10. Jesuits and mules in colonial Latin America: innovators or managers?

William G. Clarence-Smith¹

Historians generally agree that the Jesuits in colonial Latin America were effective managers of their extensive rural properties, which by the 18th century generated substantial streams of income. Initially, many fathers opposed money-making activities, but the order urgently needed funds to finance its urban colleges, for which tuition was free. Money was also required for other charitable activities, mission stations and general administration. Moreover, the order gradually accumulated large estates, either through direct donations of land, or through gifts of cash and valuables which could be invested in property. Rural enterprises were generally judged to be preferable to urban real estate, mining or banking, since they would avoid possible breaches of canon law in regard to clerics handling money. Furthermore, the Jesuits benefited from significant fiscal advantages in terms of tithes and sales taxes and did not pay members of the order acting as estate managers.²

As no general overview of the question has yet been published, this chapter is intended as a ‘state of the art’ contribution to the debate, drawing on a wide variety of regional case studies. The literature is uneven. It is best for what are today Mexico and the lands of the ‘Southern Cone’ of South America and passable for modern Peru, Bolivia, Colombia and Venezuela. The main gaps are for Central America, the Caribbean islands and Portuguese Brazil, for which published evidence is scanty. Where scholarly opinion diverges is over the question of whether Jesuits were simply efficient managers, or were actually rural innovators. For business historians, ‘novel entrepreneurs’ introduce new methods and may even revolutionise whole branches of production. In contrast, ‘routine entrepreneurs’ just plod along established furrows, at most seeking to adopt best practice.³

F. Chevalier launched a tradition of lauding Jesuit agricultural methods in his pioneering research on New Spain.⁴ L. Byrd Simpson, in a foreword to the English translation of his book on haciendas, goes so far as to call the Jesuits ‘scientific farmers’.⁵ H. Konrad describes their Santa Lucía estate in New Spain as ‘one of the largest and most successful haciendas of its time’.⁶ W. Hanisch Espindola echoes a positive view of Jesuit agricultural practices in the case of Chile.⁷ G. Colmenares singles out for praise the growing of alfalfa (lucerne; Medicago sativa L.) on Peruvian coastal estates, as a forage crop and an improver of soils. That said, he notes that an ecclesiastical visitor opined that the land might better have been devoted to grapes or sugar cane.⁸

On the opposing side of the debate, U. Ewald denies that Jesuits were innovators in New Spain, despite acknowledging their pioneering role in the cultivation of alfalfa. Guidelines for New Spain dating from the second quarter of the 18th century specifically stated that the order should adopt the agricultural customs of the region in which they were situated and should not engage in dangerous novelties. According to Ewald, the Jesuits clung to existing crops and did little to improve pasture. Although some of the fathers came from northern Europe, they did not transfer advanced agricultural techniques from their homelands.⁹ J. Riley writes along much the same lines in the context of New Spain, adding that their crop yields were no greater than average.¹⁰ Edda Samudio similarly considers that the Jesuits were not innovators in New Granada. To be sure, they were wedded to economic rationality, had a relatively clear hierarchy of management, lived austerely and kept excellent accounts. Moreover, each estate tended to specialize in one product. However, they employed the same tools, techniques and systems of labour as other landowners.¹¹ In brief, ‘they did not introduce a single innovation’.¹²

The question is addressed here through the prism of the mule economy. Many Jesuit urban colleges owned and managed large, commercially run ranches, especially in the ‘Southern Cone’, the Llanos and the northern expanses of New Spain. As animals could transport themselves to market, pastoral latifundia tended to be situated further away from towns than plantations and farms. As for missions, they usually focused on self-sufficient minifundia for their Amerindian wards, but sometimes participated more vigorously in the mule economy.

Mules and hinnies in colonial Latin America

The term ‘mules’ is often employed loosely, to encompass both mules proper (mulas) and hinnies (burdéganos, bardotos, machos). A mule results from mating a male donkey (jack) with a female horse (mare) and this is the usual cross. A hinny, or jennet, comes from mating a female donkey (jenny) with a male horse (stallion). Although genetically identical to mules, hinnies tend to be smaller, due to the smaller womb of a jenny. Both mules and hinnies benefit from ‘hybrid vigour’, being stronger, tougher, cheaper to feed, surer-footed, more resistant to disease and longer-lived than horses. However, both are sterile, though sexually active, so that mule breeding has to start anew with each generation. Animals do not naturally interbreed across species and particular techniques are needed to get them to do so. Moreover, conception rates are lower and miscarriage rates higher than when breeding within a species. Producing mules and hinnies thus requires a certain level of attention and skill.¹³

There was keen demand for these robust hybrids in colonial Latin America, mainly for transport and mining, but also for agriculture and industry.¹⁴ In truth, these sturdy beasts largely powered the colonial economy, reflecting demographic collapse in most Amerindian societies after conquest, the restriction of indigenous beasts of burden to llamas in the Andes and the stupendous multiplication of newly imported species of European animals. There may have been two million mules in Latin America by the end of the colonial period, equivalent to one for every five-to-ten inhabitants, the highest ratio in the world.¹⁵ Their social prestige varied, as they served as mounts only for lowly castas and yet pulled the carriages of the elite.¹⁶ Surprisingly, a recent edited collection on the history of animals in Latin America ignores these beasts.¹⁷

For a few decades from 1531 the Spanish authorities stimulated imports of donkeys, both jacks and jennies, belonging to special types employed to produce mules.¹⁸ Analyses of DNA reveal that Andalusian beasts were most numerous in constituting the modern Mexican donkey, followed by those from Zamora-León and Majorca.¹⁹ Little is known about later efforts to maintain and improve populations of donkeys destined for breeding mules.²⁰ In the early 17th century a Jesuit noted that donkeys were most valued for siring mules in the New World, but that they had not multiplied as much as horses and that there were too few large ones.²¹ Quality was more important than quantity, as a single stud jack might be put to a herd of 25 to 55 mares in New Spain, with 40 as the average.²² These valuable jacks were known by a variety of names in Spanish (burros sementales, burros hechores, burros garañones, burros padres, burros oficiales) and in Portuguese (burros pais, burros de lançamento, pegas).

Fine donkeys and hybrid equids fetched high prices. A good stud jack was especially costly, sometimes worth more than the best horse.²³ This may explain the saying that in the 16th century an ass was the most expensive thing in Quito.²⁴ In contrast, a brood jenny might be worth only a quarter of a stud jack.²⁵ As for mules, a fine specimen was priced at about three times an ordinary horse in 18th-century New Spain and twice as much as an ox.²⁶ Hinnies were said to fetch less than mules.²⁷ However, discounts for hinnies, while widely asserted, are not always reflected in documents of the period.²⁸

As there was a marked imbalance between regions suitable for breeding mules and those which required them, a large trade soon sprang up. The best studied of these commercial flows stretched over about 4,000 kilometres, from the Pampas to Peru. Some 25,000 mules a year took this route by the middle of the 18th century, wintering first in the Córdoba area, and then again in the region of Salta. High death rates in the mining zones, coupled with the sterility of mules, fuelled the need for continuing imports.²⁹ Almost as significant for the prosperity of the Spanish empire, albeit hardly studied, were the mules sent from the Gulf of Fonseca in Central America to the Isthmus of Panama, wintering in modern Costa Rica. Mortality was high on the short but vital transport artery linking the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, again stoking demand.³⁰

Officials generally classed other substantial branches of the trade as smuggling, despite much tolerance and occasional periods of legality. From the early 17th century increasing numbers of mules left the Spanish-controlled mainland, especially present-day Venezuela, destined for the Caribbean islands of northern European powers.³¹ From around 1730, and probably earlier, mules from the Río de la Plata headed for central Brazil, wintering in Paraná.³² To avoid the taint of contraband, mules arriving in the mining region of Minas Gerais were said to come from Colonia do Sacramento, the Portuguese outpost in what is today Uruguay.³³

The economic mainstay of Jesuits in the Río de la Plata

From about the 1640s mules came to be the Jesuits’ chief source of income in their Paraquaria (Paraguay) province, centred on Córdoba, in what became the viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata in 1776.³⁴ According to N. Cushner’s estimates, Jesuits accounted for about a fifth of all mules bred in the area before 1767. Moreover, the order exported 12 to 15 per cent of the mules which were sent overland every year to the mining zones of Peru in the mid 18th century.³⁵ A dozen or more Jesuit colleges owned and managed ranches in the province. Most prominent were the colleges of Córdoba (La Candelaria and Alta Gracia estancias), Santa Fe (Santo Tomé estancia), Buenos Aires (Areco estancia) and Asunción (Paraquari estancia). In addition, the Jesuit provincial administration, situated in Córdoba, exploited the Santa Catalina estancia.³⁶ As well as mules proper, the Jesuit college in Tucumán bred many hinnies, machos in Latin American parlance.³⁷ Tucumán lay in a dry, rain-shadow area, where horses were scarce but donkeys thrived.³⁸

Jesuit mission ‘reductions’ (reducciones) also bred hybrid equids, but relatively few. These were lands peopled by Amerindians whom the Jesuits ruled, treating them as their wards, with the aim of turning them into model peasantries. Equids on reductions were usually for local use by missionaries and Amerindians rather than for sale to the wider world.³⁹ Small numbers of donkeys and mules thus characterised the Chiquitos and Moxos missions in present-day Bolivia.⁴⁰ Statistics for 1768 for the Guaraní missions reveal somewhat more substantial herds, with over 15,000 mules, though this compared to just over 700,000 cattle and nearly 250,000 sheep.⁴¹

The mule numbers in the Guaraní missions reflected an unusual arrangement, whereby some Jesuit commercial ranches were administratively attached to missions rather than to colleges.⁴² A cluster of 11 estancias stretched across what is today north-western Uruguay, concentrating on raising livestock. The two largest were Yapeyú and San Miguel. The most southerly Guaraní mission station, Santos Reyes de Yapeyú, was located on the Corrientes side of the River Uruguay, but its large estancia lay on the eastern side of the river.⁴³ According to an inventory drawn up in 1768, following the expulsion of the Jesuits, these estancias were breeding mules on a fair scale, even if the emphasis was on cattle and sheep.⁴⁴

A pillar of the Jesuit economy in New Spain

By 1767 the Jesuits enjoyed great opportunities for breeding animals in the viceroyalty of New Spain, where they owned some 1.5 million hectares of land, which were scattered over more than 140 estates, excluding mission stations.⁴⁵ Mules were raised especially to the north of the city of Mexico. As agriculture recovered from the post-conquest demographic collapse and as new silver mines came into production, the livestock frontier gradually drifted northwards into the ‘Tierra Adentro’.⁴⁶ This trend was reflected in Jesuit estates owned by urban colleges, of which the best-studied are the Santa Lucía lands of the Colegio Máximo de San Pedro y San Pablo in Mexico City.⁴⁷ There has also been research on the Toluquilla estates of the Jesuit college of Santo Tomás in Guadalajara.⁴⁸ More evidence comes from the Cieneguilla and Tetillas ranches of the college of San Luis Gonzaga in Zacatecas.⁴⁹

Jesuit rural enterprises in New Spain were more diversified than in the Río de la Plata and mules were initially bred for the order’s own needs. When the Jesuits acquired the Santa Lucía estate in 1576, situated just to the north of the city of Mexico, there were a modest 131 equids and agricultural activities were significant. The orientation towards the production of mules rather than horses was already clear, however, as there were two donkey jacks, compared to only one stallion, to service 125 mares. There were also two donkey jennies, probably to achieve self-sufficiency in jacks, although hinnies were later listed in the estate’s inventories. Santa Lucía initially produced mules for the hacienda itself and for the college in Mexico City, as well as to transport produce from the one to the other.⁵⁰ The Cieneguilla hacienda of the Zacatecas college, established in 1616, disposed of a similar mix of equids. In this dry area, well suited to donkeys, the Jesuits bred quite a few hinnies.⁵¹ In contrast, the Guadalajara estates rarely produced hinnies, which were judged to be smaller and weaker than mules.⁵²

Mules became steadily more significant sources of cash income for some Jesuit properties from the middle of the 17th century. Santa Lucía obtained the new estate of Altica in the late 1660s, mainly for mule breeding. At this time the fathers of the Colegio Máximo in Mexico City considered this to be ‘one of the most profitable business ventures in New Spain’. Indeed, Santa Lucía’s sales increased to the point that the estate sometimes ran short of animals for its own requirements. Another ranch was acquired in 1687 and three more in 1723.⁵³

Markets for Jesuit mules were varied. Many of Santa Lucía’s animals were sold to operators of rural and urban transport businesses. The estate also supplied the sugar trapiches of present-day Morelos, just to the south of the city of Mexico, as the milling of sugar cane came to be powered increasingly by mules rather than by water. Silver mines were another significant market, notably the Pachuca mine, close to the Santa Lucía estate.⁵⁴ As for the colleges of Zacatecas and Durango, they specialised in supplying mules to the dynamic silver mines in their regions.⁵⁵ The Toluquilla estates of the college in Guadalajara evolved in a contrary direction. Initially they also prospered through sales of mules, but later they reduced their emphasis on livestock. Wheat became the dominant source of cash earnings from the 1680s, together with the milling of flour. This gradually relegated animal rearing to servicing the college’s own agricultural and transport needs.⁵⁶

Southern areas were less pastoral and the Jesuits did not sell mules on any scale. The Colegio Espíritu Santo of Puebla gradually accumulated land to the east and south of the city, with ranches located further away than farms. Mules were for the order’s own transport needs, though it is probable that a few were sold locally. While horses initially cultivated lands sown with wheat and maize, mules tended to take over farm work in the 18th century. Donkeys served exclusively to make mules on Jesuit properties, as only Amerindian smallholders employed donkeys as work animals.⁵⁷

Mission stations bred mules locally for their own use, notably in the far north-west, but they also received funds from specialised estates in the heartlands. Thus, in 1718 the city of Mexico ceded ten rural properties to the Fondo Piadoso de las Californias. Located in the north-western vicinity of the city, these estates mainly raised cattle and sheep, but at that time also contained 271 mares and colts and 12 donkeys. By 1767 these numbers had swollen to 3,728 mares, 653 colts and fillies and 40 donkeys.⁵⁸ The Jesuit college in Zacatecas also remitted money earned from its pastoral activities to remote north-western missions.⁵⁹

The Jesuits of Andean America: supplementary funds

From around the 1660s mules provided significant revenues for the Jesuit province of New Granada, situated in what are today Colombia and Venezuela. That said, cocoa earned more for the order and possibly also cattle and sugar.⁶⁰ Colleges in highland cities benefited most from ranching, though some funds were allocated to mission stations in the Orinoco Basin.⁶¹ The Colegio Máximo San Bartolomé, in Santa Fe de Bogotá, was the largest owner of lowland ranches, followed by Jesuit colleges in Tunja, Pamplona and Mérida, the latter of which is today in western Venezuela.⁶²

Jesuit mule-breeding was concentrated in tracts of the seasonally inundated Llanos plains, which are today partitioned between Colombia and Venezuela. The aptly named hacienda of La Yegüera, now Hato Corozal, was their first main centre of mule breeding. That of Pagüey, in the Venezuelan zone of Barinas, was only donated to the order in 1748. There were numerous mares on these estates, together with a few burros hechores, the local name for precious stud donkeys.⁶³ From the lowlands, mules and cattle were driven up the steep flanks of the Cordillera on arduous trails. The exhausted animals were then rested and fattened in specialised Jesuit ranches, notably at La Chamicera, close to Bogotá. There they joined smaller numbers of mules which had been raised in Jesuit properties in the Neiva region, modern Huila, in the upper reaches of the Magdalena Valley. Finally, the animals were sold in highland cities, with Bogotá as the main market.⁶⁴ Some mules were also dispatched to the Venezuelan coastal zone, mainly to labour in the booming cocoa plantations.⁶⁵ However, there is almost no trace of Jesuit participation in the vast contraband trade in mules exported to foreign Caribbean islands from this coast. A solitary denunciation of 1745 from Cumaná, to the effect that Jesuits of the Orinoco missions had engaged in this traffic, was never proven.⁶⁶

Mules for the Jesuits’ own needs in the rest of Latin America

Jesuits bred mules in many other parts of colonial Latin America, but essentially to service their own operations. Sales of these animals thus contributed little directly to the order’s finances. This may have reflected local ecological conditions, market opportunities, or choices made by local Jesuit leaders.

The order was not well represented in Central America, though there were two colleges, in the Nicaraguan towns of El Realejo and Granada, which were attached to the Jesuit province of Quito.⁶⁷ Men of the cloth obtained licences to send mules from Nicaragua to Panama, for example in the 1730s, but these seem to have been secular rather than regular clergymen.⁶⁸

The intermontane Andean basin was the heartland of the Jesuit province of Quito and is today mainly in Ecuador. A dense cluster of urban colleges, together with the provincial administration, owned estancias there, which raised mules among many other animals.⁶⁹ Around 1700 the college of Quito alone owned ten estates, on which there were about 1,200 mules.⁷⁰ However, these beasts apparently did not give rise to substantial sales.⁷¹ A possible exception was the Jesuit college of Popayán, today in Colombia, which sourced many mules from its Llanogrande estate.⁷² These animals were widely employed in the gold-mining concerns of the region, which were supplied by such haciendas in the 18th century.⁷³ It remains to be demonstrated whether Jesuits took part in this process.

Jesuit properties in the coastal oases of Peru apparently bred both hinnies and mules, probably because donkeys were unusually plentiful in this arid environment.⁷⁴ At the very end of the 16th century, the fattening of mules and horses for sale occurred on one vineyard, donated to the Colegio Máximo San Pablo of Lima.⁷⁵ However, as mules from the Pampas flooded into Peru from the middle of the 17th century, breeding came to be restricted to the fathers’ own requirements. In some cases, it did not even suffice for this purpose.⁷⁶ Further south, Jesuit colleges and missions in Chile were again involved in the mule economy, but on a small scale.⁷⁷ The hacienda of San Francisco de Borja Guanquehua, which financed both the Jesuit college in Concepción and the Arauco missions, bred some mules.⁷⁸ That said, Chile remained a net importer of these animals from the eastern side of the Andes.⁷⁹

The most striking case of limited Jesuit involvement in the mule economy occurred in Brazil, reflecting peculiarities in Portuguese policy. The crown either prohibited or limited mule breeding from the mid 17th century, especially in the north, to protect supplies of horses for military purposes.⁸⁰ Not until after the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1759 was mule breeding encouraged in the far south, while remaining technically prohibited elsewhere.⁸¹ Even though restrictions were hard to enforce, and were periodically lifted or modified, northern Brazil still contained remarkably few mules as late as the 1830s.⁸²

The law-abiding Jesuits thus seem to have abstained from breeding mules in Brazil and there is only limited evidence of this abstinence being breached. A census of 1742 for the Fazenda de Santa Cruz, dependent on the Jesuit college of Rio de Janeiro, lists 1,140 head of gado eqüino, possibly indicating the presence of mules and donkeys together with horses.⁸³ In the north, Domingos Afonso ‘Mafrense’ or ‘Sertão’ bequeathed some thirty ranches in Piauí to the Jesuits of Salvador da Bahia on his death in 1711. It was repeatedly asserted that there were 1,860 bestas, almost certainly meaning mules, on these properties at that time, compared to 1,010 horses. However, this was not stated in Domingo Afonso’s will, which merely referred to unspecified gado cavallar. The figure probably dated from an inventory compiled in 1782, after the expulsion of the Jesuits, though it was also cited in 1811. Only in 1854 was there solid evidence of donkeys on what had become publicly-owned estates.⁸⁴

Innovation or routine management?

The Jesuits were undoubtedly important players in the mule economy. In some cases, notably in the Río de la Plata and northern New Spain, they derived significant income from participating in this activity. However, this leaves open the question as to the nature of their entrepreneurship. In terms of labour, the Jesuits adapted to local conditions, while priding themselves on treating their slaves better than the norm.⁸⁵ They were less likely to employ slaves on ranches than on plantations in New Granada, as slaves were hard to supervise on distant properties raising livestock.⁸⁶ There were African slaves on their Córdoba estates, perhaps 700 to 1,000 of them by the 18th century, who laboured with different kinds of free workers.⁸⁷ On one of the Santa Lucía ranches in New Spain in the 1740s, all workers in the livestock sector were free, although they were largely paid in kind rather than in cash.⁸⁸

Innovation can occur in marketing as well as production. In the 1680s the Jesuits set up a procurator’s office in Salta, where mules from the Pampas were wintered and fattened prior to the last stretch of their journey to the mining zones. By the 18th century another office functioned in Potosí, at the centre of the mining economy. Procurators in both places researched prices and market conditions, advised the headquarters in Córdoba on numbers to send and suggested whether to sell in Salta or take mules on to Upper or Lower Peru. The order often preferred to sell in Salta, rather than facing the risks and delays of escorting mules any further. However, this system of market intelligence can be seen as a benefit arising from the extensive networks of a large ‘firm’ rather than as an innovation.⁸⁹

In terms of breeding, Cushner does not overtly praise the Jesuits in the Río de la Plata, but his research suggests they were at least at the cutting edge of best practice. In the Córdoba area they divided their operations between two estates. Altagracia, closest to town, maintained a special breeding herd of donkeys, with 500–600 jennies and some two hundred jacks, presumably sending surplus donkeys to other Jesuit properties. The actual breeding of mules was carried out in Altagracia. The young animals were then transferred to the more distant Candelaria ranch, for raising and fattening up to three years of age.⁹⁰

For New Granada, J. del Rey Fajardo cautions that information on Jesuit techniques of animal-raising is scarce. However, he points out that travellers in the area after the expulsion of the Jesuits, for example Alexander von Humboldt, noted that the efficacy of ranching had declined steeply.⁹¹ This suggests that Jesuit methods were above average. H. Konrad states of Santa Lucía that ‘production of horses and mules was carefully regulated’. Herds of donkeys were maintained on various properties and much more attention was paid to jacks than to stallions. Careful records were kept and animals were branded and segregated by species and sex. Both mules and hinnies were broken in prior to sale and males were castrated to make them docile. Barley was grown to feed mules and oxen, rather than the usual maize.⁹²

Ewald is much less laudatory, while recognizing that specific Jesuit instructions on mule breeding in New Spain have unfortunately been lost. She characterises their livestock activities as extensive and requiring few workers; and considers that they made little effort to improve pasture. She further states that there is no indication they attempted to import superior animals, although she admits that they did upgrade local stock through careful attention to breeding.⁹³

An unresolved and vital question is whether Jesuits did anything about jacks, which were seen as the key to successful mule breeding at a time when it was believed that common mares were all that was required. Martin Dobrizhoffer, a Jesuit originating from the Austro-Czech borderlands who was in the Río de la Plata from 1749 to 1767, reported that large estates kept special donkeys. ‘Distinguished from the common sort’, they served to breed mules. He further noted that they enjoyed ‘a perpetual exemption from labour’, as they were employed only to propagate mules. While some of the mules were as tall as horses, they were generally smaller than the best which were bred in Spain and Italy, which may imply that breeding jacks were somewhat smaller overall.⁹⁴ Unfortunately, Dobrizhoffer does not say whether the recourse to special types of donkeys was particular to Jesuit estates, although his own experience would have been mainly on the order’s ranches.

In short, it would be hard to deny that the Jesuits became skilled and successful breeders of mules in colonial Latin America. They gave great thought and attention to the process at a time when animal husbandry was generally extremely rough and ready. Whether they were truly innovators in the matter remains to be determined by further research. Moreover, while business historians distinguish between novel and routine entrepreneurship for heuristic purposes, historical reality tends to be much less clear-cut.

Conclusion

Mules certainly mattered to Jesuits in colonial Latin America, as many Jesuit legacies were built on the backs of these humble and often forgotten beasts. Profits from sales, and from activities serviced by mules, formed the material basis for much of the educational progress achieved on the continent, notably through financing the famous free colleges in the main cities. These institutions often became the first universities of newly independent countries. The architectural and artistic achievements of the order further depended on the funds they were able to accumulate. To a lesser degree, profits were ploughed back into healthcare and other social services, notably in cities. It is harder to assess to what extent income streams from breeding and selling mules, and from rural economic activities more generally, contributed to the controversial process of converting Amerindians to Catholic Christianity. The Jesuits, in their mission stations and reductions, aimed mainly at creating a self-sufficient peasantry, rather than a cash-earning one. Mules played a role in this, but not an especially prominent one.

Bibliography

Acs, Z., T. Åstero, D. Audretsch and D.T. Robinson (2016) ‘Public policy to promote entrepreneurship: a call to arms’, Small Business Economics, 47: 35–51.

Aizpurúa A., R. (1988) ‘Las mulas venezolanas y el Caribe oriental del siglo XVIII: datos para una historia olvidada’, Boletín Americanista, 38: 5–15.

Alden, D. (1996) The Making of an Enterprise: The Society of Jesus in Portugal, Its Empire, and Beyond, 1540–1750 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).

Arnal Simón, L. (2005) ‘Formación de las haciendas jesuíticas en el norte de México: el caso del Colegio de Zacatecas’, in S. Negro and M.M. Marzal (eds.), Esclavitud, economía y evangelización: las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreinal (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú), pp. 125–39.

Barrios Pintos, A. (1973) Historia de la ganadería en el Uruguay, 1574–1971 (Montevideo: Biblioteca Nacional).

Beteta Ortiz, M. (2010) ‘Apuntes históricos de la expansión de los asnos y mulas españoles en América’, unpublished paper (Segundo Congreso Nacional de Zootecnia, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela).

Block, D. (1994) Mission Culture on the Upper Amazon: Native Tradition, Jesuit Enterprise and Secular Policy in Moxos, 1660–1880 (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press).

Brading, D.A. (1978) Haciendas and Ranchos in the Mexican Bajío, León 1700–1860 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Bradley, P.T. and D. Cahill (2000) Habsburg Peru: Images, Imagination and Memory (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press).

Braudel, F. (1981) Civilization and Capitalism, 15th to 18th Century, vol. 1, The Structures of Everyday Life (London: Collins; New York: Harper & Row).

Bravo, A.G. (2005) ‘La administración económica de la hacienda jesuita San Francisco de Borja Guanquehua’, in S. Negro and M.M. Marzal (eds.), Esclavitud, economía y evangelización: las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreinal (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú), pp. 377–94.

Caraman, P. (1975) The Lost Paradise: An Account of the Jesuits in Paraguay, 1607–1768 (London: Sidgwick and Jackson).

Chevalier, F. (1963) Land and Society in Colonial Mexico: The Great Hacienda (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

— (1965) ‘The formation of the Jesuit wealth’, in M. Mörner (ed.), The Expulsion of the Jesuits from Latin America (New York: Knopf, 1965), pp. 94–103.

Cobo, B. (1964) Obras del Padre Bernabé Cobo de la Compañía de Jesus (2 vols., Madrid: Atlas).

Colmenares, G. (1969) Haciendas de los Jesuítas en el Nuevo Reino de Granada, siglo XVIII (Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia).

Costa, F.A. Pereira da and A. Fernandes (1974) Cronologia histórica do estado de Piauí (Rio de Janeiro: Artenova).

Cushner, N.P. (1980) Lords of the Land: Sugar, Wine and Jesuit Estates of Coastal Perú, 1600–1767 (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).

— (1982) Farm and Factory: The Jesuits and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism in Colonial Quito, 1600–1767 (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).

— (1983) Jesuit Ranches and the Agrarian Development of Colonial Argentina, 1650–1767 (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).

Dobrizhoffer, M. (1822) An Account of the Abipones, an Equestrian People of Paraguay (3 vols., London: Murray).

Ewald, U. (1976) Estudios sobre la hacienda colonial en México: las propiedades rurales del Colegio Espíritu Santo de Puebla (Wiesbaden: Steiner).

Fernandes, E.B. Barcelos (2015) Futuros e outros; homens e espaços: os aldeamentos jesuíticos e a colonização na América portugueza (Rio de Janeiro: Contra Capa).

Few, M. and Z. Tortorici (eds.) (2013) Centering Animals in Latin American History (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).

Ganson, B. (2003) The Guaraní under Spanish Rule in the Río de la Plata (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).

Gardner, G. (1846) Travels in the Interior of Brazil, Principally through the Northern Provinces and the Gold and Diamond District, during the Years 1836 to 1841 (London: Reeve Brothers).

Goulart, J.A. (1961) Tropas e tropeiros na formação do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro: Conquista).

Hanisch Espindola, W. (1974) Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en Chile (Buenos Aires: Francisco de Aguirre).

Humboldt, A. von and A. Bonpland (1890) Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of America, during the Years 1799–1804 (London: Routledge).

Jackson, R.H. (2015) Demographic Change and Ethnic Survival among the Sedentary Populations on the Jesuit Mission Frontiers of Spanish South America, 1609–1803: The Formation and Persistence of Mission Communities in a Comparative Context (Leiden: Brill).

Knight, L.W. (1902) The Breeding and Rearing of Jacks, Jennets and Mules (Nashville, TN: The Cumberland).

Konrad, H.W. (1980) A Jesuit Hacienda in Colonial Mexico: Santa Lucía, 1576–1767 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).

Lane, K. (2002) Quito 1599: City and Colony in Transition (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press).

López López, C., R. Alonso and A.S. de Aluja (2005) ‘Study of the origins of the Mexican Creole donkey (Equus asinus) by means of the analysis of the D-loop region of mitochondrial DNA’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 37 (Supplement 1): 173–88.

McFarlane, A. (1993) Colombia before Independence: Economy, Society and Politics under Bourbon Rule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

MacLeod, M.J. (2008 [1973]) Spanish Central America: A Socioeconomic History, 1520–1720, 3rd edn (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press).

Marques, C.A. (1970 [1870]) Dicionário histórico-geográfico da Província do Maranhão, 3rd edn (Rio de Janeiro: Fon-Fon e Seleta).

Mijares Ramírez, I. (2010) ‘La mula en la vida cotidiana del siglo XVI’, in J. Long Towell and A. Attolini Lecón (eds.), Caminos y mercados de México (Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), pp. 291–310.

Moreno Jeria, R. (2007) Misiones en Chile austral: los Jesuitas en Chiloé (Seville: CSIC).

Negro, S. (2005) ‘Arquitectura, poder, y esclavitud en las haciendas jesuitas de la Nasca en el Perú’, in S. Negro and M.M. Marzal (eds.), Esclavitud, economía y evangelización: las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreinal (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú), pp. 449–92.

Palomera, E.J. (1997) La obra educativa de los Jesuitas en Guadalajara, 1586–1986: visión histórica de cuatro siglos de labor cultural (Guadalajara: Instituto de Ciencias).

Parejos Moreno, A. and V. Suárez Salas (1992) Chiquitos: historia de una utopía (Santa Cruz: Universidad Privada de Santa Cruz de la Sierra).

Patch, R.W. (1993) Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1648–1812 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).

Paz, G. (1999) ‘A la sombra del Perú: mulas, repartos y negocios en el norte argentino a fines de la colonia’, Boletín del Instituto de Historia Argentina y Americana ‘Dr. Emilio Ravignani’, 3 (20): 45–68.

Petrone, M.T. Schorer (1976) O Barão de Iguape: um empresário da época da independência (São Paulo: Editora Nacional).

Rappaport, J. (1998) The Politics of Memory: Native Historical Interpretation in the Colombian Andes (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).

Rey Fajardo, J. del (2007) Los Jesuitas en Venezuela, vol. 5, Las misiones germen de la nacionalidad (Caracas: Universidad Católica Andrés Bello).

Riley, J.D. (1976) Hacendados jesuitas en México: la administración de los bienes inmuebles del Colegio Máximo de San Pedro y San Pablo (Mexico City: SEP-Setentas).

Río, I. del (2005) ‘Las haciendas del Fondo Piadoso de las Californias’, in S. Negro and M.M. Marzal (eds.), Esclavitud, economía y evangelización: las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreinal (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú), pp. 141–54.

Rodríguez, D. (2005) ‘Juan Martínez Rengifo y los Jesuitas: formación de la Hacienda Santa Marta del Puquio (La Huaca), 1560–1594’, in S. Negro and M.M. Marzal (eds.), Esclavitud, economía y evangelización: las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreinal (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú), pp. 263–98.

Romero Vargas, G.J. (1977) ‘Les structures sociales du Nicaragua au XVIIIème siècle’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Université de Paris-IV).

Rupert, L.M. (2012) Creolization and Contraband: Curaçao in the Early Modern Atlantic (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press).

Samudio A., E.O. (1985) Las haciendas del Colegio San Francisco Javier de la Compañía de Jesús en Mérida, 1628–1767 (Mérida: Universidad de los Andes).

— (2003) El Colegio San Francisco Javier en el contexto de la Mérida colonial (Mérida: Universidad de los Andes).

— (2005) ‘Las haciendas jesuíticas en la Orinoquia en su contexto económico’, in S. Negro and M.M. Marzal (eds.), Esclavitud, economía y evangelización: las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreinal (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú), pp. 183–214.

Samudio A., E.O. and J. del Rey Fajardo (2006) Jesuitas, haciendas y promoción social en la Orinoquia (Mérida: Universidad de los Andes).

Sánchez-Albornoz, N. (1965) ‘La extracción de mulas de Jujuy al Perú: fuentes, volumen, y negociantes’, Estudios de Historia Social, 1: 107–20.

— (1965) ‘La saca de mulas de Salta al Perú, 1778–1808’, Anuario del Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, 8: 261–312.

Sariego Rodríguez, J.M. (2010) ‘Tradición jesuita en Guatemala: una aproximación histórica’ (Universidad Rafael Landívar), http://www.url.edu.gt/portalurl/archivos/246/archivos/sariego.pdf [accessed 10 Sept. 2019].

Savory, T.H. (1979) The Mule: A Historic Hybrid (Shildon: Meadowfield).

Schwaller, J.F. (2011) The History of the Catholic Church in Latin America: From Conquest to Revolution and Beyond (New York: New York University Press).

Segurado, E.M. (2005) Expulsión e exilio de la provincia jesuita Mexicana, 1767–1820 (San Vicente del Raspeig: Universidad de Alicante).

Serrera Contreras, R.M. (1977) Guadalajara ganadera: estudio regional novohispano, 1760–1805 (Seville: Escuela de Estudios Hispanoamericanos).

Southey, R. (1817) History of Brazil, Part the Second (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown).

Tegetmeier, W.B. and C.L. Sutherland (1895) Horses, Asses, Zebras, Mules, and Mule Breeding (London: Cox).

Travis, L. (1990) The Mule (London: Allen).

Tutino, J. (2011) Making a New World: Founding Capitalism in the Bajío and Spanish North America (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).

Van Young, E. (2006 [1981]) Hacienda and Market in Eighteenth-Century Mexico: The Rural Economy of the Guadalajara Region, 1675–1820, 2nd edn (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield).

_____________

1 This chapter is dedicated to the memory of Juliana Bosselet, whose young life was tragically cut short in late 2017.

2 F. Chevalier, ‘The formation of the Jesuit wealth’, in M. Mörner (ed.), The Expulsion of the Jesuits from Latin America (New York: Knopf, 1965), pp. 94–103 (pp. 99–101); U. Ewald, Estudios sobre la hacienda colonial en México: las propiedades rurales del Colegio Espíritu Santo de Puebla (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1976), pp. 11–17; D. Alden, The Making of an Enterprise: The Society of Jesus in Portugal, its Empire, and Beyond, 1540–1750 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996), pp. 15–19; E.M. Segurado, Expulsión e exilio de la provincia jesuita Mexicana, 1767–1820 (San Vicente del Raspeig: Universidad de Alicante, 2005), pp. 32–41; J.F. Schwaller, The History of the Catholic Church in Latin America: From Conquest to Revolution and Beyond (New York: New York University Press, 2011), pp. 83–4, 104–6, 113.

3 Z. Acs et al., ‘Public policy to promote entrepreneurship: a call to arms’, Small Business Economics, 47 (2016): 35–51 (37–8).

4 Chevalier, ‘Formation of the Jesuit Wealth’, pp. 99–101.

5 F. Chevalier, Land and Society in Colonial Mexico: The Great Hacienda (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1963), p. ix.

6 H.W. Konrad, A Jesuit Hacienda in Colonial Mexico: Santa Lucía, 1576–1767 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1980), p. 348.

7 W. Hanisch Espindola, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en Chile (Buenos Aires: Francisco de Aguirre, 1974), pp. 142–7.

8 G. Colmenares, Haciendas de los Jesuítas en el Nuevo Reino de Granada, siglo XVIII (Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 1969), pp. 99–100, 108.

9 Ewald, Estudios sobre la hacienda colonial en México, pp. 136–55.

10 J.D. Riley, Hacendados jesuitas en México: la administración de los bienes inmuebles del Colegio Máximo de San Pedro y San Pablo (Mexico City: SEP-Setentas, 1976), pp. 214–18.

11 E.O. Samudio A., Las haciendas del Colegio San Francisco Javier de la Compañía de Jesús en Mérida, 1628–1767 (Mérida: Universidad de los Andes, 1985), pp. 86–9; E.O. Samudio A., El Colegio San Francisco Javier en el contexto de la Mérida colonial (Mérida: Universidad de los Andes, 2003), pp. 200–01, 207–8.

12 E.O. Samudio A. and J. del Rey Fajardo, Jesuitas, haciendas y promoción social en la Orinoquia (Mérida: Universidad de los Andes, 2006), pp. 75, 111–12.

13 W.B. Tegetmeier and C.L. Sutherland, Horses, Asses, Zebras, Mules, and Mule Breeding (London: Cox, 1895); L.W. Knight, The Breeding and Rearing of Jacks, Jennets and Mules (Nashville, TN: Cumberland, 1902); T.H. Savory, The Mule: A Historic Hybrid (Shildon: Meadowfield, 1979); L. Travis, The Mule (London: Allen, 1990).

14 I. Mijares Ramírez, ‘La mula en la vida cotidiana del siglo XVI’, in J. Long Towell and A. Attolini Lecón (eds.), Caminos y mercados de México (Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2010), pp. 291–310 (pp. 294–7).

15 F. Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th to 18th Century, vol. 1, The Structures of Everyday Life (London: Collins; New York: Harper & Row, 1981), pp. 341–2.

16 R.M. Serrera Contreras, Guadalajara ganadera: estudio regional novohispano, 1760–1805 (Seville: Escuela de Estudios Hispanoamericanos, 1977), pp.176–8, 189, 277–80.

17 M. Few and Z. Tortorici (eds.), Centering Animals in Latin American History (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013).

18 M. Beteta Ortiz, ‘Apuntes históricos de la expansión de los asnos y mulas españoles en América’, unpublished paper (Segundo Congreso Nacional de Zootecnia, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 2010).

19 C. López López, R. Alonso and A.S. de Aluja, ‘Study of the origins of the Mexican Creole donkey (Equus asinus) by means of the analysis of the D-loop region of mitochondrial DNA’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 37 (supplement 1) (2005): 173–88.

20 Mijares Ramírez, ‘La mula’, p. 295.

21 B. Cobo, Obras del Padre Bernabé Cobo de la Compañía de Jesús, vol. 1 (Madrid: Atlas, 1964), p. 384.

22 Konrad, A Jesuit Hacienda, p. 387, n. 20.

23 R.W. Patch, Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1648–1812 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993), pp. 117, 144, 285, n. 29.

24 P.T. Bradley and D. Cahill, Habsburg Peru: Images, Imagination and Memory (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), p. 56.

25 Konrad, A Jesuit Hacienda, p. 190 (table).

26 Konrad, A Jesuit Hacienda, p. 188. See also D.A. Brading, Haciendas and Ranchos in the Mexican Bajío, León 1700–1860 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 78, 85–8; Serrera Contreras, Guadalajara ganadera, pp. 194–5; Ewald, Estudios sobre la hacienda colonial en México, pp. 50, 163, n. 5.

27 Serrera Contreras, Guadalajara ganadera, p. 195.

28 Mijares Ramírez, ‘La mula’, p. 300.

29 N. Sánchez-Albornoz, ‘La saca de mulas de Salta al Perú, 1778–1808’, Anuario del Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, 8 (1965): 261–312; N. Sánchez-Albornoz, ‘La extracción de mulas de Jujuy al Perú: fuentes, volumen, y negociantes’, Estudios de Historia Social, 1 (1965): 107– 20; G. Paz, ‘A la sombra del Perú: mulas, repartos y negocios en el norte argentino a fines de la colonia’, Boletín del Instituto de Historia Argentina y Americana ‘Dr. Emilio Ravignani’, 3 (20) (1999): 45–68.

30 M.J. MacLeod, Spanish Central America: A Socioeconomic History, 1520–1720 (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2008 [1973]), pp. 218, 274.

31 R. Aizpurúa A., ‘Las mulas venezolanas y el Caribe oriental del siglo XVIII: datos para una historia olvidada’, Boletín Americanista, 38 (1988): 5–15; L.M. Rupert, Creolization and Contraband: Curaçao in the Early Modern Atlantic (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2012), passim.

32 J.A. Goulart, Tropas e tropeiros na formação do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro: Conquista, 1961), pp. 36–7; A. Barrios Pintos, Historia de la ganadería en el Uruguay, 1574–1971 (Montevideo: Biblioteca Nacional, 1973), pp. 66–7.

33 F.A. Pereira da Costa and A. Fernandes, Cronologia histórica do estado de Piauí (Rio de Janeiro: Artenova, 1974), pp. 156–7.

34 N.P. Cushner, Lords of the Land: Sugar, Wine and Jesuit Estates of Coastal Perú, 1600–1767 (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1980), p. 170.

35 N.P. Cushner, Jesuit Ranches and the Agrarian Development of Colonial Argentina, 1650–1767 (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 67.

36 Cushner, Jesuit Ranches, frontispiece map, pp. 2, 15, 56–9, 64; Cushner, Lords of the Land, p. 165.

37 Cushner, Jesuit Ranches, pp. 49–50.

38 M. Dobrizhoffer, An Account of the Abipones, an Equestrian People of Paraguay (London: Murray, 1822), vol. 1, p. 245.

39 P. Caraman, The Lost Paradise: An Account of the Jesuits in Paraguay, 1607–1768 (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1975), pp. 120–1.

40 A. Parejos Moreno and V. Suárez Salas, Chiquitos: historia de una utopía (Santa Cruz: Universidad Privada de Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 1992), p. 89; D. Block, Mission Culture on the Upper Amazon: Native Tradition, Jesuit Enterprise and Secular Policy in Moxos, 1660–1880 (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), pp. 57–8; R.H. Jackson, Demographic Change and Ethnic Survival among the Sedentary Populations on the Jesuit Mission Frontiers of Spanish South America, 1609–1803: The Formation and Persistence of Mission Communities in a Comparative Context (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 32–4.

41 Caraman, The Lost Paradise, p. 121, n.

42 Caraman, The Lost Paradise, p. 122.

43 B. Ganson, The Guaraní under Spanish Rule in the Río de la Plata (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003), pp. 61–6.

44 Barrios Pintos, Historia de la ganadería, pp. 36, 98–9.

45 L. Arnal Simón, ‘Formación de las haciendas jesuíticas en el norte de México: el caso del Colegio de Zacatecas’, in S. Negro and M.M. Marzal (eds.), Esclavitud, economía y evangelización: las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreinal (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2005), pp. 125–39 (p. 125).

46 J. Tutino, Making a New World: Founding Capitalism in the Bajío and Spanish North America (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011), pp. 291–2.

47 Konrad, A Jesuit Hacienda.

48 E.J. Palomera, La obra educativa de los Jesuitas en Guadalajara, 1586–1986: visión histórica de cuatro siglos de labor cultural (Guadalajara: Instituto de Ciencias, 1997); E. Van Young, Hacienda and Market in Eighteenth-Century Mexico: The Rural Economy of the Guadalajara Region, 1675–1820, 2nd edn (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006 [1981]).

49 Arnal Simón, ‘Formación de las haciendas jesuíticas’.

50 Konrad, A Jesuit Hacienda, pp. 34, 48–9, 187–90.

51 Arnal Simón, ‘Formación de las haciendas jesuíticas’, p. 128.

52 Serrera Contreras, Guadalajara ganadera, p. 212, n. 106.

53 Konrad, A Jesuit Hacienda, pp. 81–4, 90–5, 187–9.

54 Konrad, A Jesuit Hacienda, pp. 82, 188.

55 Arnal Simón, ‘Formación de las haciendas jesuíticas’, pp. 126–8.

56 Van Young, Hacienda and Market, pp. 207–20.

57 Ewald, Estudios sobre la hacienda colonial en México, pp. 17–24, 73, 119–25, 133–4, 165.

58 I. del Río, ‘Las haciendas del Fondo Piadoso de las Californias’, in S. Negro and M.M. Marzal (eds.), Esclavitud, economía y evangelización: las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreinal (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2005), p. 143.

59 Arnal Simón, ‘Formación de las haciendas jesuíticas’, p. 136.

60 Samudio A., El Colegio San Francisco Javier, pp. 145–51, 157, 168–73, 188–9.

61 J. del Rey Fajardo, Los Jesuitas en Venezuela, vol. 5, Las misiones germen de la nacionalidad (Caracas: Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, 2007), pp. 673–4, 680.

62 Colmenares, Haciendas de los Jesuítas, pp. 18–22, 108–11; Rey Fajardo, Los Jesuitas en Venezuela, pp. 674–5, 683, 702, 710; E.O. Samudio A., ‘Las haciendas jesuíticas en la Orinoquia en su contexto económico’, in S. Negro and M.M. Marzal (eds.), Esclavitud, economía y evangelización: las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreinal (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2005), pp. 183–214 (p. 200).

63 Colmenares, Haciendas de los Jesuítas, pp. 108–11; Samudio A., Las haciendas del Colegio San Francisco Javier, pp. 29–30, 89–95, 99; Samudio A., El Colegio San Francisco Javier, pp.176, 190, 209–11; Samudio A., ‘Las haciendas jesuíticas en la Orinoquia’, pp. 193, 200; Samudio A. and Rey Fajardo, Jesuitas, haciendas, pp. 52, 63–5, 73–5, 132–3; Rey Fajardo, Los Jesuitas en Venezuela, pp. 673–83, 699, 710–13.

64 Colmenares, Haciendas de los Jesuítas, pp. 105–7; Samudio A. and Rey Fajardo, Jesuitas, haciendas, p. 102; Rey Fajardo, Los Jesuitas en Venezuela, pp. 461–2, 676, 722–3.

65 A. McFarlane, Colombia before Independence: Economy, Society and Politics under Bourbon Rule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 21, n. 34.

66 Rey Fajardo, Los Jesuitas en Venezuela, p. 213, n. 1306.

67 J.M. Sariego Rodríguez, ‘Tradición jesuita en Guatemala: una aproximación histórica’ (Universidad Rafael Landívar, 2010), http://www.url.edu.gt/portalurl/archivos/246/archivos/sariego.pdf [accessed 10 Sept. 2019], p. 4.

68 G.J. Romero Vargas, ‘Les structures sociales du Nicaragua au XVIIIème siècle’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Université de Paris-IV, 1977), p. 474.

69 N.P. Cushner, Farm and Factory: The Jesuits and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism in Colonial Quito, 1600–1767 (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1982), pp. 76–8; Colmenares, Haciendas de los Jesuítas, pp. 18–22, 108–11.

70 Schwaller, History of the Catholic Church, p. 105.

71 Cushner, Farm and Factory, pp. 79, 158.

72 McFarlane, Colombia before Independence, pp. 63–4; Colmenares, Haciendas de los Jesuítas, p. 124.

73 K. Lane, Quito 1599: City and Colony in Transition (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2002), pp. 79, 127, 178, 243, n. 16; J. Rappaport, The Politics of Memory: Native Historical Interpretation in the Colombian Andes (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998), pp. 43–4.

74 Cushner, Lords of the Land, pp. 37, 71–2

75 D. Rodríguez, ‘Juan Martínez Rengifo y los Jesuitas: formación de la Hacienda Santa Marta del Puquio (La Huaca), 1560–1594’, in S. Negro and M.M. Marzal (eds.), Esclavitud, economía y evangelización: las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreinal (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2005), pp. 263–98 (p. 288, n. 60).

76 S. Negro, ‘Arquitectura, poder, y esclavitud en las haciendas jesuitas de la Nasca en el Perú’, in S. Negro and M.M. Marzal (eds.), Esclavitud, economía y evangelización: las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreinal (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2005), pp. 449–92 (pp. 456, 464); Cushner, Lords of the Land, pp. 72, 197, n. 22.

77 R. Moreno Jeria, Misiones en Chile austral: los Jesuitas en Chiloé (Seville: CSIC, 2007) p. 347.

78 A.G. Bravo, ‘La administración económica de la hacienda jesuita San Francisco de Borja Guanquehua’, in S. Negro and M.M. Marzal (eds.), Esclavitud, economía y evangelización: las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreinal (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2005), pp. 377–94 (pp. 385–6).

79 Dobrizhoffer, An Account of the Abipones, vol. 1, p. 4.

80 R. Southey, History of Brazil, Part the Second (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1817), pp. 469, 633–4; C.A. Marques, Dicionário histórico-geográfico da Província do Maranhão, 3rd edn (Rio de Janeiro: Fon-Fon e Seleta, 1970 [1870]), p. 185.

81 M.T. Schorer Petrone, O Barão de Iguape: um empresário da época da independência (São Paulo: Editora Nacional, 1976) pp. 18–20.

82 G. Gardner, Travels in the Interior of Brazil, Principally through the Northern Provinces and the Gold and Diamond District, during the Years 1836 to 1841 (London: Reeve Brothers, 1846), pp. 83, 174–5, 474.

83 E.B. Barcelos Fernandes, Futuros e outros; homens e espaços: os aldeamentos jesuíticos e a colonização na América portugueza (Rio de Janeiro: Contra Capa, 2015), p. 62.

84 Costa and Fernandes, Cronologia histórica, pp. 45, 74–5, 136–8.

85 Hanisch Espindola, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en Chile, p. 147.

86 Samudio A., El Colegio San Francisco Javier, pp. 209, 211, 260; Samudio A. and Rey Fajardo, Jesuitas, haciendas, p. 112.

87 Cushner, Jesuit Ranches, p. 56.

88 Konrad, A Jesuit Hacienda, p. 289.

89 Cushner, Lords of the Land, pp. 165–6; Cushner, Jesuit Ranches, pp. 51, 57, 59–61, 64, 163–4.

90 Cushner, Jesuit Ranches, pp. 52–5.

91 Rey Fajardo, Los Jesuitas en Venezuela, pp. 712–13; A. von Humboldt and A. Bonpland, Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of America, during the Years 1799–1804, vol. 2 (London: Routledge, 1890), p. 287.

92 Konrad, A Jesuit Hacienda, pp. 91, 189–91, 197.

93 Ewald, Estudios sobre la hacienda colonial en México, pp. 133–55.

94 Dobrizhoffer, An Account of the Abipones, vol. 1, pp. 240–1, 244–5.