[11] “The book of laws;” there is also an allusion to the generally adopted legal code or collection of laws, known as Corpus juris—literally, “body of law.” The main reference in Anda’s phrase is to the Recopilación de Indias, which provides for the collection of tithes in the Spanish colonies. [↑]
[12] “It is an exceedingly bad example.” [↑]
[13] Pardo de Tavera cites (note 11, pp. 56–58) a royal decree dated April 27, 1704, charging the governor (then Zabalburu) and Audiencia to restrain the friars from levying unjust exactions on the Indians. This decree was occasioned by the complaints on this score made (in 1702) by Archbishop Camacho; in it are enumerated the following acts of such injustice: “Besides the stipends which are paid to them from the royal treasury, they oblige every Indian in their districts to render them service in all their domestic necessities, and to furnish them with four fowls every day in each mission, and with fish, fuel, and everything else that the land (and even the water) produces. At the same time they collect from the Indians excessive fees, without observing the tariffs; for from an Indian whose property is worth four hundred pesos (which is the value usually of that belonging to the wealthier natives) they exact for a burial one hundred or two hundred, besides what they afterward receive for the funeral honors [i.e., ceremonies for the welfare of departed souls]; and twelve pesos for the offering for [wearing] the cope [del habito de la religión], or, if the natives are very poor, six or eight pesos, the religious making it necessary to the burial that he shall wear the cope; and when they lack means to pay for these, they serve the religious like slaves until they have earned what they need to pay these impositions. As for the marriages, the religious receive thirteen pesos for what they call the altar fee, and thirteen reals for the cross, and eight for the offering for the mass, and four for the veiling; even when they are very poor, the religious exact from them at least six or eight pesos as a requisite [for the marriage]. The Indians are, for a long time, living in illicit intercourse, because they have not the means to pay [these exactions]. In the baptisms they have introduced another tax after the offering; the rich Indian must pay up to twelve pesos for the silver cross, and the poor one pays, as such, for the wooden cross. Besides this, they also receive three reals every year from each Indian for the feast of the patron saint of the village, honors for the dead, and wax for the monument; and, added to this, one or two reals when they confess the Indians at the Lenten season—without giving any care or attention to their instruction, or to the greater service of the churches in their charge. They are deficient in almost all which belongs to their obligations as missionary curas, excepting the religious of the Order of Preachers and those of the Society, who treat the natives more kindly and instruct them better.” Cf. the “tariff of fees” drawn up by Camacho (VOL. XLII, pp. 56–64). [↑]
[14] “The friars, in studying the Filipino languages, continually compared them with the Latin and the Castilian, to the grammar and genius of which they molded, whenever they could, those of the new language which they were learning. As a result, the grammars of the Filipino languages which they soon made created an artificial language, very different from that actually spoken by the islanders. Educated Filipinos distinguish perfectly this conventional language of the friars; and the latter in their turn make the charge, when they have noticed one of these observers, that the Indians when talking among themselves employ a different language from that which they use in conversations with the cura. The reverend father Fray Ramón Martinez Vigil (now bishop of Oviedo) has not failed to notice this difference; but in undertaking to explain it he falls into an error that is excusable if one considers his religious calling, which cannot admit that when there is a blunder the mistake is on the priest’s side. Speaking, then, as a priest, and doubly superior to the Indian by being a Spaniard besides, he confidently says: ‘All who have observed their familiar conversations (of the Indians) are agreed in affirming that they entirely lay aside the rules of grammar, in order to make their conversation more rapid and short—speaking among themselves a Tagálog quite different from what they use when they address the Spanish priest or any other European who understands their language.’ (Revista de Filipinas, t. ii, 1877, p. 35.) Every one who understands Tagálog has endured mortal torments thousands of times while hearing from the pulpit the sermons which a great number of religious utter in that conventional language. At present, however, the sermons that are preached are, as a rule, written in the old style, for the occasion, and then revised and corrected by coadjutors, or by citizens versed [in the native language], who shape and polish the discourse properly.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 12, pp. 58, 59.) [↑]
[15] An interesting sketch of the controversy in Filipinas over the episcopal visitation of the regular curas is given by Pardo de Tavera in his note 13, pp. 59–68. The strife began even with the first bishop, Domingo de Salazar, and continued for some three centuries; for as late as 1865 the archbishop of Manila and two of his suffragan bishops joined in sending to the Spanish government complaints against the friars of substantially the same tenor as those made earlier by Salazar, Camacho, and Santa Justa. Papal and royal decrees were issued at intervals, insisting on the right of episcopal visitation; but in most cases these were practically nullified by the influence or opposition of the friars, and the inadequate supply of secular priests. The friars several times threatened to abandon their curacies (and actually did so, on some occasions); and they claimed exemption from visitation on various grounds—claiming a privilege granted to them by Pope Pius V (which, however, was afterward annulled by Clement XI), the right to obey only the superiors of their respective orders, and the lack of any obligation on them to serve the curacies, which they claimed to be only a work of supererogation. [↑]
[16] “Apart from the religious fiestas and the surplice-fees, Filipinas pays to monasticism another tribute of incalculable amount for straps, rosaries, scapulars, girdles, and other objects rivaling one another in similarly miraculous qualities—which are issued for cash, and at a fixed price, which yields no less than a thousand per cent on the capital invested.” Instances of this are given; “a worn pair of trousers, which the students from whom it is asked give gratis, is transformed into hundreds of scapulars, and each scapular costs two and one-half reals fuertes, or perhaps thirty-one hundredths of a peso.” “Thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of hard dollars are paid as a tax by Filipinas on this account to the monastic coffers; and if Jesus Christ drove out the traders from the temple, in the country of miracles those persons are chastised who refuse to obtain the goods from the temple.” (Marcelo H. del Pilar, cited by Pardo de Tavera in note 14, pp. 68, 69.) [↑]
[17] Pardo de Tavera here cites in full (note 16, pp. 69–76) a letter from Governor Corcuera to the king complaining of the conduct of the friars. (This letter appears in VOL. XXVI of our series, pp. 116–125.) [↑]
[18] “Some have believed that Anda y Salazar, whom they consider resentful against the religious orders in Filipinas, accumulated against them, in this memorial, accusations which he alone maintained; but in the preceding notes we have demonstrated that the charges which that upright magistrate made against them were not unfounded, nor much less were they recent. In regard to the commerce to which, according to him, the religious devoted themselves, it was a certain fact, scandalous and of long standing—with the aggravating circumstance that they continued to trade in opposition to the commands of the sovereign.” A decree dated February 2, 1730 is here cited which shows this plainly, accusing both seculars and religious of trafficking openly and scandalously, and using their sacred character as a cloak for this and for extensive smuggling; and ordering the archbishop and bishops, and the provincials of the orders, to restrain and punish those of their subjects who thus offend, and the president and Audiencia to proceed against the ecclesiastical authorities if the latter fail to do their duty. (Pardo de Tavera, note 17, pp. 76–78.) [↑]
[19] “The economic ideas of Señor Anda were as erroneous as were those among the generality of the Spaniards in that period. The commerce of exportation was for them a wrong and a heinous act, with which they reproached him who did it; nor would they admit that he who sells his products has a right to carry them where he can obtain the highest price.” (Pardo de Tavera, note 18, p. 78.) [↑]
[20] “It is now the general opinion that the religious orders cannot prove their right of ownership of all the income-producing properties which they hold in both town and country. It cannot be doubted that under the regime of government established by the United States this important question of ownership will be cleared up.” The writer here relates the controversy of Auditor Sierra with the religious orders over this question in the time of Archbishop Camacho; finally the governor intervened with his authority, terminating the dispute by declaring that the new visitor, Auditor Ozaeta, would accept as valid the titles to property presented by the friars. (Pardo de Tavera, note 19, pp. 78–80.) [↑]