We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
At his trial Socrates described himself as attached to Athens “as a gadfly to a horse.” In Sixteenth Century Spain the Order of Preachers played a similar role. Dominican friars freely criticized royal officials, conquistadors and fellow churchmen. At times their meddling in affairs of state drew down on them the wrath of the authorities. Charles V, though favorably disposed toward the Indians, more than once angrily rebuked their defenders, the friars, for letting zeal outrun prudence. One of the most effective of these critics was Francisco de Vitoria. Vitoria was renowned as the founder of the Salamanca Thomist school. Not content with the elaboration of scholastic doctrines, he carried them into the political forum, delivering public lectures on the problems of his time.
1 Plato, , Apology (Cambridge, Mass, 1943) p. 111–113.Google Scholar
2 Hanke, L., The Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America (Philadelph4a 1949) p. 147–155 Google Scholar; Hanke, L., “Pope Paul III and the American Indians,” Harvard Theological Review, 30 (1937) p. 65–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 The most recent edition is de Vitoria, Francisco. Relectio de Indis o Libertad de los Indios, ed. Pereña, L. et al. (Madrid 1967).Google Scholar
4 Muldoon, J., “The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists to the Formation of International Law.” Traditio, 28 (1972) p. 483–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Hanke, , “The Spanish Struggle for Justice p. 23–30, 147Google Scholar; Delgado, P. Castañeda, La Teocracia Pontifical y la Conquista de America (Vitoria 1968) p. 245–332 Google Scholar; Gallo, A. Garcia, “Las Bullas de Alejandro VI y el Ordenamiento Juridico de la Expansion Portuguesa y Castellana en Africa e Indias.” Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español, 27–28 (1957–1958) p. 461–829 Google Scholar; Linden, H. Vander. “Alexander VI and the Demarcation of the Maritime and Colonial Domains of Spain and Portugal. 1493–1494,” American Historical Review, 12 (1916) p. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 de Palacios Rubios, Juan Lopez, De las Islas del mar Oceano; Matias de Paz, Del dominio de los Reyes de España sobre los indios. Ed. Zavala, Silvio (Mexico City 1954).Google Scholar
7 de Vitoria, Francisco, Relectio de Indis p. 43–54, 87–89.Google Scholar
8 Lederer, S.. Der spanische Cardinal Johann von Torquemada, sein Leben und seine Schriften (Freiburg 1879)Google Scholar; Binder, K.. Wesen und Eigenschaften der Kirche bei Juan de Torquemada O.P. (Innsbruck 1954)Google Scholar; Izbicki, T.M., The Ecclesiology of Cardinal Johannes de Turrecremata (Unpublished Cornell Dissertation 1973).Google Scholar
9 de Vitoria, Francisco, Relectio de Indis p. 46–47.Google Scholar “Prima propositio: Papa non est dominuscivilis aut temporalis totius orbis, loquendo proprie de dominio et potestate civili. Haec conclusio est Turrecrematae (lib. 2, cap. 113), et Ioannis Andreae et Hugonis (Dist. 96, can. cum ad verum).” (This edition erroneously describes Turrecremataas Raphael de Pornaxio and Huguccio as Hugh of St. Victor.)
10 Ibid. p. 49, “Tertia propositio: Papa habet potestatem temporalem in ordine ad spiritualia, id est, quantum necesse est ad administrationem rerum spiritualium. Haec etiam est Turrecrematae (ubi supra, cap. 114) et est omnium doctorum.”
11 de Turrecremata, Johannes, Summa de Ecclesia (Venice 1561) 2, c, 113 f.Google Scholar 262v: Idem. Commentaria Super Decreto (Venice 1578) ad D.96 c.6 (I p. 638). Turrecremata adapted this scheme, without acknowledgement, from John of Paris, along with that author’s doctrine of property. Compare Johannes Quidort Parisiensis, Uber künigliche und papstliche Gewalt (De regia potestate et papali), ed. F. Bleienstein (Stuttgart 1969) p. 69–72, 96–97 with de Turrecremata, Johannes, Summa de Ecclesia 2,Google Scholar c. 113 f. 265r. The same scheme was used by de Palude, Petrus. Tractatus de Potestate Papae, ed. Stella, P.T. (Zürich 1966) p. 207–223.Google Scholar
12 de Turrecremata, Johannes, Summa de Ecclesia 2,Google Scholar c. 113 f. 262v-263r, “Secundus modus dicendi est assertium totaliter oppositum, scilicet quod Romanus Pontifex iure sui Principatus, sive Vicariatus Christi habeat in toto Orbe terrarum plenam iurisdictionem, non solum in spiritualibus, sed etiam in temporalibus, adiicientes, quod omnium principimi secularium iurisdictionis potestas a Papa in eos derivata sit.”
13 Ibidem, f. 263r-v.
14 Ibidem, f. 264r, “… Romanus Pontifex. iure Papatus non sic potestatem, sive iurisdictionem in temporalibus habet, quod de feudis Principum secularium, aut de possessionibus directe se intromittere, aut iudicare valeat regulariter. Patet haec propositio, tam ex praecedenti, quam ex confessione Romani pontificis Innocentii III. ut in cap. novit extra de iudic. ubi ita ait: Non enim intendimus iudicare de feudo. …” Watt, J.A., The Theory of Papal Monarch in the 13th Century (London 1965) 40–41, 43–44.Google Scholar
15 Trame, R., Rodrigo Sanchez de Arévalo 1404–1470, Spanish Diplomat and Champion of the Papacy (Washington 1958) p. 148–149, 154–158Google Scholar; Jedin, H., “Juan de Torquemada und das Romanum lmperium,” Archivum Fratrum Predicatorum, 12 (1942)p. 247–278 Google Scholar; Sigmund, P., Nicholas of Cusa and Medieval Political Thought (Cambridge, Mass. 1963–1964) p. 287–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 de Turrecremata, Johannes, Commentario ad D. 1 c. 8 q. 2 (1 p. 42),Google Scholar “… omnia iura intantum dicuntur tracta ex iure naturali, inquantum regulata sunt ratione quia omne iustum progeditur a ratione.”; de Turrecremata, Johannes, Opusculum ad Honorem Romani imperii et dominorum Romanorum in Jedin. “Torquemada und das Romanum Imperium” p. 267–278 at 273.Google Scholar “Imperialis principatus quantum ad debitum esse in hominibus est de iure nature, quod dicitur ius gentium. Patet, quia ius naturale dicitur, quod naturale ratione est introductum. Sed dominium sive regimen imperiale est debitum esse in hominibus secundum rectam rationem. …” Similarly see Aquinas, Thomas, Selected Political Writings, ed. d’Entrèves, A.P. (Oxford 1970) p. 166–171.Google Scholar
17 Delgado, Castañeda, La Teocracia Pontifical 105–109 Google Scholar; Hanke, , The Spanish Struggle for Justice p. 28,134, 145, 155Google Scholar; Zavala, S., “Cristiandad e Infieles segun algunos Autores Medievales y Renacentistas,” Estudios Históricos, 1 No. 3 (1944) p. 7–24 at 7–12Google Scholar; Modras, R.E., “Paul Vladimiri and his Opinio Hostiensis,” St. Meinrad Essays, 12 No. 3 (1960) p. 1–20.Google Scholar Hostiensis’ opinion became the communis opinio of the canonists according to Muldoon, J., “ Extra ecclesiam non est imperium. The Canonists and the Legitimacy of the Secular Power,” Studia Gratiana, 9 (1963) p. 553–583 Google Scholar; that of Innocent, according to Pennington, K., “Bartolome de Las Casas and the Tradition of Medieval Law,” Church History, 29 (1970) p. 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 de Turrecremata, Johannes, Commentarla ad C. 11 q. 3 c. 46 (2 p. 423),Google Scholar “Et idem videtur sentire Inn. qui notat quod iurisdictiones et dominia et possessiones licite et sine peccato possunt esse apud infideles, de quo per eum, extra de voto, quod super … sed alias nos plenius discutiemus hanc questionem deo duce, quia simpliciter sicut iacet Host, non placet, nec illud auferetur etc. dictum est omnibus infidelibus, sed iudaeis.”; Turrecremata, Johannes de, Summa de Ecclesia 4, Pt. 2 c. 20 f. 395r,Google Scholar “… praesidentia in illa temporalibus fuit quae iure divino non tollitur ab infidelibus sicut dictum est.”
19 Ibid. II, c. 113 f. 263r.
20 Ibid. I, c. 92 f. 104r, “… sine summa iustitia non potest regi respublica. vera autem iustitia non est in respublica, cuius Christus non est rector.” See also Idem. Commentarla ad d.96 c. 10 q. 3 (I p. 646). Theeuws, P., “Jean de Turrecremata, Les relations entre l’Eglise et le pouvoir civil d’apres un Théologien du XVe siècle” in L’Organization corporative du Moyen Age à la Fin de l'Ancien Regime (Louvain 1943) 3 p. 137–178 at 167, 171.Google Scholar
21 E.g. Turrecremata, Johannes de, Commentaria ad D. 10 c. 3 (1 p. 96).Google Scholar
22 Ibid. ad D. 10 c. 8 (I p. 100), “… principaliter sua potestas iudicandi ad spirituals causas se extendit. Tamen secundari et ex consequenti etiam suum iudicium se extendit ad questiones seculares....” Theeuws, , “Les relations” p. 146–147.Google Scholar
23 Turrecremata, Johannes de, Summa de Ecclesia 2, c. 114 f. 265v.Google Scholar
24 Ibidem. f. 268r. Tierney, B., “Tria Quippe Distinguit Iudicia… A Note on Innocent III's Decretal Per Venerabilem,” Speculum, 37 (1962) p. 48–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Watt, , The Theory of Papal Monarchy p. 37–39, 41–44.Google Scholar
25 de Turrecremata, Johannes, Summa de Ecclesia 2,Google Scholar c. 114 f. 269 Watt, R., The Theon of Papal Monarchy p. 41–43.Google Scholar
26 de Turrecremata, Johannes, Summa de Ecclesia 2,Google Scholar c. 114 f. 267r; Idem. Commentario ad D. 96 c. 6 (I p. 640). Peters, E.M., The Shadow King: Rex Inutilis in Medieval Law and Literature, 751–1327 (New Haven 1970) p. 34–35, 44–45, 118–119Google Scholar; van den Baar, P.A., Die kirkliche Lehre der Translatio Imperii Romani (Rome 1956) p. 99–111 Google Scholar; Watt, , The Theory of Papal Monarchy p. 36–37.Google Scholar
27 Parry, J.H., The Spanish Theory of Empire in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge 1940) p. 18 Google Scholar; Höffner, J., La etica colonial Española del siglo de oro (Madrid 1957) p. 34–35.Google Scholar
28 Carro, V., La Teología y los Teólogos-juristas españoles ante la Conquista de America (Madrid 1944) 1 p. 319–328 Google Scholar; Idem. “Las controversias de Indias y las ideas teologico-juridicas medievales que las preparan y explican,” La Ciencia Tomista, LXVII (1944) p. 5-32 at 7; de Leturia, P., Relaciones entre la Santa Sede e Hispanoamérica 1493–1835, (Rome 1959) 1 p. 163–165.Google Scholar
29 de Vitoria, Francisco, Relectio de Indis p. 11,47, 52.Google Scholar Muldoon, J., “A Canonistic Contribution to the Formation of International Law,” The Jurist, 28 (1968) p. 265–279.Google Scholar
