BOX #372 SN: 2100544

The Trial and Execution of Don Carlos

A Political Killing?
Tristan Johnson 12/7/2011

Don Carlos Chichimecatecuhtli was the only native to ever receive the death penalty from the infamous Mexican Inquisition. He burned at the stake in 1539 just months after becoming the cacique (ruler) of the former member city of the Aztec triple alliance Texcoco. Though he was accused of serious crimes in the eyes of the inquisition such as idolatry, sacrifice, and bigamy,1 he was executed for the crime of heretical dogmatizing.2 The question however is that given the risk the Bishop of Mexico, Juan de Zumrraga took in executing the Aztec noble, and the speed in which the case was processed, was this a simple case of the inquisition performing its function of punishing those who commit acts of blasphemy, or was there more underlying reasons for Don Carloss execution? Evidence that the cacique was not popular among his people and that the concept newly implanted by the Spanish of legitimacy of the throne was hurting Carloss case and giving the colonial rulers a desire to replace him with a leader who might hold better control of a strategic region. There is also the case of the convergence of two major projects Zumrraga endorsed of the colegio system and the move for the nobility to choose a single wife and disregard their other polygamous marriages. Combined, it appears that Don Carlos, who was an outspoken critic of both the colegios and monogamy, would stand in the way of making a new generation of native leadership that was Christian and with European values. Evidence that the case was more than a normal inquisition case involves the personal attention given by the Bishop himself, the speed of the trial, and the disproportionally strong sentence. These circumstances lead to the question if Don Carlos was singled out and killed not just for his clerical crimes that other leaders were spared for committing, but killed because he stood as a strong political opponent to the colonial takeover of

1 2

Lopes Don, p. 574 Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 359

Mexico, and needed to be eliminated to insure against a possible uprising or native backlash from his rhetoric.

The story of the execution of Don Carlos revolves around two characters, Carlos himself, and the first Bishop of Mexico, Juan de Zumrraga, a Basque Dominican friar who was given the position of Bishop of Mexico by Emperor Charles V in 1527.3 Zumrraga came to Mexico and intended to apply the precepts of Erasmian humanism in the Americas.4 This early form of humanism challenged the precepts of the medieval religious law.5 His mission involved building schools and encouraging literacy and helpful European values by his perspective.6 Instead of the forceful conversions like in the past, Zumrraga felt the Christian mission in Mexico required a less heavy hand, using evangelizing to convert the masses. It seems however, the methods were challenged when he met Don Carlos. Don Carlos was given the rule of Texcoco in 1539 when his brother Don Pedro passed away.7 By his legally recognized wife, Pedro had no legitimate heirs and gave leadership upon his death to Carlos due to the Texcocan method of elective succession. Don Carlos had a wife named Doa Maria and according to her testimony in Carloss case, their marriage had been deteriorating for a few years. In February of 1539 he took a mistress Ines, his niece.8 Together, Don Carlos and Ines had a daughter.9 Around the same time this is happening, Zumrraga and

3 4

Herbermann, Pace, Pallen, Shahan, Wynne, Entry: Zumrraga Gibson, The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810, p.99 5 Nauert, p. 427 6 Gibson, The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810, p.99 7 Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 357 8 Lopes Don, p. 589 9 Ibid, p. 579

other Dominicans are making an effort to get the entire nobility class of the old Aztec empire to choose a wife and embrace monogamy in a large ceremony.10

Don Carlos caught the attention of the Bishop when in June of 1539 when visiting his sister in the town of Chiconautla. When visiting he made a very outspoken speech against the teachings of the friars and the Spanish system, denouncing the colegio schools, monogamy, and Christian doctrine. Pointing out how different the catholic orders of Dominicans, Franciscans, and Augustinians were Carlos proposed a native order, where native values were preserved.11 An indigenous Christian neophyte named Francisco reported Don Carlos to the authorities12 and Zumrragas attention. The office of the inquisition for several days interviewed people surrounding Don Carlos, and after the testimonies were collected, Zumrraga himself led a search of Carloss house, finding hidden idols within.13 After his trial he was charged with heretical dogmatism.14 He tried to insist that he was a victim of a plot to secure the cacique of Texcoco, but was not listened to. On November 30, 1539, Don Carlos was burned at the stake for his crime. 15 This is not however the end of the story. Because the royal officials felt that Zumrraga was too harsh in his sentencing, he was removed of his title of inquisitor in 1543.16 From this point onward, natives were exempted from the inquisition and it could only be applied to Spaniards and slaves.

10 11

Lopes Don, p. 581 Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 356-7 12 Lopes Don, p. 577 13 Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 357-9 14 Lopes Don, p. 577 15 Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 360 16 Greenleaf, The Mexican Inquisition of the Sixteenth Century, p. 75

There was significant native pressure on the Spanish colonial system to remove Don Carlos as a figure of importance. The native issues surrounding Don Carlos boil down to issues of his heritage, the old way of succession the Aztec empire (at least in Tenochtitlan and Texcoco) employed before Spanish rule, and the newer concept of legitimacy of the crown brought by the Spanish. The succession style employed by leaders in Tenochtitlan and Texcoco were virtually identical and it is even described by the native writers as such.17 Later, this method of succession came to represent the leadership of the Aztec Empire as Texcoco and Tenochtitlan entered an alliance with the town of Tlacopan and the Mexica people of Tenochtitlan came to dominate the alliance.18 The Aztec empire was a monarchical system. Succession of a new monarch was an elective process. This varied back and forth between a decision to pass on leadership to either a brother or child of the previous leader. Women rarely succeeded their brother or father and if they did it was usually in conjunction with being married to someone closely related or well connected.19 Factors in deciding an heir involved success as a military leader or warrior,20 important familial connections through blood or marriage,21 or possibly involvement in another important office such as the priesthood like the last ruler of the Aztec Empire Moctezuma II.22 For direct lineage, the issues surrounding succession got difficult. The Nahua civilization practiced polygamy23 and often in situations in which the son was chosen to succeed the father it was chosen based on the social status and connections of the mother in a system called hypogamy.24 Evidence showed that in the city of Texcoco, this led to a preference

17 18

Prescott, p. 42 Ibid, p. 43 19 Lockhart, p. 103 20 Prescott, p. 42 21 Lockhart, p. 103 22 Prescott, p. 42 23 Lockhart, p. 110 24 Lopes Don, p. 577

of sons of high status mothers, especially Mexica connected mothers, over a leaders brother which was more common before.25

This idea merged with an implanted idea from the Europeans of legitimacy of the crown. In Mexican culture by this point under Spanish rule began to take the Spanish idea of a church sanctioned marriage being necessary for legitimacy. 26 There was a feeling amongst the Texcocans questioning the legitimacy of Don Carlos on several grounds. However, this was not the direct cause of the inquisition of Don Carlos as his accusation came from the town of Chiconautla. It is thought that the feeling of illegitimacy may have caused some of the behaviors Don Carlos had that did lead to his accusation in Chiconautla. The issues of Don Carloss succession actually dates to before the conquest, but was exaggerated by the power confusion relating to the Spanish conquest. The 1539 ascension of Don Carlos was the culmination of these events.27 Don Carlos also had a sense of illegitimacy focused around the fact that he was not connected to the Mexica bloodline. Though the Mexica had lost their power in the conquest due to their stance against the Spanish in the conquest of their home city of Tenochtitlan, the precontact Texcoco was still very much under the influence of Tenochtitlan and the Mexican rulers. Mexica blood therefore still was an important role in preserving the privileges of the nobility. This led to the idea of Don Carloss seoridad being perceived as being taken by force. Don Carloss ascension was not only challenged by those families with Mexica blood, but from nonMexica families who felt that they had the same right to rule as Don Carlos.28 These issues

25 26

Lopes Don, p. 578 Ibid, p. 581 27 Ibid, p. 577 28 Ibid, p. 586

surrounding the legitimacy of Don Carloss rule and the Spanish policy of allowing the natives to choose their own rulers for the most part would have put the colonial leadership in a hard position. Don Carlos was ruler for life and yet he had limited support from the Texcocans. This could destabilize an important city, and the Spanish would want to replace him to keep control.

Spanish colonial rule may have felt a very real threat by Don Carloss position and disposition. At this time, the Spanish were pushing for monogamy to take over and adjust the nobility structure by ending the practice of taking multiple wives and concubines.29 One of the goals of the Dominican Bishop and inquisitor of Don Carlos, Juan de Zumrraga, was to establish a series of schools designed to teach literacy but notably Christianize and instill with Hispanic values the natives with an emphasis on the nobility class.30 Given this endeavor to bring European values to native nobility, the elective nature of the Aztec Empires elective system of inheritance, it would not be outside the realm of reason to guess that persistence of native values such as Don Carlos seemed to espouse would be a threat to raise a new generation of proHispanic native rulers. Don Carlos would simply choose a son or a brother who kept the native practices perpetuating. Therefore, through some sort of means, despite the legality of Carloss position, he would need to be eliminated to ensure a key city like Texcoco would be ruled by a pro-Hispanic ruler.

Don Carlos would have been perceived as a threat as well for his very outspoken antiSpanish rhetoric. During this time period, the Spanish attempted to massively convert the natives
29 30

Lopes Don, p. 580 Gibson, The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810, p.99

of Mexico to Catholicism and European morals in a time called the spiritual conquest of Mexico.
31

In the time of Carloss trial and execution, the colony of New Spain was still young.

Resistance to the religious takeover during this time is not unheard of 32 and Don Carlos showed many signs, possibly due to some sort of need to overcome his air of illegitimacy, to resist many of the new Christian practices.33 Don Carlos was baptized in 1524 and was married to Doa Maria of Guaxutla. He had a famous brother named Don Hernando Ixtilxochitl whom ruled Texcoco until his death in 1531. From this point onward the cacique or leadership of Texcoco was in the hands of Don Carlos.34 This was the point in which Carlos would feel he was obligated to pick up another wife to solidify his power under the Aztec tradition. Carlos began to show an interest in the daughter niece Ines. Ines was the daughter of his sister Xoxul, whom was married to the cacique of the town of Chiconautla.35 On June 22nd, 1539, Don Carlos visited his sister and in a public sphere denounced the Christian ways. He expressed that it was an abomination, and that those who collaborated with the Spanish views were abandoning the ways of their ancestors. He also denounced the colegio system that Zumrraga was making a distinct effort to endorse. He spoke that the natives should have their own culture and way of doing things including marriage and religious practices. 36 Who are those that undo us and disturb us and live on us and we have them on our backs and they subjugate us? Well here I am, and there is the Lord of Mexico, Yoanize, and there is my nephew Tezapille, Lord of Tacuba, and there is Tlacahuepantli, Lord of Tula, that we are all equal and in agreement and no one shall equal us, that this is our land, and our treasure and our jewel, and our possession, and the Dominion is ours and belongs to us; and who comes here to

31 32

Lockhart, p. 203 Ibid, p. 203 33 Lopes Don, p. 604 34 Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 356 35 Lopes Don, p. 587 36 Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 356-7

subjugate us that are not our relatives or of our blood and make themselves our equals, well here we are and no one shall ridicule us37

Don Carloss rhetoric was obviously extremely worrisome to Zumrraga once he was reported to on the situation. Given the high position Carlos held, it would serve as a very dangerous act of defiance against the Spanish rule. This is compounded by the effort to Christianize and turn the young nobility of Mexico into loyal Spanish subjects via the use of the colegio system. Together, Zumrraga and other Spanish rulers had definite motive to make sure Don Carlos was taken out of the picture.

To understand the reaction Zumrraga made to these pressures, it is important to know Zumrraga himself. Juan de Zumrraga was a Franciscan friar hailing from the Basque region of Spain. In 1527 as more detailed accounts of the conquest of Mexico by Hernando Cortes came to the attention of the Spanish Emperor Charles V, Zumrraga was recommended by the Emperor to represent the church as the first Bishop of Mexico.38 Despite the controversial nature of the execution of Don Carlos, Zumrraga considered himself the protector of the natives and his mission was applied with a Erasmian humanism. Ecclesiastical preaching was quickly followed with a policy of education, literacy, and social restructuring.39 Zumrraga however brief his run as the Bishop of Mexico, had been the first general in the spiritual conquest of the Mexican people. Zumrraga however found that charm in the cases of conversion of the Mexicans was not always successful. Considered a moral stalwart, Zumrraga at time with his Franciscan brothers

37 38

Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 357 Herbermann, Pace, Pallen, Shahan, Wynne, Entry: Zumrraga 39 Gibson, The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810, p. 99

believed in a means justifies the ends in regard to using discipline on native heretics.40 It stands to believe that Zumrraga may have been inclined to react in the manner he did because of his strong convictions. The main piece of evidence in literature to define Zumrraga as tough on heretics seems to link back to this case. Overall, given his apparent philosophy on the conversion of the natives, the execution of Don Carlos seems slightly out of character. Given that these major plans to convert and control the natives through education and preaching, Don Carlos would stand as a threat to the whole plan and a possible source of native rebellion. Don Carlos despite his humanitarian approach may have felt forced to intervene.

There is some curious indications from the reports on Don Carloss cases evidence that suggest that there was a strong intent to convict the cacique by any means necessary. Within a couple days of his speech in Chiconautla, on July 4th of 1539, Don Carlos was arrested and all his property seized.41 Zumrraga actually led the search of Don Carloss house personally in the search for idols42 (it is interesting to point out here that Zumrraga was particularly known both before and after the trial of Don Carlos for trying to destroy idols of the god Huitzilopochtli that had been spirited away from Tenochtitlan during the Spanish conquest, that and his personal involvement in the search of Don Carloss house gives evidence that idolatry was one of the crimes he cared the most about.)43 And despite there being no real testimonial evidence that Carlos was a practice of idolatry, he was still charged with the crime after finding idols. Don Carloss property before him had belonged to his uncle and had been occupied since before the

40 41

Ruiz, p. 68 Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 357 42 Ibid, p. 358 43 Ibid, p. 355

10

conquest.44 Zumrraga would have known this and with the flimsy evidence to support idolatry, Don Carlos was still charged. After a discovery of a cache of idols in Don Carloss residence, a search of the Texcoco area was taken to find any and all idols in the area. Most of these were due to a recent famine that reinvigorated the cult of Tlaloc.45 Tlaloc as a god represented rain and famine and in times of famine is was expected to make sacrifices of children to this god.46 The cult was found during the famine of 1539, but the cult was not killed for their practicing. Their idols and sacrificial tools were confiscated however.47 Before the search, many people close to the cacique were interrogated by the inquisition in the normal fashion, though it was accelerated beyond what most inquisitorial cases take as the questioning period was only for a few days. Between July 4th and July 12th, Zumrraga conducted interviews in both Chiconautla and Texcoco interviewing witnesses such as Don Carloss wife, son, niece (whom she admitted he had a child with and taken as a concubine), other areas of leadership in Texcoco like the govenador and the principales, the wife of Carloss deceased uncle, and the cacique of Chocnautla.48 The expedited testimonials and personal attention from Zumrraga show that this was a very important case that Zumrraga wanted to convict quickly. Knowing that Don Carlos was unpopular and the perceived danger he posited, it is little surprise that his inquisitorial trial was expedited so.

44 45

Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 358 Ibid, p. 358-9 46 Prescott, p. 75 47 Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 359 48 Ibid, p. 357

11

Though Zumrraga felt that converted native heretics needed to be punished in the same fashion as Spanish Christians,49 he did not execute any natives for heresy other than Don Carlos. Don Carloss case also stands out as he was the only native ever executed by the inquisition. In fact he was the last tried of sixteen cases in which 27 indigenous people were tried.50 Of these cases, the only crimes Don Carlos was unique in his accusation and ultimately was sentenced to death for was heretical dogmatism against the church.51 Other crimes he was accused of are shared with the previous cases including idolatry, sacrifice, bigamy, and concubinage.52 53 Earlier, it was mentioned that Zumrraga had a particular mission to find idols and punish idolaters, yet no other natives accused or convicted of the crime of idolatry were executed. The status of Don Carlos is also not unique as most of the natives tried under the inquisition were regional leaders as well.54 The harshest penalties given to natives other than Don Carlos were life imprisonment in Spain, and torture on one native per punishment. Other penalties included exile, monastery service, and local imprisonment. There was at this time debate over whether or not this should be allowed as it meant the Franciscans were putting themselves in the prerogatives of the royalty.55 Zumrraga was therefore taking a risk by sentencing a native to die. The crime he was executed for then makes sense, though there was debate over whether or not to put natives through the inquisition at this time, Zumrraga obviously felt it dire enough to sentence Don Carlos to death despite the risk.

49 50

Greenleaf, The Mexican Inquisition of the Sixteenth Century, p. 74-5 Lopes Don, p. 573-4 51 Ibid, p. 574 52 Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 356 53 Lopes Don, p. 574 54 Ibid, p. 574 55 Gibson, The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810, p. 117

12

Given the pressures Zumrraga was under it is important to summarize his position in this circumstance. The natives of Texcoco felt that Don Carlos lacked legitimacy, even if he was convinced to change his position to be pro-Spanish, he would have issues holding loyalty of the natives he ruled over. On top of his issues as ruler of the Texcocans, he represented a political threat to Spanish rule. He made severe anti-Christian rhetoric at a time when the Spanish through a combination of forced monogamy and the retraining colegio system, the Spanish were attempting to breed a next generation of indigenous leaders who were taught and raised with Christian values and Spanish mores and taboos. In his reaction to his accusation, Zumrraga personally led an extremely fast case and trial of Don Carlos using circumstantial evidence to convict Don Carlos of idolatry without testimonial evidence. He was then sentenced in the same year and convicted as the first and only native to be burned at the stake for his religious crimes at the risk of overstepping the royal authority in which there had been a back and forth regarding punishing natives.

Could there be another explanation for this series of events under these circumstances? One could argue that the execution of Don Carlos is not due to the situation Don Carlos had put the colonial establishment, and that Zumrraga executed Don Carlos as part of the spiritual conquest of Mexico and that he was made an example of due to his anti-Christian rhetoric and that the need to remove Carlos due to his resistance to the Spanish rule did not factor as much into his trial. It should be said that at this time, the line between church and state was blurred if it existed at all. Zumrraga as the Bishop of Mexico would have known the situation in Texcoco as it is one of the most major cities and one of the pillars of the old Aztec empire. Zumrraga also headed the creation of these colegios that not only converted upper class native youth, but also

13

instilled pro-European values. At the same time there is the push for monogamous marriages, which would have massive impacts on the inheritance system the natives kept before. The effects are so entwined with the religious aspect of Zumrragas inquisition of Don Carlos and he had to know that there were political implications to executing the cacique. Yet, despite that knowledge and the fact that he knew there were issues around punishing natives, he went through with the execution anyway. It does not appear to be so cut and dry as merely a desire to convict Don Carlos of these clerical crimes, but it is not excluded either. At this time they are too intertwined to really compartmentalize as such.

Another issue might come up with the drawing of connections between the colegio system and the native policy of heir selection. Franciscans recruited young children to their colegios around 10 12 years of age.56 These colegios took native aristocrats and trained them in areas like literacy (in both Spanish and Latin), and rhetoric.57 It is not outside the realm of reason, especially with the denunciation from Don Carlos calling their instructions of no value,58 that the colegios also culturally molded natives to a European world view which could easily include a European monogamous patrilineal line of succession.

To settle the reasons for Don Carloss execution, there were many pressing factors to remove him on the authority. Don Carlos was not a popular leader, having the Texcocans feel like he took his station of cacique by force and therefore was illegitimate. This threatened his

56 57

Lopes Don, p. 583 Gibson, The Aztec Artistocracy in Colonial Mexico p. 181 58 Greenleaf, Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico, p. 357

14

usefulness and a dependable leader of Texcoco. The final straw on the Aztec noble was that of the outspoken denunciation of the Christian and colonial system, proposing that the natives had the right to live and worship in their own way. He denounced the colegio school system and monogamy, combined creating a new generation of very loyal, Christian, native leaders with European values. This defiance would not stand in the eyes of Zumrraga. Betraying his humanist policy, Zumrraga began a fast and brutal inquisitorial trial that ended with the first and only native executed by the inquisition. While the line between the secular and religious is blurred in these cases from the sixteenth century, the execution still led to Zumrraga being stripped of his title for his cruelty to the natives. The uncharacteristic nature of his heavy handed response and the circumstances surrounding Don Carlos leads to some doubt that idolatry and heretical dogmatism as the only reasons for the sentence of the Aztec noble.

15

Works Cited
Charles G. Herbermann, Edward A. Pace, Cond B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne. "Catholic Encyclopedia." New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1914. Don, Patricia Lopes. "The 1539 Inquisition and Trial of Don Carlos of Texcoco in Early Mexico." The Hispanic American Historical Review, 2008: 573-606. Gibson, Charles. "The Aztec Aristocracy in Colonial Mexico." Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1960: 169-196. . The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964. Greenleaf, Richard E. "Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico." The Americas, 1994: 351-376 . . The Mexican Inquisition of the Sixteenth Century. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1969. Lockhart, James. The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992. Nauert, Charles G. "Humanism as Method: Roots of Conflict with the Scholastics." The Sixteenth Century Journal, 1998: 427-438. Prescott, William H. Mexico, and the life of the conqueror Fernando Cortes, Part I. New York: P.F. Collier, 1900. Ruiz, Ramon Eduardo. Triumphs and Tragedy: A History of the Mexican People. New York, London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992.