1

The outlines of the thomistic origins of modern thought in the Americas: the case of

three Mexican philosophers in the XVIth Century

Gabriel González Nares, Universidad Panamericana, Mexico City,

ggonzalez@up.edu.mx

Abstract

Some ideas considered modern such as human rights, political justice, scientific method or

tolerance, are, in fact, proposals that belong to an earlier tradition, especially in the

medieval thought. During the early modern thought in the West, some of the ideas of

Thomas Aquinas were a pillar for the development of the new philosophical building.

Some of the early modern proposals from thomistic origin had the opportunity to be

practiced and studied in the Americas, under new contexts, peoples and challenges. In this

paper we will look through three early modern ideas, present in the thomistic thought

developed by three Mexican thinkers during the XVIth. Century. The ideas, works and

authors to be revised will be: (1) the human nature in Bartolomé de las Casas’ Principia

quaedam, (2) the nature of the political community In Alonso de la Veracruz’s De dominio

infidelium, and (3) the nature of logic in Antonio Rubio’s Logica mexicana.

Key words: Bartolomé de las Casas, Principia quaedam, Alonso de la Veracruz. De

dominio infidelium, Antonio Rubio, Logica mexicana

Introduction

The historical review of the western thought is usually focused on Europe and the great

philosophers she produced. This is reasonable for the period of time in which the Americas

had not been discovered. But, even after the discovery of the New World not much

attention is given to the Americas. During the age of the discoveries the contact with new

realities, new peoples and new social and political realities was developed, and these things

arose new questions and problems that had to be reasonably solved. This development can

be easily spotted in the Americas, especially in Mexico.

The encounter of the two worlds: the Native American and the European gave the

opportunity to enlarge the horizons of the thinking traditions in the West and to compare

2

and complement them with new ways of thought. And, as well, this was an opportunity to

verify the universality of the medieval and renaissance western schools of thought, such as

Thomism or Scotism in different, but human scenarios. We can say that Thomas Aquinas

has a place in the Americas, especially in Mexico and can be considered one of the fathers

of early modern thought with new American horizons.

It is important to realize that Thomism and thomistic schools are a pillar for the early

modern thought. The Schools of Salamanca, Coimbra, the Royal and Pontifical University

of Mexico and the University of Saint Mark, in Lima, Peru have the medieval

developments as a solid foundation of their academic affairs but have a new space and

reality to apply them.

The origins of modern thought could not be understood quite well if, first, the developing

modern philosophy had not been tried and experienced in the Americas, that were a

scenario for the encounter of otherness and difference, but also of humanity and

universality. Let us mention some examples: It would not be easy to think about the

modern idea of human and civil rights had not it been due to the example and work of

Bartolome de las Casas O.P. in favor of the indigenous communities in Mexico. Or, in a

more anthropological way, it would be difficult to think about analogous ways to

understand human nature without the work of Alonso de la Veracruz O.S.A, the first

philosophy teacher in the New World. We could give many other examples of how the

arrival of the incipient modern thought was important for the development of mature

modern philosophy.

In later times, Mexican Jesuit scholars undertook the mission of the receiving the developed

modern thought in the categories of the former scholastic reason, by which this assimilation

was rich and not developed without problems. Academics such as Father Francisco Xavier

Alegre S.J. and Francisco Xavier Clavijero S.J. read Descartes and Gassendi according to a

criterion of interpretation formed in a thomistic and scholastic way. Thus, later Modernity

in the Americas had a fertile terrain where to grow, but not without interesting debates

among those who held the opinion of the usefulness and freshness of modernity, like Benito

Díaz de Gamarra, and those who held that modernity should not be allowed in the academic

forum.

3

What I propose in this paper is that the birth of early modern thought in the Americas has

Thomas Aquinas as one of its foundations in the new scenario of different peoples,

societies and problems and as well, that the solutions that were given to these new problems

by the early modern philosophers undertaking a scholastic and, many times, a thomistic

position, is valuable for the posterior development of modern philosophy due to their

argumentative quality, openness and universality. I would like to limit the exposition to the

thinkers and proposals to the case of Mexico. This, because Mexico, the former Viceroyalty

of New Spain, received some of the finest scholars coming from a medieval and humanistic

background in the School of Salamanca, and was a prosperous ground for new intellectual

challenges that needed intelligent solutions.

I will divide the paper in the following sections: I) Why is Thomas Aquinas a special

influence for the early modern thought in the Americas? Here we will explore the

background of the new problems that were solved with a thomistic vision. The viceregal

Americas had some characteristics that made them a fertile ground for thomistic arguments

to flourish, for example: the two first universities in the Americas were founded in Mexico

and Peru, the first printing press in the Americas was here, and the facing of serious

anthropological, ethical and political problems gave fresh air to philosophy.

The next section will be II) The outlines of the thomistic foundation of early modern

thought in Mexico. We will see the outlines of the major problems and the major thinkers

that gave solutions from a medieval and especially, a thomistic argumentation. We will go

with detail through a selection of issues and their proposed solutions. For this, we shall

limit ourselves to the case of Mexico, where the thomistic thought was a pillar for

intellectual development and identity. Each of the following issues pretends to illustrate

three things: (i) the new problem that New World arose, (ii) the solution according to a

thomistic base and (iii) the exemplar thinker that developed it in the Americas. Let us name

them now:

a) The revision of the human nature, in Fray Bartolomé de las Casas’s Principia

quaedam, issue which was developed by the discussion of the rationality of Native

Americans, which Las Casas defended.

4

b) The investigation of the nature of the political community, in Fray Alonso de la

Veracruz’s De dominio infidelium, which was brought about by the discussion of

the legitimate causes on which the conquerors could take or not possessions from

the Native Americans.

c) The development of a new study on the nature of logics, in Padre Antonio Rubio’s

Logica mexicana, which arose because of the need of good episthemological bases

in the context on the new Hispanic universities, where Aristotelian texts were read

with thomistic commentaries.

I. Why is early modern thought especially important in the America?

It would not be crazy to say that the discovery of the Americas gave a deep breath of fresh

air to Western philosophy. This encounter between two worlds, somehow first (1) woke up

the European scholars from a mostly sterile contemplation and then focused their minds on

more practical issues, and (2) gave the scholars a fertile ground where to apply the great

metaphysical, theological and anthropological proposals from the Middle Ages and the

Renaissance.

So, the humanism developed since the XIIIth. Century in the European universities came

across the Atlantic and expanded the territories of Western thought, and, in the journey

back, many new problems came seeking for a solution, which could be found in classical

proposals that had similar issues, because in earlier contexts, there was also an encounter

between different cultures, such as the Islamic one. Of course, the earlier contact of

Western philosophy with other traditions was always constant, with more or less intensity.

However, the encounter with the Americas1 supposed a brand new situation, for the

Western culture had contact for the first time with unknown people, languages, species and

lands.

It is undeniable that this encounter brought an assimilation of the newly discovered regions

to the Western context, but also had regrettable consequences such as slavery, poverty, 1 In this paper “America” and “The Americas” have the same meaning for the whole continent. Because there is no real cause to make a difference between “America”, understood as the United States of Americas, and “The Americas”, understood as the whole continent. The use that refers to the whole continent is older than the one that refers to the country.

5

cultural violence, and in many cases, death of people, languages and civilizations. Here we

will not discuss these issues, but rather we will try to explain and propagate how the

thought of Thomas Aquinas was one of the first philosophies ever practiced in the

Americas and how this became one of the components of the birth in early Modern

philosophy in that side of the Atlantic, especially in the territories that in our days are

Mexico and Peru.

I.1) How thomistic philosophy found a fertile ground in the Americas

But, why did western philosophy found the adequate conditions to flourish in these regions

of the Americas: Mexico and Peru, which had never had contact with the western tradition?

There are several characteristics that we can briefly point out and explain to show why the

philosophical work could be developed here. Let us go through them one by one:

a) The highly developed Native American civilizations of both regions

The civilizations of native peoples from Mexico and Peru allowed a quick contact and

assimilation of the European thought. The ancient Mexica and Quechua peoples did not

only have an advanced technical civilization, but also a well-developed theoretical one.

Even monotheism was a common opinion for the wise men. Let us focus in two

examples from the Mexican indigenous tradition. When the first twelve Franciscan

friars came to meet the wise indigenous men and told them they were there to preach

the One God, such was the wise men’s answer: “May your hearts be quiet, and your

flesh, our lords!, for we will now open a little, the secret, the chest of the Lord, our

God. You said that we do not know the Lord of nearness and proximity, He to whom

the heavens and earth belong (…) We know to whom life is due, to whom birth is due,

to whom being generated is due, to whom growing is due, how to invoke, how to pray”2

So with this we have an example of how clear the metaphysical thought of the

indigenous wise men was. And we can say that this was proper foundation to receive

the western classical and medieval thought, so influenced by the idea of monotheism.

2 Anónimo, El libro de los Coloquios de los doce, Trad. Miguel León-Portilla, UNAM, México, 1985.

6

b) The foundation of the first Universities in America in Lima, Peru, and Mexico City.

When the Spanish conquest reached the continental land and met with highly

developed peoples, a new mixed civilization was born: that of the mestizo peoples.

With the growth of the population, soon education centers were needed, and this

was the opportunity for the Hispanic university tradition to come to the New World,

so the ideas that once were in Palencia or Salamanca, in Spain, came to Lima and

Mexico City, and the same happened with some teachers, that left Europe and came

to America to educate the new mestizo and creole elites. There is a discussion about

what was the first university in America between the Universities of Lima, Mexico

and Thomas Aquinas in the Dominican Republic. All of them were studia generalia

of the Dominican order, and began to be centers of studies since there was presence

of Dominican missionaries. But if we focus on the date in which the Spanish

monarchy allowed by decree their foundation, then we can know for sure which was

the first one. Thus, by Royal decree of Charles V of Spain, the Royal and Pontifical

University of Saint Mark was founded by Br. Tomás de San Martín, O.P. in Lima,

Peru, on May, 12th 1551 and became the first university to be founded in America3

On the other hand, the Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico was founded by

Royal decree on September, 21st 1551, but started to work until 1553.4 The studies

first offered were theology, Holy Scripture, Canon law and Common law. Next to

the University was established the first printing press in America, which came

earlier in 1539 under petition of Br. Juan de Zumárraga, first bishop of Mexico.

Here were printed the first Latin-American books by the Italian printer Giovanni

Pablos.5

Of course, it is important to mention that the first missionaries that came to

American territory were mendicant friars. These, particularly Franciscans and

3 Óscar Saco Rodríguez. «Reseña histórica de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos». Consulted on 18/02/2016. Available in ihttp://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/Bibvirtual/Publicaciones/geologia/v01_n1/rese%C3%B1a_histo.htm 4 “La universidad real y pontifica” in El virreinato, Vol. IV, Obras públicas y educación universitaria, José Ignacio Rubio Mañé, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México, 1983 5 “Introducción a la imprenta en México”, UNAM, Consulted on 18/ 02/ 2016, Available here: http://mmh.ahaw.net/imprenta/index.php?iddoc=INTRODUCCION

7

Dominicans, came with a very rich philosophical background from Salamanca,

Valencia, Paris or Oxford. Let us have in mind that the first twelve Franciscans

missionaries arrived in Mexico in 1524, and the first Dominicans in 1526.

c) The outcome of new problems solved with classical and thomistic instruments

The new Universities were not only devoted to the study of the classical texts and

problems, issue which was done wonderfully with commentaries on ancient works, but

also were a discussion center devoted to the solution of the problems brought up by the

American experience. Thus, the institution of the University was a not only a quiet

place where to study dead letters, but rather one where to give solutions to the new

challenges from an academic and analytical point of view.

II) Three outlines of the thomistic foundation of early modern thought in Mexico

Let us now go through the outlines that can show us how the early modern thought found

a fertile ground in the Americas in the beginning of the XVIth. Century. The character of

the Thomism that arrived in Mexico picked its own attributes according to the

philosophical needs of the time and place. So says on the topic Mauricio Beuchot, Mexican

philosopher, historian and Dominican friar:

The teachings of Saint Thomas had a fructiferous transplant in the New

World by the work of the Spanish missionaries and teachers of the

recently created study centers, such as some colleges and the

University. For example, the Dominican friars developed it in its

application to the social and cultural problems, just like Bartolomé de

las Casas did, and later in their own Dominican colleges and in the new

University of Mexico, like in the theology class with Pedro de la Peña,

Pedro de Pravia and Bartolomé de Ledesma. And in this very

University, in the class of the famous Augustinian friar Alonso de la

Vera Cruz. But also in the Dominican colleges was this philosophy

applied, just like de Dominican Tomás de Mercado did.

The thomistic philosophical thought was there very strong and

consistent. It was used not only for speculation and theory, but mainly

8

in its applications for the social practice. Thus, we will find there a very

alive Thomism, dedicated to the solution of real problems of the age,

and not only the contemplation of truths. And this makes it a paradigm,

model or example for our thought, precisely for the thomistic

philosophy of our days.6

With these words we have a more clear idea of the character that thomistic studies took in

the Americas, especially in Mexico. This is, the study of Saint Thomas’ works in early

modern thought were socially and practically oriented, without renouncing to the pure

contemplation of truths. Let us now go through the selected issues, solutions and thinkers

that illustrate the life of the thomistic bases of early modern thought in the Americas.

II.1) The revision of the human nature, in Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Principia quaedam,

Maybe the Dominican Bartolomé de las Casas is the most famous of the western thinkers

that first appeared in the Americas (1484- 1546). This is because of his well-known defense

of the rationality and rights of the indigenous peoples. This defense was possible because of

the application of the principles of classical anthropology, which was compiled in Aquinas’

works. It is possible to say that the topic of human nature was revised because the problem

that appeared with the encounter of the indigenous civilizations, for, how to know if the

human-like settlers of the Americas were rational and completely human if Europe had

never had contact with them? The discussion of the topic was socially, theologically and

economically important, for if the natives were rational and completely human, then they

were called to be baptized as Christians and be free subjects and members of the Spanish

crown. On the other hand, if they were not rational, they could be considered as natural

slaves to the conquerors as well as their political communities could be seized, destroyed

and not respected as legitimate.

So, the first years of colonization were hazardous for the natives, since the conquerors had

no a clear idea of the human nature of the native peoples. And so, the missionaries began to

be attracted by the problem and looked for a possible solution. The first preacher that 6 Beuchot, Mauricio, “Filósofos tomistas de la Nueva España (Siglo XVI) in Anchondo Sandra (comp.), Historia y destino de la filosofía clásica novohispana : un recorrido a través de sus pensadores y de sus textos, Col. Novohispanía, Los libros de Homero, México, 2007 The translation is mine.

9

warned of the injustices against the natives and defended their human dignity was de

Dominican Antón de Montesinos, in la Hispaniola Island in 1511.7 Later on, the Dominican

efforts continued in the Continental Americas, but this time in Mexico, where the first

bishop of the continental American territory and Dominican friar Julián Garcés, wrote a

defense letter to the Pope Paul III. The complete name of this letter is Epístola ad SS. Dom.

Nost. Paulum III Pontificem Maximum in Gratiam Indorum.8 In this letter are given

arguments on the rationality of the natives and their capability of being Christians such as

the use of music, their moral virtue, their ability to learn new languages, etc. The letter was

sponsored by other novo Hispanic bishops, and was sent to the Pope in 1537. Later in that

same year Paul III answered the letter with the papal bull Sublimis Deus, in which the

Pontiff canonically recognized and protected the rationality and human nature of the

natives. Thus, the work of the humanist and missionary bishops had one of the first great

products of their work.9 I mentioned here this background in order to better understand the

context of Las Casas arguments in Principia quaedam.

This work of Las Casas was printed in 1552, and, as we can see, there was a previous

development of the ideas present in the work. Even so, the Principia quaedam can be taken

as a summary of the principles that sustain the thomistic anthropology used to defend the

natives. In this work, Las Casas establishes four principles by which it is possible to

consider and respect the nature and rationality of any human being. Let us mention first the

four principles and then we will explain how the thomistic anthropology is a main source

for this early modern work.

• The domain of the beings inferior to man competes to all men, without excluding any,

either faithful or not, according to the justice and the divine ordination, in that which

is common, according to natural law, and to law of nations in that which is particular.

7 Fernandez, P. Los dominicos en la primera evangelización de México, Ed. San Esteban, Salamanca, 1994, p. 48-49. 8 Available in Garcés, J. Documentos inéditos o muy raros para la Historia de México publicados por Genaro García, Tomo XVI, El Clero de México según el Archivo inédito archiepiscopal metropolitano, México, Librería de la Vda. Ch. Bouret, 14- Cinco de mayo-14/ 1907 9 Giménez Fernández, M. "Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas: A Biographical Sketch". In Juan Friede and Benjamin Keen (eds.). Bartolomé de las Casas in History: Toward an Understanding of the Man and his Work. Collection spéciale: CER. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 1971, pp. 67–126.

10

• The domain of one man on other men, in that of the duty of counseling and directing,

which is called also jurisdiction, comes from natural law and law of nations.

• All man, all being, all jurisdiction and all regime or domain on things or on men, on which the

two first principles treat, are, or at least, are presumed to be free if the contrary is not proven.

• Every rector, spiritual or earthly, of a multitude of free men is obliged to order his

government towards the good of the multitude and to rule it for its own sake.10

These are four principles that summarize a thomistic anthropological point of view. We will

now explain why these principles have a thomistic anthropological basis.

II.1.1) Principle of human equality based on rationality

We could say that the first principle is about human equality according to the natural and

divine laws. In this principle Las Casas wants to establish that all men are equal because all

show to have a similar power on nature or irrational creatures. So, if the Natives can show

that they have a rational power on irrational creatures, they should be equal to those that

use similar powers. This is to say that similar powers of rationality show a common

rationality, which is used proportionally in each different context. Las Casas refers to some

passages in the works of Aquinas, especially to the Summa theologiae I, q. 96 art. 1, 3 and

4. Here is the testimony:

The Philosopher (Aristotle) proves in the first book of Politics

that possession of external things by man is just and natural,

proposing the example of the hunt of wild animals, because with

this, he says, man reivindicates for himself what is naturally his.

Of these things speaks Saint Thomas in Summa Theologiae. I, q.

96, art. 1, q. 21 arts. 1 and 3, and II, q. 64, art. 1, q. 66, arts. 1

and 2; the Summa contra gentiles, book 3, chapters 112 and 127,

Opuscule 20, book 3, chapter 9, and in other places.11

10 De las Casas. Bartolomé, Principia quaedam en Vol. 10 Tratados de 1552 en Obras completas, Paulino Castañeda Delgado (Dir. de ed.) Ed. Alianza, Madrid, 1998. Also available at http://angarmegia.com/principia_quaedam.htm The translation from Spanish is mine. 11 Idem.

11

In the first article, Aquinas establishes that, in the original state of innocence, Adam had

domain on the animals because of his superior rationality on irrational beasts, because of

his being Image of the divine Providence, which rules superiorly all things, and because of

his natural prudence.12 By these means, if the Natives have a domain on the natural world

they can be noticed as rational and sons of Adam. In the third article Aquinas asks whether

in the original state all created men were equal and he answers that in the creation men

were of different sizes, strengths, etc, but that did not mean that one man was naturally

superior to the other, or that these differences were originated by sin or imperfection.

Finally, in the third article, Aquinas establishes that in the original state there was no servile

domain of one man on another, for all men were naturally seeking for their own good. On

the contrary the political domain of one man on others could be possible, because the

political domain looks for the common good, and social relations of a society are natural.

Aquinas’ authority is clearly used here to establish that the natives should be treated as

equals according to the human faculties they demonstrated to have, either by natural law,

according to their domain of nature, or according to their ability to be called sons of Adam.

II.1.2) Principle of natural jurisdiction

In the second principle, Las Casas establishes that the domain of one man on other men, in

that of the duty of counseling and directing, is the jurisdiction, and this comes from a natural

or divine source. The aim of Las Casas on the practical point of view is to say that, because of

this principle, a society such as the western or hispanic one, could have a superiority on the

native ameriacn one, if this superiority would aim to make better the native society. But even

so, the native societies have the natural right to have a jurisdiction on their traditional subjects:

12 Aquinas, S. Th. I, q. 96, art. 1,Textum Leoninum Romae 1888 editum, respondeo. Omnia autem animalia sunt homini naturaliter subiecta. Quod apparet ex tribus. Primo quidem, ex ipso naturae processu. Sicut enim in generatione rerum intelligitur quidam ordo quo proceditur de imperfecto ad perfectum (nam materia est propter formam, et forma imperfectior propter perfectiorem), ita etiam est in usu rerum naturalium, nam imperfectiora cedunt in usum perfectorum (…) Secundo apparet hoc ex ordine divinae providentiae, quae semper inferiora per superiora gubernat. Unde, cum homo sit supra cetera animalia, utpote ad imaginem Dei factus, convenienter eius gubernationi alia animalia subduntur. Tertio apparet idem ex proprietate hominis, et aliorum animalium. In aliis enim animalibus invenitur, secundum aestimationem naturalem, quaedam participatio prudentiae ad aliquos particulares actus, in homine autem invenitur universalis prudentia, quae est ratio omnium agibilium.

12

“Among the infidels exist as well the domains and jurisdictions over men, inasmuch as it

implies the duty of counseling. This is proved because any man, either faithful or infidel, is

rational and social animal, and, thus, the society is natural to all men. Therefore, having a king

or a chief is natural to all, faithful or infidel.”13

In the explanation of this principle, Las Casas goes to Aquinas’ De regimine principium to

establish who the King is. Las Casas says that a King is that one to whom the complete regime

of the human issues has been entrusted by the society or the people.14 In De Regimine

Aquinas establishes that to rule is nothig else but to guide something towards its own end. So

the King or ruler is entrusted with power in order to serve the people, and this is established by

natural law.15 Let us not forget that in De regimine the democratical structure is present and

accepted up to a certain point, for it is not the best posible government on Aquinas’ eyes.

Nevertheless, the power of the government given to a ruler can come from himself, from God

or from the people.

II.1.3) Principle of freedom

In the third principle Las Casas establishes that all man, being and jurisdiction applied to

the two first principles is supposed to be naturally free. Let us notice that here freedom is

considered as an attribute of something particular, and not as an abstraction or value. So,

the human actions and rules are considered to be originally free.

To explain this principle, Las Casas uses a thomistic opinion in the Commentary of the

sentences of Peter Lombard. The aim of this use is to make clear why one man should not 13 Las Casas. B, Principia quaedam, Ed. Cit. The translation is mine. 14 Ídem. 15 Cfr. De regimine principium, Book. I, chapter 1. Text in Spanish available on http://goo.gl/qYxoST Trans. Alonso Ordoñez das Seyjas y Toba. Translation from Spanish is mine. Latin text Textum Taurini 1954 editum De regimine principium, I,1. Et si quidem homini conveniret singulariter vivere, sicut multis animalium, nullo alio dirigente indigeret ad finem, sed ipse sibi unusquisque esset rex sub Deo summo rege, in quantum per lumen rationis divinitus datum sibi, in suis actibus se ipsum dirigeret. Naturale autem est homini ut sit animal sociale et politicum, in multitudine vivens, magis etiam quam omnia alia animalia, quod quidem naturalis necessitas declarat. Aliis enim animalibus natura praeparavit cibum, tegumenta pilorum, defensionem, ut dentes, cornua, ungues, vel saltem velocitatem ad fugam. Homo autem institutus est nullo horum sibi a natura praeparato, sed loco omnium data est ei ratio, per quam sibi haec omnia officio manuum posset praeparare, ad quae omnia praeparanda unus homo non sufficit. Nam unus homo per se sufficienter vitam transigere non posset. Est igitur homini naturale quod in societate multorum vivat.

13

naturally rely on the servile domain of another. Las Casas says: “In the human nature God

did not make one man servant of another, but He gave to all free will equally. The reason of

this is because the rational creature, considered in itself, is not ordered towards another as

an end, for example, a man towards another man, according to what Saint Thomas teaches

in book 2 of the Sentences, distinction 44, question.1, article 3.”16 17

In this way, it is clear that all men are naturally free according to the natural abilities of

reason. Since a rational creature is and end for itself, and all men are rational (in certain

degrees) then it is not natural for a man to be completed by the action of another man. This

can also be applied to the human things such as governments, and properties.

II.1.4) Principle of common good

In the fourth principle Las Casas establishes that any government is legitimate if it is

constructed in order to keep the common good of a society. In this way the authority of a

ruler or king is virtuous and useful if it works for the good of all the community. Once

again, Las Casas relies on Aquinas’ opinion written on De regimine. This time Las Casas

explains that a ruler is virtuous if he uses the power for the sake of the community. If the

ruler uses the power for his own sake, then he is a tyrant: “It is said tyrant as derived from

strength, because, as Saint Thomas explains, he oppresses for the power and does not rule

for justice. It is also tyrant derived from “tired”, which is angst and tribulation, for it

anguishes and sets into tribulation the people the tyrant rules.”1819

16 Ídem, 17 Aquinas, Super sentetiis, II, dist. 44, q. 1, art. 3, Textum, Parmae 1856 editum, Sed creatura rationalis, quantum est de se, non ordinatur ut ad finem ad aliam, ut homo ad hominem; sed si hoc fiat, non erit nisi inquantum homo propter peccatum irrationalibus creaturis comparatur; unde etiam philosophus ibidem servum comparat organo, dicens, quod servus est organum animatum, et organum est servus inanimatus. Et ideo talis praelatio hominis ad hominem ante peccatum non fuisset; sed prima praelatio, quae ordinatur ad utilitatem subditorum, fuisset ibi quantum ad aliquem usum, non quantum ad omnes. Scriptum super Sententiis, Available at http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/snp2044.html 18 Las Casas. B, Principia quaedam, Ed. Cit. The translation is mine. 19 De regimine, book 3, chapter 11. Ed. Cit. The translation is mine. Latin text Textum Taurini 1954 editum (text not available on www.corpusthomisticum.org because it was finished by a pupil of Aquinas, Ptolomaeus of Luca, not Aquinas himself.)

14

Let us notice that the axes of these four principles are equality, legal jurisdiction, freedom

and common good, all of them coming from natural or divine law. These axes tell us who

the man is and what is expected of him as a rational creature, and, as well, they pretend to

be the base of a virtuous political society that could involve respect and coexistence among

native Americans and Europeans. We can say that these axes were clear even before the

foundation of the Modern democratic republics, such as the United Statesin the XVIIIth

Century; so the ideas claimed to be purely modern, had been present in the Americas since

the XVIth Century and had a thomistic and classical foundation.

II.2) The investigation of the nature of the political community, in Fray Alonso de la

Veracruz De dominio infidelium

Fray Alonso de la Veracruz (1507-1584) was the first philosophy teacher in the Americas.

Although he became teacher at the Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico in 1553, he

had already founded the first institute of high studies and the first philosophical library of

the Americas in 1540.

In the first theology course given at the University in 1553-1554, Veracruz went through

the discussion of a very recent and polemical topic: that of the justice or injustice of the

conquest. In the dissertation De dominio infidelium, On the domain of the infidels,

Veracruz exposes a position on the nature of the human political community according to

some principles that we can find the thomistic general political outlines.

These principles, namely: 1) political human nature, 2) popular sovereignty, and 3)

legitimacy of a virtuous ruler, are present in Aquinas’ De regimine principium, the

Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics and also in other general sources such as the Summa

theologiae. On the other hand, in this work, one of the first philosophical works printed in

the Americas, Veracruz defends the natural sociability and political community of the

native peoples. This pretention is based upon the outlines of Aquinas’ political thought that

we already mentioned. Let us see now briefly how these outlines are used as the source of a

solution to a problem that the Americas arose.

15

II.2.1) The political human nature

One of the most important foundations of political thought in this thomistic and American

context is that the legitimacy of a political community does not rely on faith, but on its own

very human nature that implies coexistence and order. The particular problem began when,

after the conquest, the pagan religion of the natives was alleged to be a cause for them to

lose all of their property in the hands of the conquerors.

In the 5th. Question on his De dominio infidelium, Veracruz explains clearly that this

argument is not valid because human domain on things, property and ruled subjects relies

on natural law, not upon divine law. He says: “This is an argument on the contrary, by

which true political power and domain are not founded upon faith. Thus, an infidel can

have them”20 Moreover, he continues to say that the political power and domain belong to a

natural context rather than to a divine one, this based upon two ideas: 1) the Holy

Scriptures give testimonies on how the pagan rulers, such as the Pharaoh, could exercise

legitimate power without receiving it from a proper divine source, and 2) political power is

to be understood under the ius gentium, for all peoples exercise according to human nature.

Therefore, there was a true domain in the native rule. On this we can read:

It is proved, because among the gentiles, as it is in the Holy Scripture,

there was true domain. Therefore, it happened the same with these

(natives). In the second place, since domain can be given from God’s

will or by the will of the commonwealth that transfers its powers. (…)

Thus, there was true domain on the ruler, even in the time of his

infidelity-, for faith, which is from the divine right, dos not take away

nor gives domain, which is from the right of peoples (ius gentium).21

In the same work, in question 10, Veracruz states in a more brief way the same idea: “On

the other hand, we ourselves have proved in our 5th question, and thus affirms Saint

Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, II-II, q. 10, art. 10), that, domain has been introduced

20 De la Veracruz, Fray Alonso. Sobre el dominio de los indios y la guerra justa. Ed. Trans. and notes Roberto Heredia, UNAM FFyL, México, 2004. Question 5, No. 246. Translation from Spanish is mine. 21 Idem. Question 5, first conclusion, No. 250,

16

by the human right that emanates from natural reason, and faith, on the contrary, is from

divine right and, thus, cannot cancel the human right, by all this, in consequence one cannot

be deprived of its domain by sole infidelity”22 Here we can see the explicit quote of

Aquinas. Now it would be good to refer to that quote:

Secondly, we may speak of dominion or authority, as already in force:

and here we must observe that dominion and authority are institutions

of human law, while the distinction between faithful and unbelievers

arises from the Divine law. Now the Divine law which is the law of

grace, does not do away with human law which is the law of natural

reason. Wherefore the distinction between faithful and unbelievers,

considered in itself, does not do away with dominion and authority of

unbelievers over the faithful.23

II.2.2) The popular sovereignty

A revision in the same passage that we have analyzed can tell us more about other political

principle alluded by Veracruz, namely: popular sovereignty. It would not be out of order to

say that these lines represent the first testimonies of democratic thought in the Americas.

Veracruz says: “In the second place, since domain can be given from God’s will or by the

will of the commonwealth that transfers its powers. (…) Thus, there was true domain on the

ruler, even in the time of his infidelity”24 Let us note that the origin of power in the political

context is very clearly explained here. For the origin is double: either it comes directly from

God’s will, or it comes from the will of the commonwealth, this is, the political community,

and then this power is passed to the ruler. It seems that for this, Veracruz has in mind the 22 De dominio infidelium, Question 10, first conclussion, “Anthology of texts” in A. Gómez Robledo, El magisterio filosófico y jurídico de Alonso de la Veracruz, Porrua, México, 1984. P. 7. 23 The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Second and Revised Edition, 1920 Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight, Available on http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article10 consulted 22/04/2016, 9:35 a.m. Textum latinum Leoninum Romae 1895 editum: Alio modo possumus loqui de dominio vel praelatione iam praeexistenti. Ubi considerandum est quod dominium et praelatio introducta sunt ex iure humano, distinctio autem fidelium et infidelium est ex iure divino. Ius autem divinum, quod est ex gratia, non tollit ius humanum, quod est ex naturali ratione. Et ideo distinctio fidelium et infidelium, secundum se considerata, non tollit dominium et praelationem infidelium supra fideles.Textum. Available on http://www.corpusthomisticum.org by Enrique Alarcón. 24 See footnote No. 21.

17

examples of the Holy Scripture. On the one hand, sometimes God gave someone the power

directly on his behalf, for example, to Moses, Joshua or the kings of Israel. On the other

hand, there were examples of rule that did not come from divine will, but rather from the

sovereignty of a people itself, such as the Pharaoh ruled on Egypt for its good.

Veracruz here recognizes the ability of any human community to have and choose a ruler

based upon the participation of the common good and the need of a working practical order

given by only one leader. Here we can see the idea by which it is said that, ultimately, the

people is the see of the sovereignty, which is later given to the ruler in order to keep peace

and order in society

The idea of the origin of power in the people that looks for the common good can be found

in Aquinas’ political proposals. In De regimine, Aquinas tries to give many arguments to

say that the best model of rule is monarchy. Even so, he mentions the commonwealth

(politia) as a possible and virtuous rule.25

The aim of any government is to guarantee the peace of the ruled people. And so, if the

finality of the government is the common good of the people, the source of power is the

people, for the aim of the government is to preserve it. So this says Aquinas: “The good

and health of a multitude that lives together is to keep herself conformed and united, which

is what we call peace, and if this is lacking, the utility of living together is lost; and

moreover, the many, being disconformed, would be harmful to each other. And this shall be

the principal intention of the ruler: to procure that union that is generated from peace.”26

With these passages we can see more easily how the thomistic political ideas were present

in the arguments of Veracruz, keeping reasonable that rule is from the human real, and not

25 De regimine chapter. 3 Latin text Textum Taurini 1954 editum Si enim administretur per aliquam multitudinem, communi nomine politia vocatur, utpote cum multitudo bellatorum in civitate vel provincia dominatur. 26De regimine chapter. 3 Text in Spanish available on http://goo.gl/qYxoST Trans. Alonso Ordoñez das Seyjas y Toba. Translation from Spanish is mine. Textum latinum Taurini 1954 editum Bonum autem et salus consociatae multitudinis est ut eius unitas conservetur, quae dicitur pax, qua remota, socialis vitae perit utilitas, quinimmo multitudo dissentiens sibi ipsi sit onerosa. Hoc igitur est ad quod maxime rector multitudinis intendere debet, ut pacis unitatem procuret.

18

necessarily from the divine one. Thus every human community can have a legitimate origin

of its rule if based upon the common good.

II.2.3) Legitimacy of a virtuous ruler

Now, from the idea of the origin of power as the pursuit of the common good of the

political community, is followed the idea of the virtue of the ruler that receives that power.

This is, any ruler, if receives the power to keep the common good, and exercises this power

with prudence is a legitimate ruler.

Here Veracruz intends to say that the native rulers were truly Lords of their people and their

land, for most of them were legitimately chosen and exercised the power for the sake of the

political community. As a consequence of this, Veracruz states that the natives were truly

the legitimate owners of their estate, and thus, the conquerors had no right to take away

their properties by alleging an argument of false domain and illegitimate political

community. So he says: “For the prior it is very evident that among these natives there was

a regime that aimed towards the good of the commonwealth, and that their Lords were real

Lords. And if anyone would appropriate things while ruling, immediately he was removed

or killed by the king. So, certain assigned tribute was given to the Lord of the town (…)”27

The native rulers were legitimate Lords because they did not look forward their own good,

but rather for the good of the community. This is as well in Aquinas’ De regimine: “ For, if

the multitude of the free is ordained towards their own good by the one that rules them, the

rule will be just and right; but if it would not be ordained towards the common good of the

multitude, but to the particular one of the ruler, it will be an unjust and perverse rule.”28

We can see how these three principles of political thought, which are bases for Veracruz’s

arguments, there is a thomistic foundation. We must also consider as well that there are

27 De la Veracruz, Fray Alonso. Sobre el dominio de los indios y la guerra justa Ed. Cit. Question 5, No. 274. Por lo anterior consta clarísimamente que entre estos naturales había un regimen encaminado al bien de la república, y que sus señores eran verdaderos señores. Y, si alguno se apropiaba de cosas mientras gobernaba, inmediatamente era depuesto o muerto por el rey. Asi pues, se daba al señor del pueblo un cierto tribute asignadoTranslation from Spanish is mine. 28 De regimine. Ed. Cit. chapter 2. Latin text in Ed. Cit. Si igitur liberorum multitudo a regente ad bonum commune multitudinis ordinetur, erit regimen rectum et iustum, quale convenit liberis. Si vero non ad bonum commune multitudinis, sed ad bonum privatum regentis regimen ordinetur, erit regimen iniustum atque perversum,

19

more traditions of thought present here, such as the classical greek political thought of

Aristotle, the roman practical legal school, from Cicero to Justinian and the political

proposals of the Holy Scripture.

III. The nature of logics in Antonio Rubio’s Logica mexicana

One of the most influential books written in the Americas was Antonio Rubio’s Logica

mexicana. This book by the Jesuit priest Antonio Rubio (1548-1615) was the official logics

text book of many universities in Europe, such as the University of Alcala. It was read by

important thinkers, such as Descartes, who read it in La Fléche29; and Leibniz, who gave an

account of the book in his dissertation De principio individui. This work by Rubio was

edited at least 40 times, and this speaks of its fame and use as a good instrument to learn

logics at the universities.30 The work Logica mexicana was a series of commentaries to the

Aristotelian Organon, that aimed to be a guide for students.

Briefly here we will revise two aspects that unit this Jesuit logician to Aquinas, for Rubio

takes ideas from Aquinas on the nature of logics and science. These ideas are: 1) The

double nature of logic as science and art, and 2) the propedeutical aspect of logic towards

theology.

Rubio considers logic to be, both a science and a technique. This is explained by Mauricio

Beuchot in this way:

In the first place, Rubio tells us that logic is a science and an art, or

theorical and practical. Indeed, logic is science inasmuch as it has a

systematic organization. Moreover, as we know, the science in

Aristotelianism is axiomatic; this is to say, the apodictical and

necessary science. And so had to be logic, which is built as a certain

axiomatic. As well, logic is an art or technique in the sense, also

29 R. Descartes, “Letter to Mersenne, September 30th, 1640” in Oeuvres, Ed. Adam-Tannery, III, p. 185. 30 Used edition by Beuchot as a reference: A. Rubio, Logica mexicana, Sumptibus Antonii Pillehotti, Lugduni. 1620.

20

Aristotelian, of being a conjoint of proceeding rules; this is, logic also

gives rules to proceed well inferentially.31

Now, the consideration of logic as, both a science and a technique is already present in

Aquinas’ proposal. In the Commentary on Analytica posteriora, Aquinas states that logic

has a double nature according to its aims. Thus, his famous definition of logic establishes

that: “Logic is the science and art which directs the act of the reason, by which a man in

the exercise of his reason is enabled to proceed without error, confusion, or unnecessary

difficulty.”32 In this way we can see how the thomistic definition of logic had an influence

on Rubio’s work.

Secondly, Rubio considers logic to be a kind of preparation for the study of theology. He

was very aware that most of his students did not have an interest in logic for itself, so he

presented logic as a good preparation for other purposes such as law of theology. He states

this in with these words: “As well, the logical and philosophical points and a rich and fine

collection of subtle questions are not very interesting to sacred theology candidates, but to

have their feet on a true and solid philosophy of Aristotle, as an entire proposal, purely and

clearly (explained) by its egregious interpreter Saint Thomas, the type of doctrine that the

divinely revealed for its truth, and, as well, for its dignity and distinction.”33 In these words

we can see the consideration of logic as an instrument, an organon, to be used in the service

of other sciences, such as law or theology. This idea is also taken from Aquinas’s proposal,

which we read in the definition of logic, for if it is a science and a technique, it is one of her

finalities to serve as an instrument pot correctness and precision.

Brief Conclusion

Through a brief revision of the thought of some of the finest scholars in the New Spain

during the XVIth Century we have seen the importance of the influence of Thomas

31 M. Beuchot, “La lógica de Antonio Rubio” in Lógica y metafísica en la Nueva España, UNAM IIF, México, 2006, pp. 70-71. 32 Aquinas, In Post. Anal.", lect. i, Latin text Leonine ed., I, 138 Ars quædam necessaria est, quae sit directiva ipsius actus rationis, per quam scilicet homo in ipso actu rationis ordinate faciliter et sine errore procedat. Et haec ars est logica, id est rationalis scientia. 33 W. Redmond “La lógica mexicana de Antonio Rubio: una nota histórica” in Dianoia, UNAM, Vol. 8, No. 28, 1982 p. 17.

21

Aquinas’ ideas in many contexts. These: the anthropological, the political and logical found

a whole new ground where to be developed because of the new problems proper to the

Americas. In response, the ancient and medieval traditions were seen as sources where to

take solutions from. In this sense, the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas was not only a

foundation for new academies and scholars in the Americas, but rather, a pillar of a whole

new Latin American civilization.

Bibliography:

Aquinas texts and traslations:

Sancti Thomae de Aquino, Scriptum super Sententiis, Parmae 1856

_____________________, De regimine (De regno) Textum Taurini 1954 editum _____________________, Summa theologiae, Textum Leoninum Romae 1888 editum _____________________, In Analytyca posteriora, Textum Leoninum Romae 1882 editum Aquinas, De regimine principium, Book. I, chapter 1. Text in Spanish available on http://goo.gl/qYxoST Trans. Alonso Ordoñez das Seyjas y Toba.

Aquinas, The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Second and Revised Edition, 1920

Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province Online Edition Copyright © 2008

by Kevin Knight, Available on http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article10

General bibliography:

“Introducción a la imprenta en México”, UNAM, Consulted on 18/ 02/ 2016, Available here: http://mmh.ahaw.net/imprenta/index.php?iddoc=INTRODUCCION A. Gómez Robledo, El magisterio filosófico y jurídico de Alonso de la Veracruz, Porrua, México,

1984. P. 7.

A. Rubio, Logica mexicana, Sumptibus Antonii Pillehotti, Lugduni. 1620.

22

Anchondo S., et al., Historia y destino de la filosofía clásica novohispana : un recorrido a

través de sus pensadores y de sus textos, Col. Novohispanía, Los libros de Homero,

México, 2007

Anónimo, El libro de los Coloquios de los doce, Trad. Miguel León-Portilla, UNAM, México,

1985.

Aspe, V., Las aporías fundamentales del pensamiento novohispano, CONACULTA,

México, 2002.

Beuchot, M., Cartografía del pensamiento novohispano, Col. Novohispanía, Ed. Porrúa,

México, 2014.

Campos, J., Ensayos de filosofía y lógica novohispana del siglo XVI, Col. Novohispanía,

Ed. Porrúa, México, 2014.

De la Veracruz, Fray Alonso. Sobre el dominio de los indios y la guerra justa. Ed. Trans. and notes

Roberto Heredia, UNAM FFyL, México, 2004. Question 5, No. 246. Translation from Spanish is

mine.

De las Casas. Bartolomé, Principia quaedam en Vol. 10 Tratados de 1552 en Obras completas,

Paulino Castañeda Delgado (Dir. de ed.) Ed. Alianza, Madrid, 1998. Also available at

http://angarmegia.com/principia_quaedam.htm

Fernandez, P. Los dominicos en la primera evangelización de México, Ed. San Esteban, Salamanca,

1994, p. 48-49.

Garcés, J. Documentos inéditos o muy raros para la Historia de México publicados por Genaro

García, Tomo XVI, El Clero de México según el Archivo inédito archiepiscopal metropolitano,

México, Librería de la Vda. Ch. Bouret, 14- Cinco de mayo-14/ 1907

Giménez Fernández, M. "Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas: A Biographical Sketch". In Juan Friede and

Benjamin Keen (eds.). Bartolomé de las Casas in History: Toward an Understanding of the Man

and his Work. Collection spéciale: CER. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 1971, pp. 67–

126.

M. Beuchot, “La lógica de Antonio Rubio” in Lógica y metafísica en la Nueva España, UNAM IIF,

México, 2006

23

Navarro, B., Filosofía y cultura novohispanas, IFF UNAM, México, 1998.

Rubio Mañé J. I El virreinato, Vol. IV, Obras públicas y educación universitaria, , Fondo de

Cultura Económica, México, 1983

Saco Rodríguez O. «Reseña histórica de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos». Available

in ihttp://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/Bibvirtual/Publicaciones/geologia/v01_n1/rese%C3%B1a_histo.htm

W. Redmond “La lógica mexicana de Antonio Rubio: una nota histórica” in Dianoia, UNAM, Vol.

8, No. 28, 1982