. Amér. y Oceanía, vi, p. 390, note).
30
See the description and prices of precious stones found in the appendix to Duarte Barbosa’s East Africa and Malabar (Hakluyt
