Box #372 SN: 2100544

The Trial and Execution of Don Carlos

A Political Killing?

Tristan Johnson

12/7/2011

1

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 Zumárraga 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 Carlos’s 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 Carlos’s 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 Zumárraga 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 Lopes Don, p. 5742 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 359

2

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 Zumárraga, a Basque Dominican friar who was given the

position of Bishop of Mexico by Emperor Charles V in 1527.3 Zumárraga 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, Zumárraga 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 Doña Maria and according to her testimony in Carlos’s 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, Zumárraga and

3 Herbermann, Pace, Pallen, Shahan, Wynne, Entry: Zumárraga4 Gibson, “The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810”, p.995 Nauert, p. 4276 Gibson, “The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810”, p.997 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 3578 Lopes Don, p. 5899 Ibid, p. 579

3

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

Zumárraga’s attention. The office of the inquisition for several days interviewed people

surrounding Don Carlos, and after the testimonies were collected, Zumárraga himself led a

search of Carlos’s 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

Zumárraga 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 Lopes Don, p. 58111 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 356-712 Lopes Don, p. 57713 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 357-914 Lopes Don, p. 57715 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 36016 Greenleaf, “The Mexican Inquisition of the Sixteenth Century”, p. 75

4

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 Prescott, p. 4218 Ibid, p. 4319 Lockhart, p. 10320 Prescott, p. 4221 Lockhart, p. 10322 Prescott, p. 4223 Lockhart, p. 11024 Lopes Don, p. 577

5

of sons of high status mothers, especially Mexica connected mothers, over a leader’s 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 Carlos’s

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 pre-

contact 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 Carlos’s ‘señoridad’ being perceived as being taken by force. Don

Carlos’s ascension was not only challenged by those families with Mexica blood, but from non-

Mexica families who felt that they had the same right to rule as Don Carlos.28 These issues

surrounding the legitimacy of Don Carlos’s rule and the Spanish policy of allowing the natives to

25 Lopes Don, p. 57826 Ibid, p. 58127 Ibid, p. 57728 Ibid, p. 586

6

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 Carlos’s 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 Zumárraga, 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 Empire’s 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 pro-

Hispanic 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 Carlos’s

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 anti-

Spanish rhetoric. During this time period, the Spanish attempted to massively convert the natives

29 Lopes Don, p. 58030 Gibson, “The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810”, p.99

7

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

31 In the time of Carlos’s 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 Doña

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 Zumárraga 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 Lockhart, p. 20332 Ibid, p. 20333 Lopes Don, p. 60434 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 35635 Lopes Don, p. 58736 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 356-7

8

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 us…37

Don Carlos’s rhetoric was obviously extremely worrisome to Zumárraga 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, Zumárraga and other Spanish rulers had definite motive to make sure

Don Carlos was taken out of the picture.

To understand the reaction Zumárraga made to these pressures, it is important to know

Zumárraga himself. Juan de Zumárraga 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, Zumárraga 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, Zumárraga 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 Zumárraga however brief his run

as the Bishop of Mexico, had been the first general in the spiritual conquest of the Mexican

people. Zumárraga however found that charm in the cases of conversion of the Mexicans was not

always successful. Considered a moral stalwart, Zumárraga at time with his Franciscan brothers

37 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 35738 Herbermann, Pace, Pallen, Shahan, Wynne, Entry: Zumárraga39 Gibson, “The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810”, p. 99

9

believed in a means justifies the ends in regard to using discipline on native heretics.40 It stands

to believe that Zumárraga 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 Zumárraga 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 Carlos’s case’s 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 Zumárraga actually led the search of Don Carlos’s house personally in the

search for idols42 (it is interesting to point out here that Zumárraga 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 Carlos’s 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

Carlos’s property before him had belonged to his uncle and had been occupied since before the

40 Ruiz, p. 6841 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 35742 Ibid, p. 35843 Ibid, p. 355

10

conquest.44 Zumárraga 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 Carlos’s 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, Zumárraga conducted interviews in both Chiconautla and

Texcoco interviewing witnesses such as Don Carlos’s 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 Carlos’s deceased uncle, and the cacique of

Chocnautla.48 The expedited testimonials and personal attention from Zumárraga show that this

was a very important case that Zumárraga 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.

Though Zumárraga 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.

44 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 35845 Ibid, p. 358-946 Prescott, p. 7547 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 35948 Ibid, p. 35749 Greenleaf, “The Mexican Inquisition of the Sixteenth Century”, p. 74-5

11

Don Carlos’s 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 Zumárraga 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 Zumárraga 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, Zumárraga obviously felt it dire enough to sentence Don

Carlos to death despite the risk.

Given the pressures Zumárraga 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

50 Lopes Don, p. 573-451 Ibid, p. 57452 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 35653 Lopes Don, p. 57454 Ibid, p. 57455 Gibson, “The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810”, p. 117

12

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, Zumárraga

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 Zumárraga 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. Zumárraga 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. Zumárraga also

headed the creation of these colegios that not only converted upper class native youth, but also

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 Zumárraga’s inquisition of Don Carlos and he had to

13

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 Carlos’s 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

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

56 Lopes Don, p. 58357 Gibson, “The Aztec Artistocracy in Colonial Mexico” p. 18158 Greenleaf, “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico”, p. 357

14

monogamy, combined creating a new generation of very loyal, Christian, native leaders with

European values. This defiance would not stand in the eyes of Zumárraga. Betraying his

humanist policy, Zumárraga 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 Zumárraga 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 CitedCharles G. Herbermann, Edward A. Pace, Condé 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.