Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda on the Nature of the American Indians

1975 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 434-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
José A. Fernández-Santamaria

Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda epitomizes in many ways, both personally and intellectually, the cosmopolitanism of Spanish political thought in the sixteenth century. Educated in Italy, disciple of Pomponazzi, translator of Aristotle, chronicler of the Emperor and mentor of his son Philip, Sepúlveda is best known—and often misunderstood as the defender of the more unsavory aspects of the Spanish conquest and colonization in America—for his bitter controversy with Bartolomé de las Casas. To that debate Sepúlveda brought a humanist's training and outlook anchored in his devotion to Aristotle, but strongly tempered by his attachment to Saint Augustine. It is the purpose of this paper to examine Sepúlveda's ideas on the nature of the American natives, particularly the question of whether the Indians are natural slaves. Considerations of space, of course, rule out the possibility of undertaking here a detailed scrutiny of the foundations upon which those ideas rest. It can be said, however, that they are typically Renaissance views, a blend of traditions characteristic of the composite nature of the age's intellectual milieu.

1976 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 501-513
Author(s):  
Ralph H. Vigil

Alonso De Zorita’s career as a Spanish judge in the Indies in the years 1548–1556, though not as well known as the career of Bartolomé de las Casas and other pro-Indian reformers, merits serious study. The arrival of Zorita and his subsequent actions as an administrator and legist represent one example of the serious efforts of the Crown in the 1540’s to impose royal control over a quasi-feudal class of conquerors and pobladores which had from the early sixteenth century entrenched itself in the New World. Moreover, Zorita was not only a jurist who attempted to implement the New Laws of 1542–43, but an inspired humanitarian who took an active interest in the native civilizations of the New World and questioned the relations that had evolved and created “a Hispano-Indian society characterized by the domination of the masses by a small privileged minority…” His ardent defense of the Indians against the charge that they were “barbarians” included a relativist line of argument that anticipated Michel de Montaigne’s celebrated comment that “everyone calls barbarian what is not his own usage.” In addition, his inquiries into native history, land tenure and inheritance laws may be considered “in effect exercises in applied anthropology, capable of yielding a vast amount of information about native customs and society” and is an example of what Europe saw or failed to see in the sixteenth century when confronted with a strange new world.


1970 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Pennington

As a defender of the Indians and an opponent of the methods used by the Spanish conquistadors, Bartolomé de Las Casas was as controversial a figure in the sixteenth century as he has been in the last four hundred years of historiography. Las Casas' fight to preserve the freedom of the Indians has gained for him not only devoted admirers, but also angry detractors.1Las Casas was not the only Spaniard who defended the Indians, but his efforts are the best known. He labored for fifty years before death finally halted the steady flow of polemics from his pen. However, he was not just a sheltered academician like Vitoria, but he actively championed the rights of the Indians by working and living among them in the New World.


2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
Virginia Aspe Armella

La presente investigación precisa qué entendieron por ley natural los pensadores más relevantes del siglo XVI novohispano. La autora intenta probar que gracias al concepto de ley natural se facilitó la supresión de un enfoque eurocentrista en ocasión de los usos y costumbres nahuas; es indudable que no todos los pensadores de la época tuvieron la misma interpretación de este concepto. Autores como Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda la concibieron de modo civilizatorio mientras que otros como Alonso de la Veracruz y Bartolomé de las Casas la interpretaron desde una perspectiva modal; fueron estos últimos los que gracias a dicho instrumento lograron oponerse a conceptos como el de esclavitud y barbarie.


2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-292
Author(s):  
Manuel Méndez Alonzo

In this paper I present the theory of natural rights and liberty of Bartolomé de Las Casas. I hold that the theoretical foundation of Las Casas is found in juridical texts, only complemented by Thomist authorities. I show that the apparent inconsistencies were a means to make his discourse more effective against those who defended the enslavement of Native Americans. Finally, this eclecticism enabled Las Casas to create an original theory of civil power and liberty by using Canon law texts and terms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document