1764 to October 1776: Franciscan Views on Conditions in the Provincial Philippines

1764 to October 1776: Franciscan Views on

Conditions in the Provincial Philippines

Bruce Cruikshank©

15 August 2015

         Wars often bring suffering and dislocation to civilian populations.  Peace after a conflict does not necessarily bring a return to conditions of security and stability.  What were conditions like in the Philippines in the dozen years after the British left in 1764 and full Spanish rule returned under the administrations of Torre, Raon, and Anda y Salazar?[1]  Significant issues in addition to economic and security concerns dominated discussions in this period.  For the Franciscans, the major issues ranged from internal governance disputes to the last chapter of attempts to impose visitation on parishes administered by Franciscans and other Regulars.  In 1767 the Jesuits would be expelled from Spanish territories and in the Philippines in 1768, Franciscans and other priests would be tasked with administering former Jesuit ministries and parishes.  The bulk of the new Franciscan parish responsibilities would be the parishes on the island of Samar.  These issues not surprisingly dominate the contents of the Franciscan manuscripts and the general literature on Philippine history at this time. 

Except for staffing parishes with priests replacing the Jesuits, though, these contentious issues only marginally if at all impacted most Filipino lives and livelihoods.  As we move from the British occupation of Manila and the period before the advent of the famous reforms instituted by Governor General José Basco y Vargas beginning in 1778, what might Franciscan sources tell us about life in the provinces?[2]  Did Franciscans write at all about topics and issues more germane to our attempts to view islander lives “on the ground,” away from Manila?  Or did they focus exclusively on issues of note which were roiling their deliberations within the Order and affecting their relations with diocesan authorities and the King’s administration? 

         The existing documents of relevance to a provincial emphasis are not numerous, the detail is sketchy, and the range and depth of topics considered are sparse.  However, there is some suggestive and useful material, moving from social unrest and economic stringency to parish and missionary work and then to Moro raids.  All of these topics are themes that existed before 1764 and which extended well into the nineteenth century, of course.  Nonetheless, a focus on these twelve years in the provinces might be instructive.

         The essay that follows is divided into the following sections:

Thieves and Bandits                                                                       p.   3

Inflation, Scarcity, and Provincial Commerce                                p.   5

Parish Work in the Pueblos                                                             p.   9

Missionary Work by the Franciscans in the Highlands                   p. 12

Moro Raids                                                                                     p. 19

Conclusion                                                                                      p. 24
Appendices (A, B, C, D, and E)                                                     pp. 25, 28, 29, 32, 33

Thieves and Bandits

One result of many wars is social and psychological dislocation and alienation, which might result afterwards in an uptick in crime generally and banditry specifically.  The Franciscans noted an increase in criminality and then explicitly linked it to the impact of the British invasion and subsequent war against the invaders.  We see this in a manuscript entry from Dilao, 19 July 1774.[3]  The Franciscan writer observed that in the last three years the number of thieves and bandits had increased so much that in Laguna de Bay and in the Pasig in and around Manila there was great danger from small and medium-sized bandit boats cruising at night.  “The bandits have become so audacious that they have even entered established municipalities (pueblos[4]) and plundered them, as we know from a recent case that occurred not even a month ago” (f. 1v, the pueblo is unnamed).  He adds (f. 4) that the bandits have an abundance of excellent horses, which they readily acquired by force.  The outlaws are well armed, heartless, evil, callous, and determined in times of confrontation.  A fellow Franciscan (pueblo and name not given in the manuscript) recently told him that on the 2nd of July thirty-seven bandits attacked a “barrio of his pueblo,” the second such attack there.  This time they took water buffalos, “rice, tobacco, even the very old clothing that the wretched people of the barrio were wearing” (f. 3).  He went on to tell of how the gobernadorcillo[5] of Binangonan de Bay was attacked by a gang after daring to punish the leader.  After beating up the official, they tied him to a post at his house and proceeded to rob him and the townspeople of all “except for their bodies” (f. 5).  Consequently the gobernadorcillos had learned to be “blind, mute, deaf, lame, and unfeeling” in regard to thieves, bandits, and vagabonds (f. 5v).

The parish priest of Paquil[6] reported on the 7th of July that while there had always been robbers, the greatest number and the severest damage has been since the time of the English (f. 7).  Some bandits got their start during the war, such as escapees from jail or freed galley rowers at Cavite.  Others were demobilized soldiers.  He gave examples of bandit attacks—Saryaya about six years earlier was noted—and reported that there was a concentration of bandits near Binyan (f. 7v, no location given).  He mentioned as well activity near Binangonan de Bay two years earlier; and threats against the población of Pagsanghan more recently (f. 7v).

The manuscript adds a statement from the Parish priest of Tanay on the 6th of July, who declared that banditry was bad during the British invasion but that it had gotten worse lately.  The new phase, he suggests, began six years earlier when forty bandits, all armed, attacked Saryaya and sacked it; it continued through the current year when the same gang assaulted Lipa.  This or another gang four years earlier attacked Bay, and then Binangonan, robbing, wounding, and even killing at will (f. 11-11v).  In a July 4th letter, another Franciscan, with twenty-two years of experience in the Philippines, agreed that armed robbers were common since the war against the British.  When he was parish priest of Morong (1772-1774), there were bandits nearby who had stolen some animals and goods.  He avers that the notoriety of such crimes increased every day (f. 13).  The Franciscan priest serving in Paete adds to what appears to have been the common sentiment, writing on the 13th of July that the number of bandits had increased since the war (f. 15). 

Another Franciscan, writing from Sampaloc, opines that the numbers of thieves and bandits come not just from those escaping from jail during the war but also were due to (f. 16v) “crop failures, which we have experienced in the past years.  It is normal that the number of bandits would increase during times of poor harvest.”  Later (f. 17v) he adds that

the bandits usually go in gangs and at times they are sufficiently numerous to

dare enter into pueblos at day time, such as happened not so long ago in the

three pueblos of … Saryaya, Binangonan, and Bay.  They usually go well armed

and are determined to defend themselves at all costs.  They are commonly brave

and heartless ….

The final response in this remarkable manuscript is dated 12 July 1774 and is from the Franciscan stationed in Bocaue.  He reports that just a few days earlier four thieves stole a carabao from a visita, butchered and cooked it, and went ahead and had it for their meal--all in the very visita of the theft (23v).  The effrontery may be the most striking aspect of this example.

Inflation, Scarcity, and Provincial Commerce

         As we have seen, at least one Franciscan linked the banditry of this twelve year period to economic conditions.  The Franciscan manuscripts speak directly on this topic, with some attention to issues such as prices as well as to the effects of natural events, and disease.  Detail given on these matters is sketchy at best.  For prices at least the fullest accounts date from 1770 and 1771, with one of the clearest statements coming from the colonial government.

In December of 1770, Governor General Simón de Anda y Salazar issued a dramatic proclamation expressing concern over shortages and the high prices for rice in and around Manila.  He also mandated penalties to alleviate the problems occasioned by those profiting from rice shortages.[7]  “Insomuch as an unceasing flow of cries of the poor people in and around Manila come in to the government complaining of the price of rice, which in just a few days has risen.” Due to those profiting by price manipulation and the need “to attack the ungodly sin of avarice,” he mandated a fixed price (tasa fixa por precio”) of four reales per cavan de arroz con cascara where the rice is harvested and five reales in and around Manila.  For those found guilty of profiteering and gouging the public, the penalties would be a 200 peso fine if the culprit were a Spaniard; and “for an Indio or Mestizo the penalty will be one hundred lashes, given at the hand of the hangman in the streets of Manila.”  Until prices go down with the next harvest, it was “very important to the common good” that this action be taken.  He said that he was proclaiming this with posted copies in the usual places so that no one could feign ignorance of the penalties for price manipulation.

         One doubts that Anda’s attempts to establish price controls on unhusked rice were successful.  They might even have aggravated rice shortages and black market profiteering.  Perhaps it was in reference to these consequences that led a Franciscan to comment in 1772: “Commerce, which was declining, has now received a fatal blow, and only with difficulty will it be able to avoid ruin.”  He observes that the acts of the government might lead one to assume a conspiracy to ruin the Islands and its commerce.[8]  Unfortunately I have not been able to find more information on these alleged government missteps generally nor on the denouement of Anda’s attempts to control price speculation and shortages in rice sales in the Manila area.

There is some information, though, that even in good times prices could vary widely from place to place, away from Manila—in 1768 the price for unhusked rice on Panay was two reales/cavan at harvest time; and on Romblon and Banton islands, the price was 6 reales/cavan at all times.[9]  During the period between rice harvests, shortage undoubtedly occurred and the price would have gone up in many places; and many would have resorted to root crops during the times of hunger and shortage.  In any case, we know from fragmentary sources that harvest shortages and failures for rice were a problem at this time in parts of the Philippines.  One instance I have found from April/May 1771 when the Franciscan priest in Santa Ana de Sapa reported that he had had to advance rice for seed since the previous year’s harvest had failed.[10]  In another source there is a brief reference that there had been no rice harvest in Gumaca for 1774-1775.[11]   In 1776, there is a report from Mahayhay between January and April, when the Franciscan priest there noted that “rice is very scarce” (es tan escaso el palay).[12] 

One wishes for more of these little nuggets of data.  We do, though, have a more general, Franciscan statement on the state of the Island economy for 1771, which at least in broad terms confirms the difficulties the colony was experiencing about then.[13]  The Franciscan reported that the cost of clothing used in the Islands from 1732 until 1762 went up by more than 100 percent.  Since 1762 until the present it had increased again by at least 50 percent, with some fluctuation depending on type of clothing.  In addition there have been shortages of silver and the prices of other goods had also gone up while the number of boats coming from China had declined due to loss to Moro attacks and the greater demand in China by European ships for Chinese goods.  Due to the war there were high losses of carabaos, which had deleterious consequences for crop cultivation, leading after the war to great hunger compounded by interruptions to commerce with the provinces due to the Moro threat.[14]  With the crop failures in provinces near Manila, the “sad laments” of the poor and hungry were inescapable, we are told.  The writer also avers that the high prices also affected the galleon trade, since if the prices of Philippine exports to Mexico reflected the prices then current in the Manila market, there was a possibility that the goods would not sell in Acapulco and would be returned. 

While the galleon trade between Manila and Acapulco is clearly tangential to our purposes, and the Moro effect on economic conditions will be addressed a bit later in this essay, there is another topic that fits in well now.  In this same 1771 essay, the Franciscan mentioned a severe earthquake in the Manila area on the 1st of February, with significant damage in San Miguel just outside Intramuros.  Within the old city, the Augustinians and Recollects had significant damage to their property.  Indeed, more generally, damage to Spanish and Filipino property was significant.  Natural disasters are clearly of moment since they can affect production, accentuate shortages, and ultimately affect prices in the marketplace.  These events  may have been more significant, widespread, and effective in impacting more Filipinos and their harvests and purchases than Anda’s scheming individuals and profiteers.

For a list of natural phenomena and disasters for this period, there is no better source than the work by L. C. Dery,[15] supplemented from the www by other sources.[16]  A simple listing is instructive and needs no commentary:

1766,   drought and locusts in Polo, Guiguinto, Bocaue, Quingua, Meycauayan, and

                     San Miguel de Mayumo (Dery, 72)

        volcanic eruptions (Mount Mayon), lots of destruction in Albay[17]

1767,   drought, Quingua, Bulacan (Dery, 71)

         banditry a problem in the province of Tayabas (Quezon today) (Dery, 133-134)

         “bad harvests due to pests and calamities,” 1767-1769, Betis, Bacolor, Lubao,

                     Macaveve, and Mexico (Pampanga) (Dery, 177)

         locusts, Taytay (Tondo [Rizal]) (Dery, 204)

1768,   drought, Pulilan, Bigaa (Dery, 72)

1769,   “bad harvests in 1769, 1770, and 1771,” Batangas, Batangas (Dery, 98-100)

1770,   typhoon and significant damage, Tayabas province (Dery, 134)

         “Widespread floods, drought and worms …,” Macaveve, San Fernando, Santa

                     Ana, Arayat, Candava, San Luis, and San Simon (Pampanga) (Dery, 177-

                     178)

         droughts in 1770 and 1771, crop shortages, Tondo, Bataan, Pampanga, Bulacan,

                     Laguna, and Batangas (Dery, 204)

         drought, Taytay (Tondo) (Dery, 204)

1771,   “bad harvests in 1771 and 1772,” Malolos, Bulacan (Dery, 72)

1771,   scarcity of rice, Pampanga (Dery, 175)

         flooding and consequent bad harvests, San Pedro Macati, Pasig, Santa Ana, and

                     Cainta (Tondo) (Dery, 205)

         earthquake[18]

1772,   32 December typhoon, Tayabas province (Dery, 134)

         poor harvests, San Luis, Apalit, Minalin, and Macaveve (Pampanga) (Dery, 134)

         floods, Taytay (Tondo) (Dery, 204)

1773,   poor harvests, Lubao, Macaveve, Apalit, and Minalin (Pampanga) (Dery, 178)

1774,   “ricefields destroyed by insects…,” Mexico, Pampanga (Dery, 178)

Parish Work in the Pueblos

         Franciscans and other parish priests would have been intimately aware of these natural phenomena and their impact on parishioner lives and well-being.  It is fitting that we now spend some time “on the ground” in the pueblos as we view what the Franciscans saw and reported as they worked there between 1764 and 1776.  The detail might be instructive and a focus on the ordinary in the Philippine provinces is still sufficiently rare to be potentially revelatory.

         In the first years after the British left Manila, the Franciscans staffed 66 municipal parishes and 17 mission stations, whose populations under Franciscan priests were reported to have totaled almost 139,000 (see Appendix A, below).[19]  Leaving the missions for the next section of this essay in the topic on Highlanders, we have pueblos with churches specifically assigned to Franciscan priests taking care of the spiritual needs of a population of almost 128,000 men, women, and children.  On average each Franciscan would have had almost 2,000 parishioners, though the actual population figures varied dramatically (Appendix A). 

Some pueblos were more nucleated around the población and church than others, also affecting the friar’s ability to reach and monitor parishioners.  For instance, in 1776 the Franciscan Provincial drafted a report on the Diocese of Nueva Cáceres and from it[20] we learn, among other things, that dispersion was the norm.  We read at one point that Yndan was “subdivided into various tiny visitas [vissitillas] or rancherias located to the four winds [sittuadas a las quartos vientos]” (f. 3v).  Quipayo also had dispersed settlements, both for ease by Filipinos to tend to their fields and to search for wax and balate (sea cucumbers).  Dispersion was accentuated, he added, by those fleeing from ill treatment by pueblo officials (f. 8v).  Later he remarked on those “innumerable” Filipinos in the hills near Oas who have “fled from the pueblo or its visitas” (f. 16).  Returning briefly to our earlier themes of natural disasters and bandits, we learn from this source that in 1775 a baguio destroyed a sitio near the Mission of Santa Cruz de Mangirin [sic], with the church and houses lost but being rebuilt (f. 9).  Without much detail there is a reference that Nabua is one of the most populated pueblos in the Camarines, but that two of its visitas or rancherias had become centers for “many wicked persons” who took refuge there and engaged in lawsuits and complaints against nearby pueblos (f. 14), presumably over land and livestock issues. 

Given the tendency of Filipinos to prefer residence away from the población to be closer to fields and also farther from officials and the priest, much of Filipino life and activity probably occurred outside of the purview of the priest.[21]  Franciscans and other priests in the Spanish Philippines were stretched thin with notable difficulties in establishing sustained contact with Filipinos living in dispersed settlements, in rough terrain subject to typhoons and other natural events, often dealing with attacks by bandits or (discussed below) by Malay Muslims (Moros), and coping with isolation and sickness.  With 66 parishes and seventeen missions, the Franciscans had a lot on their plate.   

In 1768, the tasks allotted to them and to other priests serving in the Philippines increased dramatically, thanks to the consequences of the King of Spain’s 1767 decree (received in the Islands in 1768) expelling the Jesuits from Spain and from her colonies around the world.  All Jesuit parishes in the Philippines had to be reassigned, leading to major shifts and additional obligations of all the ecclesiastical organizations.[22]  The Franciscans now had the additional obligation for parishes in Sorsogon and in all but three of the pueblos in Samar.[23]  I have told much of the Samar story already in my 1985 book.  While there is no need to dwell on items already told there,[24] some points are particularly relevant here and will be spotlighted. 

The Franciscans took over thirteen parishes (the Augustinians took Basey, Balangiga, and Guivan, in southern Samar), with almost 23,000 parishioners in 1768-1769 (see Appendix B).  The Franciscans did not know the language of the Filipinos on Samar, nor did they inherit dictionaries and grammars and Doctrinas in Waray from the ousted Jesuits.[25]  These handicaps must have been significant handicaps for communication and understanding between Filipino and Spaniard, Samareño and Franciscan. 

The Augustinians observed in July 1770 for their newly acquired parishes in Samar and in Leyte that on Samar hardly any of their parishioners knew how to read or write.[26]  The Augustinians commented that the lack of literacy and familiarity with Spanish procedures and language meant that a few Samareños tended to hold the positions of governadorcillo and clerk (escribano), which affected their attitude toward the provincial governor.  Presumably it also would have affected their attitude towards the assigned priest, particularly young men with no facility in Waray.  It seems a fair assumption that this and other observations the Augustinians made for their parishes on Samar probably applied as well to areas staffed by Franciscan priests.  The report continues by noting that there was little cultivation of fields by plow.  Most planting was done by hand.  The Augustinian noted the absence of animals, which I assume means farm and work beasts (as a Franciscan noted ca. 1784[27]).  Population dispersion was notable, the leading citizens or principales were called datus and each one had between 200 and 300 obedient followers.[28]

Whether on Samar or elsewhere in the provincial Philippines at this time, it appears that natural conditions, local leaders, and a dispersed population with its own priorities made the work of the parish priest difficult.  Focusing on the Filipino, it means that local alliances and hierarchies dominated the world of the provincial Filipino.  Spanish priests and provincial governors were dealt with either directly or indirectly, intimately in the población or at arms length in the subordinate settlements or independent sitios in the mountains. 

Some twenty years after our arbitrary twelve-year period, we find that the population counted by the Franciscans—and thus known and more or less active in the mandated church observances and tax counts—had increased from almost 128,000 in 66 parishes to almost 242,000 in some 85 parishes.  The average number of parishioners in each pueblo works out as a bit over 3600 Filipino men, women, and children for each priest, from a high of 7,946 in Lucban to a low of 472 in San Josef or 527 in Malelong.[29]  With the factors of dispersion, topography, weather, and illness of the priest, the opportunities for Filipinos to maximize areas of sanctuary away from supervision by the resident priest must have been numerous.  Such spatial niches were even more numerous in the highlands and missions under the Franciscans.

Missionary Work by the Franciscans in the Highlands

         Efforts to Christianize, acculturate, and congregate highlanders were notable throughout the period of Spanish rule.  Upland Filipino resistance to congregation, conversion, and subordination to government and tribute obligations are a consistent theme, as are conversion and successful settlement, whole populations decamping and fleeing the mission, armed resistance, and death of priests by enmity or disease.[30]  We have good descriptions of work by the Franciscans in the highlands from 1764 to 1776.  Not surprisingly, most of these themes appear. 

         The Franciscans and other friar orders invested many priests, effort, and focus into work with populations in and around the mission stations in the highlands.  In 1765 the Franciscans counted 17 missions, with a population of a bit more than 11,000 (see Appendix A), meaning each missionary priest worked with a Filipino population on average of a bit more than 600 in each mission, some numbering in the 300s and a couple in the 900s and over 1,000.  Twenty-one years after our arbitrary cut-off date of 1776, the Franciscans reported work in a dozen missions with a total population of 6800, averaging almost 600 per mission, from 184 to a high of the combined mission of Lupi and Ragay with 1,567. 

From my earlier work on the Franciscans in the Philippines, I was able to observe “that while not all young men in the Franciscan priesthood went to the mountain missions, those who served in the mountain missions were overwhelmingly younger and relatively new to the islands.”[31]  Priests died doing this work, some dying earlier than average due to disease.  Here are the Franciscans who died while working as missionaries in the highlands during this period[32]

P. Fr. Francisco Garcia, died 2 March 1765, Tabueyon

Born 1736, arrived in the Islands in 1759, was about 29 when he died

P. Fr. Melchor de San Francisco, died 26 April 1775, Carranglan

         Born in 1730, arrived in the Islands in 1765, was about 45 when he died

P. Fr. Antonio Bisquert, died 14 September 1765, Salog

Born 1726, arrived in the Islands in 1752, was about 39 at death

P. Fr. Antonio Anguita de la Cruz, died 17 April 1767, Pungcan

Born 1729, arrived in the colony in 1752, was about 38 when he died

P. Fr. Francisco de San Pedro Alcántara y Esparragalejo, died 23 September 1768 while

the missionary at Dibutarec (with Divilican).  He was born in 1728 and arrived in the Philippines in 1759.  He was about 40 when he died.

P. Fr. Manuel de San Roman, serving in Lupi, died 11 April 1770, in Naga

Born 1726, arrived in the Philippines in 1752, was about 44 at death.

P. Fr. José Tamajon o de la Concepcion, serving in Pungcan, died 27 February 1771,

in Caranglan.  Born 1730, arrived in the colony in 1759, was about 41 at death.

P. Fr. José Martínez de la Hinojosa, died 11 July 1771, Casiguran

Born 1720, arrived in the Philippines in 1747, was about 51 at death.

P. Fr. José Gimenez, died at Dibutarec, 1772, while working as the assigned missionary   in the Mission of San Juan Bautista in the Mountains of Casiguran.  He was born in 1709 and arrived in the Islands in 1747.  He was about 63 when he died.

The average death age of these seven priests was 43, about 7 years earlier than the overall, average length of life for all Franciscans who served before 1899 in the Philippines.[33] 

Disease and heightened mortality seems likely, then, for priests serving in the highlands.  Death by assassination also occurred, though not that often for the whole period of Franciscan efforts in the highlands.  Violent deaths did occur in our period in the lowlands as well, with a Franciscan layman killed in or around Manila from a blow on the head from thieves, dying on 11 May 1765.[34]  In the highlands in our twelve-year period, two Franciscan priests  were killed by highlanders in this period:

         P. Fr. Juan Silva o de la Concepcion, assassinated, Tigaon, 8 September 1770.

         Born ?year, arrived in the Philippines in 1747.[35]

P. Fr. Juan Beltran, assassinated, Tabueyon, 1 October 1770.  Born 1740, arrived

         in the Islands in 1767.[36] 

Huerta suggests that Father Juan Beltran had been particularly fervent in trying to stop headhunting practices in the area, perhaps provoking a ferocious response.[37]  Subsequently, eight years after his murder, this mission was abandoned because its inhabitants had deserted it.[38]

Less dramatic than murder and flight would have been the day-to-day life in the missions.  As with the lowland pueblos and parishes, insights into the lives and world views of the Filipinos are hard to find.  The Franciscan reports are not daily or even monthly or quarterly, and of course they are written from a perspective and with aims distinct from those of most historians today.  Details and sustained descriptions are lacking, and not all our concerns today were addressed then.  Filipino voices are absent.  However, one finds the occasional statement that one can “excavate” or “squeeze” and perhaps approximate a Filipino perspective of the time. 

For instance, here is P. Fr. Francisco Maceyra describing highlanders who chose not to settle down in a mission settlement to accept baptism and the obligations of Christianity but preferred to live in the mountains, “where they live like irrational animals, without faith [doctrina] or polity [política].”[39]  Another Franciscan wrote of highlanders “who so love the liberty of the mountains” that they would not settle in the missions.[40]  Franciscans seemed to blame the independence of unconverted highlanders on priorities of freedom and alleged brutishness.  In contrast, Filipino lowlanders who would not settle “under the bells” could be characterized as pawns of the devil, who did not want a friar near those who would play cards, indulge in cockfights, and engage in “other iniquities.”[41]

We have a sense from these reports of intractable resistance by many highlanders to give up their mobility, habits of warfare, other social customs, living patterns, and beliefs to live in a settlement with imposed rules of behavior and residence and unremitting pressure to convert to Christianity.  We know as well from brief Franciscan comments that those living in such settlements could become sitting targets for attacks of hostile groups around them.  For instance, in 1776 a Franciscan said that at Goa the residents could not draw water from the river without the risk of ambush by those living in a nearby sitio called Caiabon.  Already they had killed some from Goa and stolen many of their animals (AFIO 93/21, f. 1).  In 1775 a Franciscan reported that Tigauan had lost some residents to attacks from nearby “pagans” [infieles]; eight victims were killed by arrows and subsequently interred in the church while others who died in the hills had their corpses “cruelly dismembered” [y otras fueron cruelmente desmenusados sus cuerpos] (AFIO 92/31, f. 5v).  Missions and their populations could become magnets of attack.  Attacks and difficulties with other groups and with Aetas are mentioned,[42] suggesting that the political and demographic patterns of the highlands communities were complex and perhaps not fully encompassed by a view in the manuscripts focused on the mission and conversion to Christianity.  We see a glimpse the dimensions of highland life might offer in and away from the missions in this comment from 1776: I have “never heard nor seen” any trouble from the “Cimarrones.”  They had regular interaction with Lagonoy, participating in trade for necessities in exchange for wax and abaca.[43] 

The Franciscans of course might have had more cognizance of what was happening in and around the missions.  Unfortunately they did not write it down for us.  We see this with the almost unique reference by name of some of the highlanders, this time from the rancheria de Calumpang (AFIO 90/72 (17 July 1764), f. 8), where we have these names: Thomas Fernando, Valerio de la Cruz, Andres de los Santos, and Domingo de Santa Ana.  This last person is described as a “bagongtavo,” a term whose meaning and significance was unexplained.  The writer identifies the mission political leader (cabecillo de todos) as Juan Salvador, also known as Baró, from Albay. This man was the successor to a Lucas Explana, also known as Tiron, “who was said to have been captured in Binangonan de Lampon and hanged.”  There is no detail or explanation, merely a continuation of names, this time identifying residents of Calumpang from elsewhere: 4 from Pililla (only 3 are named: Juan de la Cruz de Camarines, Ygnacio de S. Maria de Biñan, Francisco de la Cruz (perhaps from S. Thomas)), and 9 unnamed men from Binangonan de Lampon.  Those from this latter pueblo “were not registered for the tribute here (or anywhere) and are the most wicked of all” [“que ni aqui, ni en parte alguna estan empadronados, y son los mas perversos de todos”].  No follow up on these points is given.

However, reading between the lines, the residence of men from Albay, Pililla, and Binangonan de Lampon at the mission suggests that there was a lure in the highlands that made it worthwhile for lowlanders to live there.  Perhaps it was trade opportunities that brought them to the mission, perhaps it was looking for a highland sanctuary from misdeeds in the lowlands.  Notice too that the priest clearly disapproved of the moral standing of some of the residents from Binangonan de Lampon; he may also have been concerned that they were not properly registered anywhere.  Nonetheless, apparently he could do nothing effective about one or the other situation—“they are given various, loving corrections and paternal counsel, which is all that I can do, no going beyond this in order not to lose everything.”[44]  Clearly the society and politics of the missions could be complex and the priest (or at least this priest) was merely one of the players, and almost certainly not the determinate one. 

Franciscans found themselves in a bind, torn in different directions by obligations to faith, logistical and personnel concerns, and the necessity to push their views and values on a population which had other priorities and might bolt at any time.  On the one hand was their commitment to baptize those not yet exposed to the Christian faith, which was for them of eternal and infinite importance for every soul’s salvation.  On the other hand, as P. Fr. Francisco Maceyra argued in 1764, there were the difficulties of provisioning the priest in the mission, especially during periods of bad weather when contact was quite difficult.  Moreover, if the priest became ill there was no one to properly take care of him; and if he were near death, there was no other priest nearby able to reach him to give him the proper sacraments.[45]  The missions usually were in terrain that did not permit extensive cultivation, leading to scarcity of food and for the priest complete dependence on the stipend from the king of Spain.[46] 

Relocating the missions on better terrain to accommodate sufficient lands and people to compose a true municipality would be the best solution, but those in the hills would refuse to move to such a place far from their traditional areas.  Using the Mission of Calumpang as an example, Father Francisco noted that the pueblo of Santa Maria was nearby and moving those in the mission to that pueblo would solve the problems of provisions, communications, and space for population and cultivation.  However, the officials from Santa Maria had long imposed a series of extortions on those in the mission, and when in the past moving those in the mission to Santa Maria had been suggested, those at the mission fled to the hills.[47]  Even if the move to the pueblo idea were dropped, the work at the mission was not showing major numbers reached, converted, and confessed—only 27 confessed in the last four weeks according to Father Francisco (ff. 8v-9), phrased in such a way that suggests that that figure was lower than optimum—and teaching the doctrine was difficult. 

The work in the highlands and missions was a major priority for the Franciscans in this twelve-year period, but the cost in personnel was high and the “harvests” were small.  While the efforts continued after 1776, the period after the war against the British until then might have marked the high-water level for Franciscan efforts and number of Franciscans assigned to the highlands.  Certainly by 1789 in one area at least, the Franciscans pulled their missionaries out due to danger and hostilities.  Henceforth, in the Baler area, they worked by making missionary excursions to scattered highland populations from nearby pueblos.[48] 

Moro Raids

         Raids by Moros from the Sulu Archipelago, Cotabato, and Lanao are a major theme

in Philippine history from the 16th to well into the 19th century.  Jim Warren has been the key historian to explain and describe the reasons, patterns, and effects in Sulu and western Mindanao of these raids.[49]  Others have described and discussed the impact these raids had on communities under Spanish rule elsewhere in the Philippine archipelago.[50]  Moro raids impacted almost every theme in this essay on our 1764-1776 story.  Only the highland Missions seem not to have been directly affect by Moro raids at this time, though at other times there are references to attacks by these marauders from the south.  Lowland areas, though, definitely felt the weight of the raids, particularly in areas away from Manila, “which were always being prostrated” by them, as a 1771 Franciscan noted.[51]  Sometimes pueblos and settlements were repeatedly visited, as happened in a town in what is today Quezon Province—“In 1755 and 1756, the Moros destroyed the town of Guinayangan.  Its inhabitants were resettled by the colonial authorities to the village of Cabibihan.  In November 1767, the Moros attacked and destroyed Cabibihan, dispersing once more the hapless Cabibihan, Tayabas inhabitants.”[52]

While notable, earlier decades had been worse, but the record of raids just for Samar show both “snatch and grab” raids as well as major, sustained attacks (Samar: 1768-1898, Appendix 9, 239):

                     1767, unspecified attacks against “some pueblos”

                     1768, August/September, Moros captured crews of three “canoes” near Catarman

                     1769/1775 (specific year unclear), “Eighteen Samareños captured near Calbayog,

                                 ‘Many captured’ at a sitio on the Jibatang River, one-half day from

                                 Calbayog.” 

                     1770, August, “Eleven day siege at Gandara … resulted in the capture of ‘more

than 100’ Samareños

                     1770/1773 (specific year unclear), “An attack by the Moros against Calbayog

                                 from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. was repulsed….”

                     1771, April, “ ‘Many’ Samareños killed at Paranas.”

                     1773, November, “Two ‘squadrons’ of Moros attacked Umauas, but were beaten

                                 off with only two Samareños captured.”

                             “Four times in this year, at least once in September, the población of

                                 Paranas was attacked. The smallest number of Moro boats attacking at one

                                 time was forty, whereas it once totaled as high as 200. In one case,

                                 Paranas was under siege for twenty-one days.”

                     1773 or 1774, “Three Samareño boats were fishing at the bar of the river by

                                 Villareal when they were attacked by two Moro boats …  Three

                                 Samareños were gravely wounded but the rest escaped.”

                     1774, Paranas attacked again, rice harvest taken

                     1774 or 1775 (specific year unclear): “The población of Catubig was sacked and

                                 about 500 Samareños were captured and an unknown number … killed.”

Filipinos from Spanish-ruled areas were commonly kidnapped, but there are cases as well of priests being taken and ransomed, as happened on Samar with an Augustinian in 1771 or 1772; and a Franciscan in 1773 (Samar: 1768-1898, 239). 

         Franciscans also reported Moro raids elsewhere.  In 1778, the Franciscan Provincial in a letter to Spain commented on the abundance of Moro attacks on the coasts, in the bays, and up the rivers.[53]  Two years earlier in a survey of the diocese of Nueva Caceres, we learn the following:[54]

1774, Moros destroyed church and pueblo of Obupon, survivors fled to the hills (f. 6)

7 December 1774, Moros destroyed church and rectory, killed or kidnapped 70-80

         persons (f. 13)

Another source mentions that on two occasions in 1772, Gumaca had to come to the aid of Atimonan against the Moros; twice more in 1774 along with five times for Mayoboc in 1773; and again, multiple times in 1775.[55]  A document, probably from 1771, describes the destruction wreaked by the Moros in areas with Franciscan priests:[56] the Moros burned and sacked Ticao, Moba, and inflicted some damage on Masbate; all pueblos on Mindoro were sacked and burned.

         Aside from the obvious physical signs of the attacks, other effects of these Moro raids should be stressed: a climate of fear and uncertainty, movement to less accessible locations, loss of loved ones specifically and population loss more generally, destruction to houses, loss of crops and animals, coconut palms and other trees cut down, damage to fish traps and boats, food insufficiency, commercial stasis and stagnation.  These are self-evident and only alluded to in the Franciscan manuscripts—e.g, “others live in the mountains, for by this stratagem they are safe from the Moros, a security they cannot achieve in the pueblos due to the continuous invasions.”[57]

         One Franciscan in 1768 linked the war against the British both to criminality and Moro raids:[58]

         … so many evils have afflicted us during the last war, though now that our

pain and grief has been soothed we are suffering [in the provinces] from

thieves and evil-doers and the multitude of Moro boats which are destroying

settlements and lives in addition to the many other calamities that here inside

of Manila afflict us.

A more general observation with a direct, economic linkage, comes from 1771:[59]

         … regarding the unhappy state of the provinces of Tayabas, Camarines, Leyte,

Samar, Calamianes, Zebu, Bohol, and all the others known by the name Bisayas,

which is where the Moros, never more than now, are in place and have converted

pueblo populations into those with weapons in their hands but unable to cultivate

their fields, not able to engage in commerce, which are the two arenas where they

formerly pursued their livelihood; others … are carried off to Mindanao and Jolo

as captives ….

         And, finally, we are fortunate to be able to hear the testimony of Filipinos, albeit only a few and short transcribed summaries from ostensible records of their testimonies.  Dated 1779 but referring to the late 1760s to August 1779, the material consists of Filipino skippers from the eastern Visayas asked why they had not sailed to Manila during this period.  Apparently the Moro threat had lessened by 1779 and they were able to bring goods for sale to Manila.  Ten were interviewed, three from Samar and seven from Leyte (mainly from Carigara).  The Samareños testified as follows:

Testimony of Nicolas Vegis, Master (arraes) of the carocoa Santo Christo from Guivan. 

         Had been 10 years without the current number of carocoas now shipping to

         Manila.  His cargo includes coconut oil, lard, wax, balate, and woven fabrics. 

         Heretofore had not come because of the Moros.  Used to come annually.  Came

         this year because heard that the Governor General had ordered ships out against

         the Moros.

Testimony of Lorenzo Justiniano, chief (cabo) of carocoa San Francisco Xavier of

         Guivan.  Had been ten years since he last came to Manila due to the Moro threat. 

         Had cannons on his boat but could not compete with the Moro fleets.

Testimony of Miguel Pedrosa, 35 years old, Master (arraes) of carocoa Santa

         Catharina, from Samar (pueblo not specified).  Had not come before because of

         the Moros, with which he could not compete.  Came this year because sailed in a

         group of 43 boats, even though their main weapons were bows and arrows; and

         because had heard that the Governor General had planned to sail against the

         Moros.

All three of the sailors alluded to hardships during these ten years, families having fled to the mountains or reduced to the “greatest misery” or that pueblos had been destroyed and burned and reduced to great suffering.  Unfortunately more detail and explanations are not given.

Conclusion

         We saw in the section Thieves and Bandits that Franciscans reported what they thought was a significant uptick in banditry, with large gangs brazenly attacking settlements and fellow Filipinos.  We saw in the section on Moro Raids that provincial security was further undermined with assaults by these maritime raiders on the provinces to kidnap men, women, and children for slavery in the Muslim regions in the south.  The Moro attacks led Filipino lowlanders to flee to the mountains.  With losses from kidnappings, flight, and deaths during attacks, there was population loss in the lowland settlements.  With the raids came as well deaths of carabaos and damage to crops, tools, and trees.  As a consequence, and combined with natural disasters, Filipinos experienced crop shortages during these twelve years and perhaps inflation as well.  Governmental responses to bandits, Moros, and crop shortages with consequent commercial interruptions and economic pressure on the well-being of the colonized seem to have beern partial and almost certainly ineffectual.  Franciscans, as we saw in the section on the parishes and in the Highlands, seem to have been undermanned and in effect of marginal importance and an insubstantial presence in the lives of most of a dispersed provincial population.

         We have also learned that the documents were useful but not exhaustive in their coverage.  We saw that among the Filipinos referred to that there was a complex net of activities, relationships, decisions, and hierarchies that was only partially described or alluded to in the Spanish manuscripts.  Clearly the themes of economic activity generally and commerce specifically, along with politics, social ties, family, migration by choice or necessity, warfare, religious beliefs and worship practices are implicitly shown to have been important in Filipino provincial lives.  Yet they were not clearly or fully described.  In addition, half of the population does not even appear in the materials at hand—girls and women are invisible except as occasional numbers on a census sheet.

From what we saw in the manuscripts, much was occurring among Filipinos at this time but only a fraction (probably small) was recorded in the materials at hand.  We need to figure out how to more fully tell the story of Filipino women and men, girls and boys, lowlanders and highlanders, warriors and raiders, merchants and shippers.  This essay has shown that the story of Filipinos in the provinces is complex and worthy of research as we try to document Filipino lives “on the ground” in the provinces outside of Manila.

Appendix A, 1765[60]

Archivo de la Provincia del Santo Rosario (APSR)/Archivo de PP. Dominicos,

Provincia del Rosario, Filipinas, Tomo 4, Doc. 21:

Ingresos de los ministros franciscanos, a fin de terminar el pago de la mesada

Tributos enteros      Todos [Almas]

Provincia de Tondo

453                          2,168                      Dilao

608                          [2,470]                     Santa Ana de Sapa

285                          [1,033]                     Pandacan

367                          [1,714]                     Sampaloc

Provincia de Bulacan

763                          2,966                      Bocaue

152.5                           677                      San Joseph del Monte

835                          4,427                      Meycauayan

790                          [3,834]                     Polo

956                          4,538                      Obando

Laguna de Bay

246                          [1,039]                     Binangonan

366.5                       [1,638]                     Morong

160                          [   737]                 Baras

289.5                       1,399                      Tanay

381.5                       [1,390]                     Pililla

  75                          267                     Caboan

212                          [    621]                    Daraetan

160                              708                     Mabitac

480                            2,398                     Siniloan

320                          [1,450]                     Pangil

221.5                           981                     Paquil

484.5                       [2,303]                     Paete

177                          [   960]                     Longos

673                              961[61]                    Lumbang

  85                          [   453]                     San Antonio del Monte

373.5                       [1,478]                     Pagsanghan

382                          1,860                      Bahi

240                              671                      Cavinti

   232                       1,016                      Pila

   203                       895                      Bay

  62                       301                      Los Baños[62]

   535.5                    2,412                      Nagcarlan

   527                       2,378                      Lilio

1,137                       [5,648]                     Mahayhay[63]

Provincia de Tayabas

   787                       4,120                      Lucban

   666                       [3,953]                     Tayabas

   306                       1,318                      Saryaya

  83.5                    447                      Pagbilao

   370                       [1,916]                     Gumaca[64]

   100                       611                     Mayoboc

   228                       [1,331]                     Atimonan

   303.5                    [1,361]                     Mauban

   114                       468                      Polillo

   192.5                    [   881]                     Binangonan de Lampon[65]

     93                       385                      Baler

  93                       485                      La Mission de San Miguel de Baler[66]

  61                       490                      Casiguran

                                 387                      La Mission de San Juan Baptista de Casiguran[67]

Provincia de Cagayan

   298.5                    1,244                      Palanan

                                 [1,138]                     La Mision … Divilacan …[68]

Provincia de Camarines

   334.5                    1,457                      Naga

   259.5                    1,123                      Canaman

   287                       1,596                      Magarao

   350                       1,609                      Quipayo

   347.5                    1,514                      Minalabag

   537                       2,596                      Calabangan

   411                       [1,734]                     Bao y Bula

   589.5                      2,381                     Nabua

   205                       [   838]                     Bato

   474                       [2,776]                     Iriga[69]

   200                       [   962]                     Buhi

   167                       615                      Libong

   747                       3,460                      Polangui

   954                       [4,447]                     Oas

   694                       [3,070]                     Guinobatan

   940                       3,689                      Pueblo of Camarines

1,113                       [5,062]                     Cagsaua

1,189                       5,155                      Ligao

   431                       [1,838]                     Ligmanan

   660                       3,208                      Milaor

[   303]                     En La Mision de Santa Cruz de Manguirin[70]

[   553]                     …Mision de NPS Franzisco[sic] en el [Monte] Isarog

[   632]                     Mision de Santa Clara de Salogene [Monte Ysarog]

363                      Mision de Lupi y Ragay

Provincia de la Pampanga

[   522]                     En la Mision de Tabueyon en los Montes de Pamacanan

[   486]                     En la Mision de … Alevec

[   902]                     En la Mision de la Angustia de Tamacanan

[   845]                     En la Mision de … de Binatangan o Tubo Grande

[   613]                     En la Mision de San Gabriel Archangel de Bonaboc

[   740]                     En la Mision de San Vizente Ferrer del Rio Casecnan [sic]

[   731]                     En la Mision de San Pasqual Baylon o Tubo Chico

[   589]                     En la Mision de San Nicolas de Tholentino de Penanlan

[1,078]                     En la Mision de Emotlen

[   728]                     En la Mision del Santisimo Nombre de Jesus Puncan

-----

My sub-totals:

         Provincia    Tributos Enteros   Todos

Tondo                        1,713                     [  7,385]

Bulacan                     3,496.5                  16,442

Laguna                                  7,923.5                  [36,052]

Tayabas                     3,322.5                  [18,153]

Cagayan                  298.5                    [2,382]

Camarines               10,890                     [50,981]

Pampanga                  n/a                          [7,234]

My totals:                27,644                     [138,629]

Appendix B

Franciscan Samar Pueblo Totals for 1768/1769[71]

Catbalogan                                      2,133

Catarman                                         1,238

Lavan [sic]                                        576

Palapag                                            1,615

Catubig                                       1,429

Bangajon                                         2,346

Sulat                                                3,687

    Tubig                                          2,454 [see note]

Borongan                                        4,248

Umauas & Calviga [sic]                  1,444

Paranas                                              918

Capul                                                 812

Total:          22,900

Appendix C

Plan General de Almas que administra la Provincia de San Gregorio Perteneciente al Año de 1797.[72] 

Signed and dated in de los Angeles, Manila, 1 August 1798.[73]

Tondo

5,237                                   Dilao

4,151                                   Santa Ana

1,987                                   Pandacan

2,555                                   Sampaloc

1,871                                   San Miguel

Bulacan

                                             6,174                                   Bocaui

                                             2,534                                   Santa Maria

                                             5,333                                   Meycauayan

                                               472                                   San Josef

                                             1,944                                   Marilao

                                             6,011                                   Polo

                                             4,218                                   Ovando

Laguna

                                             3,046                                   Pagsanjan

                                             4,385                                   Lumban

                                               955                                   Longos

                                               723                                   San Antonio

                                             1,778                                   Paete

                                             1,071                                   Paquil

                                         1,943                                   Panguil

                                             3,210                                   Siniloan

                                               852                                   Mavitac

                                               559                                   Cabooan

                                 1,899                                   Pililla

                                 2,327                                   Tanay

   825                                   Baras

2,745                                   Moron

1,681                                   Binangonan

   561                                   Los Baños

   708                                   Bay

1,169                                   Pila

2,754                                   Santa Cruz

3,527                                   Nagcarlang

3,014                                   Lilio

7,690                                   Mahayhay

1,313                                   Cabinti

Batangas

                                             7,594                                   San Pablo

Camarines

                                             1,050                                   Naga

2,574                                   Camaligan

2,976                                   Canaman

3,971                                   Magarao

3,560                                   Quipayo

3,165                                   Calabangan

2,708                                   Libnanan

6,423                                   Milavor

   732                                   Bula

2,726                                   Bao

4,226                                   Nabua

   731                                   Libon

   748                                   Bato

3,152                                   Yriga

1,557                                   Minalabag

3,284                                   Buhi

4,634                                   Polangui

5,013                                   Oas

5,418                                   Ligao

4,928                                   Guinobatan

5,459                                   Camarines

5,348                                   Cagsaua

1,857                                   Bidido

Tayabas

7,364                                   Tayabas

7,946                                   Lucban

1,322                                   Tiaong

3,120                                   Saryaya

   743                                   Pagbilao

3,101                                   Mauban

2,505                                   Atimonan

3,588                                   Gumaca

   527                                   Malelon

2,142                                   Lampon

   926                                   Polilo

   774                                   Baler

   803                                   Casiguran

   588                                   Palanan

Samar

2,299                                   Catbalogan

3,829                               Catarman

1,878                                   Lauan

1,994                                   Palapag

2,276                                   Catubig

3,833                                   Bangajon

3,030                                   Sulat

1,940                                   Tubig

2,408                                   Borongan

3,613                                   Umavas, y Calviga

2,124                                   Capul, y Calvayog

2,857                                   Paranas

Misiones y Misioneros

   627                                   Daraetan

   515                                   Caranglan

   325                                   Pungcan

   413                                   Pantabangan

   253                                   Casegnan, o Caiunguian

   370                                   Binatangan

   184                                   Baler

   280                                   Palanan

1,567                                   Lupi y Ragay

   478                                   Manguirin

   968                                   Tigabon o Santa Clara

   820                                   Sao[Goa] o San Francisco de Salog

Total of almas: [248,483][74]

Appendix D

         Here is a Franciscan source for 1775[75] compared to the equivalent Camarines’ pueblos’ listings in Appendix A and Appendix C, where we see ups and downs in the same province(s) of the Camarines, where most pueblos’ totals follow the anticipated lowest to higher to highest progression but a not insignificant number do not (bold faced numbers are the lowest of the three possibilities; italicized numbers are the highest of the three numbers):

Appendix A, 1765                          a listing for 1775                 Appendix C, 1797

 1,457                      Naga                          964                                   1,050

 1,123                      Canaman                 2,438                                   2,976

 1,596                      Magarao                  2,820                                   3,971

 1,609                      Quipayo                  3,040[76]                                 3,560

 1,514                      Minalabag               1,747                                   1,557

 2,596                      Calabangan             1,491                                   3,165

[1,734]                     Bao y Bula    1,643 + 530                         2,726 + 732

  2,381                     Nabua                      3,737                                   4,226

[   838]                     Bato                          781                                     748

[2,776]                     Iriga                         2,221                                   3,152

[   962]                     Buhi                        1,801                                   3,284

615                      Libong                       684                                     731

 3,460                      Polangui                  3,699                                   4,634

[4,447]                     Oas                          4,944                                   5,013

[3,070]                     Guinobatan             3,750                                   4,928

 3,689                      Pueblo of Camarines   6,100                                   5,459

[5,062]                     Cagsaua                   6,352                                   5,348

 5,155                      Ligao                       5,351                                   5,418

[1,838]                     Ligmanan                2,163                                   2,708

 3,208                      Milaor                      4,800                                   6,423

16                            # lowest of 20         3                                          1

  2                            # highest of 20         3                                        15

What this might mean is unclear except that to take the figures at face value and as particularly exact would seem to be an unwarranted credulity.  It is remarkable how the figures from these estados vary from listing to listing, which one can see by eye-balling pueblos such as Naga, Buhi, the pueblo of Camarines, and Milaor.  The message perhaps is that these figures should only be trusted as rough orders of magnitude and probable indicators of a relatively stable population, perhaps somewhat clustered in and around a población, and susceptible to government exactions and regular numbering.

Appendix E

1765 Detail on Franciscan Highland Missions[77]

         I thought it might be useful for other researchers to have the detail of the mission populations as given by the Franciscans around 1765.  I have left the terminology untranslated and the spellings as I found them since to do otherwise would give a presumption of knowledge of language use and contextual meaning not found in the manuscripts.  There is no handy dictionary explaining the categories that the Franciscans used.  There is also the possibility that each Mission (or each Franciscan) had its own categories.  Nonetheless, one can speculate and make the following provisional translations and observations:

Aetas casados                     married Aetas

Aetas gentiles                      I guess this might be Aetas not baptized into the Christian faith

Aetas reduzados                 settled Aetas, those who had left a migratory life for the Mission

Aetas Xtnas                        Christian Aetas, baptized Aetas

Almas                                  “souls,” the total population

Casados Xpnos                   married, Christian couples

Doncellas                            young women, presumably unmarried[78]

Escuelas                              school age children, perhaps both sexes

Gentiles                               I assume this would be unbaptized adults, adult non-Christians

Mozos                                 young men, presumably unmarried

Mozos Xptnos                     young men, baptized, Christians

Neofitos                              literally neophytes or novices; I don’t know its meaning in context

Parbulos                              toddlers and pre-school age children[79]

Parbulos Baptizados           baptized toddlers and young children

Personas                              persons

Personas de uno y otra        this use in Divilacan is a puzzle[80]

Todos or Todo                                totals [with my total (if different) in brackets]

La Mision de San Juan Bautista de Casiguran

           59  Aetas casados

         118  Personas

           21  Neofitos

           26  Mozos

           39  Doncellas

           31  Escuelas

           93  Parbulos

         387  Todos

La Mision … Divilacan en los Montes de Palanan

         298  Aetas casados

         120  Aetas gentiles

         536  Personas de uno y otra [???]

           39  Mozos

           40  Doncellas

           35  Escuelas

           70  Parbulos

         Almas, 1,120 [1,138]

La Mision de Santa Cruz de Manguirin    La Mision de NPS Franzisco … [Monte] Isarog

         136                          Aetas Xtnas                        203

         104                          Aetas Gentiles                     188

           10                          Mozos Xptnos                       21

           23                          Donzellas                              44

           30                          Parbulos Baptizados             97

         293 [303][81]                          Todos                      558 [553]

Mision de Sta Clara de Salogene [Monte Ysarog]           Lupi y Ragay

         196                                                  Aetas Xtnas            150

         270                                                  Gentiles                     97 [Aetas gentiles]

           36                                                  Mozos                       31

           51                                                  Donzellas                  43

           79                                                  Parbulos                    42

         568 [632]                                         Todos                      363[82]

                                                         Provincia de la Pampanga

Mision de Tabueyon en los Montes de Pamacanan           Mision … Diziertos de Alevec

         115                                                  Casados Xpnos                     91

         220                                                  Gentiles                               166

           32                                                  Aetas reduzados                   98

           21                                                  Mozos                                   14

           34                                                  Donzellas                              42

         100                                                  Parbulos                                75

                     637 [522]                             Todos                      577 [486]

Mision de la Angustia de Tamacanan                   Mision de ,.,, Binatangan o Tubo Grande

         181                                      Casados Xpnos                               198

         325                                      Gentiles                                           303

           93                                      Aetas reduzados                               78

           18                                      Mozos                                               21

           70                                      Donzellas                                          50

         215                                      Parbulos                                          195

                     1,153 [902]              Todos                      1,085 [845]

Mision de San Gabriel … de Bonaboc      Mision de San Vizente Ferrer del Rio Casecnan

         178                                      Casados Xpnos                               211

           97                                      Gentiles                                           198

         110                                      Aetas reduzados                             183

           36                                      Mozos                                               18

           49                                      Donzellas                                          29

         143                                      Parbulos                                          101

                     836 [613]                 Todos                      991 [740]

Mision de San Pasqual                                            Mision de San Nicolas de

Baylon o Tubo Chico                                                        Tholentino de Penanlan

261                                      Casados Xpnos                               194

000                                      Gentiles                                             65

173                                      Aetas reduzados                               78

  29                                      Mozos                                               29

  62                                      Donzellas                                          42

206                                      Parbulos                                          181

         991 [731]                 Todos                      793 [589]

Mision de Emotlen                                     Mision del Santisimo Nombre de Jesus Puncan

         232                          Casados Xpnos                               320

         199                          Gentiles                                           138

         351                          Aetas reduzados                             000

           37                          Mozos                                             4

           71                          Donzellas                                          52

         188                          Parbulos                                          214

                     1,310 [1,078]           Todos          93 [728]

//////////////////

//////////////////

Here is a short summary of most of the missions where Franciscans worked during at least some of the years from 1578 to 1898:

   In eastern Laguna and southern Quezon Province, including Calumpan, Daraetan, Limotan, San Andres, San Antonio, San Pablo, San Pedro with San Pablo, and Umirey

   in the northern region of Nueva Ecija, Pantabangan, Carranglan,[83] and Pungcan[84]                                                                                                

   in and around Baler, Alevec,[85] Binatangan,[86] Bonabue,[87] Bongog, Casignan,[88] Casiguran,[89] Catalangan, Comblan, Debimbinan, Dibutarec, Dipaculao, Divilican,[90] Etmolen,[91] Lauang,                         Malandez, San Ildefonso, Tabueyon,[92] and Tambaguenon   

   Mount Isarog, Bicol Peninsula, the Lagonoy area, Himoragat, Lupi, Mabatobato, Manguirin,[93] Pili, Ragay,[94] Salog [Goa][95], Sangay,[96] Siruma, Tigaon,[97] and Tinambac[98]                                                                                           

We also find reference above to this one, whose name and location is less certain:

Mision de la Angustia de Tamacanan                              

I expect to locate this and the other possible identities more precisely as I do additional work on the Franciscan highland missions of the Philippines from 1578 to 1898.                                              

[1] Francisco Javier de la Torre, 17 March 1764 to 6 July 1765

   José Raon, 6 July 1765 to July 1770

   Simón Anda y Salazar, July 1770 to his death on 30 October 1776

   Interim Governor General Pedro Sarrio, 30 October 1776 to 30 July 1778

[2] Based on my research at the Archivo Franciscano Ibero-Oriental in Madrid (AFIO henceforth) and, earlier, when it the archive was located in Pastrana, Spain.  I am grateful to have had the opportunity, funded by Fulbright and the Social Science Research Council grants.  I am most appreciative of the courtesy and collegial welcome I received from the Franciscans at AFIO, and particularly from the conversations and aid received from the archivist, P. Fr. Cayetano Sánchez Fuertes. 

[3] AFIO 8/2, Informe de varios Religiosos a nuestro Provincial y de este al Gobernador General de Filipinas … sobre malhechores y trastornos ocurridos en el Archipiélago.  Mss., 1774.  I use both the term bandits as well as thieves to translate the Spanish term ladrones, which is the word employed in the manuscripts.  I tend to use the term bandit when the context seems to indicate a gang or a group.

[4] Pueblos were not towns but much more akin to municipal districts or counties, with the name coming from the major urban or urban-like settlement within it.  The center of a pueblo was called a población, and usually it contained the church, rectory, government house, and plaza, near which the houses of the prominent families were located.  Dispersed settlements were common in the Philippines, and the poblaciones were usually surrounded by smaller hamlets called visitas, barrios, rancherias, and sitios.  These ranged in size from the more settled and populated visitas, usually with a chapel for the priest to Mass in when he made a visit, to two or three houses loosely clustered and called a sitio.  Each of these subsidiary units had Samareño officials under the government of the población officials.  Except in major pueblos, if the priest were European he would be the only European resident there.

[5] The Filipino head of the pueblo was called a gobernadorcillo or capitán.  He was elected by a subset of the male principales or principal citizens; those voting usually were former gobernadorcillos.  The total group of male principal citizens was called the principalía.  Under the gobernadorcillo were the men in charge of forty or fifty families (a barangay), who were called cabezas de barangay.  There were other officials as well but their names need not detain us.  All officials mentioned were male; all were Filipinos (by which I mean non-Europeans born in the Philippine Islands, including areas not ruled by Spain.  This usage is anachronistic but convenient).

[6] For convenience I use the spellings as I find them, e.g. Paquil instead of the contemporary form Pakil.

[7] AFIO 5/6, Bando del Gobernador Dr. Don Simon de Anda y Salazar, dirigido al Provincial de San Francisco.  Manila, 12 December 1770.  Ms., 2ff.  The relevant sections in the original read, spellings as in the original: Por quanto incesantemente llegan a este Superior Govierno los Clamores de la Gente Miserable, que habita esta Ciudad, y sus Extramuros, quejandose del precio, a que dentro de pocos dias ha subido el Arroz que para el abasto comun se vende en estas Immediaciones, con solo el motivo de haverse advertido por los Avaxas, que expenden este genero algun atrazo en la futura cosecha y siendo el atajar el impio abuso de la codicia; que daña el bien publico, propio oficio de la Potestad economica que reside en este Superior Govierno como lexitimo converbador del Estado, contra quien determinadamente se dirije la referida combicion, nunca tolerada en Paises civilizados y Republicas bien governadas: deseoso yo de que esta lo sea tanto con quales quiera otra de los Dominios de S.M. Cuia Real Piedad distinguidamente se halla empeñada en el propio efecto no corresponderia a su [f. 1v] soberana confianza, ni a mi expresado deseo, sino procurase poner eficaz remedio a tan notorio mal.  Por tanto siendo a este fin lo oportuno señalar tasa fixa por precio, a que de ba venderse el enunciado Arroz: teniendo presente, al mismo tiempo que las referidas circunstancias la de deberse permitir algun lacro moderado a los Cosecheros de este genero en la actualidad en que se advierte escasez por razon de la mala cosecha: me ha parecido, despues de una mui prolixa reflexion deber señalar a cada Cavan de Arroz con Cascara el precio de quatro reales en los parajes de su Cosecha, y el de cinco rreales en esta Ciudad, y sus immediaciones.  Mas: como quiera que a fin de que sea de efecto esta justa Providencia es necesario obligar a su obserbancia con pena capaz de contener a los regatones, que se emplean en el lucro detextable enunciado; por el presente declaro, e Impongo la pena a los Contraventores de perdición de todo el Arroz, que se les encontrare aplicado para la manutencion de las Tropas de S.M. abandose al que denunciare de algun excesso sobre esta Providencia la tercera parte del valor del cojer por efecto de su denuncia: y ademas se impondra a los que resultaren culpados, si fueren Españoles la pena de dos cientos pesos aplicados a maior augmento de la Real Hacienda, o, si fuere Indio, o Mestizo, la de cient [sic] azotes, que le seran dados por mano de verdugo en las Calles [f. 2] de esta Ciudad.  Y paraque llegue a noticia de todos, y ninguno pueda pretextar ignorancia se pubicara el presente por Bando en esta misma Ciudad fixandose Copias authenticas de el en los parajes acostumbrados ….

[8] AFIO 7/45.  1772, Informe al Rey contra el Gobernador General y se refiere el mal estado en que se encuentran las Islas Filipinas.  Unfortunately one is left with more questions than answers in this document.  The relevant section reads: El Comercio, que estaba sobre manera caido, ha llevado ahora un tan fatal golpe, que con dificultad podra evitar su ruina.  Son tantos, y tan varios los projectos, y conspiran tan a las claras a la ruina de estas Islas, que se presumen muchos, tiene Vuestro Govierno ordenes, e instrucciones Secretas para arruinar el Comercio, y perderlas.

[9] AFIO 50/10, Año de 1768: Ynforme contra las ordenanzas, f. 7v.

[10] Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Book of the Income and Expenditure of the Convent of Santa Ana, San Gregorio, 1721-1788, ff. 419v-420v, period of 4 April-12 May 1771, where the Franciscan priest noted that he had loaned 24 Cabanes to the pueblo que se les dió para la siembra del año pasado y por no aver cogido nada lo pagarán a la cosecha de este año, si Dios es servido ….

[11] AFIO 93/49, Razon del estipendio y tributos de Gumaca recibidos por los doctrineros. 11 July 1776, 4ff.; here, f. 3.

[12] Mormon Microfilm, Registros Parroquiales.  Cargo y Data, Mahayhay, 1772-18[40], Film #1085075.  Unfortunately I have been unable to locate equivalent sources and records for Mahayhay and other pueblos before 1776.

[13] AFIO 7/43, Informe al Gobernador, el cual trata del comercio y refiere los estragos causados por los temblores del mes de febrero.  25 Nov. 1771.

[14] Provincial governors could also have hampered trade by attempting to monopolize goods in their provinces through forced confiscations of goods, as suggested in AFIO 5/3, Circular del Provincial Francisco de la Concepcion insertando un Auto de la Real Audiencia dando algunas normas para evitar los abusos contra los indios en cuestion de comercio y cobro de repartimientos.  This would not have affected the transport problems from the provinces but it might have made shortages worse or profiteering more organized.  Unfortunately I have no other information on this except to note that the pattern of provincial governor misconduct would not have been unique to these twelve years.  Even during the war against the British there apparently was malversation by Spanish officials—see AFIO 22/84: D. Simón de Anda y Salazar. Carta al P. Juan Rosado de Brozas. Bacolor, 29 January 1764, Ms., 1 fol.:
“… tiene cierta noticia de que Don Joseph Monsoro Alcalde Mayor que fue de la Provincia de Camarines, ha retirado de ella a su muger con mas de Dies mill pesos en reales, en una Caja, y otros muchos efectos.  Este hizo dos Cobranzas completos; y no efectuo remision de cosa alguna a la Real Caja, ni a sus Almacenes, con que esta la presumpcion de que no aviendo tenido Caudal conocido, quanto trae y tiene, interin no da su cuenta, y fenece el Juicio de ella, es del Rei mi Amo.”

[15] Luis Camara Dery, Pestilence in the Philippines: A Social History of the Filipino People, 1571-1800 (Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 2006).  309pp.

[16] Natural Disasters in the Philippines, 1565-1898, at https://sites.google.com/site/dbcresearchinstitute/ .

[17] Félix de Huerta, O.F.M., Estado geográfico, topográfico, estadístico, histórico-religioso de la santa y apostólica Provincia de San Gregorio Magno, de religiosos Menores Descalzos de la Regular y más estrecha Observancia de n. s. p. s. Francisco en las islas Filipinas; comprende el número de religiosos, conventos, pueblos, situación de estos, años de su fundación, tributos, almas, producciones, industrias, casos especiales de su administración spiritual, en el archipiélago Filipino, desde su fundación en el año de 1577 hasta el de 1865.   2nd ed.  (Binondo: M. Sánchez, 1865), 255.  Emma H. Blair; and James Alexander Robertson, eds. and trans., The Philippine Islands 1493-1898 (Cleveland, Ohio: The Arthur H. Clark Co., 1903-1909), v. 50, 29.  [Henceforth referenced as BRPI] 

[18] AFIO 7/43 (discussed earlier in text); and BRPI, v. 50, 38.

[19] Population data for Philippine parishes and municipalities is, to put it politely, unreliable.  The data are often anomalous, inconsistent, and not infrequently swing dramatically from census to census.  There are a variety of sources that discuss the problems.  For ecclesiastical sources, the best introduction is Michael Cullinane’s ”Accounting for Souls: Ecclesiastical Sources for the Study of Philippine Demographic History.”  The best hands-on account is Norman Owen’s “Life, Death, and the Sacraments in a Nineteenth-Century Bikol Parish.”  Both are found in the outstanding collection of essays edited by Daniel F. Doeppers and Peter Xenos, Population and History: The Demographic Origins of the Modern Philippines (Madison: Center for Southeast Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1998), 281-346 and 225-252, respectively.  I provide a succinct mathematical demonstration of the questionable veracity of the data in Spanish Franciscans in the Colonial Philippines, 1578-1898. Catalogs and Analysis for a History of Filipinos in Franciscan Parishes (Hastings, NE: Cornhusker Press, 2003), v. 2, 86-88.  Also see my discussion and detailed examination of Samar data in my Samar: 1768-1898 (Manila: Historical Conservation Society (Pub. no. 41), 1985), passim, Appendices 2 and 4, and especially Appendix 10, discussion on pp. 250-256; and Appendix 15, 274-283.  Also see Ng Shui Meng, Demographic Change, Marriage and Family Formation: the Case of Nineteenth Century Nagcarlan, the Philippines (Ph.D. dissertation, Sociology, University of Hawaii, December 1979), 240pp.

[20]  AFIO 92/32, 1776: Informe sobre el Obispado de Camarines, sus pueblos, tributos, distancias y visitas redactado por un franciscano, a peticion del obispo para Informar al Rey.  27ff.  This source also has information on Tayabas (Quezon today) and Nueva Ecija provinces.

[21] I have discussed population dispersion and limits on the priests’ knowledge and power in a variety of places.  The most convenient reference might be Spanish Franciscans in the Colonial Philippines, 1578-1898. Catalogs and Analysis for a History of Filipinos in Franciscan Parishes, v. 1, 158-165; and 202-209.  Also see the excellent study by Norman G. Owen, “Requiem for a Heroic Priest.”  IN Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Marcelino Foronda, Jr.,  edited by Emerita S. Quito (Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1987), 243-45.

[22] Most of the burden fell on the Regulars, largely because of a shortage of trained Seculars.  One source stated that  sixty-nine priests were needed but only nine Secular clerics were available, with sixty Regulars assigned to parishes in Samar, Leyte, Bohol, Negros and so forth (Archivo General de Indias [AGI], Ultramar, Legajo 685, Expedientes e instancias de partes, 1775-1819: 8 January 1775 letter by El Comisario General de Indias del Orden de San Francisco, Fr. Manuel de la Vega, Madrid, f. 1v.

[23] The available Franciscan manuscripts on the Sorsogon parishes do not permit much in the way of detailed analysis.  Most of what we have deal with the negotiations with the Bishop of Nueva Cáceres on which priests (Franciscans, Recollects, or Seculars) would take which parishes.  See, for instance, AFIO 92/24, Expediente para entregar a los Recoletos las doctrinas de Bulusan, Casiguran, Sorsogon y Donsol. Dejación de dichos ministerios por los Recoletos y decretos para que los administren los franciscanos.  Varios papeles, y fechas, mss., 1768.  AFIO 92/25, Carta del Obispo de Camarines Fr. Antonio de Lillo al Comisario Provincial de San Gregorio sobre entrega de Doctrinas. Camarines, 2ff., 9 July 1768.  AFIO 92/26, Entrega de las Doctrinas de Bulusan, Casiguran, Sorsogon y Donsol por los recoletos a los franciscanos, con copia de los inventarios de las iglesias. Ligao, 11ff., 3 September 1768.  AFIO 92/27, Circular del Provincial de San Gregorio a los religiosos de Camarines, para que informen sobre una propuesta del Obispo, sobre permuta de Curatas. Y respuestas. Mss., varios papeles, 1769.  AFIO 94/53, Oficio del Obispo de Nueva Cáceres al Provincial P. Francisco de la Concepción Villanueva, sobre entrega a los Clérigos de dichas Visitas [Bulusan, Donsol, Sorsogon, Gubat, y Casiguran]. Nueva Caceres, 10 July 1768.  Bulusan, 18 July 1768. Ms., 6ff.  By 1775 [AFIO 92/30, Estado de tributos y almas de los pueblos administrados por los franciscanos en Camarines] one estado listed the populations of the Sorsogon pueblos as: Donsol, 717; Sorsogon, 908; Bulusan, 2,555; Gubat, 2,161; and Casiguran, 693.  Also mentioned were Bacon, 1,203; Gate, 303; and Juban, 1,034.

[24] Samar: 1768-1898 (Manila: Historical Conservation Society, 1985).

[25] Regarding language, see the statement from 9 December 1775 by the Franciscan Provincial, P. Fr. Francisco Antonio Maceira, in AGI, Ultramar, Legajo 685, Expedientes e instancias de Partes, 1775-1819.  On the lack of learning aids and other tools, see AFIO 95/3, Petición del Provincial P. José de la Guardia al Vice Real Patrono, sobre limosnas a los misioneros de Samar. Acompaña Suplica pidiendo vocabularios y demas libros de jesuitas, lo que denegado. Manila, 8 August, 26 August, 3 September, 15 September 1768.

[26] AGI, Audiencia de Filipinas, Legajo 627, “Cartas y Expedientes,” 1770, folio 31, “Espediente del Provincial de Agustinos sobre el estado en que hallo las doctrinas que administraba los Jesuitas.”

[27] AFIO 95/9, Minuta de carta del Provincial al Gobierno sobre misiones de la provincia de Samar entregadas a los franciscanos y algunas pertenecen a los agustinos, esas pueblos debian pasar a Leyte (Guiuan, Balanguiga y Basey) y otros los tenian los Jesuitas unidos como Calviga y Calbayog. Relación, 1 fol., sin fecha: “Bacas, ni Carabaos no ai en dicha Isla, y menos Caballos….”

[28] … se goviernan por una especie de principales que llaman Datos [sic], quienes tienen subyugados la maior parte de los Pueblos.  Estos son efectivamente obedecidos en todo quanto mandan, sin que aya quien se les oponga; suelen tener algunos ducientos [sic], y hasta trescientos tributos á su cargo….

[29] Please see Appendix C.  The data are from a manuscript purporting to give population figures for the Franciscan Province in 1797.  I could not locate a complete one closer than this one to the year 1776.

[30] For an overview, see my Spanish Franciscans in the Colonial Philippines, 1578-1898, v. 1, 170-195.  In the present essay I have chosen only to use manuscripts written between 1764 and 1776.  This decision had the unintended consequence that not all missions will be mentioned or discussed.  Also see Appendix E, below.

[31] Spanish Franciscans in the Colonial Philippines, v. 2, 214.

[32] Taken from the assignment lists and biographical data summarized in Spanish Franciscans in the Colonial Philippines, passim.

[33] Spanish Franciscans in the Colonial Philippines, v. 2, 208.

[34] Spanish Franciscans in the Colonial Philippines, v. 2, 208, citing p. 429 of Eusebio Gómez Platero, O.F.M., Catálogo biográfico de los Religiosos Franciscanos de la Provincia de San Gregorio Magno de Filipinas desde 1577 en que llegaron los primeros a Manila hasta los de nuestros días ( Manila: Colegio de Santo Tomás, 1880).

[35] Ibid., 475-476: … celebrada la primera misa en la mision de Tigaon y emprendiendo el viaje para la de Sangay para celebrar la segunda misa, á la mitad del camino le dispararon sus flechas unos infieles emboscados y cayó herido de muerte huyendo los agresores preciptadamente … y su cadáver fué sepultado en la iglesia de Tigaon, donde yacen sus restos venerables….”

[36] Ibid., 538: fué destinado a la mision de Casignan en 768, á la de Tabueyo en 769 trabajando con infatigable celo por la redencion y conversion de los infieles por espacio de once meses, al cabo de los cuales asaltaron una noche, 1 de Octubre de 1770, su casa de nipa y al amanecer del dia dos le asaetaron los infieles de la rancheria de Cabiganan; al sentirse herido saltó por ua ventana perdiendo un brazo al golpe de un campilan ó machete que le descargaron al caer, y arrastrandose y todo desangrado llegó, hasta la cruz del frente de la iglesia y arrodillado y pronunciando los dulcisimos nombres de Jesus y María espiró á los golpes que aun alli le dieron y cortandole la cabeza se la llevaron al monte con infernal algazara; los fieles de Tabueyon dieron sepultura al cadáver, pero á los cuatro dias volvieron los infieles y sacandole de la sepultura se ensañaron en él haciendole menudos trozos….”

[37] Félix de Huerta, O.F.M., Estado geográfico, topográfico, estadístico, histórico-religioso de la santa y apostólica Provincia de San Gregorio Magno, de religiosos Menores Descalzos de la Regular y más estrecha Observancia de n. s. p. s. Francisco en las islas Filipinas; comprende el número de religiosos, conventos, pueblos, situación de estos, años de su fundación, tributos, almas, producciones, industrias, casos especiales de su administración spiritual, en el archipiélago Filipino, desde su fundación en el año de 1577 hasta el de 1865 (2nd ed.,  Binondo: M. Sánchez, 1865), 566-567.

[38] Ibid., 566-567: “… el dia 21 de Noviembre de 1775 fué preciso retirar al misionero por haberse marchado todos.” 

[39] AFIO 90/72, Informe de Fr. Francisco Maceyra sobre las misiones de Calumpan y Daraetan. Daraetan, 17 July 1764, Ms., 13ff.; here, f. 5v.

[40] AFIO 92/31, P. Fr. José Casañas, Misiones Comisario Provincial, Relación de las ordenes dadas por el Alcalde Don Fermin de Zaldivar e informe de las misiones del Isarog, refiere sus progresos desde su fundación hasta dicho año. Isarog, 24 January 1775, Ms., 8ff.; here, f. 4.

[41] AFIO 93/21, Monte Ysarog. Informe del P. Gines Antonio Fernandez sobre las misiones de Ysarog. Goa, 14 May 1776, f. 3: “…que el Demonio no quiera a ningun Fraile cerca; porque estos no pueden facilamente, por antiguos Christianos, conformarse con tanto publico Juego de Gallos en presencia del actual Señor Visitador: por esto confiesan ellos mismos ai a no que no bajan de cien Bacas las hurtadas por ellos mismos, por Gallos y Naipes, y otros iniquos tratos.  ….”

[42] AFIO 93/15, Informe de Fr. José Hervas, sobre los indios fugitivos de Lagonoy al Alcalde mayor de Camarines. Santa Clara de Isarog, 18 October 1753. Ms., 1 fol.

[43] AFIO 92/31, P. Fr. José Casañas, Misiones Comisario Provincial, Relación de las ordenes dadas por el Alcalde Don Fermin de Zaldivar e informe de las misiones del Isarog, refiere sus progresos desde su fundación hasta dicho año. Isarog, 24 January 1775. Ms., 8ff.; here, f. 5v.

[44] AFIO 90/72, f. 8: “…dado diversas amorosas correcciones, y consejos paternales, que es lo que unicamente he hecho, sin pasar a mas, por no perder lo todo.”

[45] AFIO 90/72, f. 4v: de aqui se sigue, que si algun Religioso se determina a vivir aqui todo el año (prescindo aora de la falta de viveres, que ay) en los seis meses es dificultosa la salid; por lo que es enferma, quedo desamparado de todo consuelo corporal, y espiritual.  And later, “muriendo todos casi sin sacramentos, y viviendo todo el año casi sin doctrina ….”  For the importance of the soul, the priest in passing mentions as conveniencias de sus almas, que son de valor inextimable…” (f. 7v).

[46] AFIO 90/72, ff. 5v-6.

[47] AFIO 90/72, ff. 5v-6.

[48] Informe del estado de las Misiones de Baler, por el Padre Juan Sardón, fechado en 1789.  Published by Antolín Abad [Pérez], O.F.M. and Lorenzo Pérez, O.F.M., “Los Últimos de Filipinas: tres héroes franciscanos,” Archivo Ibero-Americano, 16: 63 (1956), 283-284: “en atención a la poca seguridad que en el interior del Caraballo tenían los misioneros, y en vista de que los ilongotes, cansados de la vida tranquila de los pueblos, se retiraban a sus antiguas viviendas de los bosques, se replegaran los misioneros a Baler, Binatangan y San José de Casignan, encargándoles que desde estos pueblos hicieran periódicamente sus excursiones a las misiones abandonadas.”  Huerta (568) suggests that the missions abandoned in 1789 were Bonabue and Etmolen, due at least in the case of Bonabue to a “shortage of missionaries.”  In 1775 the Franciscans pulled out of Alevec and Tabueyan (Huerta, 566-568)—in the case of Alevec because the Filipinos there “did not want to cease the fatal inclination to cut off heads” (568).

[49] Among his many publications and research findings, these are perhaps the most relevant for this section of the essay: James F. Warren, Trade-Raid Slave. The Socio-Economic Patterns of the Sulu Zone, 1770-1898.  Ph.D. dissertation, History, Australian National University, 1975.  520pp.; James F. Warren, The Sulu Zone, 1768-1898: the Dynamics of External Trade, Slavery and Ethnicity in the Transformation of a Southeast Asian Maritime State (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1981).  390pp. (there is a new edition of this classic book, published in 2007); James F. Warren, “The Structure of Slavery in the Sulu Zone in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.”  In Gwyn Campbell, ed., The Structure of Slavery in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia (London, Portland, Oregon: Frank Cass, 2004, 111-128; James F. Warren, “Saltwater Slavers and Captives in the Sulu Zone, 1768-1878.”  In Philip D. Morgan, ed., Maritime Slavery. (London: Routledge, 2012), 119-139; James F. Warren, “The Port of Jolo: International Trade and Slave Raiding.”  In John Kleinen; and Manon Osseweijer, eds., Pirates, Ports, and Coasts in Asia. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies/The Netherlands: International Institute for Asian Studies, 2010), 178-199; and “The Global Economy and the Sulu Zone.  Connections, Commodities, and Culture.”  In Bernhard Klein; and Gesa Mackenthun, Sea Changes: Historicizing the Ocean (London: Routledge, 2004), 55-74.

[50] Francisco Mallari, S.J., Ibalon under Storm and Siege.  Essays on Bicol History: 1565-1860.  Cagayan de Oro City: Xavier University, 1990.  298pp.—I have not yet re-read this book for this essay.  Bruce Cruikshank, Samar: 1768-1898 (Manila: Historical Conservation Society, 1985), Chapter 3 and Appendix 9.

[51] AFIO 7/43, Informe al Gobernador, el cual trata del comercio y refiere los estragos causados por los temblores del mes de febrero.  25 Nov. 1771

[52] Luis Camara Dery, Pestilence in the Philippines: A Social History of the Filipino People, 1571-1800 (Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 2006), 133-134.  Also see AFIO 93/33, Copia del Informe del Alcalde de Tayabas sobre la defensa que hizo contra los moros. Tayabas, 2ff., 28 November 1767.  This source indicates that the attack expanded to include as a target the pueblo of Gumaca.  With help from the pueblos of Atimonan, Mauban, Lucban, and Tayabas pueblo, the assault was repulsed.  Three kidnap victims from Albay were saved and the Moros had significant losses before they withdrew.

[53] AFIO 19/59, Carta del Provincial á Fr. Francisco de la Concepcion y Juan de Santa Rosa, Dilao, 2 July 1778, 4ff.; here, f. 2.

[54] AFIO 92/32, Informe sobre el Obispado de Camarines … por un franciscano ….  Mss., 27ff., 1776.

[55] AFIO 93/49, Razon del estipendio y tributos de Gumaca recibidos por los Doctrineros,. Gumaca, 4ff., 11 July 1776.

[56] AFIO 96/50, Informe de los Provinciales de San Francisco, San Agustin y Recoletos al Gobernador sobre la infeliz situación que tiene … las Provincias Bisayas … las continuas invaciones de los moros….  Mecan. copia, 4ff., sin fecha [1771 por el contento].

[57] AFIO 8/2, Informe de varios Religiosos a nuestro Provincial y de este al Gobernador General de Filipinas … sobre malhechores y trastornos ocurridos en el Archipiélago.  Mss., 1774: “otros vivir en los montes, para de esa Suerte estar seguros de los Moros; Lo que no pueden Conseguir en los Pueblos por las Continuas imbaciones.”  Bocaue, 12 July 1774.

[58] AFIO 19/54, Carta, Provincia, 1768, f. 2: “,… tantos malos, conque nos avia afligido la proxima passada guerra, ya para lenitivo del dolor, y la amargua, que incessantemente nos ocasionan infinitos ladrones, y malevolos y la multitud de embarcaciones de Moros que destruyen las Poblaciones y Christiandades fuera de otras muchas calamidades, y desdichas que assi dentro como fuera de Manila nos rodean.”

[59] AFIO 7/44, Informe al Rey sobre el mal proceder observado por el Governador General por el Arzobispo contra el Obispo de Camarines. Mahayhay, 13 and 15 1771, 14ff.; here, f. 13-13v.  The manuscript draft is generally focused on how Anda had done nothing to repair damage from the war and that the Islands were suffering a “decadence” ever since he arrived.  This section is the only part of relevance for this essay; the translation I provide is rather loose.  The original reads: “… del infeliz estado de las Provincias de Tayabas, Camarines, Leyte, Samar, Calamianes, Zebu, Bohol, y todas las restentes que se distinguen con el nombre de Bisayas en donde los Moros, nunca mas que ahora, viven de asiento, y tienen reducidos a aquellos Pueblos a que tengan las Armas en la mano, sin poder cultivar sus campos, ni hacer su comercio unos con otros, que son los dos ramos de que viven y se mantienen; siendo por esta causa muchos mas, que en otros tiempos, los Captivos que lleban a Mindanao, y Jolo….”

[60] I have only included Tributos enteros and Almas (“souls” or individuals) or Todos here.  Quantities within brackets are my totals.  Categories for Criollos, Spaniards, and Japanese (all entered for Dilao) are not counted here.  I have also omitted the category for Mestizos de sangley, Mestizos Españoles, and Personas libres [?], which I found in whole or in part in the entries for Bocaue, Meycauayan, and Polo.  The heading for Los Baños is given as: Pueblo y Hospital de Los Baños.  Pueblo name spellings were retained from the original.

[61] Lumbang’s total probably should be 2,692, 3,050, or 3,250; I left the total at 961, though it probably was a copyist’s error from the total for Longos.

[62] Pueblo y Hospital de Los Baños is the actual heading.

[63] Mahayhay’s Personas Tributantes listing is 2,262; it probably should have been listed as 2,274.

[64] Gumaca’s Personas Tributantes listing is 720; it probably should have been listed as 740.  In either case, the manuscript’s total for Gumaca does not agree with what is written.

[65] Binangonan de Lampon’s category for Personas Tributantes is listed at 285 but should have been 385.

[66] Many of the totals for La Mision de San Miguel de Baler are the same as entered for Baler.

[67] The categories used for San Juan Bautista de Casiguran are distinct from those used for pueblos. 

[68] Again, the categories used for the Mission at Divilacan are distinct from those used for pueblos.

[69] Iriga’s Personas Tributantes listing is 746; it probably should have been listed as 948.  In either case, the manuscript’s total for Iriga does not agree with what is written.

[70] The format for this mission and for the subsequent ones is distinct from that used for the pueblos.

[71] I have only noted population totals here.  I have used three sources for these figures, two of which are dated 1768; and one is dated 1769.  The 1768 sources are Philippine National Archive, Patronato, Unclassified; and AFIO 95/10.  The source labeled 1769 is from AGI, Audiencia de Filipinas, Legajo 621, Exp. 1.  The population totals for all three are exactly the same, except for Tubig which has totals of 2,454 (1768) and 2,430 (1769).  I have used the 1768 figures consistently here.  The figures for the Augustinian-administered parishes of Guiuan, Balangiga, and Basey are not included here.

[72] Philippine National Archive, Patronato, Unclassified, 1834, 1841, 1843, 1847, 1850-59, 1801-03, and 1785-1799.

[73] Contains a variety of information and categories.  I have only noted the Total de Almas here.  I have rearranged the order of provinces and pueblos in a few cases to make it more consistent with population templates used in my note-taking.  I have retained the pueblo name spellings.  I do not recognize—I assume it is some sort of scribe error—the name of Bidido pueblo listed in the Camarines section. 

[74] The manuscript total is given as 242,472.

[75] AFIO 92/30, Estado de tributos y almas de los pueblos administrados por los franciscanos en Camarines.  Included figures as well for Camaligan (1,666); Appendix C also has a figure for Camaligan, 2,574.

[76] Quipayo and Bombon are counted together in the 1775 estado.

[77] APSR, Tomo 4, Doc. 21: Ingresos de los ministros franciscanos, a fin de terminar el pago de la mesada.  This is the same source and data I used in Appendix A, above.

[78] Sometimes there appear to be more doncellas tabulated than mozos.  I wonder if the mission might have been seen as a safe place to leave unmarried young women.  Mozos might have been expected, though, to learn the skills in hunting and (perhaps) warfare and necessarily have left the mission more often?

[79] There often seem to be a slightly disproportionate number of these for the total.  If this were so, and I might very well be wrong on the number being disproportionate, I wonder if the mission might have been seen by a safe place for highlanders to leave young children and babies while their elders lived and hunted and perhaps engaged in warfare in the hills and mountains?

[80] Perhaps it refers to offspring of Aetas and non-Aetas?

[81] The Mission of Manguirin in 1775 was listed as having a population of 916 [AFIO 92/30, Estado de tributos y almas de los pueblos administrados por los franciscanos en Camarines].

[82] Lupi alone was listed at 1,283 in 1775 [AFIO 92/30, Estado de tributos y almas de los pueblos administrados por los franciscanos en Camarines].

[83] “Mision de San Nicolas de Tholentino de Penanlan” is porbably scribe error for the Mission of Carranglan, which was dedicated to S. Nicolás de Tolentino (Huerta, 91-92).

[84] Mision del Santisimo Nombre de Jesus Puncan

[85] Mision … Diziertos de Alevec

[86] Mision de ,.,, Binatangan o Tubo Grande

[87] Mision de San Gabriel … de Bonaboc

[88] Mision de San Vizente Ferrer del Rio Casecnan: probably Casignan, dedicated to S. Vicente Ferrer.

[89] There is also a Mission dedicated to San Juan Bautista (La Mision de San Juan Bautista de Casiguran).  The Mission of Casiguran was dedicated to San Antonio de Padua (Huerta, 282-284).

[90] La Mision … Divilacan en los Montes de Palanan

[91] Mision de Emotlen

[92] Mision de Tabueyon en los Montes de Pamacanan

[93] La Mision de Santa Cruz de Manguirin

[94] Lupi y Ragay

[95] La Mision de NPS Franzisco … [Monte] Isarog: This is quite probably San Francisco de Salog [or Goa].  See AFIO 93/23.  The Mission of Goa in 1775 was counted as having 1,297 inhabitants [AFIO 92/30, Estado de tributos y almas de los pueblos administrados por los franciscanos en Camarines].

[96] Tiganon and Sangay combined were counted as having 173 Filipinos resident there in 1775 [AFIO 92/30, Estado de tributos y almas de los pueblos administrados por los franciscanos en Camarines].

[97] Mision de Sta Clara de Salogene [Monte Ysarog]: this appears to be the Mission de Santa Clara del Monte … de Isarog referred to by P. Fr. Cayetano Sánchez Fuertes, O.F.M., “Estado de las Misiones Franciscanas en Filipinas, 1751,” Missionalia Hispanica, 42 (1985), 141-162.  It was also been called Santa Clara de Tigaon (see AFIO 93/23) of simply Tigaon (as in Huerta, 204-205).

[98] This may be Mision de San Pasqual Baylon o Tubo Chico—the titular saint is the same, at least.