1. The Lascasian literature is enormous. Lewis Hanke is the most eminent of the historians to have studied Las Casas; he and Manuel Giménz Fernández have compiled a bibliography of 849 entries. Bartolomé de Las Casas 1474–1566 (Santiago, Chili: José Toribio Medina, 1954)Google Scholar. Hanke has described the controversy which surrounds Las Casas in a bibliographical note in his The Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949), 197–199Google Scholar. The main argument centers around Las Casas' role in promoting the “Black Legend,” and whether Las Casas encouraged the Spanish slave trade through his writings.

2. Hanke, Lewis, Las teorías politicas de Bartolmé de Las Casas (Buenos Aires: J. Peuser, 1935), 16Google Scholar, or his Bartolomé de Las Casas: Historian (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1952), 2Google Scholar. For a recent and sympathetic study with documentation see Wagner, Henry, The Life and Writings of Bartolmé de Las Casas (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1967)Google Scholar. On this work see Borah's, W. review in The American Historical Review, 73 (1968), 1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also the detailed work of Pidal, Ramón Menéndez, El Padre Las Casas: Su doble personalidad (Madrid: Espana-Calpe, 1963)Google Scholar, but see Zavala's, Silvio review in Nueva Revista de Filologia Hispánica, 17 (1963–1964), 104–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The most exhaustive work, which covers his life just up to 1523, is Fernández, Manuel Giménez, Bartolomé de Las Casas, 2 volumes (Sevilla: Publicaciones de la escuela de estudios hispano-americanos de Sevilla, 1953-1960)Google Scholar. Two recent articles are Specker, J., “Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas im Widerstreit der Meinungen,” Neue Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft, 22 (1966), 213–233Google Scholar. Bernard-Maitre, Henri, “A propos de la double personalité de Las Casas,” Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 63 (1968), 63–66.Google Scholar

3. His historical works have been printed for centuries, and they are all in modern editions. Two of his most important polemical tracts have been edited only recently, Del unico modo de atraer a todos los pueblos a la verdadera religion, edited by Carlos, Augustin Millares (Panuco, Mexico: Fondo de cultura económica, 1942)Google Scholar, and De thesauris in Peru, edited by Losada, Angel (Madrid: Gonzalo F. de Oviedo, 1958).Google Scholar

4. La theología y los teólogos-juristas españoles ante la conquista de América, 2 volumes (Madrid: Talleres gráficos Mariega, 1944), II, 314Google Scholar. “Las ideas de Las Casas son, en el fondo … las mismas Vitoria, Soto y dems teólogios-juristas eitados del siglo XVI y XVII, que son floración natural de los principios de Santo Tomas, el Doctor universal de in Iglesia.” He expands his views on Vitoria and Soto in the same work, I, 295. “Aun tropezamos con algunos supervivientes, inteligencias en retraso; pero la verdadera doctrina se impone ya pronto, eon el renacimiento teológico-juridico, que tendrá por eapitanea a Vitoria y a Domingo do Soto. Este triunfo se debe, en primer lugar, al retorno a Santo Tomás en las Escuelas y Universidades.” It has been conventional to view St. Thomas as being the dominant influence on these Spanish thinkers. Silvio Zavala has written in the introduction to de Palacios Rubios, Juan Lopez, De las islas del mar Océano (Mexico: Fondo de cultura económica, 1954), lxixGoogle Scholar, “Sin embargo, la interpretación del poder pontificio como espiritual y ajeno a la potestad temporal di- recta, aunque con facultades de intervención en este dominio en lo que fuese necesario para el fin espiritual, se encuentra latente en los tratados de Tomás do Aquino, aflora con el español Torquemada en el siglo XV, y alcanza un desarrollo completo en Vitoria y Belarmino.” Hamilton, Bernice, Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963)Google Scholar, also stresses the Thomistic influence on Vitoria, Soto and others. She even goes so far to say that the idea the pope could not grant dominion over the infidels was a view which was more common among theologians than lawyers (p. 179, footnote 1). de la Brière, Yves, La conception du droit international ches les théologiens catholiques (Paris: 1930)Google Scholar has placed emphasis on the role of Thomism in Vitoria's and Soto's thought. The idea that Aristotle and Aquinas were chiefly responsible for creating theories which limited papal power is the thesis of Wilks, Michael, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963).Google Scholar

5. “La locura do fray Bartolomé de Las Casas,” Revista hispanoamericana de ciencias, letras y artes, 6 (1927), 284–290Google Scholar. For the diverse attitudes towards Las Casas over four centuries, see Hanke, Lewis, “Interpretación de la obra y significación de Bartholomé de Las Casas, desde el siglo XVI hasta el presente,” Boltin latinoamérica, (1949), 295–300.Google Scholar

6. The Political Philosophy of the Conquest of America, trans. by Teener Hall (Mexico: 1953), 70Google Scholar. Also Baldwin, Summerfield, “God and Secular Power,” Essays in History and Political Theory Presented to Charles H. McIlwain (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936), 32Google Scholar. “Las Casas practically, Vitoria theoretically, both Dominicans, set themselves zealously to the defense of the Indians.”

7. De thesauris, 465–469. Hanke has noted several times that Las Casas was learned in the law, but he did not emphasis the fact. See Hanke, Lewis, Bartolomé de Las Casas: Bookman, Scholar, and Propagandist (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1952), 15Google Scholar. Also Nys, Ernst, “Les publicistes espagnols du XVI^e siècle et les droits des Indiens,” Revue de droit international et legislation comparée, 21 (1889), 532–560.Google Scholar

8. The Divine Right of Kings, 2nd. edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 45–65.Google Scholar

9. Kantorowicz, Ernst, The King's Two Bodies: A StuJAj in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957)Google Scholar. Tierney, Brian, “Medieval Canon Law and Western Constitutionalism,” Catholic Historical Review, 52 (1966–1967), 1–17.Google Scholar

10. Oakley, Francis, The Political Thought of Pierre d'Ailly: The voluntaris't Tradition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1964), 198–232Google Scholar. How thoroughly the writings of the conciliarists were based on canon law has been shown by Tierney, Brian, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory: The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955).Google Scholar

11. Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius 1414–1625 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923), 18.Google Scholar

12. Nys, , “Les publicistes,” 552–553Google Scholar, noted that Innocent IV and Hostiensis took two different positions on this question in their commentaries on the Decretals of Gregory IX at X 3.34.8 (Quod super his). Since then this has been discussed by Ullmann, Walter, Medieval Papalism: The Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists (London: Methuen, 1949), 129–137Google Scholar. Zavala, , De las islas, lxxi–lxxxiiiGoogle Scholar, discusses Innocent IV, Hostiensis, and Zabarella as well as other theologians and polemicists. See also his Political Philosophy, 25–27. Most recently, Muldoon, James, “Extra ecclesiam non est imperium, The Canonists and the Legitimacy of Secular Power,” Studia Gratiana, 9, 570–579Google Scholar. Alfons Stickler published a gloss of Alanus which denied that the infidels have legitimate power. Alanus may have been the first canonist (ca. 1202) to take this position. “Alanus Anglicus als Verteidger des monarchischen Papsttums,” Salesianum, 21 (1959), 361–362Google Scholar. Gloss to D.96 c.6 s.v. cursu “Non obtitiat [obviat] huic opinioni quod ante fuerunt imperatores quam pape, quia tantum de facto fuerunt et ius gladli non habuerunt, nisi illi tantum qui in verum deum crediderunt. Nec etiam hodie habent infideles principes ut supra ostensum est ut xxiiii q.i. Set illud (c.39).”

13. Zavala, , De las islas, lxxxviiGoogle Scholar. “Veremos que en un prineipio prevalece Ia autoridad de Ostiense. Más tarde le escuela tomista afirma los derechos politicos y civiles de los pueblos gentiles, a pesar de su infidelidad.” Parry, John Horace, The Spanish Theory of Empire in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940), 13–14Google Scholar. Muldoon, , “Extra ecclesiam,” 556; 578–580Google Scholar, also makes the point that the later canonists favored Hostiensis' opinion.

14. de Segusio, Henricus, In quinque decretalium libri commentaria and In sextum decretalium librum, 2 volumes (Venetiis: 1581), II, fol. 128vGoogle Scholar. “Mihi tamen videtur, quod in adventu Christi omnis honor, et omnis principatus, et omne dominium, et iurisdictio de iure et ex causa iusta … omni infideli subtracta fuerit et ad fideles translata.” Paz and Palacios Rubios used this text to promote Spanish claims. See Hanke, , Spanish Struggle, 27–29Google Scholar. Parry, , Spanish Theory, 13Google Scholar. De Las islas for the text of Palacios Rubios' work. On Paz, see de Heredia, Vincente Beltrán, “Un precursor del maestro Vitoria. El P. Matías de Paz, O.P., y en tratado De dominio Regum Hispaniae super Indos,” La ciencia tomista, 40 (1929), 173–190.Google Scholar

15. de Cassanis, Zenzelinus, Extravagantes Ioannis XXII … cum glossa (Antverpiae: 1572)Google Scholar, Extrav. Jo. XXII 5.1 s.v. commisit. Cf. Ullmann, , Medieval Papalism, 130–131Google Scholar. Later in the fourteenth century, de Butrio, Antonius, Commentaria (Venetiis: 1578), III, fol. 151rGoogle Scholar, asserted that Hostiensis had tempered Innocent IV's opinion. “Et istam conclusionem Innocentii confirmat Hostiensis et temperat earn, ut infideles possent habere iurisdictionem in Christianos, quando infideles recognoscunt iurisdictionem ecelesie. Nam tales possunt habere, et possunt ex tolerantia ecclesie dominia, et jura habere: et si isti non sunt contenti illa iurisdietione, nd alias abuntur, sibi imputent: quia priuilegium meretur amittere.”

16. de Ponte, Oldradus, Consilia (Romae: 1472)Google Scholar, consilium 264 (unfoliated). “Tertio eadem ratione, qua non debemus Iudaeos, et paganos, et Sarracenos pacificos rebus suis spoliare, eadem ratione nec eorum habitaculis et ex terra natiua priuare … Et quod possident, siue gentis possident, siue res, sine loca, sine iurisdictiones et sic iuste, et iustitia fori, non poli … sicut hoc clare tenet Innocentius … Item causa expulsionis Arnorraeorum, Cananaeorum, et Iebusareoriim ab eorum terris per filios Israel est contra legem naturae, que clamat unum Deum … Bed Iudaei et Sarraceni non sint idolatriae, sed alias infideles, neque tales publici hostes principum regentium Christianorum, ergo non debet expelli.”

17. Andreae, Johannes, In quinque decretalium libros novella commentaria, 5 volumes in4 (Venetiis: 1581; r.p. Torino: 1963), III, fol. 173rGoogle Scholar. For an introduction to the canonists who are mentioned here see the articles in the Dictionnaire de droit canonique, 7 volumes (Paris: Librairie Letouzey, 1957–1965)Google Scholar. Le Bras, Gabriel, Lefebvre, Charles and Rambaud, J., Histoire du droit et des institutions de l'Eglise en Occident. L'Age classique 1440–1378: Sources et theorie du droit (Paris Sirey, 1965)Google Scholar. von Schulte, Johann F., Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Bechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart, 3 volumes in 2 (Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke, 1875–1878)Google Scholar, is still useful. Also Van Hove, A., Prolegomena, 2nd. ed. (Romae: H. Dessain, 1945)Google Scholar, has useful bibliographical information.

18. Johannes Andreae, Additiones to Durantis, Guilielmus, Speculum iuris, 3 volumes (Venetiis: 1585), III, 488Google Scholar. Additio to De Iudaeis et Saracenis. “Vidi quaedam solennia scripta septem rationibus concludentia, quod princeps pacificos infideles de suis terris absque legitirna causa non debet expellere … Alias oves habeo, quae non aunt cx hoc ovili scilicet ecclesiae… Successor ergo Petri habet illas pascere et defendere, ergo non impugnare, vel laedi permittere… Item coelum coeli domino, terram autem dedit filiis hominum, ergo negandum eis non est, quod ius humanae societatis concedit.”

19. Panormitanus (Nicolo Tedeschi), Cominentaria, sea lecturae in quinque libros decretalium, 8 volumes (Lugduni: 1531–1555), VI, fol. 177vGoogle Scholar. “Innocentius multum exquisite tractat hic istam materiam et primo concludit quod infideles licite tenent dominia et principatus et alia bona quia deus subiecit orbem rationabili creature nec inter homines distinxit postea supervenit ius gentium et habuit locum illud.” Zabarella, Franceaco, In librum primum(-quintum) decretalium, 5 volumes in 3 (Lugduni: 1557–1558), III, fol. 181rGoogle Scholar. “His premissis que sunt memoriter notanda quoad premissam questionem, dicit Innocentius quod dominia, possessiones et iurisdictiones licite sine peccato possunt esse apud infideles. Hec enim non tantum pro infidelibus sed pro qualibet rationibili creatura facta sunt… “ From the beginning of the thirteenth century on, it was common to declare that the imperial office could not exist outside of the church; this of course is not to say that there is not any legitimate secular power outside of Christendom. See Muldoon, “Extra ecclesiam.”

20. de Sancto Geminiano, Dominicus, Consilia (Venetiis: 1581), consilium 96, fols. 80v-81v.Google Scholar

21. Ibid., fol. 80v. “Ut notat Innocentius … isti non potuissent occupare dicta loca, quia infideles, qui non expugnant fideles, non debent expelli de terris suis, cum licite possideant, cum de iure divino ante occupationem permissum fuit occupare terram cuilibet… By quibus concludit Innocentius quod non licet fidelibus nec etiam Papae sine causa iusta auferre infidelibus possessiones, dominia, vel iurisdictiones, quas tenent, cum iuste possideant.”

22. This was the decretal that Gratian included in his Decretum at C.23 q.8 c.11. This chapter was used throughout the middle ages to justify the crusades.

23. Dominicus de Sancto Geminiano, op. cit., fol. 80v. “Verba ergo privilegii Alexandri … quae dicunt, quod omnes terras, loca, etc. possint eripere de manibus paganorum, licet sint concepta universaliter, non debet intelligi sic universaliter, sed tantum de terris possessis per paganos, quae possent licite ab eis eripi, et non allis, quae Papae non licet auferre de manibus illorum … ita hie, dum dicit quod omnes terras possint eripere, intelligamus quod istud privilegium Alexandri non concedit indistincte eis omnia loca possessa per paganos, sed debet intelligi de locis, quae alias fuerunt subiecta Romano Imperio.”

24. Ibid., fol. 81v. “Sed Saraceni non sunt idolatrae, sed alias infideles, ergo expellendi non sunt, ex quo pacifice se habent cum Christianis haec sunt dicta Oldradus in suo consilio 267 et Ioannes Andrea in additio Speculum super Rubrica de iudeis et saracensis. Ex quibus concluditur et roboratur opinio Innocentii in praelegato capitulo quod super his, quod princeps sine causa non potest expellere paganos de terris suis, quae non fuerunt sub dominio Christianoriim ipsis pacifice viventibus.” On Western European attitudes towards the Saracens, see Baldwin, M. W., “Western Attitudes towards Islam,” Catholic Historical Review, 27 (1941–1942), 404–411Google Scholar. Southern, R. W., Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Ibid. “Sed Hostiensis tenet contrarium in dicto capitulo, Quod super his, quia isti non respondent eius rationibus, est eis respondendum [this is probably a reference to Oldradus' failure to confront Hostiensis' arguments]. Propter quod concludit quod si infideles non recognoscunt ecclesiam Romanam in dominam [sic] nec illi obediunt, sunt indigni regno et principatu et omni iurisdictione.” Dominicus then refuted each of Hostiensis' arguments. He concluded that “hoc autem loquitur de infidelibus quiete manentibus et non impugnantibus Christianos.”

26. Although Hostiensis' opinion had been rejected by the canonists, his name was one of the most famous in the canonica1 tradition. This of course gave some weight to his opinion. Because Hostiensis undermined the very heart of Las Casas' argument, Las Casas attacked Hostiensis vigorously in Erudita et elegans explicatio quaestiones utrum Reges vel Principes iure aliquo vel titulo, salva conscientia, cives ac subditos a regea coronea alienare et alterius Domini particularis ditioni subjicere possint? (Francofurti: 1571), 13Google Scholar. “Qui error [Hostiensis] perniciosissimus est, et contra sacram Scripturam, et doctrinam omnium Sanctorum, et etiam piissimam Elcclesiae Consuetudinem, aditum praebens mille rapinis, bellis iniustis, homicidiis innumeris, et omni genere peccatorum, ut alibi contra eum, et suam sententiam esse haereticam.” See Hanke, , Las teorias políticas, 37.Google Scholar

27. Opera ormnia, 2 volumes in 1 (Antverpiae: 1588), I, 497–499Google Scholar. “Sed nihilominus sit in hac re conclusio, quam veriorem esse censemus, bellum adversus infideles ex eo solum quod infideles sint, etiam auctoritate Imperatoris vel Papae iuste indici non potest … nam infidelitas non privat infideles dominio, quod habent iure humano … ergo infideles ex eo quod infideles sunt, nec volunt Christi fidem suseipere, minime amittunt dominium rerum, nec provinciarum, quas obtinent, iureque humano habuerunt: quo sit, Ut ex hac causa bellum adversus eos a Christianis etiam auctoritate publica indici iuste non valeat: quam conclusionem in specie veram esse censent Innocentius et Cardinalis [Francesco Zabarella] in dict. cap. Quod super his. …“ With this said, Muldoon“the canonists may have been too narrow in outlook to deal adequately with the complex issues of the Spanish conquest,” seems a bit unfair. “A Canonistic Contribution to the Formation of International Law,” The Jurist, 18 (1968), 265–279 at 278.Google Scholar

28. On the Spanish theologians of the sixteenth century see Hamilton, , Political Thought, 61; 120–123Google Scholar. The wide audience that the theologians like Vitoria received has been primarily responsible for obscuring the fundamental contribution of the fourteenth and fifteenth century canonists.

29. Summa theologiae, 2.2.10.10. “Ideo distinctio fidelium et infidelium secundum se considerata non tollit dominium et praelationem infidelium supra fideles. Potest tamen iuste per sententiam vel ordinationem Ecciesiac, auctoritatem Dei habentis, tale ius dominii vel praelationis tolli; quia infideles merito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles, qui transferuntur in filios Dei.” St. Thomas' doctrine that an infidel prince would lose his power over Christians because that power was transfered to the sons of God is very similar to Hostiensis' theory.

30. Commnentaria super libros quinque decretalium Gregorii IX, 2 volumes in 1 (Francofurti: 1570), fol. 430vGoogle Scholar. “Imo si male tractarent Christianos, potest eos privare per sententiam iurisdictione et dominio, quod super eos habnet, tamen magna causa debet esse, quod ad hoc veniat, debet enim Papa eos quantum potest sustinere, dummodo periculum non sit Christianis, nec grave scandalum generetur.”

31. On the complexities of the theologians' thought on dominium, see Gwynn, Aubrey, The English Austin Friars in the Time of Wycliff (London: Oxford University Press, 1940), 59–73Google Scholar, and Lewis, Ewart, Medieval Political Ideas, 2 volumes (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1954), I, 103–104Google Scholar. On Augustinus Triumphus, especially see Wilks, Problem of Sovereignty, 419–420, where he also discusses Aegidius Spiritalis' views.

32. de Sepúlveda, Juan Gines, Democrates segundo, ed. by Losada, Angel (Madrid: Instituto Francisco Vitoria, 1951)Google Scholar. Also Hanke, Lewis, Aristotle and the American Indian (London: Hollis and Carter, 1959).Google Scholar

33. Casas, Las, De thesauris, 88Google Scholar. “Per ea quae communiter omnes canonistae determinant in c. Quae in ecclesiarum, de constit. scilicet papam non posse privare infideles suis dominijs et iurisdictionibus quemadmodum nec christianos. Et signanter Innocentius in c. Quod super his, de voto. quam sententiam tenent etiam theologi studiosiores juris naturalis, et alibi latissime scripsimus.”

34. For a detailed history of this maxim's use during the middle ages, see Congar, Yves, “Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet,” Revue historique de droit française et étranger, 35 (1958), 210–259Google Scholar, and Post, Gaines, “A Romano-Canonical Maxim, Quod omnes tangit, in Bracton and in Early Parliaments,” Studies in Medieval Legal Thought: Public Law and the State, 1100–1322 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 163–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Casas, Las, De thesauris, 202–204Google Scholar. “Ubi populus vocatur non ad eligendum tamen ad consentiendum electioni praelati per illam regulam iuris: Quod omnes tangit, debet ab omnibus approbari. cum suis concordantijs. lib. 6 et glossa in c.1 62 dist. Notant a contrario sensu quod si populus non vult consentire eleetioni factae per collegium, potest electio irritari … Si ergo episcopus dari non debet invitis populis ne plebs invita episeopum contemnat vel odiat longe minus rector vel rex temporalis populo libero extraneo, gentili et infideli, proprios habenti et naturales reges non recognoscentes superiorem. …“

36. Ibid., 206. “Ergo non potest [papa] eis dari rex novus nisi ipsi populi et quorum juri detrahitur voluntarie consenserint. Si ergo requiritur necessario quod gentes illae principesque illarum consentiant electioni vel institutioni de regibus nostris Hispaniarum factate per Papam in dominos universales orbis illius, cum negotium sit gravissinum et valde onerosum utopte contra regnorum illorum naturalem libertatem ac servilem deterioremque status omnium incolarum et regum seu magistratuum suorum conditionem, et propterea maxime odiosum manifestum est oportere ad hoc eius modi consensum libere praestent.”

37. Kantorowicz, King's Two Bodies, and Tierney, “Medieval Canon Law.”

38. Casas, Las, De thesauris, 202Google Scholar. “Potest adth alia confirmatio per argumentum ab institutionibus ecclesiasticis ad saeculares, quod est bonum argumentum quia eo utitur Hieronymus. I ad Corinthios, 10 et in multis alijs locis eo Ecclesia usa est. Sed in ecclesiasticis institutionibus requiritur consensus et approbatio populi. Ergo ita oportet esse in saecularibus.”

39. For a discussion of the various interpretations which were given to Alexander's bull see Zavala, Silvio, New Viewpoints on the Spanish Colonization of America (Philadelpha: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1943), 17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fernández, Manuel Giménez, Nuevas consideraciones sobre la historia, sentido y valor de las bulas alejande 1493 referentes a las Indias (Sevilla: Anuario de estudias americanos, 1944)Google Scholar. Hanke, Lewis, Bartolomé de Las Casas: An Interpretation of his Life and Writings (Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1951), 36–38.Google Scholar

40. Casas, Las, De thesauris, 280–282Google Scholar. “Sic est de regibus nostris: habent nempe electionem sive institutionem papalem, et sic titulum et ius ad regna illa, quod regum nemo christianorum de mundo habet. Sed adhuc restat fills aliud potentius et principailus ins obtsinendurn, scilicet consensus populorum et regum suorum ut ratam habeant dictam papalem institutionem, recipiendo eos universales dominos et principes supremos, tradendo eis libere regnorum illorum possessionern: quatenus ins acquirant in re reges nostri id est plenam consequantur potestatem exercendi iurisdictionem supremam et quae sunt supremi principis et regiae ac imperiali auctoritate reservata, ut ex dictis manifeste apparet. Ergo quandiu populi et habitores praefati cum regibus suis libere non consenserint, et caetera. tantwn habuerunt reges nostri titulum et ius ad regna illa, non antem in regnis fills (id est), nullum exercendi iurisdictionem ut gerendi se pro supremis principibns habent facultatem… Sic de catholicis regibus nostris, quia donec popull praefati et reges eorum consensum sine plica vi ant metu praestiterint, rite aut recte ius in regnis illis, Id est exercitium regiae potestatis (nisi ius ad rem et solum titulum) non habebunt.” For the development of the concept ius ad rem, see Benson, Robert, The Bishop-Elect: A Study in Medieval Ecclesiastical Office (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), 142–143.Google Scholar

41. Ibid., 94–96. “Et ratio secundum Baldum in d.c. Cum olim. Quia concessio ex qua sequitur aliquid absurdum dicitur concesslo captiosa. ff. de transac. 1. Cum aquillia. et ff. de haeredi. insti. 1. Illa institutio et 1. Ille autem. Et ideo papa non concedit literas corn praejudieio alieno. Praeterea nibil fieri debet ad aemulationem. ff. de open. pubil. 1. Opus. et privilegium unius non debet usurpare ius alterius. ff. de vulga. snsti. 1. Ex facto. Nec naturalem facultatem impedire. ff. de oper. liberto. 1. Libertas negotiatoni. Haec Baldus. Item privilegia et concessione inteUiguutur fieri sine alterius iniuria. 1.2 § Si quis principe, et § Merito. ff. ne quid in loco publi… Rursus, aliorum honores non debent alijs nocere.”

42. Ibid., 100. “Fatendum est omnino Summum Obristi Vicarium in praedictis apostolicis literis et decreto pracfatae institutionis, concessionis sive donationis ad reges nostros catholicos, per eandem institutionem, concessionem, etc., privare Reges et dominos naturales illius orbis suis regalibus dignitatibus, dominiis et jurisdictionibus… Deus et eius Vicarius intendunt, scilicet praedicationi Evangelii et fidei dilatationi et cultus divini plantationi, et animarurn conversioni et saluti conducant sive conveniant.”

43. Although there is no evidence that he received a law degree, it is fairly certain that Las Casas studied law at the University of Salmanaca. Cf. Wagner, Las Casas, 4.

44. Hanke, , Bartolomé de Las Casas: An Interpretation, 42.Google Scholar

45. Ibid., 36.