Bicol Pueblo Officials in the 1780s
Filipino Initiative©
Bruce Cruikshank, 16 April 2016
In the 1780s, Franciscans in the Bicol region of the Philippine colony charged that the provinces in that area had an excessive number of Filipino officials. I will summarize the arguments, present the data, and suggest that the materials illustrate Filipino initiative and autonomous goals.
Table of Contents
The Accusations 2
Appendix A: Data from Franciscan Priests 5
Analysis 8
Appendix B: Data from the Spanish Governor 13
Analysis 17
Appendix C: Terminology—Bilangos and Mananguetes 23
Conclusions about Filipino Initiative 26
The Accusations
Spanish ecclesiastics charged in the late eighteenth century Bicol region that there were too many pueblo[1] officials. The initiative for the charges seems to have come from the Franciscans in the region. We find all of this recounted in a single manuscript source,[2] with no indications of how novel the changes in number were, whether the changes were recent, nor what changes might have occurred subsequently.
We also do not have information to allow us to determine whether this phenomenon was unique to this region or was one found throughout the colonial Philippines at this or other times. Unusual as the charges might have been, unique as the source is, the material is remarkably useful for an overview of pueblo government[3] in the 1780s in the municipalities in the Camarines and Albay provinces. Ultimately it will lead to the suspicion of significant Filipino[4] initiative within the demands and structures of the colonial experience.
On the 10th of December 1781, after an inspection trip to the Franciscan parishes in the Camarines, the Franciscan Provincial claimed that there was a “most severe disorder” there due to “the multitude of visitas in the pueblos of that province and the exorbitant number of officials” (ff. 23-24). The consequences were that these officials become “servants” to the “Captains” or gobernadorcillos, “at the cost in sweat in blood of the poor whose obligations are doubled” since (according to the Provincial) these excessive and useless officials were exempted from tribute payments, forced labor, and requisitioned goods, passing the burdens on those beneath them.
The same charge and consequences were detailed in a 28 April 1783 report (ff. 30-31v) by the Bishop of Nueva Cáceres, also a Franciscan:
The multitude of officials, it is obvious, are without any utility whatsoever …
They spend the year maintaining their position and work by distributing among
themselves those who must pay tribute. These then must work the lands of the
pueblo officials so that those officials can spend the work with more decency and
display. …this is a hidden government that, while tyrannical, all observe, some
from fear and others hopeful that tomorrow they will do the same to others. …
it is partly from this that [some run off], hoping to hide themselves or even to
found visitas so that they themselves can be officials.
The Franciscan Provincial added another dimension, suggesting that the fiddle was executed with the connivance and to the benefit not only of Filipino officials but also for the pockets of the Spanish provincial governors. He spoke of a particular Spanish governor in Albay who allowed the re-establishment of older visitas as well as the creation of new ones in order to facilitate the collection of wax and other forest products. This maneuver was seconded by some principales (leading families in the pueblos) who also wanted to have far off visitas in order to have “servants and laborers” as well as to be effectively “little kings in such places” (f. 23v). The Franciscan parish priest of Calabagnan went further, saying that the dependent Filipinos were “like slaves” (ff. 3-4, 27 June 1781). On the same date, the Franciscan parish priest of Magarao observed that the pueblo officials were fully “occupied in serving the provincial governor and the” gobernadorcillo (f. 20).
On the 4th of June 1782, a Spanish provincial governor endeavored to defend the situation, primarily by stating that the many visitas were “indispensable and most useful for agricultural production, peacefulness of the Filipinos, and easy transit along the roads” from pueblo to pueblo (ff. 25v-26). Moreover, he added later that dispersion was inevitable since there were insufficient lands contiguous to the población to support the population, while also providing early warning and defensible sites to impede Moro attacks and keep the raiders away from the poblaciones (ff. 26v-27v, 15 July 1782).
The Bishop responded with a withering attack (ff. 30-31v, 28 April 1783), terming the provincial governor’s argument about a shortage of lands for cultivation a “ridiculous excuse,” that there was plenty of cultivable land near the poblaciones and less land than implied near the visitas. Moreover, the low production was due more to the “indolence” of the Filipino than shortage of land, with Filipinos choosing to be satisfied with self-sufficiency rather than abundance. As for visitas as bulwarks against Moro attack—on the contrary, they “are very exposed and at risk” and cannot successfully resist since they were not unified and lacked sufficient weapons.
Another Spanish provincial governor seems to have agreed that there were too many pueblo officials. He focused on the cost to other Filipinos, speaking of how petty officials oppressed their “vassals” with their orders, their swindles, and their robberies” with more affliction caused by the forced labor and personal services that were demanded from them (f. 49-49v, 19 April 1783, Francisco Hurtado de Mendoza, Alcalde mayor of Camarines). A Franciscan parish priest had already observed that “the multitude of officials, instead of remedying ” evil in effect “augment vice” (29 June 1781, Polangui).
We have another statement by the Bishop previously quoted, but from about a decade earlier: [5] those Filipinos working for pueblo officials were almost “slaves,” paying them a real every week in order to come up with the seven pesos demanded as tribute—when the King only in fact requires five reales” (f. 13v). This is a remarkable and beneficial extortion, not only through misrepresenting the size of the tribute cost but because there were eight reales to a peso. The consequence would have been, if the Bishop were correct, that instead of five weeks’ labor the tribute payer would have had to labor fifty-six weeks, more than one year, when the charges would have been imposed again.[6]
Details of the extortion and the culpability, if any, of Filipino officials and Spanish governors cannot be independently verified. Other data from other observers and places and times are remarkably scarce. What data we have in this manuscript are reports by Franciscan parish priests detailing the number of pueblo officials in and outside of the población; and a statement by a Spanish governor listing the Filipino pueblo officials whose elections or appointments he validated. These data are presented in the following two appendices.
Appendix A
Data and from Franciscan Priests Regarding Pueblo Officials[7]
(Data have been arranged and Pueblo order alphabetized for ease of analysis)
n/a = not available in the source Items in brackets supplied by Bruce
Pueblo
Visitas, Barrios, Sitios, etc.
Number of Tributos
Head of Pueblo
Cabezas de Barangay
Number of Officials
Comments
Baao
133
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
one [sic]
Five
All live in población
Bombon
365.5
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
forty
four
Buhi
460
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
thirty-five
four
Visita
twenty-five
four
Bula
140
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
twenty
five
Calabanga
n/a
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
eighty to ninety
two
five
includes 2 Bilangos[8]
Visita
nine
four
ditto
Camalig
1,200
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
twenty-one
illegible
hole in manuscript
Visita
nineteen
five
Visita
twenty
five
Camaligan
397
“Governador”
n/a
7
Visita
forty
one
Visita
twenty
one
Canaman
312
“Gobernador”
n/a
11, probably
damaged and lost text
Visita
forty
one
two
Barrio
eight
two
one
Sitio
forty
one
two
Sitio
seventy-nine and one-half
two
two
Pueblo
Visitas, Barrios, Sitios, etc.
Number of Tributos
Head of Pueblo
Cabezas de Barangay
Number of Officials
Comments
Casiguran
317? (1st digit unclear)
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
?one hundred ninety-one (1st digit unclear)
one
nine
includes three Bilangos titulados and three Bilangos not titulados
Visita
thirty-nine
three
and one Bilango
Guinobatan
n/a
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
140 personas
five
personas, not tributos
Visita
226 personas
five
ditto
Visita
140 personas
five
ditto
Visita
135 personas
five
ditto
Iriga
580
“Capitán”
n/a
6
& 10 Bilangos
Visita
40 casas
5
casas (houses), not tributos
Visita
7 casas
five
ditto
Libong
160
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
ten
five
Visita
twenty-four
five
Ligao
1,256.50
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
eighty
five
& one Bilango
Visita
eighty
five
& one Bilango
Visita
eighty
five—all live in the población
& one Bilango
Visita
forty
five
& one Bilango
Visita
twenty-five
five
& one Bilango
Ligmanan
466
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
forty
four
& two Bilangos
Visita
n/a
n/a
Magarao
500
“Gobernadorcillo”
12
5
no visitas
also has two
escribanos,
12 Bilangos, and
1 Comissario
Milaor
>1,000
“Gobernadorcillo,” & two escribanos
n/a
5
& 10 Bilangos (que llaman titulados)
Visita
n/a
four
Visita
n/a
four
Visita
n/a
three
Sitio
n/a
one
Sitio
n/a
two
Minalabag
320
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
twenty-two
three
& one Bilango
Visita
sixteen and one-half
three
& one Bilango
Pueblo
Visitas, Barrios, Sitios, etc.
Number of Tributos
Head of Pueblo
Cabezas de Barangay
Number of Officials
Comments
Nabua
788
[1]
n/a
22
Visita
n/a
six
& two Bilangos
Naga
189
“Governador”
n/a
7
Visita
n/a
one
Visita
eight and one-half
two
Oas
1,149
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
thirty-five and one-half
five
Visita
fifty-six
five
Visita
forty-five and one-half
five
Visita
seventy-two and one-half
five
Polangui
825
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
n/a
3
five
& four Bilangos
Visita
n/a
five
& five Bilangos
Visita
n/a
five
& four Bilangos
Visita
n/a
four
& four Bilangos
Visita
n/a
six
& four Bilangos
Quipayo
289
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
thirty-five
one
three
Pueblo
Visitas, Barrios, Sitios, etc.
Number of Tributos
Head of Pueblo
Cabezas de Barangay
Number of Officials
Comments
Analysis (Appendix A)
The first aspect of this set of data is how irregular the format and inclusiveness are. Almost all the data given are as tributos but two (Guinobatan and Iriga) give at least some of the data as personas or as casas. The fluidity of format seems to be at least partly due to the fact that individual Franciscans report on each of the parishes, with no format fully specified. Even the dates the reports were submitted seem to have varied widely, with most from 1781 but at least three from 1782 and one from 1783:
Summary manuscript source locations and dates of entries
Baao
f. 8
22 June 1781
by parish priest of Bula
Bombon
f. 18
30 June 1781
also did Quipayo
Buhi
f. 16
25 June 1782
Bula
f. 8
22 June 1781
also did Baao
Calabanga
ff. 3v-4
27 June 1781
Camalig
f. 5
20 June 1781
Camaligan
f. 11-11v
7 August 1782
also did Naga
Canaman
f. 17-17v
24 ___ ____
parts of text lost
Casiguran
f. 22-22v
15 September 1781
Guinobatan
f. 6
16 September 1781
personas, not tributos
Iriga
f. 12
30 June 1781
Libong
f. 14-14v
28 June 1781
Ligao
f. 7-7v
29 June 1781
Ligmanan
f. 21
18 June 1781
Magarao
f. 20
27 June 1783 [sic]
Milaor
f. 12
27 June 1781
Minalabag
f. 19
1 July 1781
Nabua
f. 9-9v
30 June 1781
Naga
f. 11-11v
7 August 1782
also did Camaligan
Oas
f. 10-10v
20 June 1781
Polangui
f. 15
25 June 1782
Quipayo
f. 18
30 June 1781
also did Bombon
There are some other issues, which are inexplicable. The most apparent is the lack of recognition of the gobernadorcillo, the head of the pueblo. The data tend only to give information about visita and sitio officials, not the staff of the pueblo in general. The exceptions to this omission are Camaligan, Canaman, Iriga, Magarao, Milaor, Naga, or six out of the twenty-two. Only one mentions subsidiary staff, such as escribanos, when the full allotment of officials in the población would have included the gobernadorcillo, cabezas de barangay, and others.[9] The category of cabezas de barangay is also a puzzle, since they appear in the listings for the visitas and sitios but strictly speaking, they should have been listed only as población officials. The cabezas were in charge of roughly forty families, and the families generally were scattered throughout the municipality, not neatly resident in only one visita. Calbanga’s two visitas list cabezas de barangay as part of their officials, and we find the same anomaly for the barrio,[10] two sitios, and visita of Canaman; one of the two visitas of Casiguran, and one each for Polangui and Quipayo. Magarao lists the cabezas correctly, but even that is suspect since the priest said there were no visitas in Magarao.
Strictly speaking, sitios should not have had formal officials, something usually restricted to visitas. Nonetheless, equating the two as this listing seems to do, we have a sense that a certain number of pueblo officials were more or less mandated, namely Theniente mayor, Juez de sementeras, Aguacil, Juez de Palmas, and Aguacil de Bagamundos. Five in all, a number that occurs regularly in the following: Baao, Bula, Calabanga (one of two visitas), Camalig, Guinobatan, Iriga, Libong, Ligao, Oas, and Polangui; ten of the twenty-two pueblos. Other pueblos had less than five visita or sitio officials listed, namely Bombon, Buhi, one of two visitas in Calabanga, Camaligan, Canaman, one of two visitas in Casiguran, Ligmanan, Milaor, Minalabag, Naga, one of five visitas in Polangui, and Quipayo—twelve of twenty-two.
The immediate conclusion would be that the Franciscans misrepresented their concern. That it was not the number of officials per se but rather the number of settlements outside of the población that was at issue. We know from many other manuscripts that the Franciscans and other Spaniards were quite concerned with Filipino preference to live away from the población. Population dispersion was a problem for Spanish governmental and ecclesiastical authorities. If we look again at the table we see only the following with visita and sitio officials numbering more than five:
Casiguran, with one of two visitas with nine officials
Nabua with it one visita, six officials
Polangui, with one of its five visitas with six officials
The data seem to indicate that the problem of “excessive” numbers of officials was fundamentally an issue regarding Filipino preference for dispersion. However, there are additional indicators to suggest that more was going on here than simple dispersion and mathematical distribution of officials, though that was the prime reason for the number signaled by the Franciscans and the Bishop.
One of those indicators would be the Bilangos. Note the listing below indicating the number of other officials, the Bilangos (discussed in Appendix C), showing that the “standard” five were in many cases supplemented by Bilangos, perhaps the very over-abundance of officials decried by the ecclesiastics:
Pueblo
Visitas, Barrios, Sitios, etc.
Number of Tributos
Head of Pueblo
Cabezas de Barangay
Number of Officials
Comments
Calabanga
n/a
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
eighty to ninety
two
five
includes 2 Bilangos
Visita
nine
four
ditto
Ligao
1,256.50
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
eighty
five
& one Bilango
Visita
eighty
five
& one Bilango
Visita
eighty
five—all live in the población
& one Bilango
Visita
forty
five
& one Bilango
Visita
twenty-five
five
& one Bilango
Ligmanan
466
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
forty
four
& two Bilangos
Visita
n/a
n/a
Minalabag
320
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
twenty-two
three
& one Bilango
Visita
sixteen and one-half
three
& one Bilango
Nabua
788
[1]
n/a
22
Visita
n/a
six
& two Bilangos
Polangui
825
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
n/a
3
five
& four Bilangos
Visita
n/a
five
& five Bilangos
Visita
n/a
five
& four Bilangos
Visita
n/a
four
& four Bilangos
Visita
n/a
six
& four Bilangos
If we look at the pueblo of Baao we see that the visita has what I would term as the standard five officials—however, they all live in the población, not in the visita.
Baao
133
[1]
n/a
n/a
Visita
one [sic]
Five
All live in población
Perhaps other officials in the subordinate settlements also lived in the poblaciones, as did officials in one of the Ligao visitas (see excerpted table above), suggesting that the argument advanced by the ecclesiastics that the visita officials were tools of the gobernadorcillo on the one hand and agents of extortion on the other may be reflected in preferred residence location.
Moreover, if we add in a sense of how many officials might have been supervising the adults in a visita or sitio, we see that more than simple dispersion is at play here:
Pueblo and Visitas etc.
Tributos
Number of Officials
Officials / Tributos
Baao
one [sic]
five
5/1
Bombon
forty
four
1/10
Buhi
35 & 25
4 & 4
roughly 1/9 and 1/6
Bula
no data
five
Calabanga
80 to 90; and 9
5 & 4
roughly 1/16 & 1/2
Camalig
21, 19, and 20
?, 5, & 5
?, roughly 1/4, 1/4
Camaligan
forty & twenty
one & one
1/40 and 1/20
Canaman
40, 8, 40, 79.5
2, 1, 2, 2
roughly 1/20, 1/8, 1/20, & 1/40
Casiguran
?191 and 39
nine & three
roughly 1/25 & 1/13
Guinobatan—personas
140, 226, 140, 135 personas
5, 5, 5, 5
roughly, officials to personas, 1/18, 1/45, 1/18, 1/27
Iriga—casas
40 and 7 casas
five and five
roughly 1/8 casas and 1/1 casa
Libong
10 and 24
five and five
roughly 1/2 & 1/5
Ligao
80, 80, 80, 40, & 25
5, 5, 5, 5, & 5
1/16, 1/16, 1/16, 1/8, and 1/5
Ligmanan
forty and n/a
four and n/a
1/10 and n/a
Magarao
no visitas
no visitas
no visitas
Milaor
no data
4, 4, 3, 1, 2
lack data
Minalabag
22 and 16.5
three and three
roughly 1/7 & 1/5
Nabua
no data
six
lack data
Naga
no data & 8.5
one & two
no data & roughly 1/4
Oas
35.5, 56, 45.5, 72.5
5, 5, 5, & 5
roughly 1/7, 1/11, 1/9, and 1/14
Polangui
lack data
5, 5, 5, 4, and 6
lack data
Quipayo
35
three
roughly 1/13
The figures of officials to tributos vary widely, but when we group them (omitting Guinobatan and Iriga with the personas and casas entries), we see a range from relatively few officials per tribute to the improbable five to one of Baao:
Summary Distribution, Officials to Tributos
1 official to 40 tributos: two
1 official to 25 tributos: one
1 to 20: three
1 to 16: four
1 to 14: one
1 to 13: two
1 to 11: one
1 to 10: two
1 to nine: two
1 to eight: two
1 to seven: two
1 to six: one
1 to five: three
1 to four: three
1 to two: two
Five to one: one
There is substantial variation, perhaps depending on a) the creativity and integrity of the Filipino officials; b) the dispersion and intractability of potential Filipino victims of extortion and “supervision;” and possibly too c) the level of active supervision by the parish priest (Baao’s priest was actually resident in Bula, for instance and wrote both reports[11]); d) the cupidity of the provincial governor; and e) the relative abundance of vendible produce in the pueblo.
About half of the distributions schematized above are grouped in the one official to two through ten tributos; and about a third are grouped in the one official to every eleven through twenty tributos. The most common grouping is for one official to every six through ten tributos, with one to every two through five right behind. If a tributo equaled four or five persons (husband, wife, two or three children), an official might commonly be supervising around twenty adults. That seems to be a lot of official, supervisory personnel per adult.
Appendix B[12]
Data from the Spanish Governor, ca. 1782
(Data have been Arranged and Pueblo Order Alphabetized for Ease of Analysis)
(Missions also included in this report and noted at end of Pueblo list)
My intention in this appendix is to present a summary of the governor’s data, separate out the material comparable to the Franciscans’ data, then analyze and compare the two.
The first point to note is that the information includes many pueblos not listed by the Franciscans. The reason is straightforward—many parishes in Nueva Caceres were administered by the Secular clergy, not by the Franciscans; and of course the Franciscans were not privy to the details of those pueblos and attached parishes. The Spanish governor was in charge of all pueblos in that province, Franciscan or not. Here is a summary statement of the governor’s list, less names of visitas, etc., and without the names of the pueblo officials.
Pueblo
Visitas, Barrios, Sitios, etc.
Head of Pueblo
Number of Officials
Comments
Baao
1
6
Visita
five
& six Bilangos (see Appendix C)
Bato
1
6
Visita
three
& three Bilangos
Bombon
1
6
Visita
four
Sitio
one
& four Bilangos
Buhi
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
four
& four Bilangos
Visita
six
Sitio
one
& four Bilangos
Bula
1
6
Visita
four
& five Bilangos
Pueblo
Visitas, Barrios, Sitios, etc.
Head of Pueblo
Number of Officials
Comments
Cagsaua
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Sitio
two
& ten Bilangos
Calabanga
1
6
Visita
three
Visita
two
& six Bilangos
Camalig
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
& 14 Bilangos
Camaligan
1
6
Sitio
one
& two Bilangos
Canaman
1
6
Visita
three
Visita
two
Sitio
two
Sitio
one
& six Bilangos
Capalonga
1
6
& two Bilangos
No visitas listed
Carivay
1
6
& two Bilangos
No visitas listed
Casiguran
No entry at all
Daet
1
6
Visita
three
Visita
three
Visita
three
& six Bilangos
Guinobatan
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
& twelve Bilangos
Indan
1
6
& four Bilangos
No visitas listed
Iriga
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
& ten Bilangos
Labo
1
6
& two Bilangos
No visitas listed
Pueblo
Visitas, Barrios, Sitios, etc.
Head of Pueblo
Number of Officials
Comments
Libong
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
& four Bilangos
Ligao
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
& fourteen Bilangos
Ligmangan
1
Visita
four
Visita
two
& six Bilangos
Magarao
1
6
& six Bilangos
No visitas listed
Mambulao
1
6
& two Bilangos
No visitas listed
Milaor
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
three
Sitio
one
Sitio
two
& ten Bilangos
Minalabag
1
6
Sitio
three
Visita
three
& four Bilangos
Nabua
1
6
Visita
five
& seven Bilangos
Naga
1
6
Sitio
1
one
& two Bilangos
Oas
1
six
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
& ten Bilangos
Paracale
1
6
& two Bilangos
No visitas listed
Mission
Visitas, Barrios, Sitios, etc.
Head of Mission
Number of Officials
Comments
Polangui
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Sitio
two
Visita
four
& 12 Bilangos
Quipayo
1
6
Sitio
one
Visita
four
& three Bilangos
Santa Cruz
1
5
Visita
three
Visita
two
Sitio
two
Sitio
two
Tabuco
1
5
Visita
two
Sitio
one
& two Bilangos
Mission of Goa
1
6
Sitio of Salog
four
Sitio
two
Mission of Himoragat
1
6
Sitio
five
Mission of Lupi
none listed
6
Visita
two
& one Bilango
Mission of Manguirin
1
6
Sitio
three
Mission of Ragay
none listed
6
& two Bilangos
No visitas listed
Mission of Sipocot
none listed
5
Visita
two
Visita
two
Mission of Tiganon [sic]
1
6
Mission of Tinambac
1
6
Analysis (Appendix B)
The material is straightforward, presenting the gobernadorcillo and other pueblo officials; as well as the officials for the visitas and sitios within the municipality. (I omitted the names of the office holders and the names of the visitas and sitios) Since the governor’s list included mission stations, the format and data are sometimes different from that for the pueblos. Here is the same data, but just for the pueblos (and missions) not listed by the Franciscans:
Pueblo
Visitas, Barrios, Sitios, etc.
Head of Pueblo
Number of Officials
Comments
Bato
1
6
Visita
three
& three Bilangos
Cagsaua
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Sitio
two
& ten Bilangos
Capalonga
1
6
& two Bilangos
No visitas listed
Carivay
1
6
& two Bilangos
No visitas listed
Daet
1
6
Visita
three
Visita
three
Visita
three
& six Bilangos
Indan
1
6
& four Bilangos
No visitas listed
Labo
1
6
& two Bilangos
No visitas listed
Mambulao
1
6
& two Bilangos
No visitas listed
Paracale
1
6
& two Bilangos
No visitas listed
Santa Cruz
1
5
Visita
three
Visita
two
Sitio
two
Sitio
two
Pueblo
Visitas, Barrios, Sitios, etc.
Head of Pueblo
Number of Officials
Comments
Tabuco
1
5
Visita
two
Sitio
one
& two Bilangos
Mission of Goa
1
6
Sitio of Salog
four
Sitio
two
Mission of Himoragat
1
6
Sitio
five
Mission of Lupi
none listed
6
Visita
two
& one Bilango
Mission of Manguirin
1
6
Sitio
three
Mission of Ragay
none listed
6
& two Bilangos
No visitas listed
Mission of Sipocot
none listed
5
Visita
two
Visita
two
Mission of Tiganon [sic]
1
6
Mission of Tinambac
1
6
There are no surprises here except for the low number of pueblo officials in the visitas and sitios. Omitting the Missions, none of the settlements outside of the pueblos had more than five officials. Indeed, only about one-third had five, the number which I suggested in Appendix A was the standard number for visitas. Of the non-Franciscan pueblos, one visita had only one official; and the others each had five instances for those with either two, three, or five officials. These sixteen examples of visita pueblo officials, then, were divided into four groups, with one instance with one official and five instances each for those with 2, 3, and 5 officials. We are done with the non-Franciscan parishes except for some comments I will make about Bilangos in Appendix C.
Here is the same information but only for the pueblos listed by the Franciscans—Casiguran was apparently not listed by the provincial governor:
Pueblo
Visitas, Barrios, Sitios, etc.
Head of Pueblo
Number of Officials
Comments
Baao
1
6
Visita
five
& six Bilangos (see Appendix C)
Bombon
1
6
Visita
four
Sitio
one
& four Bilangos
Buhi
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
four
& four Bilangos
Visita
six
Sitio
one
& four Bilangos
Bula
1
6
Visita
four
& five Bilangos
Calabanga
1
6
Visita
three
Visita
two
& six Bilangos
Camalig
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
& 14 Bilangos
Camaligan
1
6
Sitio
one
& two Bilangos
Canaman
1
6
Visita
three
Visita
two
Sitio
two
Sitio
one
& six Bilangos
Casiguran
No entry at all
Guinobatan
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
& twelve Bilangos
Iriga
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
& ten Bilangos
Libong
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
& four Bilangos
Ligao
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
& fourteen Bilangos
Ligmangan
1
Visita
four
Visita
two
& six Bilangos
Magarao
1
6
& six Bilangos
No visitas listed
Milaor
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
three
Sitio
one
Sitio
two
& ten Bilangos
Minalabag
1
6
Sitio
three
Visita
three
& four Bilangos
Nabua
1
6
Visita
five
& seven Bilangos
Naga
1
6
Sitio
1
one
& two Bilangos
Oas
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
& ten Bilangos
Polangui
1
6
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Visita
five
Sitio
two
Visita
four
& 12 Bilangos
Quipayo
1
6
Sitio
one
Visita
four
& three Bilangos
I have compared the governor’s data with the figures provided by the Franciscans (Appendix A). Of course the most notable difference is that the governor provided full information for the pueblo officials. Since we are looking at comparable data for the visita, barrio, and sitio officials that difference need not detain us. Unfortunately the governor did not provided tributo data. For convenience I provide the comparison below:
Pueblo Comparisons between Franciscan reports (OFM) and governor’s report (GOV)
Baao Data for Visita = same except GOV adds Bilango numbers
Bombon Data for Visita = same; GOV adds a Sitio and Bilango numbers
Buhi Data for 2 visitas = same; GOV adds a visita, a sitio, and Bilango numbers
Bula GOV lists one less pueblo official; adds Bilango numbers
Calabanga GOV lists 3 officials not present in OFM statement; GOV adds Bilango #s
Camalig GOV lists 5 officials lost to hole in OFM statement; GOV adds Bilango #s
Camaligan GOV has one sitio with one official, omits the two visitas listed in the
OFM account (and their two officials). GOV includes a figure for
Bilangos.
Canaman GOV lists two visitas and two sitios, with three, two, two, and one pueblo
officials; and six Bilangos. OFM lists one visita, one barrio, and
two sitios, with two, one, two, and two officials. No Bilangos
were listed by the OFM report.
Casiguran GOV does not list Casiguran and thus omits the two visitas etc. in OFM
Guinobatan OFM and GOV agree on visitas and officials; GOV adds Bilango numbers
Iriga OFM and GOV are in agreement except that GOV adds Bilango numbers
Libong ditto
Ligao OFM and GOV agree on visitas and officials but GOV has more Bilangos
Ligmanan GOV has two officials in 2nd visita—OFM had not provided that number.
GOV has more Bilangos listed than did the OFM report.
Magarao GOV and OFM are in agreement except OFM has more Bilangos listed.
Milaor GOV has 5 not 4 officials in two visitas, otherwise the same, Bilangos too
Minalabag GOV has one visita listed as sitio, both agree on numbers of officials, but
GOV has more Bilangos listed than does OFM.
Nabua OFM has fewer Bilangos but one more official than GOV.
Naga OFM has two visitas, with one and two officials, no Bilangos; GOV has
only one sitio, one official, and two Bilangos
Oas GOV agrees with OFM on visitas and officials, has Bilangos OFM doesn’t
Polangui GOV has 5 visitas and a sitio, four with 5 officials, one with 2 officials,
and 1 with 4 officials; and 12 Bilangos. OFM has five visitas, four
with 5 officials, one with 6, and twenty-one Bilangos.
Quipayo OFM has one visita with 3 officials; GOV has a sitio and visita, one and
four officials respectively; and three Bilangos
The differences are small beer. Even the total visita/sitio pueblo official numbers for the governor is barely greater than for the Franciscan total of 208, namely 209 (without Casiguran of course). Once again, the governor’s tally tends to stay at or below the five visita/sitio’s number for non-población officials— only 1 of the 54 visitas had six officials,
7 only had one official,
6 had two, 5 had three,
6 had four, and
over half (29) had five officials in visitas or sitios.
Without tribute data we cannot confidently calculate officials per tributos, though the figures should be quite similar to the calculations from the Franciscan priests’ reports.
Appendix C
Terminology—Bilangos and Mananguetes
Both in the Franciscan reports as well as in the governor’s statement the term Bilango appears in the manuscript.[13]
Number and Distribution of Bilangos
Pueblo
Franciscan Reports
Governor’s Report
Baao
6 Bilangos
Bombon
4 Bilangos
Buhi
4 Bilangos in one visita and 4 Bilangos in a sitio
Bula
5 Bilangos
Calabanga
2 Bilangos in each of two visitas
6 Bilangos
Camalig
14 Bilangos
Camaligan
2 Bilangos
Canaman
6 Bilangos
Casiguran
3 Bilangos titulados and 3 Bilangos not titulados in one visita; and one Bilango in another visita
[no entry for Casiguran]
Guinobatan
12 Bilangos
Iriga
10 Bilangos
10 Bilangos
Libong
4 Bilangos
Ligao
1 Bilango in each of its five visitas
14 Bilangos
Ligmanan
2 Bilangos in one of its two visitas
6 Bilangos
Magarao
12 Bilangos
6 Bilangos
Milaor
10 Bilangos (que llaman titulados)
10 Bilangos
Minalabag
1 Bilango in each of its two visitas
4 Bilangos
Nabua
2 Bilangos in its one visita
7 Bilangos
Naga
2 Bilangos
Oas
10 Bilangos
Polangui
4 Bilangos in each of four visitas, and 5 Bilangos in another
12 Bilangos
Quipayo
3 Bilangos
Pueblo
Franciscan Reports
Governor’s Report
This is very well, but what were Bilangos? And what significance do they have for our analysis of this document?
On the question of meaning, I of course went to the Spanish-English dictionaries readily at hand. I found nothing. I then went to Google Scholar on the world wide web and found references to the term in reputable articles, albeit with a variation in spelling:
“… a petty magistrate or bilongo”[14]
“Officers of justice called bilongos were independent of the gobernadorcillos in certain
provinces and were especially charged with overseeing the collection of tribute.”[15]
I am not sure how independent Bilangos could have been. Retana also has a definition, but it is partly off target for our purposes. In his citation, though, he quotes an 1833 source describing Bilangos as justice officials and low ranking officials (lower ranking than alguaciles), under the gobernadorcillos, which I think describes them quite well in rank and position.[16] Another term appears in the PNA manuscript, mananguetes,[17] which again thanks to Google I was able to find a reference to, suggesting that they were involved in the making and (more likely) taxing of tuba.[18]
It seems clear that these two officials were involved in collecting tribute payments, most probably forced collections of produce or taxes on such products. Since the Spanish governor’s list is purportedly a roster of elected officials, it is reasonably certain that Bilangos and Mananguetes were part of the corpus of petty officials working under the gobernadorcillo.[19] What is still unclear is why we have references to Bilangos who were titled and to those who were untitled, but this issue need not detain us.[20] The Franciscan reports specify in which visitas or sitios the Bilangos were assigned or working, but except for Buhi the governor’s report seems merely to indicate pueblo linkages. It is also clear from the governor’s report that the existence of Bilangos is not exclusively to Franciscan parishes, since the pueblos with Secular clergy also have references to Bilangos.[21]
The existence of Bilangos is significant for the Franciscan argument that there was an over-abundance of pueblo officials assigned to the visitas and barrios of pueblos in which they had parishes. The Franciscan reports suggest a total of 77 Bilangos, while the governor’s report for the same pueblos has a much larger total, 151, almost doubling the Franciscan tally. Looking back at Appendix A, a rough total of the officials noted there assigned to the pueblo and visitas is 208. If Bilangos were added to the Franciscan summary (Appendix A), the total of visita and sitio officials would increase by more than a third. The tally of visita and sitio officials in the provincial governor’s list (from Appendix B) is about the same (209), and with Bilangos it would rise by about 70%.
Therefore we can conclude that indeed the figures substantiate the statements that there were lots of officials for the sitios and visitas of the pueblos with Franciscans as parish priests in this part of Bicol. Of course the statements included a larger argument and set of charges. We return now to a concluding look at them in order to advance an argument regarding Filipino initiative.
Conclusions about Filipino Initiative
In this late eighteenth-century document,[22] Franciscan parish priests and the regional Bishop charged that there were too many pueblo officials in the settlements in the Bicol portion of the Spanish colony. We have established that there was in fact a remarkable number of officials supervising or conducting other activities in the visitas and sitios of these pueblos. The ecclesiastics’ additional argument that the officials served the gobernadorcillo and the Spanish provincial governors in order to extort produce and labor from poorer Filipinos was seconded in 1783 by the Spanish governor of the Camarines, Francisco Hurtado de Mendoza, as I showed at the start of this essay. We do not have the data to fully substantiate the charges nor add the nuances of variation and interaction one would desire. For argument’s sake, let us assume that everything the Franciscans, Bishop, and Governor Hurtado said about an oversupply of officials systematically exploiting other Filipinos was accurate.
What else can the manuscript show us about Filipino lives in the late eighteenth century colony? The documents gives us a sense of the fundamental engine driving the Filipinos to act the way the Spanish observers reported. That engine was a Filipino desire to minimize or avoid
a) the imperial impositions of the tribute tax;
b) the forced requisition of produce from sea, field, and forest; and
c) the forced draft of labor to be taken away from home and family for rigorous and
exploitative labor, most notoriously labor levies to cut and transport timber for
construction of galleons and other ships.
One way to avoid tax and labor or produce levies was to work for the Spanish. All pueblo officials were exempt from such impositions. Even Filipinos working for the priest[23] in the church and rectory were largely freed from these colonial burdens.[24] Once one has become an official or a church assistant, there would be a necessity to please those ranking above you since they might otherwise deprive you of your position. There would also be the opportunity to work the system to your benefit by collecting bribes, labor, or other services from those under your shadow. Throughout one would have to keep an eye out for the Spanish governor and his demands for tribute, for goods, and his desire to squeeze his position of power to make a profit.
Filipino officials would need to satisfy the Spanish governor, to please Filipinos in higher positions in the pueblo, and perhaps try to take what they could from those dependent upon them. Non-official Filipinos would have been at risk of victimization. Their options would have been either
a) to find protectors amidst the officials or become an official themselves;
b) be subject to full imposition of taxes in kind, coin, and labor; or
c) to relocate.
I would add that the manuscript also suggests that imperial attempts to regulate and diminish the number of pueblo officials would be successful in the short term only. The Franciscan Provincial suggested in fact that with Spanish governors endeavoring to profit from extra accumulations of profitable forest goods and other products, and with richer pueblo families desiring to have servants and workers, an increase in the number of visitas and sitios (and consequent officials) was inevitable (f. 23v), regardless of Spanish attempts to regulate officials and the dispersed settlements of the colonized.
The colonial system made demands. The Bishop, as saw at the start of this essay, acknowledged that “this is a hidden government that, while tyrannical, all observe, some from fear and others hopeful that tomorrow they will do the same to others. … it is partly from this that [some run off], hoping to hide themselves or even to found visitas so that they themselves can be officials” (f. 31). Filipinos adjusted and demonstrated initiative in how they responded. Insofar as they successfully minimized imperial demands and associated extortions, they showed ability and flexibility.
The manuscript suggests that some sort of engine existed that powered this complex pattern of relationships. I posit that the attempts to avoid full imposition of colonial demands (legal and illegal) in taxes and levies of goods and labor made up the engine. These attempts to cope displayed initiative, flexibility, evasion, flight, and coercion.
It is true that direct conflict with Spaniards or documented evidences of violation of law could be costly to a Filipino subject. There seem, however, to have been quite a few ways successfully to avoid penalties, conflict, confrontation, and loss. Many Filipinos seem to have availed themselves of coping maneuvers and evasive tactics and to have done so by and large without punishment. One has the sense that while the Spanish ruled the Islands, many Filipinos managed to avoid conflict while governing on their own terms or otherwise attempting to evade impositions.
[1] Pueblos were not towns but much more akin to municipal districts or counties. 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 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.
[2] Philippine National Archives (PNA), Ereccion de Pueblos, Camarines Sur, 1781-1783: 1781-83, Espediente formado por mandado del Superior Gobierno para que los dos Alcaldes mayors de Camarines y Albay informen sobre lo representado por el M. R. P. Provincia de San Gregorio, sobre las visitas de los pueblos efectuado por D. Juan del Castillo Negrete Alcalde mayor de esta de Camarines quien lo remite al de Albay, 52ff.
[3] 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. As we will see, there were other officials as well serving under the gobernadorcillos. All pueblo officials were male; none were Spanish.
[4] I use the term Filipinos to mean non-Europeans born in the Philippine Islands, including areas not ruled by Spain. This usage is anachronistic but convenient.
[5] Archivo Franciscano Ibero-Oriental (AFIO) 92/28, Informe del Obispo de Camarines, Fr. Antonio de Luna, sobre la Real Cédula que manda se predique y enseñe el castellano. Al final se refiere al estado de los pueblos. Mss., 17ff., 1772; here, f. 13v.
[6] On the face of it, while payment in kind, labor, or cash in order to avoid tribute and labor drafts is probable, the figures seem suspect. How would a farmer away from the población earn one real in cash? Maybe the payment was in kind or in labor to the upper class Filipino. In either case, indebtedness and perpetual bondage would have been the result, which unfortunately are probable even if the cash figures are questionable. More feasible is the statement by a 17th-century Spaniard that various pueblo officials paid weekly sums to the gobernadorcillo for tribute and polo exemptions—presumably they then squeezed the sums in kind or in labor from poorer Filipinos that they exploited (James S. Cummins; and Nicholas P. Cushner, eds., “Labor in the Colonial Philippines: The Discurso Parenetico of Gomez de Espinosa,” Philippine Studies, 22 (1974), 117-203; here, 180-181. Reprinted in his Jesuit and Friar in the Spanish Expansion to the East (London: Variorum Reprints, 1986).
[7] Taken again from PNA, Ereccion de Pueblos, Camarines Sur, 1781-1783: 1781-83, Espediente formado por mandado del Superior Gobierno para que los dos Alcaldes mayors de Camarines y Albay informen sobre lo representado por el M. R. P. Provincia de San Gregorio, sobre las visitas de los pueblos efectuado por D. Juan del Castillo Negrete Alcalde mayor de esta de Camarines quien lo remite al de Albay, 52ff.
[8] See Appendix C for discussion of this category.
[9] For the nineteenth century, Eliodoro G. Robles (The Philippines in the Nineteenth Century (Quezon City: Malaya Books, Inc., 1969), 62-67, identifies the escribano/clerk-secretary, the tenientes mayors, the Juez de Policia/Chief of Police, Juez de Sementeras/Superintendent of Fields and Harvests, Juez de Ganado/Superintendent of Livestock, and “alguacils for various police duties” (68). There were also testigos/witnesses, “whose signatures were necessary for the authentication of all public instruments, such as the election results” (68). He says that there were tenientes mayors, Jueces, and alguacils for each visita (68), a vacunador after 1805, an interpreter after 1845, and a Cuerpo de Cuadrilleros after 1855 (69). It is important to note that “every one of these functionaries was exempt from paying tribute and the polos y servicios...” (70). Moreover, the Cabeza de Barangay would get 1.5% of tribute collected and “he and his wife, plus his eldest son [viewed as his assistant], were exempt from the tribute and polos y servicios” (71). All officials were male.
[10] The term barrio is used differently in the Philippines than in areas under Spain in the Americas.
[11] Naga’s priest wrote the report for both Naga and Camaligan; Polangui’s priest did the reports for both Polangui and Libong; and Quipayo’s priest prepared both Quipayo and for Bombon’s reports.
[12] Taken again from PNA, Ereccion de Pueblos, Camarines Sur, 1781-1783: 1781-83, Espediente formado por mandado del Superior Gobierno para que los dos Alcaldes mayors de Camarines y Albay informen sobre lo representado por el M. R. P. Provincia de San Gregorio, sobre las visitas de los pueblos efectuado por D. Juan del Castillo Negrete Alcalde mayor de esta de Camarines quien lo remite al de Albay, 52ff.; here, ff. 37v-48v, by Don Juan del Castillo Negrete, Alcalde mayor of Nueva Caceres, 1782.
[13] Again from PNA, Ereccion de Pueblos, Camarines Sur, 1781-1783: 1781-83, Espediente formado por mandado del Superior Gobierno para que los dos Alcaldes mayors de Camarines y Albay informen sobre lo representado por el M. R. P. Provincia de San Gregorio, sobre las visitas de los pueblos efectuado por D. Juan del Castillo Negrete Alcalde mayor de esta de Camarines quien lo remite al de Albay, 52ff.
[14] José S. Arcilla, “Slavery, flogging and other moral cases in 17th century Philippines.” Philippine Studies, 20:3 (1972), 399-416; here, 413.
[15] Elliott C. Arensmeyer, “Foreign Accounts of the Chinese in the Philippines: 18th-19th Centuries,” Philippine Studies, 18: 1 (1970), 83-102; here, 98. Vilongos [sic] are also mentioned in James S. Cummins; and Nicholas P. Cushner, eds., “Labor in the Colonial Philippines: The Discurso Parenetico of Gomez de Espinosa,” Philippine Studies, 22 (1974), 117-203; 180-181 and 190. Reprinted in his Jesuit and Friar in the Spanish Expansion to the East (London: Variorum Reprints, 1986.
[16] Wenceslao E. Retana y Gamboa, “Diccionario de Filipinismos con la Revisión de lo que al respect lleva publicado La Real Academia Española,” Revue Hispanique, 51: 120 (1921), 1-174. Also available as separate publication, Madrid, Imp. de la Casa Editorial Bailly-Baillière, 1921. Page 54, BILANGO, m. Chino Cristiano que entre los de su raza ejercia en la jurisdicción de Tondo (Manila) funciones de official de justicia. “El gremio de chinos está en posesión de poder elegir de entre sus individuos cristianos, y en junta que preside el Corregidor de Tondo, uno para gobernadorcillo, otro para teniente mayor y un tercero para alguacil mayor … Los oficiales de justicia en este gremio, que se llaman BILANGOS, los nombra el gobernadorcillo entrante.” --Almanaque Filipino y Guia de forasteros para el año 1834. Manila [1833].”
[17] In regard to Polangui, f. 13v: con Thenientes, Juezes de sementeras, Juezes de Palmas, Alguaciles mayors, y dos Bilangos Titulados, ocho sin Titulos, ocho mananguetes cuios ultimos, y penultimos, vienen hazer otros tantos esclavos de los dhos oficiales ….
[18] James S. Cummins; and Nicholas P. Cushner, eds., “Labor in the Colonial Philippines: The Discurso Parenetico of Gomez de Espinosa,” Philippine Studies, 22 (1974), 117-203; here, 163. Reprinted in his Jesuit and Friar in the Spanish Expansion to the East (London: Variorum Reprints, 1986. The text reads Y que tienen mananguetes,
esto es indios, que se ocupan en beneficiar la tuba, para confeccionar della el vino de cocos, o de nipa; en que se tiene negociación considerable.
[19] The PNA manuscript in reference to Magarao (f. 20) speaks of “… doce Bilangos, que sirven al dicho Governador[cillo] haziendola alternativa ….”
[20] Casiguran, for instance, in the Franciscan reports speaks of 3 titled and 3 not titled; and Milaor’s Franciscan speaks of 10 Bilangos (que llaman titulados). Perhaps the titled were elected and the others were just appointed on an ad hoc basis, but I am just speculating.
[21] Bato, 3 Bilangos; Cagsaua, 10 Bilangos; Capalonga, 2 Bilangos; Carivay, 2 Bilangos; Daet, 6 Bilangos; etc.
[22] PNA, Ereccion de Pueblos, Camarines Sur, 1781-1783: 1781-83, Espediente formado por mandado del Superior Gobierno para que los dos Alcaldes mayors de Camarines y Albay informen sobre lo representado por el M. R. P. Provincia de San Gregorio, sobre las visitas de los pueblos efectuado por D. Juan del Castillo Negrete Alcalde mayor de esta de Camarines quien lo remite al de Albay, 52ff.
[23] Even the Franciscans witnessed a rise in the number of Filipino assistants in the church and rectory. The example seems to be unique in the documentary record of the Franciscan archive. It is unspecific on where the augmentation occurred. It is dated some forty years before the PNA manuscript report we have been working with. Por que estoy informado, que en algunos Pueblos a demas del fiscal mayor, o Celador, que concede el Rey, tienen quarto fiscalillos mas, con el titulo de Ayudantes, y que estos estan reservados de Polos; y fuera de estos, tienen los quarto Tanores, que concede el Rey Nuestro Señor (que Dios Guarde) para el servicio de los conventos, sin attender al grave daño, que se hace a los Pueblos, teniendo reservados de Polos a quarto Yndios mas, y lo que puede resultar con los Alcaldes, y otros Jueces si lo llegan a saver. Mando expresamente, que se quiten dichos quarto fiscalillos, y solo sirvan los Tanores; y si por algun contingente o conveniencia de los Ministros, quisieren conserver dichos quarto fiscalillos, se quiten luego al punto los quarto Tanores y sirvan, y gocen las reservas de dichos Tanores, los quarto fiscalillos, y no de otra manera, y de todo esto haré averiguacion en la Visita, para ver si se observa. AFIO 79/15, Fr. Melchor de San Antonio, O.F.M., Provincial. Patente [Exhortando a los religiosos a que trabajan en la salvacion de las almas, sin olvidarse de la propia]. Candelaria, Dilao, 12 Oct. 1741, 4ff.; here, f. 4.
[24] Filipino initiative in striving for positions with exemption from draft labor and tribute is referred to in a variety of sources. Perhaps the best documented would be for the reservas, Filipinos freed from polo and tribute for essential work in the colonial economy, such as working on friar estates. See Nicholas P. Cushner, S.J., “Meysapan: The Formation and Social Effects of a Landed Estate in the Philippines.” Journal of Asian History, 7: 1 (1973), 30-53; here, 42-43. Also see his Spain in the Philippines: from Conquest to Revolution. Quezon City: Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University (IPC Monographs, no. 1), 1971, 117-126.