Deciphering and Decolonizing the Spanish Transpacific

Letter from the Count of Lizárraga to segregate the Christians from the Infidels (1713)

María Alejandra Peñuela and Joaquín Reyes

Introduction

The “Letter from the Count of Lizárraga to segregate the Christians from the Infidels” (1713) is a document found in the Archivo General de Indias, classified under Cartas y expedientes de los Gobernadores de Filipinas in the archive classification scheme. The file contains five different official documents among them: 1) the letter of the Conde de Lizárraga, Martín de Ursúa y Arizmendi¹, which discusses the compliance of a decree that imposed the separation of Christians from Moros and other infidel nations that visited the Philippines for commercial purposes; ² 2) a testimony of the document about separating infidels from Catholics in Manila; 3) a letter from José de Torralba discussing the inhabitance of Armenios, Moros and gentiles in the Parián de los Sangleyes; ³ 4) a letter from Francisco de la Cuesta, Archbishop of Manila, about the new limitation to the Parián de los Sangleyes for foreigners that lived in Santa Cruz, Rosario and San Gabriel; and finally 5) a copy of the consultation of the Archbishop of Manila to the Conde de Lizárraga about the congregation of all foreigners to the Parián de los Sangleyes. All five documents are dated 1713, although many refer to a decree of separation between Christians and other infidel nations which was issued in 1711.

We transcribed and translated portions from the letter of the Conde de Lizárraga, Martín de Ursúa y Arizmendi, and from the letter of the Archbishop of Manila, Francisco de la Cuesta. Both documents allowed us to understand the complex religious, cultural, and financial relationships that developed in the Philippines as a part of a global commercial system. Furthermore, these documents shine light on how antagonistic relationships between Muslims and Christians in the Iberian Peninsula extended to the Philippines as part of the colonization process. The regulation of social relationships in Manila became an important part of that antagonism and was mostly evident in the control and surveillance of the relationships between women living in the intramuros of Manila and the men from infidel nations. As this manuscript highlights, government and ecclesiastical authorities aspired to influence the development of social and political relationships in Manila and its surrounding territories, resulting, on the one hand, in the formation of a Christian colony in Manila, and on the other hand, in a constant tension between Moros and Christians in the rest of the archipelago.

Despite the evident animosity between Christians and Moros, Armenios and Malabares, this manuscript also examines the ambiguity of that hostile relationship, for it appears that there is always room for establishing commercial relationships, while simultaneously sanctioning social coexistence. The documents here transcribed, evidence the compulsion of the Spanish authorities in the Philippines with limiting social encounters between those living in Manila and the aforementioned infidel nations that visited the Philippines with commercial endeavors. We can therefore claim that the relationships between Christians and Moros or Spaniards and other nations in the Philippines were characteristically porous and ambiguous— encouraged in commercial scenarios, while loathed and prohibited in social encounters.

In the two letters transcribed, we get a glimpse of this porous dynamic in the Philippines. In the Conde de Lizárraga’s letter we can see his clear interest in the compliance with the decree of separation between Christians and infidels, but his focus and concern seem to be in establishing a place where commercial activities may take place without violating the established decree of separation. He even calls for “el modo más suave, y prudente de separar estos sectarios, reduciéndolos al Parián de los Sangleyes o destinándoles otro sitio donde puedan estar juntos con separación de los católicos.” Despite his vehemence for social separation, he also calls for creating a path for diplomacy that would allow the flow of commerce in the region. On the other hand, in the archbishop’s letter, we find no mention of spaces for cohabitation or diplomatic resolutions for the conflict in the Philippines. Instead, his letter focuses on the prohibition of any contact between the women of Manila and merchants from the infidel nations. He centers on the effects of said relationships, claiming that any contact will result in being contaminated by depraved customs and being fooled by infidel men. Furthermore, he engages with the punishment and sanctions that would result from breaking the law, and rather than presenting permeable boundaries for contact with the infidel nations, he calls for a drastic and absolute separation: “from now and in perpetuity we prohibit and order that no woman of any culture or condition whether she be India, Mestiza, Spanish, Sangley, Criolla or Japanese or of any other nation in this island, under any circumstance or pretext–not only alone but also accompanied by a relative or even her own husband– to enter the house of said Portuguese, Armenian, Moors, Lascares ⁴ and Sangley merchants.” ⁵ Both letters portray the tension in colonial Manila—a constant tug-of-war between social separation and financial dependency.

In her book The Polemics of Possession in Spanish American Narrative , Rolena Adorno presents some principles and practices for assessing writings of the early Spanish colonial period. The first principle she discusses is that these texts were “not merely reflective of social and political practices but were in fact constitutive of them.” ⁶ She claims that colonial writing is historically significant not only because it serves as a time marker or as a reference of the past, but rather because its rhetorical and polemic mode sought to influence reader’s perceptions, royal policies, and social practices. Adorno suggests that these texts didn’t describe merely events but were in themselves events.

This principle clearly applies to the reading and analysis of this manuscript since it is a text that must be read not merely as a document discussing historical events from a distant standpoint, but as artifacts of the events themselves. These letters shaped social and political relationships in the Philippines that to this day still have repercussions. As Ethan P. Hawkley has noted, the influence of the Christian-Moro antagonism remains even four hundred years later in the Philippines as they deal with Moro separatist groups⁷. Separatist groups in Mindanao and Sulu have resisted Catholic assimilation and have fought to preserve their demographic majority, which decreased drastically and went from a majority by the end of the nineteenth century to less than 17 percent today. ⁸

A second principle discussed by Adorno that appears pertinent to the reading of this manuscript is that “the native—colonized or indomitable—stands always at the heart of colonial writings, even when not explicitly mentioned. Whether as the object of debates about royal policy or as the fallen hero of literary epics […]” the colonized native is the common element in all these writings. ⁹ In the case of the Philippines both the indigenous and the Sangleyes are at the heart of colonial writing and despite not having their testimonies in these five documents, all the letters revolve around them: their social relationships, their living grounds, their cultural and religious practices, and their economic systems. Reading these documents demands asking questions about these native groups, it demands questioning the absence of their voices and imagining their ways of resistance against these imposed arbitrary policies. The letters included in this project mention rules that were already in place to separate Christians from other religious groups but had proven ineffective in containing their social interaction, which demands that our interpretation of these documents consider not only the voices of the Spanish officials, but also the actions of those subjected by them. This introduction is an invitation to read these documents critically, understanding them as historical events, and questioning their reach and hegemony.

Previous Next

• Transcription
• Translation