Professional Notes

December 28-30, 1970, Boston, Massachusetts

A session on the first morning of the meetings was devoted to Medieval Catalonia, with Joseph R. Strayer, Princeton University, as chairman. Thomas N. Bisson, University of California, Berkeley, in his paper on “Royal Accounting in Twelfth-Century Catalonia: Some New Texts,” examined the records of the fiscal work of Ramón de Caldes from 1178 to 1194, which constitutes most of the extant material of the accounts of the early kings of Aragon. Dr. Bisson concluded that these accounts conform broadly to the recognized pattern of Western European financial institutions, while exhibiting distinctive provincial traits and illuminatng at least one aspect of accounting that is obscure elsewhere. “Aspects of Social Unrest in 14th Century Catalonia” were examined in a second paper by Philippe Wolfe, University of Toulouse. He focused on the great pogrom of 1391 and concluded that this outburst of violence, more clearly than elsewhere in Spain, was directed in Catalonia not only against the Jews but against the wealthy merchants and burgesses occupying a predominant position in the towns.

“The Twilight of Slavery: Southern (Latin) American Labor Systems in the Nineteenth Century,” was the topic of a session on the same morning. Peter L. Eisenberg, Rutgers University, in his paper “From Slave to Free Labor on Sugar Plantations: The Process in Pernambuco,” considered the importance of slaves to the Pernambucan sugar economy in the 19th century. He reviewed the factors limiting the size of the plantation slave force, and contrasted slave labor with free labor. Bruce M. Taylor, University of Dayton, in “Black Labour and White Power in Post Emancipation Barbados: A Study in Changing Relationships,” examined the factors making it possible for Barbadian planters to make the transition from slave and apprentice labor systems to a wage rate system without suffering either a disastrous decline in production or a social reaction. Relevant elements included the numbers of resident planters, the intensity of land use, the presence of a class of poor whites, the density of the population, the middle sector mulattoes, and the role of the institutions and leadership.

Both plantation systems easily survived the shift from slave to free labor, but it appears that the ex-slave of Barbados was left in a far more advantageous position than the Pernambuco freedmen. The key factor here, as pointed out in the commentary by Stanley Stein, Princeton University, was the availability of labor. Paradoxically, Barbados, usually taken as an example of an oversupply of labor due to the non-availability of free land—in contrast to Jamaica—actually found itself with a tight labor situation in which the workers were able to obtain reasonable terms as share-croppers. In the Pemambucan situation, land was available, but so were laborers, and sharecroppers competed with drought-starved laborers for work on the old plantations, thus leaving the workers in an extremely poor bargaining position.

“The Church in 19th Century Latin America” was the subject of a joint session with the American Catholic Historical Association on the same afternoon, with John T. Lanning, Duke University, as chairman. Fredrick B. Pike, University of Notre Dame, discussing “Spanish Origins of the Socio-Political Ideology of the Catholic Church in 19th century Spanish America,” attributed ecclesiastical resistance in Spain to religious toleration, secularism, and disentailment of church properties as well as ecclesiastical support of religious education and a decentralized, corporate organization of society. The second paper, by Antonine Tibesar, O.F.M., Catholic University, examined “The Background of the Lima Clergy.” Preponderantly of Lima birth, they were almost entirely Creoles (only 3 per cent were Indian or mestizo and none Negro or mulatto), aristocratic in ancestry albeit somewhat impoverished; in their seminary studies they were surprisingly neglectful of theology in favor of other subjects, especially mathematics and law. The majority of the clergy entered the priesthood apparently to insure their financial future but, nevertheless, fulfilled their ecclesiastical obligations diligently.

Charles Berry, University of Louisville, in his paper entitled “Some Perspectives on 19th Century Mexican Church History,” reviewed the important social, economic, and political role played by the Church and noted the paucity of historical literature that analyzed that role. He pointed out that the writing of Church history lags behind the trends in historical literature in that it is still too concerned with the political aspects of Church-State relations to the neglect of the cultural, intellectual, social and economic aspects of ecclesiastical history. He called for biographical studies of leading prelates, an examination of Catholic journalism, an analysis of the impact of social programs advocated by the Church in the latter third of the century, continued study of the wealth of the Church as an economic institution, the political activities of clergymen, the conciliation policy of the Díaz government, and more attention to the writings of clergymen.

At the Conference on Latin American History Luncheon in the Sheraton Plaza Hotel, with Thomas McGann, Chairman, presiding, the annual prizes were announced. The Bolton Prize was awarded to John Womack, Jr., for Zapata and the Mexican Revolution, with Honorable Mentions to Cecil A. Hutchinson, for Frontier Settlements in Mexican California, and Robert A. Potash for The Army and Politics in Argentina, 1328-1945. David R. Ringrose won the Robertson Prize for his article, “Carting in the Hispanic World: An Example of Divergent Development,” (HAHR, L:i, February 1970) and Robert B. Toplin received Honorable Mention for “Upheaval, Violence, and the Abolition of Slavery in Brazil: The Case of São Paulo,” (HAHR, XLIX:4, November 1969). The two winners of the Conference on Latin American History Prize were Michael P. Costeloe for his article “Guadalupe Victoria and a Personal Loan from the Church in Independent Mexico,” (The Americas, January 1969) and Hermannus Hoetink for “Materiales para el estudio de la República Dominicana en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX,” (Caribbean Studies, January and July 1969). Receiving Honorable Mention were articles by Joseph A. Borome, Truman R. Clark, Richard L. Greenleaf, and Joseph S. Tulchin.

The luncheon speaker was John H. Parry, Harvard University, in place of the announced speaker David M. Potter, Stanford University, absent because of illness. Mr. Parry’s talk, entitled “The Indies, East and West,” was a witty and significant analysis of the interdependence of the colonial empires of Europe during the era of Spain’s domination of America. The imperial inter-connections were demonstrated through episodes of commerce and piracy, drama and intrigue.

In the afternoon a session was devoted to “Latin America: Intellectual Roots,” with Harold E. Davis, The American University, in the chair. The first paper, The Ignorantistas and the Schools,” by Jane M. Loy, University of Massachusetts, studied reactions in Colombia to the comprehensive education law of 1870, embodying the Liberal concepts of secular education and making elementary schooling compulsory. While the new law was received with enthusiasm at first, because of the complete triumph of the Liberals in the Civil War of 1860-1861, it soon produced strong emotional reactions, culminating in suspension of the public schools during the Civil War of 1876-1877, which for all practical purposes brought this experiment with compulsory secular primary education to an end. Opponents of the law, including both Conservative and Liberal priests and laymen, received the epithet of Ignorantistas. While approving free primary and secondary education, they insisted that it be religious, practical and appropriate to Colombian customs. The paper analyzed five sources of Ignorantista opposition: Conservatives, clergy, Independents, gamonales (local bosses), and the masses.

William D. Raat, State University of New York, Fredonia, in his paper, The Anti-Positivist Movement in Pre-Revolutionary Mexico,” pointed out that critics of Positivism came from both the Right and the Left, ranging from the pro-clerical Francisco Zavala to the radical Daniel Cabrera. The emotional issue of this anti-Positivism, the author argued, was probably more important for the intellectual history of this period than the question of the diffusion of positivist thought. Positivism had come to have such diverse meanings to the Mexican as atheism, materialism, anti-Liberalism, prostitution, and political corruption.” It was considered by its critics to be alien to such different concepts of Mexican tradition as those stemming from Spain (for some clerics) and those stemming from Juarez for certain Liberals. Carlos Stoetzer, Fordham University, examining “The Intellectual Background of Latin American Independence,” argued that the Spanish American Independence movements found their intellectual basis chiefly in ideas that were “profoundly Hispanic and medieval.” He pointed out that Criollo loyalty to Spain during the Napoleonic period argues for the influence of Spanish ideas. The non-Spanish Enlightenment, contrary to the frequently accepted view of Jefferson Rhea Spell, he held, was an additional but not a primary factor.

In his commentary, Frank Salford, Northwestern University, tended to identify himself with the approach of Loy and Raat to intellectual history, which he referred to as treating ideas as weapons, concentrating his adverse criticisms on the Carlos Stoetzer paper that treated ideas as having autonomy, finding expression in institutions.

The evening of December 28 was devoted to meetings of three regional committees. The theme of the evening session of the Committee on Mexican Studies was “Approaches to Sub-National History: New Topics and Research Possibilities.” Luis González (Colegio de México), William Taylor (University of Colorado, Denver Center), Charles Berry (University of Louisville), William Beezley (State University College, Plattsburgh, New York) and Wayne Osborn (Iowa State University) presented short papers indicating some of the lacunae to be filled in the field of state and local history as well as some of the problems encountered in this type of historical research. Professor González treated the State of Michoacán; Professor Taylor, colonial Oaxaca; Professor Berry, 19th century Oaxaca; Professor Beezley, 20th century Chihuahua; and Professor Osborn, colonial Metztitlán.

The Brazilian Studies Committee heard reports from four young Brazilianists on the current state of their research on slavery and abolition. Arnold Kessler of the University of California, Berkeley, discussed his use of notarial records, wills, and testaments, to explore the status of the slave in Bahia in the early nineteenth century. The techniques of control through the manipulation of ethnic divisions among the slaves received special attention. Mary Karash of the University of Wisconsin and Oakland University (Michigan), studying slave life in the city of Rio de Janeiro especially before 1850, indicated that the importation of slaves from Africa, the process of their assimilation into the larger slave community, and comparative statistics on their birth, death, and marriage are her primary interests. Cleveland Donald of Cornell University discussed his work on slavery and abolition in the area of Campos, R. J., and especially the relationship between the breakdown of the sugar economy there and the rise of an abolitionist movement. Finally, Rebecca Bergstresser of Stanford University and Kansas State University discussed her analysis of the abolitionist movement in the light of interest group politics in Rio de Janeiro.

At the initial meeting of the Committee of Gran Colombianistas, David Bushnell, University of Florida, read a paper surveying recent publications of political scientists on Colombia. The writings, though they present interesting and varied interpretations of the “National Front,” the violencia, etc., all show weaknesses in control of facts and evaluation of evidence. It was noted, however, that historians have failed to cope seriously with these problems. Professor Robert Gilmore of the University of Kansas then analyzed the Historia extensa de Colombia, a multi-volume, cooperative history of the country. It has suffered extensive modifications of plan, which have created some distortions, and a number of volumes have yet to be published. Though there is much unevenness in the quality of the individual volumes, they tend to summarize the existing literature in a useful way.

In a morning session on December 29, chaired by John J. TePaske, on “The Social History of Colonial Latin America: Achievement and Potential,” James Lockhart, University of Texas, defined social history as dealing “with the informal, the unarticulated, the daily and ordinary manifestations of human existence.” Emphasizing how the nature of the sources has determined the field’s evolution, he pointed out that social history is now coming into its own after the completion of a full cycle of research by epic and institutional historians. Early efforts in the field have since given way to the more sophisticated analyses of Woodrow Borah, David Brading, A.J.R. Russell-Wood, Alfredo Castillero Calvo, Charles Gibson, Mario Góngora, Stuart Schwartz, Trent Brady, Lockhart himself, and others. Many of these scholars have gone beyond traditional sources to use notarial records, land titles, litigation, and estate papers in order to give a clearer picture of social reality. While not enamoured of social science concepts, Lockhart argued for critical examination of current categories and creation of a body of theory or general statements growing out of the society with which the colonial Latin Americanist deals. He also argued for a social history with a wider, more varied documentary base; a strategy of triangulation to plot multi-regional developments; and recognition that the meaning of apparently narrow topics can transcend their geographic or temporal limits. In his comments, Stuart Schwartz, University of Minnesota, called for new definitions of class and social groupings and more careful investigation of the metropolitan societies, Spain and Portugal. David Brading, University of California at Berkeley, warned against the artificial separation of social history from economic and institutional history. He also pointed to the dynamic nature of colonial society, which can be obscured by the kind of social history suggested by Lockhart. Drawing on his research experience in late 18th-century demography, Professor Trent Brady of the University of Toronto showed that census materials revealed a great deal about class and caste in Venezuela.

Also on the morning of December 29 there was a session on “Ethnic Minorities in America.” G. L. Seligmann, Jr., North Texas State University, in his paper “The Mexican-American, 1848-1960,” proposed a periodization for Mexican-American History: 1848-1932, a period of subjugation and acquiescence; 1932-1960, a period of attempting to succeed and/or assimilate by the historic means such as political activity; and 1960-present, the Age of Bronze Power. He also argued that the historic differences are so great between the Mexican-American experiences in California, New Mexico, and Texas that appeals to common traditions and problems are not possible and must yield to a metaphysical concept, La Raza. “The Chioano since 1920: Home to Aztlán?” was the topic addressed in a paper by Ward S. Albro, III, Texas A. & I. University. He traced the development of several early Mexican-American organizations, almost all of them middle class in membership and having assimilationist goals. Not until the 1960’s, he pointed out, did there arise organizations with a broader appeal and an emphasis on strong ethnic identification and involvement in the Mexican-American community.

At the session on “Failure of Reform in Spain,” in the afternoon of December 29, with Stanley Payne, University of Wisconsin, in the chair, three papers were presented. Curt Noel, Columbia University, discussing “Campomanes and the Failure of Reform in Caroline Spain,” presented a case study of attempts at clerical reform and take-over of church properties during the reign of Charles III. He dwelt upon the failure of the effort and pointed out the development of resistance among sectors of the upper clergy and some Conservative aristocrats. Glen Waggoner, University of Michigan, in his paper “Engineering Social Change: The Comisión and the Institute for Social Reforms, 1883-1922,” provided a brief narrative of the principal activities of the Commission and Institute and speculated on the reasons for their failure. Edward Malefakis, Northwestern University, addressing the question, “Why Did Reform Fail in Spain?” pointed to the lengthy period of international and civil war, the consequent overload of the budget with a very heavy war-derived national debt, the lack of budgetary funds for reform, several regional differences, and the weakness of organization and trade-unionism. Comments by Juan Linz, Yale University, and the ensuing discussion, emphasized the importance of the effects of war in retarding Spanish modernization and civil development during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

At an afternoon session of the Social Welfare History Group on “The Social Impact of Disease in the Late 19th Century: A Comparative View,” Donald Cooper, Ohio State University, contributed a paper on Brazil. He stressed the impact of yellow fever epidemics, but also considered the effect of smallpox and cholera outbreaks. The efforts of the Brazilian medical community to contain or overcome these epidemics and the eventual success in this effort under the leadership of Oswaldo Cruz were also discussed. In their comments, Richard Graham, University of Texas, and Stuart Galishoff, Georgia State University, asked for more specific demographic information regarding the impact of disease in Brazil.

In another afternoon session, on “New Trends in Latin American Demographic History,” Jacques Barbier, University of Connecticut, studying the “Restoration of the Chilean Elite and the Bourbon Reforms,” examined marital patterns of families with titles of nobility and entails in the region of Santiago. He concluded that a clear majority of the marriages were either within the status group or into official circles. A new group of people came into prominence in 18th century Chile, but they did not behave differently from the beneméritos of the 17th century who also sought alliances with their governors. Therefore, the assumption of Alberto Edwards in La fronda aristocrática—that a new class of merchants and entrepreneurs came into existence in the 18th century-must be qualified for, he argued, “if a new upper class means new upper class values, then none arose in 18th century Chile.” N. David Cook, University of Bridgeport, presented a paper on “The Indian Population of Peru, 1570-1620.” His population estimates are as follows: 1570, 1,264,494; 1580, 1,083,491; 1590, 947,627; 1600, 833,781; 1610, 737,905; 1620, 589,026. The region with the smallest population decline was the southern highlands—around the old Inca capital of Cuzco-with an estimated 571,000 in 1570 to 300,000 in 1620. He also examined the sex ratios of some of the 572 repartimientos of Peru, but pointed out that typical tribute returns are not detailed enough to construct population pyramids for age-sex analysis.

On the last morning of the meetings there was a session on “Cassock and Crown: The Roots of Church-State Conflict in Latín America.” Margaret Crahan, Lehman College of the City University of New York, examining “Civil-Ecclesiastical Conflict and Accommodation in Hapsburg Peru,” concluded that tensions between church and state increased as the objectives of each diverged. The Hapsburg monarchs acted during the 17th century as the moderator of disputes, largely confined to the civilian and clerical bureaucracies. Under the Bourbons, tension sharpened as the Crown became more regalistic and innovative.

In his paper “God and Mammon at the Crossroads: The Brazilian Church in the 17th Century,” Francis A. Dutra, University of California, Santa Barbara, addressed the question of why ultramontanism was so weak in Brazil. The answer, he concluded, lies in two important events of the 17th century. First was the founding of the Sacred College of the Propaganda Fide in 1622. By the latter half of the century, the papacy was seriously challenging the padreado real, in particular, by naming bishops without the King’s approval and sending foreign missionaries to the Far East who refused to submit to Portuguese control. Second was the refusal of Rome, for political reasons, to confirm Portuguese bishops for almost three decades following the Portuguese Revolution of 1640. At one eleven-year stretch, there was only a single Portuguese bishop left in Portugal and her Empire. Because of Rome’s actions, most Portuguese clergy rallied to the King. As a result, a nationalistic clergy, both in Portugal and overseas, faced the 18th century with a new set of attitudes, that, given the right circumstances, could and would be sympathetic to the actions of a Pombal.

The first paper at the afternoon session on “Mexican Diplomacy,” chaired by Arnold H. Taylor, University of Connecticut, was “The Mexican Empire and the Vatican, 1863-1867,” by Arnold Blumberg, Towson State College. He described the efforts of Maximilian to obtain Vatican endorsement of the liberal Church reforms initiated by Benito Juárez and thus unite Mexican liberals and conservatives in support of his regime. After fruitless negotiations with a papal emissary in Mexico and the sending of a succession of special envoys to Rome, Maximilian was on the verge of successfully reaching a compromise when the instability of his regime caused the Vatican to procrastinate. In commenting, Ramón Ruiz, University of California, San Diego, saw in Blumberg’s paper evidence that Maximilian’s regime, by seeking to promote the Juárez reforms, was not foreign to Mexico, but was an element of continuity in Mexican history.

In the second paper, “The United States and the De La Huerta Rebellion,” Manuel Machado, Jr., University of Montana, argued that the American government made a pragmatic, interest-oriented response to the ideological issues implicit in the revolt of Adolfo de la Huerta against the Obregón regime. Rejecting requests for aid from the conservative De La Huerta, the Coolidge administration assisted the recently recognized Obregón, with whom the United States had recently concluded the Bucarelli treaties providing protection for American interests in Mexico. The United States aided Obregón, despite the fact that Plutarco Ellas Calles, picked by Obregón to become his successor, was regarded by American officials in Mexico as a Bolshevik. Machado concluded that by using diplomacy rather than direct intervention, the United States was following a more mature policy toward Mexico than in the recent past. Ramón Ruíz took sharp exception to Machado’s argument. He maintained that Obregón and Calles were actually carrying through a middle class, nationalistic revolution which they partially betrayed at Bucarelli in order to avoid a confrontation with the United States. De la Huerta, though a Conservative, subsequently became the true defender of the Revolution, and thus was opposed by the United States. Moreover, the implicit threat of force in American relations with Mexico and the aid rendered to Obregón indicated that the United States had not abandoned its interventionist policy.

Notes on the Latin American sessions were prepared by Dr. John Finan of the Conference on Latin American History, with the assistance of the session chairmen.

* * * * *

The Pacific Coastal Council on Latin American Studies held its sixteenth annual meeting at the University of California, Santa Barbara, November 5-7, 1970. Over 200 attended the sessions of the conference focusing on the theme “Environment ’70: Latin America in the New Decade.”

* * * * *

On April 14-18, 1971, the Universidad de Valencia sponsored the Primer Congreso de Historia del País Valenciano.

* * * * *

The Central Renaissance Conference was held at the University of Colorado, April 29-May 1, 1971.

* * * * *

Washington University’s Latin American Studies program is sponsoring a special conference on Nineteenth Century Latin America during the 1972-1973 academic year. Participants from all the disciplines are invited to submit papers for presentation. Preference will be given to young established scholars and graduate students.

The University is holding a similar conference to commemorate Brazil’s independence, entitled “Brazil: 150 Years of Independence.” Papers are invited that bear on events prior to, resulting from, or concerning the Brazilian independence movement. Young scholars will be given special consideration.

Inquiries and précis of prospective papers should be addressed to:

• Professor Ann Pescatello, Chairman

• Latin American Studies, Department of History

• 102 Busch Hall, Box 1062

• Washington University

• St. Louis, Missouri 63130

* * * * *

The Center for Educational Studies in Mexico City is planning to publish, beginning in January 1971, a quarterly research journal specializing in educational themes. Besides articles on topics and problems related to education in all of Latin America, the journal will include information and notices about research institutions, meetings, events and publications of interest in the field of education.

Correspondence related to subscriptions and articles can be directed to:

• Revista del Centro de Estudios Educativos

• Culiacán #108, 40. piso,

• México 11, D. F.

• México

* * * * *

The Inter American University of Puerto Rico has announced the establishment of a press to publish a journal, monographs, and books. Manuscripts in English or Spanish on Puerto Rican, Caribbean, Hispanic, or inter-American themes are invited.

Information can be obtained from:

• Editorial de la Universidad

• P. O. Box 1293

• Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919

* * * * *

The U. S. National Section of the Pan American Institute of Geography and History (PAIGH) is beginning a series of special publications in Latin American geography and history. The first of these publications is by Dr. Norbert Psuty of Rutger’s Department of Geography, “A Bibliography of Latin American Coastal Geomorphology.” The second publication is “A Bibliography of Theses and Dissertations on Latin America by U. S. Geographers, 1960-1970,” compiled by Ernst C. Griffin and Clarence W. Minkel of Michigan State University.

Historians wishing to submit manuscripts for consideration in this series should write to Professor James Scobie, Alternate United States Member, Commission on History, PAIGH, c/o Department of History, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

* * * * *

The third University of North Carolina Summer Course in Romance Languages will be dedicated to Medieval Studies in Catalonia, including an Intensive Course in Catalan Readings, Grammar, and Conversation, given by native teachers. The course is scheduled from August 2-18, 1971 at a location in the Pyrenees.

For information write Professor Frederick W. Vogler, Acting Chairman, Department of Romance Languages, Dely Hall, UNC, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514.