Testimony of Gonzalo Gomez de Cervantes in Criminal Trial of Antonio de Carvajal, 1567

Archivo General de Indias, Patronato 220, R. 1, fol. 109r

When Gonzalo Gomez de Cervantes testified in the criminal trial of his future brother-in-law Antonio de Carvajal on 6 December 1567, he was a 26-year-old resident of Mexico City. We learn several other things about him from the testimony, including that he was not yet married to Catalina de Carvajal and he was the alcalde mayor of the province of Hueytlalpa, a jurisdiction that included the Carvajal encomienda of Zacatlán. He was close friends with Antonio, and they had known each other since they were children.

Testifying for the defense, he bolstered the case for Antonio’s innocence by showing: 1) Antonio was not on good terms with Don Martín Cortés and had never had any contact with the ringleader of the alleged conspiracy, Alonso de Ávila Alvarado (who had been the first to be executed); 2) he and his family’s loyalty to His Majesty was indisputable; 3) he did not possess any significant quantities of arms or horses; and 4) during the time that the rebellion would have been in its final planning stages, Antonio had been away from Mexico City, attending to his family’s ranches in Zacatlán.

On 23 February 1569, after Antonio had been found guilty of treason and was exiled from Mexico City, he gave a ranch in the jurisdiction of Metepeque (Metepec) to his sister Catalina as dowry for her marriage to Gonzalo. Therefore, it is likely that Gonzalo and Catalina married around this time.

My translation of Gonzalo Gomez’s testimony below is based on my transcription of the manuscript, located at the Archivo General de Indias, Patronato 220, R. 1. The manuscript is a copy, so does not contain Gonzalo’s original signature.

---

1. First, whether he knows Antonio de Carvajal, and Don Martín Cortés, Marqués del Valle, and Juan de Valdivieso, and Agustín de Villanueva, and Bernardino de Bocanegra, and Fernando de Córdoba, his brother, all residents of this city; and whether he knew Alonso de Ávila Alvarado; and whether he has knowledge of the cause and reason concerning which this lawsuit is and has been brought, let him state what he knows.

To the first question, he said that he knows and has known those contained in the question, and each one of them, and that he has knowledge of this lawsuit because it is a very public and notorious matter in this New Spain.

General questions (recording his status and to determine any bias in the lawsuit).

He was questioned on the general questions, and he said that he is more than 26 years old, and that he is a first cousin of Agustín de Villanueva, and that Antonio de Carvajal is brother-in-law of Leonel de Cervantes, brother of this witness; and that none of the general questions affects him; and that he will not fail to tell the truth, and may the just party in the lawsuit prevail.

2. Item, whether he knows, believes, saw, or heard it said that about three years ago, a little more or less, in this city, Juan de Valdivieso and Juan Juárez had a quarrel and conflict (which involved a stabbing) with Bernardino de Bocanegra and Don Fernando, his brother; and that Don Martín Cortés, Marqués del Valle, had taken the side of Bernardino de Bocanegra and Don Fernando in the dispute, and spoke indignant and insulting words against Juan Juárez and Juan de Valdivieso and against their kinsmen; and further than what has been said, that Juan de Valdivieso, in the houses of the marqués, quarreled with Don Luis Cortés, the marqués’s brother; and that for the reason stated, Antonio de Carvajal did not visit or speak with the marqués nor enter his houses until he was arrested in the government offices (casas reales), because of what was being said about the rebellion, let him state what he knows.

To the second question, he said that it may be about the time contained in the question, a little more or less, that while this witness was in the town of Metztitlán, he received word from this city that Juan de Valdivieso and Juan Juárez de Peralta had had a certain quarrel involving a stabbing with Bernardino de Bocanegra and Don Fernando, his brother; and that about a month ago, a little more or less, this witness came to this city and learned of it from Baltazar de Aguilar, and afterward from Agustín de Villanueva, Alonso de Cervantes, Juan Juárez de Peralta and Antonio de Carvajal.

And that the Marqués del Valle had taken the side of Bernardino de Bocanegra, and that he had spoken words to the dishonor of Juan Juárez, Juan de Valdivieso, Antonio de Carvajal and Agustín de Villanueva, saying that how could men such as the aforesaid dare to take up swords against Bernardino de Bocanegra and his brother, who were gentlemen, and that Juan de Valdivieso was a mule-driver (a term of insult), and that Antonio de Carvajal ought to be beaten with sticks because [when] he passed by him, he did not wish to ally with him, and that all of them were men of lower-class.

And that from about three or four months ago, a little more or less, it was notorious that between Juan de Valdivieso, cousin of Antonio de Carvajal, and Don Luis, brother of the Marqués del Valle, within the houses of the marqués, they had stabbed each other and quarreled, because Don Luis said that Juan de Valdivieso and his kinsmen should ally themselves with the marqués, his brother; and because Juan de Valdivieso would not agree to this, he quarreled.

And at the time when Juan de Valdivieso came out to the plaza [from the márques’s house], this witness was present there, and because of an illness he had, this witness was not carrying a sword, and he went on his horse and came to the door of the houses of the Marqués del Valle, where he saw Juan de Samano, alguacil mayor, agitating others to get involved. And after the quarrel had been calmed, Antonio de Carvajal arrived, coming from a city council meeting, and, learning of it from some persons, said in a loud voice that by force of arms they were not going to make them go and ally with the marqués, and that he swore to God that he wished he had been present at the quarrel and that the marqués had come out so that he might lay hands upon him.

From which, this witness saw that it came about that, although before this the aforesaid persons were already on bad terms with the Marqués del Valle, from then on, the enmity increased. And in particular, this witness heard Antonio de Carvajal speak harsh words against the marqués. And this witness associated very closely with Antonio de Carvajal and did not see him enter into dealings with the Marqués del Valle, neither publicly nor in secret; rather, he saw the contrary until the marqués was imprisoned. And he heard it said that Antonio de Carvajal visited him sometimes afterward; and that if Antonio de Carvajal had entered or dealt in any way with the marqués during the time of the enmities, this witness would have seen it or known of it because of the great association and communication that this witness had with Antonio de Carvajal, since they were together almost every day.

3. Item, whether he knows, etc., that after the quarrels had passed, and at the time contained in the question immediately preceding this one, Antonio de Carvajal, wherever he might be and whenever he spoke of the marqués, uttered words of hatred and enmity against the marqués, let him state what he knows.

To the third question, he said that he stands by what he has already stated in the question preceding this one, to which he refers; and that in addition to what has been said above, this witness heard Antonio de Carvajal say many and various times that he was very glad that a matter had arisen which obliged him to distance himself from the marqués, because he had very poor relations with gentlemen and persons of standing, and that everyone ought to seek out such an occasion to distance himself from the marqués, no matter how small it might be, to hold it as very significant as a pretext for distancing himself from the Marqués del Valle.

4. Item, whether he knows, etc., that from the moment the marqués was arrested it was generally said in this city that he was innocent and without any fault whatsoever, let him state what he knows.

To the fourth question, he stated that at the time the marqués was imprisoned, the common opinion was as stated in the question.

5. Item, whether he knows, etc., that Antonio de Carvajal did not have nor ever had any friendship or conversation with Alonso de Ávila, but rather avoided and kept away from him as much as he could, and spoke ill to some persons of the affairs of Alonso de Ávila, telling them that he was a vain man and very headstrong, and different from his (own) condition, let him state what he knows.

To the fifth question, he said that throughout all the time that this witness has dealt and conversed with Antonio de Carvajal, which has been since they were children, he has never seen him nor did he ever see him go to or enter the house of Alonso de Ávila, nor stroll with him through the city as other gentlemen are accustomed to do, nor have dealings or conversation with Alonso de Ávila. Rather, this witness recalls that many times, when they were together, Antonio de Carvajal mocked and made fun of Alonso de Ávila for being excessively presumptuous and for speaking words by which he gave to understand that he was not on good terms with Alonso de Ávila Alvarado.

6. Item, whether he knows, etc., that what Agustín de Villanueva said in the house of Juan de Valdivieso to Antonio de Carvajal and other persons, concerning having gone cautiously to discuss with the marqués (about the rebellion), was said publicly and without charging them with secrecy, and he had stated that he would say it, if necessary, in the public plaza, and this occurred many days after Alonso de Ávila had been executed, let him state what he knows.

To the sixth question, he said that what he knows of it is that while this witness was in the province of Hueytlalpa, where this witness is alcalde mayor for His Majesty, they wrote to him about the arrest of the marqués and the others; and that immediately this witness came post-haste and offered himself to the oidores of this real audiencia in the service of His Majesty.

And that, wishing this witness to know what was happening because of the differing opinions among the people, he asked on some occasions Baltazar de Aguilar and on others Agustín de Villanueva, each of whom separately and many times told this witness that in truth [the accused] were not imprisoned without cause, but rather that they wished to rebel against the royal majesty.

Among these and other matters, this witness recalls that one of them (he does not remember whether it was Agustín de Villanueva or Baltazar de Aguilar) told him that the real audiencia, having understood his good disposition, had ordered him to sound out the intentions of the marqués and of other persons of the city, speaking with them about the uprising in order to see what each one intended, and that he had done so accordingly.

7. Item, whether he knows, etc., that Juan de Valdivieso is a cousin and very close kinsman of Antonio de Carvajal, and that as such cousins and kinsmen they have dealt with one another and are held, regarded, and commonly reputed as such in this city, let him state what he knows.

To the seventh question, he said that what the question states is very public and well-known matter in this city, and that as such kinsmen this witness has seen them associate and deal with one another.

8. Item, whether he knows, etc., that Antonio de Carvajal is the legitimate son of Antonio de Carvajal the elder, a resident of this city, one of its earliest conquerors (and of New Spain), among those who served well in the conquest of these parts in positions as captain and other eminent offices, let him state what he knows.

To the eighth question, he said that it is held and known in this city as a public and notorious fact that Antonio de Carvajal is the son of Antonio de Carvajal the elder, and as his legitimate son he has seen him treated and referred to; and that this witness has publicly heard it said that Antonio de Carvajal the elder is one of the first conquerors of this New Spain, and thus it is public and notorious.

9. Item, if he knows, etc., that likewise, Antonio de Carvajal the younger has served His Majesty in this city of Mexico and New Spain in whatever has arisen in His Royal service, and that he was alcalde mayor in the province and mines of Chautla, and that he performed very well in that office; and that since the witness has known him he has always and continually seen him to be and has been a very humble and plain man, an enemy of intrigues and machinations, and a very good Christian, God-fearing and mindful of his conscience, let him say what he knows.

To the ninth question, he said that whenever this witness has dealt with Antonio de Carvajal, he has understood him to possess a very good and sound disposition in matters touching the service of His Majesty, and that this witness never saw nor perceived anything to the contrary; and that he believes and holds for certain that in whatever may arise concerning the royal service he will serve as a good and loyal vassal. And that he knew him to have been alcalde mayor of the province and mines of Chautla, and that in that office it is notorious that he did his duty and performed very well; and that he holds him to be a very good Christian and to possess the other qualities declared in the question, and that he has always seen him to be a plain and affable man toward all.

10. Item, if he knows, etc., that by reason of what is stated in the questions preceding this one, the witness believes and holds for certain that Antonio de Carvajal would not only do or say anything against the royal service, but would not even imagine such a thing, let him say what he knows.

To the tenth question, he said that, based on what he has stated in the questions prior to this one, and on what he knows and understands of Antonio de Carvajal, this witness believes and holds for certain that he would neither undertake nor say anything that was not in the service of His Majesty.

11. Item, if he knows, etc., that all of the aforesaid has been and is public and notorious in this city and in New Spain among the persons who have had and have knowledge thereof, let him state what he knows.

To the eleventh question he said that what he has stated and declared is a matter that is public and notorious in this city, and this witness so holds it to be; and that all that he has stated and declared in this his testimony is true, to the best of his knowledge of the case, under the oath he took. And having had it read to him, he affirmed and ratified it, and signed it with his name; he was charged with secrecy and promised to keep it.

Additional question 1. Item, if he knows, etc., that about two and a half years ago, a little more or less, while Antonio de Carvajal and other city council members were in the city hall of this city, some of them discussed and maintained that they ought not to avoid dealing with, visiting, or allying themselves with Don Martín Cortés, Marqués del Valle, and that the marqués would mistreat and affront those who did so; and Antonio de Carvajal, being one of those who did not deal with, visit, or ally with him, and who did not wish to visit or ally with him, said that he would neither ally nor deal with him, and over this he had a quarrel with those who maintained the contrary. Let the witness declare in particular what occurred concerning this matter.

To the first additional question, he said that he stands by what he has already said in his declaration.

Additional question 2. Item, if he knows, etc., that many residents of this city who do not have Indians in encomienda nor the rank and means that Antonio de Carvajal possesses, and the other residents in general have ordinarily had and do have more horses and weapons than Antonio de Carvajal, and that the witness knows this from having seen the weapons and horses that the aforesaid possesses.

To the second question, he said that what the question states is so, that many residents of this city, and even officials, have two, three, or four horses, and that such persons, or some of them, are of lesser rank and means than Carvajal. And this witness has dealt personally with Antonio de Carvajal for seven or eight years up to the present, more or less, and that during that time this witness has seen him ordinarily have four or five or six horses, and no more. And this witness has never known him to possess more than a single light cavalry lance and one spear and a coat of mail, which he has loaned for many days to Diego Mesía de la Cerda, notary of His Majesty, and a sword; and that this witness knows that at times, in order to have his sword repaired, he asked this witness to lend him one of his own to carry in the meantime while his was being repaired, and that at times he asked this witness to lend him a dagger for many days.

Additional question 3. Item, if he knows, etc., that for the past six or seven years, Antonio de Carvajal has never ceased to keep five or six horses in his stable for the service and adornment of his person, and that in this he has never made any distinction either before or after the imprisonment of the Marqués del Valle.

To the third question, he said that he stands by what he has already stated in the preceding question, and that, in addition to what is contained therein, this witness knows and saw that Antonio de Carvajal was accustomed to buying colts, training and raising them, and using them in the festivities and "games of canes" (juegos de cañas, a type of mock battle) held in this city; and that when someone wished to buy them at his pleasure, he sold them. This witness saw him sell three white horses and a dark bay (morcillo), which he sold to Don Luis de Velasco, and another chestnut horse called Jaso, and another chestnut, and another grayish-brown horse which he sold to this witness and to others. And from this he profited, and for this purpose, and in order to ride and use them, this witness saw that Antonio de Carvajal kept them. And thus, it is customary among many persons of rank in this city to train horses and, after using them, to sell them when a buyer appears. And in particular, he has seen that Antonio de Carvajal did this as a common practice and means of profit, and that this witness has never seen Antonio de Carvajal make any distinction in having more or fewer horses either before or after the imprisonment of the Marqués del Valle.

Additional question 4. Item, if he knows, etc., that because Antonio de Carvajal was not properly equipped with arms, he borrowed arms from Don Luis de Velasco and from other persons as needed, and carried them in order to be the standard bearer for the feast of San Hipólito of this present year of '67, as is the use and custom in this city; let the witnesses state in response to this question what he saw and heard in this matter.

To the fourth question, this witness said that what he knows thereof is that, when this witness asked Antonio de Carvajal whose corselet it was that he had in his house, which Antonio de Carvajal was preparing and cleaning in order to wear it when he carried the banner, Antonio de Carvajal told this witness that it belonged to Don Luis de Velasco, who had lent it to him for that purpose; and that likewise a servant of Antonio de Carvajal, named Rocha(?), told this witness that the corselet belonged to Don Luis de Velasco. And in addition to this, this witness heard Antonio de Carvajal say that Baltazar de Aguilar had lent him a horse chamfron to use on that day; and furthermore, this witness lent Antonio de Carvajal on the day of San Hipólito an iron lance-head for a jineta lance, so that he might enter the festivities held in the afternoon, because Antonio de Carvajal, not having one, was going about seeking one. And thus, he clarified this in response to this question.

First additional question, second list of added questions. Item, if he knows, etc., that at the beginning of the month of May of the past year of 1566, Antonio de Carvajal departed from this city and went to the town of Zacatlán, which Antonio de Carvajal his father holds in encomienda, and which lies twenty-two leagues from this said city; and that there he was occupied in taking possession of certain livestock ranches and in settling and establishing them, which he had purchased from the Indians of the town; let him state what he knows.

To the first question of the second interrogatory, he said that what he knows thereof is that on the second day of the month of May of the past year of 1566, this witness and Antonio de Carvajal and Diego Núñez, notary of His Majesty, and Antón Gómez departed from this city and went together to the town of Zacatlán, which is said to be held in encomienda by Antonio de Carvajal the elder, where they remained for some days attending to business, this witness being, as he is, alcalde mayor of that province; and that within fifteen or twenty days after their arrival there came a writ from the audiencia real ordering this witness to render an accounting of the town of Zacatlán, during which accounting Antonio de Carvajal was always present and remained for the entire time that the accounting lasted, which seemed to this witness to be thirty days; and that during this time this witness, by commission of the viceroy, visited certain ranch sites at the request of Antonio de Carvajal, who in the presence of this witness purchased a certain number of head of livestock, which were eight hundred or one thousand, more or less, in order to begin to stock and populate the ranches or some of them; and this he saw and thus clarified what is contained in this question.

Second additional question, second list of added questions. Item, if he knows, etc., that likewise, Antonio de Carvajal was occupied with the accounting which, by order of the audiencia real of this New Spain, was made of the natives of the town by Gonzalo Gómez de Cervantes, alcalde mayor of the province of Hueytlalpa; and that in this and in the other matters contained in the question immediately preceding this one, he remained from the beginning of the month of May until he returned to this city about the middle of the month of July of that year, a few days more or less; let him state what he knows.

To the second question, he said that he repeats what he has stated in the question immediately preceding this one, and that what he has said and declared is true, under the oath he took; and having had it read to him, he affirmed and ratified it, signed it with his name, was charged with secrecy, and promised to keep it.

---

Source:

Archivo General de Indias

Proceso contra Antonio de Carvajal: rebelión Nueva España

Patronato, 220, R. 1

https://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/description/125983?nm

Gonzalo Gomez de Cervantes’ testimony begins on folio 109r (Image 221 of 393). The second part of his testimony begins on folio 119v (Image 242 of 393).