紀要『人文・自然研究』第 15 号

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

Satoko Nakajima

2021 年 3 月 25 日発行

一橋大学 全学共通教育センター

人文・自然研究第 15 号

Hitotsubashi Review of Arts and Sciences 15

2021 年 3 月 25 日発行

発行：一橋大学全学共通教育センター
186-8601 東京都国立市中 2-1

組版：精屋社Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

Satoko Nakajima

I．Introduction
When Don Quixote de la Mancha and Sancho Panza set out on their adventures, theKnight-errant left behind a house and a niece, while his squire deserted his wife and children. In Cervantesʼ novel, Don Quixote returned to his birth place after his epic journey ;in this way he was representative of a nobleman［hidalgo］. In sixteenth and seventeenth-century Spain it was usually wealthy men who returned home to inherit family
properties, while most poor men stayed away from their birth places and found otherlocations to settle down. Golden Age Spanish literature reflects this ; it abounds in examples of roving property-less individuals. Alonso, the protagonist of El Donado Hablador
by Alcalá Yanes, was a servant, who worked for many amos［masters］in many places;
he never returned to his home in Andalusia.（1） Both Lazarillo de Tormes and Don Pablos, who personified members of the lower strata in La vida de Lazarillo de Tormes y desus fortunas y adversidades and El Buscón respectively, left their hometowns when they
were small and never returned there.（2） It was not just that they did not return home,they never mentioned their hometown ; the novels suggest that neither Lazarillo nor
Don Pablos held a sense of belonging to their birth places.
Such figures in Golden Age fiction indicate an important dimension of early modern
Spanish society : many property-less individuals left their birth places and traveled itinerantly within the Iberian Peninsula. There is considerable documentation of this social
phenomenon. One example of this is the testimony Juan de Castro gave to the Inquisition. In 1588, when the Inquisitors of Toledo arrested the twenty five year-old De Castro“I was born in Hidalguillo, and was brought up there until the age of four. My sister took
me to Medina de Rioseco where I stayed for two or three years. From there I went toValladolid where I stayed with a furrier during four years. Then I went to Madrid, andserved in the princess’ kitchen washing the dishes and sweeping floors. Since then, I
have always worked as a servant and cook in many people’s houses. As a kitchen hand I
went to Barcelona with the archbishop of Seville...”（3）Juan de Castro, as well as many other men in sixteenth-century Spain, moved from one
place to another changing jobs and employers. Some men returned to their birth places,

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spainon suspicion of blasphemy, they ordered him to relate his life. He answered;

but more frequently others like De Castro did not. They continued roving around or
settled in new places.

75

This article on migration discussed here is based on two areas of study. Firstly,
through a review of the secondary literature, I examine a number of important historiographical questions. The analysis of these questions provides an overview of the valuable research on migration which this article draws on. Furthermore, it signals an
important dimension of migration that has not been addressed by historians until now,which is that the majority of migrants did not return to their birth places. Building on
this historiographical study, the second dimension of this article is an exploration of thecomplex social phenomenon of migration through analysis of a new body of evidence
drawn from my extensive archival research on Procesos de Fe ［Trials of Faith］.
Through examination of this evidence, it is demonstrated that “non-return migration”
was a common practice amongst the men and women of the lower strata.

Ⅱ．Historiography on migration in early modern Spain
Until the 1990’s the literature on migration had presented a seemingly paradoxical
view ; an established understanding of village communities as isolated and closed was
supplemented by a description of cities as centers for migration. Before discussing the
new direction that migration studies have taken, a brief historiographical review of thiscontrasting view is necessary, as its legacy is still apparent with regard to discussion ofvillage communities.
Accounts of lower strata community’s dynamics as sedentary and enclosed have been
informed by the assumption that people were tied to their homelands. Evidence, such as
the legal measures local authorities imposed on new settlers, has led many historians toreinforce the myth of “immobile villages”.（4） Historical demographers and specialists infamily history have also contributed toward the strengthening of this view of “immobile
villages” by presenting statistical data of marriage patterns from parish records whichshowed that villagers, unlike city dwellers, tended to contract marriages with fellow
countrymen and women.（5） Research on the lives of artisans has provided additional
arguments in support of the myth of a sedentary lower strata. On the basis that local
guilds’ ordinances favored locals and restricted the admission of outsiders, it has beenargued that outsiders were often denied entry to the labor market.（6） Finally, althoughhighly problematic and hard to demonstrate, some researchers based their argumentthat Spanish lower strata was sedentary on a myth that early modern Spanish inhabitants held strong sense of belonging to their birthplace.（7）人文・自然研究
第
号

15

76

In the past thirty years, this established historical account of Early Modern villages
has been gradually challenged, though not completely replaced, by analysis of new evidence that has revealed a highly mobile population.（8）There have been two fundamental
tendencies to this historiographical shift : new research on local history and broader
studies of migration patterns. A brief review of their key features is valuable to gauge
the impact of these developments in the field of migration studies.
Scholars working on local history projects have carried out meticulous analysis of bap-

tism, marriage and burial registers, hospitals’ in-patient registers, and vecindad［citizenship］petitions. They have demonstrated the frequent geographical movement of a significantly larger proportion of communities than had been previously known about.
Important insights into migrants’ profiles have been provided by this research, and it
has also identified factors that motivated and caused people to migrate to certain placesin sixteenth-century Spain. An example of local history research, which has opened new
avenues of investigation on migration, is the study of Madrid’s history : in particular, theanalysis of the growth in demand for a workforce in the city after the court’s establishment there in 1561. Historical demographers working on Madrid have identified thisevent as the key reason for the immigration of numerous artisans, peasants and servants, as well as paupers, to Madrid. The scale of this immigration is apparent in thecalculation of Madrid’s population growth. The city had less than 20,000 inhabitants in
1561 ; it grew to between 65,000 and 90,000 inhabitants by 1600.（9） As well as measuring
the population increase, the historical research on Madrid provides important information on immigrants’ geographical origins and occupations.（10）Another important example
of recent local history research on migration is the seminal publication Migraciones internas y medium-distance en la Península Ibérica. Compiled together this research reveals
the complexity of the question of migration. Many local issues are addressed such as :the high proportion of French immigrants in Catalonia ; the high proportion of men emigrating from Galicia to other regions in Spain ; and the fairs, such as the one in Medina
del Campo［Old Castile］that drew merchants and artisans from all over Spain.（11）A key feature of these studies is their description of in and out-migration. In otherwords, they have examined sixteenth-century Spanish villages, towns and cities as both
host communities and hometowns of migrants. Based on a micro-historical model ormethodology, such as that employed in family reconstitution projects, these types ofresearch have focused on the place rather than the migrants ; as a consequence, the phenomenon of population movement has remained unstudied. However, the second historiographical tendency, the study of migration patterns of ordinary villagers, has begun to
add detail to the broad picture of migration patterns with documentation of individuals’

The work of historians such as Antonio Eiras Roel and David Vassberg has been fundamental in the development of this second tendency.（12） The specific focus of theirwork has been patterns of migration amongst the lower social strata. Eiras has documented a number of migration patterns in early modern Spain, including : workers who
followed the patterns of seasonal or temporary work, such as harvesting ; manufacturing
craftsmen ; transporters and peddlers ; as well as examples of long-term migration, interregional migration, and international migration. Vassberg’s work complements that ofEiras, and offers a deeper understanding of these complex phenomena. In addition to
exploring the patterns of migration examined by Eiras, Vassberg has discussed the con-Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

migrations to and from village communities.

tinuous contact that Castilian villages had with the outside world.
77

An important aspect of Vassberg’s work is that it shows that geographical movement
affected not only the lives of urban dwellers, but also those of Castilian villagers in many
ways. In this way he countered the established understanding of village communities as
closed and isolated. One of the key pieces of evidence used in Vassberg’s migration studies to demonstrate the frequency of migration has been analysis of marriage registers inparish archives, which have revealed that the degree of mixed marriages［marriage contracted between locals and outsiders］exceeded one-third of all marriages in many villages and towns.（13） Not only has this been an important finding that has changed ourunderstanding of migration, but it has also provided a new understanding of the marriage market in early modern Spanish villages. Vassberg’s research has also examined
the range of contacts that communities had with outsiders by studying the experience ofadolescent servants and apprentices. From an early age, in some cases as young aseight, many ordinary people left their birth places to serve in households or to learn skill
as apprentices.（14） Vassberg’s analysis of the recruitment of the King’s troop offers
another example of villagers’ contact with the wider world. The troop, which recruitedeight or nine thousand Spanish men annually and more during the times of crisis in
Philip II’s reign, was a significant factor that contributed to the geographical movementof lower strata males.（15）Environmental factors and demographic crises, such as epidemics, also caused migration.（16） Further support for Vassberg’s arguments is offered by
the 1572 report written by the townsmen of Soguellamos［near Toledo］on the epidemics suffered by their community in 1556 and 1557 for Philip II. They recounted that “themisfortune was so extreme and the ill health the epidemics occasioned caused the people
to leave the town...”（17）The combination of these two historiographical tendencies is significant ; their findings
have not only profoundly challenged the notion of sedentary village communities, butthey have demonstrated the diversity and range of population movement in early modern Spain. However, their limitations need to be acknowledged. They offer only a fragmentary account of migration.（18） The full extent of migration during the lifetimes ofmembers of Spain’s lower social strata remains largely untold, which is mainly due tothe fact that researchers have used sources such as marriage registers, censuses（padrones de vecindad）, reports related to tax collecting, law suits, writings by arbitristas（writers of treatises on economic and fiscal reform）, and ordinances, which give only
partial information of migrants’ journeys. In the course of this article it is argued that in
the majority of cases, these sources only document what was in fact one of a series of
人文・自然研究第号

15migrations during an individual’s lifetime.
Following both the social focus of Roel and Vassberg and their efforts to develop new
methodological approaches to the study of migration, this article provides analysis anddescription of the key historiographical issue of individuals’ migrations in the course of
their lifetime. Through an analysis of a new archive of sources for migration studies, thisarticle supplements the shortcomings of the evidence relied on until now. I explore four78

concrete issues. I begin the study of individuals’ migration throughout the course of their

lifetime by examining data to consider the number of members of the lower strata wholeft their birth place. Then, by following the footsteps of migrants, mostly men, aged
between fifteen and seventy, a study is made of the number of places these migrants
resided in. Thirdly, I analyze the possible reasons for migrants’ return to and residence
in their native towns and villages ; this is identified as “return migration”. Finally, a contrast to this latter issue is explored by focusing on “non-return migration” and examining
the experiences of migrants who migrated to and settled down in new places. In the
final section, I analyze contemporaneous language to consider the social dynamics thatstructured sixteenth-century Spanish communities regarding inclusion of new members
to them.

Ⅲ．Leaving home
There are two aims of this section : firstly, the introduction and analysis of a new corpus of evidence on migration, and secondly, drawing on this evidence, a critical examination of the number of members of the lower strata who left their birth place. The arguments of Vassberg, Roel and others are given further support through this analysis,
which demonstrates statistically for the first time how widespread migration wasamongst the lower strata.
The corpus of evidence for this analysis is based on my examination of the records ofsixteenth-century inquisitorial Trials of Faith held in Toledo, today stored in Madrid’s
Archivo Histórico Nacional. My analysis is based on the study of 1012 trials of secondaryor minor offences that took place between 1501 and 1600 in Toledo. The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1480 by Queen Isabel and King Ferdinand to eradicate Judaizers
from their Kingdoms. By the 1530ʼs almost all tribunals had changed their main targets
from heresy to the secondary offences, such as bigamy, blasphemy and simple fornica（19）tion, commonly perpetrated by the old Christians［cristianos viejos］.
Spanish inquisi-

torial trials consisted of various stages : a denunciation［denuncia］; a decision by local
tribunals to pursue respective cases［votos］; the recompilation of information［testifi［acusación］; hearings［audiencias］; the accused’s defence［defensas］; votes of sentence（20）
by local tribunals［votos en definitiva］;and finally the sentence itself［sentencia］.

In 1561 various changes resulted from the Instrucciones given by the former General
Inquisitor Fernando de Valdés, and among them, a new requirement for trials was introduced.（21）In the post Instrucciones trials, the accused, as part of the first hearing, had toprovide a discurso de la vida, which was essentially a brief autobiography. For example,
in 1568, Luis Sánchez, a string-maker, related his life story as follows :“I was born in Zamora［Old Castile］and brought up in Braganza and Lisbon［Portugal］.

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

cación］; a decision by local tribunals to continue trials［votos en sumaria］; accusation

At around seventeen years old I left Braganza and went to Medina del Campo［Old Castile］where I stayed a day and half. From there I went to Madrid for three or four79years. Since then I have been in Madrid and Valladolid...”（22）The length of these autobiographies varied ; some people like Sánchez recounted theirlife story in only a few lines, while others described it in more detail. Despite these differences there is a common factor to all the discursos de la vida, which is that people
mainly talked about their experiences of journeys. Thus, a study of discursos de la vidaenables people’s geographical movements to be traced over the course of their life andalso to identify patterns of migration ; it established one of the methodological criteria
the research conducted in the inquisitorial archive. A comprehensive study of all the 354
existing trials for secondary offences, which took place between 1560 and 1600 and havediscursos de la vida, has been completed.（23）
Prior to undertaking an analysis of individuals’ migrations from their birth places, it isnecessary to give an overview of the type of people represented in the evidence examined, as well as the types of offence they were accused of. With regard to the social status of people examined here, the majority were members of the lower social strata. The
Inquisitorial records provide information on the accused’s families ; such as their place ofresidence and profession, which has enabled the identification of how these people
earned their living. Only a small minority, 9 individuals, had family properties. 2 claimed
that they lived on their family possessions,（24） while the fathers of 5 others still lived on
their family property. In the case of the remaining 2, Pedro de Monroy and the Franciscan Friar Alonso de Peralta, it may be argued that they belonged to property owning
families ; the former was a knight of the Order of Calatrava and the father of the latter
was a member of the Order of Santiago. Entry to both of these Military Orders was
excluded to the lower social strata.（25）Excluding this small group of wealthy individuals the great majority of the remaining
346 may be identified as members of the lower strata.（26）Of these, there were 83 manufacturing craftsmen,（27）66 farmer-peasants, 44 servants, 21 manual workers, such as daylaborers［jornaleros］, 5 shepherds, 4 barbers, 6 vendors［tratantes］, 3 vagrants and 3
who declared that they were out of work, 2 transporters, 5 others including a miller, asoldier, a gambler, an actor and a fencer. 42 individuals did not specify their occupation.
A small minority, 38, raise an important question regarding the problem of social classifications in the early modern period. Of this minority, there were 17 lawyers, students
and alguaciles ［baillifs］ and 21 clerics. On the one hand, they may be identified as
人文・自然研究第号

15belonging to the emergence of a middle class in Spanish society. However, on the other
hand, their backgrounds may be identified as lower strata since their parents were artisans or farmer-peasants. For example a university graduate Melchor de los Reyes was
the son of a dyer and grandson to a carpenter.（28）Unless found any data which indicatesa possibility of property owning of their own or of their family, I have classified these
individuals, who dedicated in professions above mentioned, as members of the lower
strata. Nonetheless, it should be noted that several exceptions might emerge with a dis-

80

covery of new documents.

Table I shows an overview of the types of offences these 346 lower strata individuals
were accused of. As can be seen there were 28 accused of bigamy［8％］, 58 of blasphemy［16％］, 156 of simple fornication［45％］, 70 of scandalous words［20％］and 34 ofsorcery and other offences［9％］.The majority of individuals, studied here, were accusedof offences which did not necessarily imply the need of migration lends weight to theiruse as evidence for the extent of migration among the ordinary lower strata. The only
offence which had a slight implication of migration was bigamy, which occupied no morethan 8％ of the whole and its low number is significant for the validity of this research.
Furthermore, although the historiography has pointed out that bigamy was an offence
whose perpetrators had to migrate for its practice,（29） it is important to point out thatthe practice of bigamy by no means always required its perpetrators to migrate : female
bigamists were usually non-migrants.（30）Therefore, the individuals who were accused at
the Inquisition for secondary offences were not necessarily people who had extra or special motives to migrate in addition to the ones ordinary people usually had when they
made decisions to migrate.

Table I. Number of the accused who gave
discursos de la vida
29

28

70

58

4
5
6

5
156
1．bigamy 2．blasphemy 3．simple fornication
5．scandalous words 6．others

1
2
3

4．sorcery

Having established the value of this evidence for a discussion of migration, it is necesstrata. These cases of secondary offences, such as blasphemy, simple fornication, scandalous words and bigamy, were not idiosyncratic. Rather, behaviour of these offenders wascommon among the lower strata. In a brief summary of two types of secondary offence,a defence is made for the use of Inquisitorial sources as evidence of lower strata behaviour.
Blasphemy was a charge brought against someone who said that they did not believe
in God, or that they renounced God, his Mother and the saints, or they perhaps hadquestioned an article of faith or doctrine, such as the Mary’s virginity or the Assumption.（31）The Spanish Holy Office took the issue seriously and regarded that only heretics

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spainsary to comment on the identification of these offenders as representative of the lower

cursed God, Our Lady and the saints. Nonetheless, as researchers on the Spanish Inquisition agree, it was common among all Spaniards to heap curses on different members of81

the divine hierarchy in rage and frustration when people encountered unfortunate ordesperate situations.（32）An example of such blasphemy is the case of Bartolomé de Acurio, aged seventy. One day when he was arguing with his wife, in anger he renounced
God, Saint Mary and the saints.（33）The only difference between De Acurio and the great
majority of Spaniards who cursed and swore against God was that De Acurio was
unlucky enough to be arrested by the Inquisition. It is likely that numerous cases of
blasphemy went unreported to the Inquisition and thus remain unknown to historians.
Simple fornication is another secondary offence which shows that suspects’ behaviour
was not an exception, but in fact normal. Simple fornication, which has been defined as“carnal intercourse by mutual consent between two people outside marriage free of any
relationship”, never fell under Inquisitorial jurisdiction until the second half of the sixteenth century.（34） It was in 1559 when the first trials on simple fornication appeared
and these increased after the instructions decreed in cartas acordadas by the Suprema,or central Inquisitorial court, in 1573 and 1574 ; these cartas ordered local tribunals to
include simple fornication under their jurisdiction.（35）Inquisitors saw a possible influenceof Lutherans on people who believed and asserted that having sex under mutual consent
between single man and woman was not a sin, and thus they regarded that such mentality was heretical. Yet, evidence suggests that ordinary people did not view the act as amortal sin and that it was common among members of the lower strata ; some had sex
as novios before contracting marriage and others with prostitutes. The existence ofsome brothels, which were legally run by municipal governments, had been a permanent
fixture in some communities since the medieval period ; evidence such as this indicatesthat simple fornication was an accepted practice. Nonetheless, it should be acknowledgedthat it was never strongly approved of. It was customary for those that practised it tofind excuses for their behaviour. Historians have noted the following evasive arguments
used by men : “it was not a sin to have sexual intercourse with prostitutes if you paythem” and “it was not a sin to have carnal intercourse with a woman if you know thatyou are going to marry her”.（36） In general it is important to note that the accused inthese trials were ordinary people, but unfortunate enough to be caught. Concerning thequestion of their identification as ordinary it should be acknowledged that the selectionof secondary offences only, and not major offences such as Judaizers and Protestants, hasbeen made to avoid exceptional individuals.
In the corpus of evidence under analysis, 346 men and women, who as has been
人文・自然研究第号

15argued may be identified as belonging to the lower social strata, gave an account of theirlife. 279 of them（80.6 ％）may be termed migrants as they had declared that they had
left their birth places to live elsewhere ; this high number indicates that migration was avery common phenomenon in Spain.（37） Furthermore, it is significant that out of 67 people, who declared that they had never changed their residence since birth, 35 had experience of visiting other places ; they added in their testimonies that they sometimes had
traveled for business or family reasons. For example, Alonso Rodríguez, a dyer aged

82

thirty-six, never lived anywhere else but his birthplace, Toledo. However, he had trav-

elled to several places, and even as far as Valencia, 381 kilometres to the west.（38） The
evidence examined provides a high figure of 314（90.7％）people who declared that they
had had experience of either leaving their birth places to live elsewhere, or traveling toother places. This is a clear indication of the extent of geographical mobility amongst
the sixteenth-century Spanish lower strata.
For the purposes of this section, I analyze 220 cases which stated their age at leaving
home.（39）Most people left their hometowns before adulthood, which was the case for 188
out of the 220 migrants who stated at what age they had left their hometowns（85％）.
Of this number, 59 had done so before the age of nine, accompanying their parents or
relatives when they themselves had migrated. A typical case of the migration of a wholefamily unit was that of Pedro García Valero, a cobbler. His family abandoned Villafranca,
his birth place, soon after he was born in around 1535 for Acebuchal, where theyremained for twenty years.（40）A second group of migrants, who left their birth places during late childhood or adolescence, consisted of those who began their working life as an apprentice or a domestic
servant. The documents examined reveal that 129 individuals, aged between 9 and 18,
left their birth places, which supports the established fact that many early modern Spanish children and teenagers left their parents’ houses to work in domestic service or tostart an apprenticeship.（41） Parents living in small towns and villages, where job offers
were limited, often had to send their children away to other towns and villages. When
parents could find employers in nearby towns, it was likely that they chose those places
to send their children. Evidence from the Archivo Histórico Provincial de Toledo provides valuable information on the labour market in Toledo and the surrounding area,and supplements the accounts of migration recorded in the discursos de la vida. For
example, my study of a selection, from the thousands of cases, of life-cycle service contracts and apprenticeship indentures in the archive document children migrating fromoutlying villages in Montes de Toledo to the city of Toledo. A characteristic example is
Pedro Cordero, vecino de Sonseca, a village twenty-eight kilometers from Toledo. He
the house of Melchor Díaz, a draper in the city of Toledo for the period of eleven and six
years respectively.（42）
Although it is certain that many children from small villages and towns wereabsorbed into the labour market of nearby larger urban centres, it is important to notethat on occasions parents sent their sons and daughters to places much further awayfrom home. Juan Francés, born and raised in a small village called Villa del Grado［Huesca］, left his parents’ house at the age of eight. Instead of going to Monzón, a town
thirty kilometers away from Villa del Grado, he went to Alcañiz, approximately 200 kilometres away. There he worked in the house of the stonemason master Pedro. Francés

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

sent his daughters, María, aged ten and Marta, fourteen, to work in domestic service inmade very little mention of what he had done in master Pedro’s house, but it is most
likely that he was a live-in servant who carried out domestic chores.（43） The distance83

traveled by Juan Francés was not an exception. Alonso López from Lugo［Galicia］aged
fourteen, embarked on a journey of 350 kilometres to Valladolid to work as a tanner.（44）As is discussed below, in many cases these youthful departures were the first stage of aseries of journeys. Life-cycle servants frequently moved to a new place after finishing
their initial period of service,（45）or even before finishing the contracted period of service.
Similarly, it was not uncommon for apprentices to abandon their masters even before
completing their apprenticeship and move on to new places.
Of the 220 cases under examination, 33 remained in their birth places until they
became adults. An explanation for some of these cases is that unlike parents from small
towns and villages, those who lived in big cities such as Madrid, Seville, and Toledo often
found apprenticeships or initial jobs for their offspring within their home cities. For
instance, Andrés de Zamora, a cap-maker and vecino de Toledo, “bound over” Catalina,
his ten year-old daughter as a domestic servant for a stipulated period of four years toBaltasar Pacheco in Toledo.（46） Another example is Juan de Torres, a hosier born in
Madrid. Although documents do not give us precise information of the place where Torres did his apprenticeship to become a hosier, it is likely that his father apprenticed him
to a master in Madrid. At the age of twenty, when he left Madrid for Barcelona, he wasalready able to make a living as a hosier.（47）Even the family of Jerónimo González, fromthe small town of Alva de Tormes, managed to apprentice him to a tailor in their hometown, as González himself recounted :“I was born in Alva de Tormes where I grew up in my parents’ house until I became
twenty-five years-old. There in Alva de Tormes I dedicated myself to learning to read
and write, and also to tailoring. From there I went to Ciudad Rodrigo because there I
had a brother, whose name was Francisco González, and was also a tailor. From Ciudad
Rodrigo, I went to Placencia. In these places I think I spent four years and I was working as a tailor...”（48）
Farmer-peasants［labradores］also tended to remain in their birth places until adulthood.
Out of 33 people who left their birth places after the age of nineteen, 12 were farmerpeasants. An illustrative example is, Alonso Díaz, born in Quintanilla around 1562. Hestayed in his hometown working as a farmer-peasant［labrador］until the age of twenty,
when he left Quintanilla for Carpio to serve for Nicolás López, another labrador.（49） The
fact that labradores tended to stay in their native places until adulthood is not a novelty
人文・自然研究第号

15

to our knowledge. Historians have distinguished landowning farmers from non-proprietors and pointed out that landholding farmers were less likely than proletarians tomigrate from the time they were young. Historian Leslie Page Moch has explained thistendency in her book, Moving Europeans that young people of landowning families
tended to work in the land of their family and avoided to work as a farmer servant insomeone else’s lands.（50）It is likely that Spanish labradores remained in the land of theirparents if they had any until they became adults. Yet, the fact that some labradores

84

owned a piece of land did not always stop them from migrating elsewhere. Moch also

pointed out that there are examples of landholders abandoning the lands of their family.（51）With respect to 12 labradores out of 33 migrants who left their native places after
the age of eighteen, it is unknown whether landholding influenced the age at leaving
native places, since discurso provides no information on their landownership. However, if
we take into account the fact that landownership was not necessarily equivalent towealth, that some tenant labradores who worked on rich soil made more gains than labradores who owned less fertile lands,（52） it is probable that not only landowners but also
non-proprietors stayed with their parents in their native places until they became adults.
The evidence examined so far clearly demonstrates that in the period under discussion, it was the norm for members of the lower social strata to leave their hometowns,
either in childhood, in adolescence or after they came of age. Very few people stayed intheir hometowns throughout their lifetimes. Of the 346 men and women examined, only
28（8％）declared that they had never left their hometowns.
Ⅳ．Migration Trajectories
As has been discussed, the research of Vassberg and Roel offers a framework to
examine the departure of the lower strata from their birth places. However, as wasstated earlier, their research concentrates on specific moments of migrants’ lives or locations for in and out-migration. The aim of this section is to provide a new perspective on
migration by looking at migrants’ trajectories over the course of their lives. It traces the
movements of members of the lower strata over the course of their lifetimes. Trajectories of migration from place to place are plotted through an analysis of discursos de lavida. In the course of this mapping process, the value of the historical model introduced
by Vassberg and others is demonstrated. Moreover, through an analysis of this new
body of evidence, members of the lower strata are shown to be more mobile than has
been understood until now.
The study of discursos overcomes the limitation of sources employed by researchers
to study migration. For example, marriage registers provide a valuable source of evimarriages were contracted between locals and outsiders demonstrated a more geographically mobile population of the period than had been understood till then. Nonetheless, the same statistic also suggested that the remaining two-thirds of marriages areevidence of a sedentary population.（53） Because marriage registers do not provide information on the residence of married couples after and before the wedding, as source ofevidence to study geographical movement they are limited. The study of the discursosde la vida opens a wider context to interpret this evidence : it provides information
which demonstrates that the remaining two-thirds of married couples （contracted
between locals）did not necessary remain as residents in their hometowns after theirweddings. Analysis of discursos reveals that it was very common among the members of

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spaindence for the study of migration. The statistic that in some small villages one third of

the Spanish lower strata to migrate elsewhere after taking a spouse. Juan Jiménez
related in his discurso that he married a fellow villager in their birthplace, Santa Cruz.

85

He then left her behind there to go and serve friars in Guadalupe.（54）In addition, the following example indicates that migrants would also return to their hometowns to marry
after a number of years of migration. Alonso de Oltiveros, a woolen cloth weaver aged
fifty-eight born in El Moral, was one of majority who married his fellow country woman
in his birthplace. However, marrying his fellow country woman did not mean that henever left his native place. His discurso reveals that he had migrated in the years before
he contracted marriage. He left home at the age of four, when he moved to his maternal
grandparents’ house in Ciudad Real. He stayed there until he was about twenty or
twenty-two years old. Then, he returned to El Moral, married a fellow country woman,and obtained vecindad［citizenship］of the place.（55）
Prior to examining this evidence, it is important to comment on its limitations. The
discursos de la vida are by no means complete descriptions of migrants’ journeys.
Migrants provided in their discursos information on the places they visited and lived
until they were brought to the Inquisition, but they did not necessarily provide all thedata regarding their travels. Concerning this issue, a key factor was the relationshipbetween a person’s employment and residence. The description of places lived in is usually accompanied by a statement of the migrants’ employment status in that place. It
may be inferred that migrants visited places where they failed to find work and hence
made no mention of in their discursos. Thus the information obtained from discursos
most likely underestimates the number of places visited and lived.
However, it is not the intention of this research to predict higher numbers that thedata provides. Indeed the relationship of employment to residence is a fundamental criteria for the analysis of this data. In a few cases no mention of work is made. In theseexamples it may be assumed that only a short period of time was spent in a place, due
to migrants’ lack of work to support themselves. For the purpose of this analysis theseplaces have been excluded when calculating the number of places migrants resided in. It
is important to note that it is very likely that although the majority of discursos made no
mention of these fleeting stays in cities and towns, they too underwent these experiences in their search for work. In addition to the more gradual process of migration
based on employment and residence, there would have been an additional more transient movement of people.
Continuing the focus on the 220 migrants who gave their age at first migrating, Table
人文・自然研究

II offers an overview of the number of places they travelled to prior to their encounter
with the Inquisition. The average number of places migrants resided in was 4.4, whichclearly demonstrates that migrants, after their initial departure, moved around before
settling down in a place.（56）

第
号

15

To substantiate the claim that migration to a number of places before settling down86

was the norm, Table III examines the ages of the 41 migrants recorded as residing inTable II. Number of places resided in by migrants
80

67

number of migrants

70
60
50

41

40

1 place46

2-3 places42

4-5 places2430

6-7 places
over 8 places

20
10
0
number of places resided intheir first destination : 27 of these（65.9％）were younger than thirty, while migrants
over age fifty who had more time to travel around counted only 3 out of 41. This factinsinuates that 27 migrants（65.9％）who were younger than thirty stayed in their firstdestination due to the lack of time they had ; if these people had been caught at theInquisition at the later stage of their life, it is very likely that they would have moved on
to another place or more. Further support for this is provided by Table IV, which examines the relationship between the number of places resided in and the ages, at leaving
home, of migrants under the age of thirty. The breakdown of migrants’ ages offered bytable IV reveals that 12（44.4％）out of the aforementioned 27 migrants had departed
from their birth places after the age of nineteen, which explains their limited experienceof migration. Following the evidence in table II, it may be concluded that these young
migrants would have gone on to migrate again in their thirties or forties if they had notbeen arrested by the Inquisition. In fact, Table V indicates the probability of this : 47 outof 54 migrants between the age of thirty-one and forty had resided in more than twoplaces. The second largest group of migrants in this age bracket had resided in 4 to 5
places, and the third largest in more than 8.

3over age 51

5

between 41 and 50
between 31 and 40

6

under 30
27

0

5

10

15
number of migrants

20

25

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

Table III. Number and ages of migrants who resided in their first destination

30

87

Table IV. Relationship between the number of places resided in and the age atleaving home among 27 migrants under age 30
100%
90%

% of migrants

80%
70%
60%

departure after 19

50%

between 9 and 18

40%

before 8

30%
20%
10%
0%
1

2

3

4

5

number of places resdided inTable V. Number of places resided in by migrants aged between
31 and 40

number of migrants

20
15

1 place104-5 places

2-3 places
6-7 places

5

over 8 places0
number of places resided inThough it is difficult to sort out the total distance travelled by every migrant sincesome of the places they referred to cannot be identified neither on modern maps nor oncontemporary ones, a glance at the total distance travelled by some migrants, in addition
to the number of the places they resided in discussed above, helps to grasp the dimension of ordinary people’s migration during the period under examination. Historians on
early modern Spanish migration have pointed out that geographical movement in the
countryside was usually “local movement”. They discussed that people chose to migrate
to the nearest town or city.（57） Historians on other European regions made similar
人文・自然研究第号

15points. For example, historian Leslie Page Moch discussed that many English men andwomen between 1660 and 1730 left their parish of birth, but relatively few men andwomen left their home country.（58） My research demonstrates that this was not necessarily the case in sixteenth-century Spain : the distance travelled by migrants tended to
be longer than just inter-parish migration. The great majority of migrants travelled hundreds and thousands of kilometres. By the time the aforementioned Juan Francés, whotravelled 200 kilometres from his parents’ house to the place where his first employer

88

lived at the age of eight, was brought to the Inquisition, he had travelled the total dis-tance of 849 kilometres.（59） Gabriel de Avril, a textile artisan, had travelled the total distance of 904 kilometres by the age of twenty-one. When it came to Luís Gutiérrez, abook seller, the total distance travelled until he was brought to the Inquisition at the ageof forty reached 2,000 kilometres.（60）Examples of migrants who travelled distances over
500 kilometres exceed by far the ones who travelled less.（61） Moreover, it should be
noted that it is very likely that the sum total of distance underestimates the reality sincemigrants did not always declare all the places they had been to.
To develop a clearer understanding of the complexity of these migration trajectories,
a distinction may be drawn between two types of migrant ; those that returned to theirbirth place and those that did not. Analysis of these two types of migrant is the task of
the following two sections.
Ⅴ．Migration motives: return migration
Studies of migration to and from the Indies have revealed that the majority of
migrants did not return to Spain. In particular, Ida Altman’s examination of migrants
from Extremadura in the New World has shown that less than 20％ of migrants
returned to Spain either to stay for good, or to visit.（62） Altman contrasted this fact to a
description, based on limited evidence of migration patterns within the Iberian Peninsula ; she claimed that for migrants within the Iberian Peninsula return migration was
the norm.（63） The research carried out for this study offers a very different picture of
migration with regard to the Iberian Peninsula.
Closer examination of the archive of discursos de la vida shows that few migrants
returned home. As discussed in earlier section, out of 346 members of Spanish lower
strata who provided discursos, 279 were migrants. Drawing on the accounts of these 279
migrants, their discursos demonstrate that only 74（26.5％）went back to their hometowns, either to stay for good, as “returnees”, or simply as “visitors”.（64）An example of a
returnee is Juan Martín de Lucas, a cloth weaver native of El Moral. He first left homeat the age of four, when he moved to his aunt’s house in Manzanares［300 kilometers
El Moral. When his father died, he started to work as a domestic servant for his uncle
and several neighbors in El Moral, where he also learned the skill of weaving. When hereached eighteen again he departed, but this time to Baeza and Ecija［Andalusia, 360
kilometers west］,where he worked as cloth weaver. After spending a year in Andalusia,
he returned once more to El Moral. On this occasion it appears he decided to settle
there and he married a fellow villager, and became vecino of the place.（65） The case of
Pedro López offers an example of a visitor who returned home only to emigrate again.
Aged fifty-nine, López declared that he was born and raised in his parents’ house in
Mora. At the age of twelve or thirteen his parents sent him to serve a magistrate［oidor］in the Chancillería of Valladolid［310 kilometers northwest］. López remained in

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

northwest］. He stayed there for four years and then went back to his father’s house in

his service for ten years after which time he returned to Mora. He stayed there a year
and a half and then went to Alcazar de Consuegra, a village 30 kilometers from Mora,89

where he lived for six or seven years. He at first worked there as an apprentice to ahosier, and then as a journeyman［oficial］of the same profession. Aged about thirty hewent to Toledo ［65 kilometers from Consuegra］, where he married and settled. He
worked in Toledo for about ten years, most likely as a hosier, and then for twenty-sevenyears he was employed as a gatekeeper of Toledoʼs Bisagra. As would be expected of along term resident he became a vecino of Toledo, not of Mora ; López never returned tohis birth place after his second departure.（66）
Regarding the small number of return-migrants from the New World to Spain, thedanger and expenses that the distance between Spain and its colony entailed for
migrants provide an obvious explanation for this fact. Ida Altman argued in her study,
Emigrants and Society, that a decision of return-migration from the Indies depended
upon a range of factors, such as “family background and social and economic status, position within the family, timing of arrival in the Indies... connections and opportunities
found there, and ...individual capabilities and even personalities”（67）It is important to distinguish migration to the Indies from that within the Iberian Peninsula ; the last few factors would have had less significance in the Peninsula. As the distances separating
migrants within the Peninsula from their home towns was not necessarily such a barrier
for them, it may be argued that other factors also intervened and prevented theirreturn. This study develops three key sociological explanations for the limited quantityof return migration within the Iberian Peninsula. The first two explanations follow Altman’s analysis of migration to the Indies : the importance of migrants’ ownership of property in their hometowns and the claims of inheritance of family property. Based on myanalysis of discursos, I then study the significance of the presence of kinsmen inmigrants’ hometowns.
Regarding the issue of property ownership in migrants’ hometowns, the limitations of
the discursos de la vida is apparent, as they make no reference to their property ownership. However, the importance of property of any type as a motive for returning home
has been demonstrated by historians studying geographical movement between Spainand the New World. It has been pointed out that it was likely that men of better social
standing returned to Spain.（68） A similar perspective on this issue was given by David
Jacoby in his comparative work on the migration of wealthy merchants and less-to-do
artisans in the Mediterranean region during the medieval period. His study revealed
that merchants who left their hometowns on business, whether for a short or long
period, maintained property and contacts in their hometowns ; this is a clear case of pre人文・自然研究
第
号

15

90

meditated return migration. In contrast, Jacoby argued that when craftsmen changed
their residence, they completely re-established themselves and their family unit in the
new places chosen, which illustrates the principal of non-return migration. Furthermore,
he has shown that while merchants married their sons and daughters to their fellow
countrymen and women back home, it was common for craftsmen to marry their children into the local community.（69）
Not having property back home may have encouraged migrants to leave. The possibil-ity of inheriting, the second motive under discussion, may have motivated migrants toreturn home. Based on her study of the poor in eighteenth-century France, Olwen Hufton argues that “a great deal［of return migration］depended upon what one was leaving behind the smallest parcel of land, or the prospect of inheriting such, was sufficient
to ensure the return of the migrant.”（70）The same may be said for the poor in sixteenthcentury Spain. Although none of the 74 migrants who returned home declared that they
did so to inherit family property, the discursos de la vida provide a case of return-migration motivated by family inheritance, which is Beltran de Valenciaʼs discurso. Although
he never received any inheritance, he recounted that his uncle Guillén had been leftproperty by a relative. Uncle Guillén traveled from Taranto in the Kingdom of Naples to
Valencia to take up this inheritance.（71）
The following analysis reveals that an important element which influenced migrants’decision to return home was the existence of their kinsmen in hometown. It is demonstrated that migrants would be likely to return to their birth places when more than
two or three of relatives remained in their hometowns.
On the subject of the study of migrants’ kinsmen, it is important to refer to how
migrants maintained contact with their families and native places. The question of inheritance is closely linked to migrant’s knowledge of their familyʼs wellbeing. The aforementioned Beltran de Valencia, whose uncle in Taranto had informed himself of the death of
his kinsman in Valencia, is an indication of the efficiency of communications over large
distances. It is clear that leaving one’s home did not necessarily mean a complete loss ofcontact with one’s family. Migrants often obtained news of their fellow countrymen on
the road and in new places where they settled down. There were the inns and taverns
where fellow countrymen could gather and newly arrived migrants could provide themwith the latest news from their hometowns. Following example clearly demonstrate thiscirculation of news among migrants. When a man from Portugal stopped by at the inn
where Alvaro De Gama was staying, “Alvaro de Gama de Silva asked him for news from
Portugal, and the said Portuguese told him that his cousin, the Marquis Don Alvaro deespecially the news of marriages and deaths, usually spread rapidly between migrants.
Although limited, evidence suggests that having family members whose employment
involved frequent returns to their native places, such as muleteers, was an importantfactor. Juan López Serrano, a shearer and vecino in Almagro, had never returned to his
native place in twenty-six years, yet he had a detailed knowledge of almost all his relatives. His extensive information about his relatives was probably due to his brother, who
was a muleteer.（73）The Inquisition archive offers a valuable body of evidence to study migrants’ knowledge of their families. As part of the Inquisitionʼs first hearing, suspects were asked to

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

Gama had come from the Indies powerfully...”（72） In this way, news of one’s homeland,

identify themselves, and in a number of cases Inquisitors asked for genealogical information. In these cases, which may be found throughout the sixteenth-century, suspects

91

recounted the places of residence and professions of their parents, grand-parents, uncles
and aunts, brothers and sisters, and finally their spouses and children. 73 of 74 migrants,
who returned to their birth place either to stay for good or to visit, provided information
about their family members. Closer study of these genealogies reveals the places of residence of migrants’ relatives, and thus enables the identification of whether migrants’kinsmen still lived in their hometowns, or had also changed their place of residence.
From this analysis, a common characteristic is noted between returnees and visitors. 64
out of the 74 returnees and visitors had at least one of their parents and other kinsmen
living in their birth places（82％）.As for the 27 returnees, it is significant that all except
one had more than a couple of kinsmen still living in their native places.（74） 38 out of 47
visitors declared that they had several relatives residing in their hometown. Two examples illustrate this point. It appears that the family of the cloth-weaver and returnee,
Juan Martín de Lucas, was well established in El Moral, his native village ; most of his
relatives had vecindad there, including his parents, four out of five maternal aunts anduncles and his two brothers. Among his living relatives, only one paternal aunt, who wasmarried to a man from Membrilla did not live in El Moral.（75） Another example of thisconcentration of relatives in one place is provided by the case of Pedro del Olmo, a
returnee peasant-farmer, who was born in Almodóvar del Campo. Del Olmo’s kinfolk
were all living in Almodóvar del Campo as vecinos.（76）
The fact that 82％ of the return migrants had at least more than two relatives still
residing in their hometowns is significant. When compared this statistical data of return
migrants’ relatives to that of non-return migrants’ kinsmen, it becomes more significant.
Unlike the concentrations of kinsmen in migrants’ birth places among returnees and visitors, it was by no means common among non-return migrants. Out of 205 non-return
migrants, only 31 stated that more than two of their family members lived in their（77）
hometowns（15％）.

Usually, non-return migrants’ kinfolk had also migrated elsewhere. Following examples
illustrate that migration was a tendency these 205 non-return migrants shared with
their relatives. Juan de Castro, a migrant cook, left his native village of Hidalguillo at theage of four with his sister and since then never returned home. De Castro was not the
only one who no longer lived in Hidalguillo. According to his testimony, his parents had
died, his brother lived in Villarén and his sister with whom he migrated also lived elsewhere. He also mentioned that he had never known his grandparents. He also declared
人文・自然研究第号

15that he had never met his aunts and uncles and in fact did not know whether he hadany.（78） The same picture emerges from the evidence of Alonso Rebellón, a migrantcarder born in San Cosme de Nete in Galicia ; none of his kinsmen lived in his native village. His parents had died and, although, his grandparents were residents in the village
during their lifetime he had never met them. Nor did he know whether his only aunt,
whose name he vaguely remembered, was dead or alive. Finally, to conclude thisaccount of his lack of family ties, he stated that his only brother had left for the Indies

92

and he had never heard from him.（79）On the basis of this analysis, it is apparent that theexistence of family members in hometowns was a significant motive for return migration.
However, the importance of kinsmen’s existence should not be overrated and emphasis must be maintained on the economic imperative underpinning decisions to migrate
and settle. Further scrutiny of the inquisitorial records reveals whether or not migrants’kinsmen worked in the same profession as their migrant relations. From this information
it may be argued that kinsmen played an important role in providing employment opportunities for return migrants. The absence of the support network provided by kinfolk
may be proposed as a distinguishing feature between returnees and visitors.
Study of the genealogies combined with the discursos de la vida provides a limited,
but nonetheless valuable basis to explore this issue. It should be added that this question
would benefit from further archival research. All 27 returnees provided information on
their kinsmen’s profession. Of this number, 18（66％）indicated that they had relatives
who worked in the same profession. The aforementioned cloth weaver Juan Martín deLucas provides an example of a returnee who probably found work through kinsmen. He
had three uncles who worked as cloth weavers in his hometown, El Moral.（80） Pedro delOlmo, the returnee farmer-peasant had three brothers also working as farmer-peasants.（81）
In contrast to returnees, visitors rarely had relatives who worked in the same professions as them. For example, none of the visitor Antón de Taragona’s relatives was
engaged in the trade of head-dress making. Of the 46 genealogies that provide information of the professions of visitors’ relatives, only 4 declared that they had relatives
engaged in the same employment as themselves（8％）. An example of these exceptions
is Juan de Mendiola, whose relatives were all goldsmiths. The carder Andres de Peñaver
also had 7 brothers and sisters who were either carders or carders’ wives.（82）It may beargued that the relatives could no longer afford to share their work with the migrantfamily member.

a combination of the factors discussed, property ownership, the prospect of inheritance,
the existence of family members and the job opportunities these kinsmen could offer,would have influenced migrants when making their decision to come home, as well as
influencing their decision to remain or depart again.

Ⅵ．Migration motives: non-return migration
The evidence shows that out of 279 migrants, 205, more than 73％, declared that they
had never returned to their hometowns, but had either continued traveling from place

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

On the basis of the evidence explored in this section it may be argued that any one orto place or settled in new places. Moreover, as has been discussed, 47 out of 74 men who
did return to their birth places did so only as visitors. Therefore, out of 279 migrants,

93

249（89.2％）did not settle down in their birth places. Thus, on the basis of this evidence,
it may be argued that members of the sixteenth-century Spanish lower strata usuallyleft their birth places and lived elsewhere instead of settling down in the place where
they were born. The question of why people did not return to their birth places is more
complex. In addition to the factor discussed in previous section［absence of relatives inmigrants’ hometowns］, three fundamental factors may be identified : legal restrictions,the prospects of job opportunities and the new relationships that migrants established in
the new communities.
As discussed in the previous section, the comparison of the kinsmen’s residence
between return migrants and non-return migrants indicated that the existence of relatives in migrants’ hometowns motivated their return home, and the absence of relatives
in non-return migrants’ hometowns discouraged their return home. Not only could theabsence of migrants’ family members in their hometowns be a significant factor in nonreturn migration, but in certain cases the presence of family members could also effectively be a cause of this form of migration ; in some cases family members were obliged
to enforce legal restrictions. As was examined in section IV, most of those who left theirhometowns in their childhood to work in the handicrafts industry and domestic service
did not return to their hometowns afterwards. One of the reasons for this may well havebeen legal restrictions which prevented them from returning. A frequent occurrence insixteenth-century Spain was that many apprentices abandoned their masters without
finishing their contracted period of apprenticeship. Runaway apprentices could not
return to their hometowns, because if found there, or within five leagues of the place
where they worked, their fathers or guardians［tutores］had to personally return themto their master.（83） Thus, those who broke the indenture of their apprenticeship usuallyneither returned home, nor stayed in the place of their apprenticeship.
Even when journeyman and master status was legally attained, it was common thatjourneymen and masters lived away from their hometowns. On the basis that they had
to leave their hometowns to find a master to be apprenticed to, the prospects of finding
work in their native villages may well have been limited. Therefore, instead of returning
home, some stayed in the place of their first employers and found jobs there, while others left for new destinations. The study of guild ordenanzas reveals legal prohibitions on
non-members of local guilds working within their jurisdiction, which aimed to protect
local workers. While there is some evidence of the enforcement of these measures, when
人文・自然研究第号

15considering their social impact these legal codes need to be read with caution. In termsof the historiography of artisans, this area of research has established a view of guilds as
closed and authoritative bodies. However, in reality guild authority was not necessarily
always adhered to, and furthermore it was in fact very common for artisans to change
employers and places to live, and in turn for host communities to accept outsiders andtheir labour contribution. Hence, it may be argued that once an apprenticeship was completed, artisans, whether journeymen or masters, were to a considerable extent free94

from legal restrictions with regard to their migration in search of work.

An illustrative example of the tendency of artisans to search for work in a number ofplaces, seemingly not subject to the guild ordenanzas, is the case of Juan Francés, discussed earlier in section III. He traveled 200 kilometers from his hometown to go to
Alcañiz to work as a live-in servant in the house of master Pedro, a stonemason. After
two or three years in Alcañiz, at the age of ten or eleven he departed for Bujalaroz,
which is sixty kilometers away near Zaragoza, to learn the trade of masonry there. He
worked, in Bujalaroz, as an apprentice for six or seven years, under the supervision of
the masters Joan and Antonio.（84） Finishing his apprenticeship, Juan went to Barbastro,
ninety kilometers away, to work with a different stonemason. After two years in Barbastro he traveled 124 kilometers to Zaragoza, where he worked with another stonemason
for three years. The final piece of information on his trajectory recounts that he left for
El Escorial, 375 kilometers to the north-west, where he found work as a stonemason
with various masters of the profession.（85） It is conceivable that he was employed in theconstruction of the Monastery of San Lorenzo, then being built.
The discussion of legal restrictions highlights how the search for employment was an
overarching concern, which broke family ties and encouraged guilds and communities tooverlook their protectionist laws. Once more it should be stated that the search for
employment was the most significant motive for non-return migration. Many migrants
did not return home and instead, some stayed in the place of their first employers andfound jobs there, while others left for new destinations in search of jobs, as has been
illustrated in the previous example and is shown in the Table I.
Patterns of migration, similar to artisans, may be noted in the case of servants. Unlike
runaway apprentices, there was no legal impediment preventing life-cycle servants
returning home, yet, as well as licit artisans, they did not have much prospect of supporting themselves in their native places. Thus, instead of returning home, they moved
from place to place when necessary. People who worked as servants rarely stayed with
their initial employers. 38 out of 43 servants who provided a discurso de la vida, declaredthat they had worked for two employers or more.（86） When they switched jobs, they
the 38 servants who had worked for more than two employers, 36 found their new
employer in a new location.（87）
Other groups who migrated in search of work were labradores, day-labourers［jornareros］and shepherds. On the whole they also did not return home once they had
migrated. It is interesting to note that there were legal and fiscal measures to encourage
this type of labourer and, in certain specific cases, more specialised artisans to follow
this pattern of migration.（88） Sixteenth-century Spanish villages and towns often sought
to attract migrants to settle and work in their communities with financial attractions,such as tax exemption for the first 5, and in some cases, even 10 years. As a result,peasant-farmers were continuously on the lookout for such appeals for new settlers. It is

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

usually found their new employment in new places, but rarely their native place. Out of

likely that Diego Sanchez, a labrador and native of Berlanga［Valencia］, was one ofthem. In 1560, aged 40 he testified that he had “lived” in Granada, Albacete, Villaninas

95and Puebla de Montalvan.（89） Day-labourers, who depended mainly on the seasonal olive,
grain or grape harvests, were also continuously on the move. A typical case of such daylabourers is given in the discurso de la vida of Pero Muñoz, who declared that he harvested grapes in 4 different places : San Clemente, Ocaña, Mascaraque and Moray.（90）
Migrants changed places to live in search of jobs. Meanwhile, some of them started
new relationships, on occasions even marriages, in new places, and such new relationships discouraged them to return home.（91） Some of these migrants were married men
who had left their wives in their hometowns. Binding new ties, either by marriage or byamancebamiento, often deterred these migrant husbands from returning home for two
reasons. In the first place, as well as the existence of apprenticeship drop-outs’ family
members impeded them of their returning home, the existence of migrant husbands’
abandoned wives became an obstacle for unfaithful husbands to return home. Accompanied by his new woman, heading back to the place where his first wife awaited was byno means a choice. In the second place, when a new job and a new wife in a new place
which provided a migrant husband with a more stable life than the one he had in his
hometown, it was likely that he chose to stay and never returned.
In the section on migration trajectories it was shown that the search for work was
fundamental to a migrant’s choice of residence. The next two sections illustrated this indifferent ways. The discussion of return migration demonstrated that family connections
provided an important element for returnees to find work in their hometowns. In contrast the non-return migrants, without this family support, offer a different perspectiveon the search for work and residence. As has been shown, the family itself could be an
impediment to returning home. However, what is more relevant is the range of employment possibilities across the peninsula, and this offers a more significant explanation for
why the number of non-return migrants was so high. Furthermore, it is important tohighlight a point raised by Vassberg, and demonstrated above that once migrants had
left their birth places, it was unlikely that they could establish themselves in their firstdestinations, and as a result, many kept on changing their residence.（92） The cases of
non-return migrants examined have supported this point. Thus, summarising the key
points raised in the last four sections, the labour market was fundamental to the mostcommon migration phenomenon, non-return migration, but what is more, it encouraged
migrants to travel to a number of places in the search for employment and the means toestablish themselves in a given place.
人文・自然研究第号

15

Ⅶ．Mi pueblo
The conclusions reached in the course of this article are highly significant for studies
on migration. As has been discussed, my research demonstrates the validity of the workof Vassberg and other scholars, and what is more, it signals how the phenomenon of
migration is more complex and widespread than has been considered until now. Furthermore, my analysis of the discursos de la vida and genealogies found in inquisitorial trial

96

records, accompanied by notarial documents, indicate that a wealth of archival materialremains to be examined on this issue. To provide an additional insight into these findings, this concluding section examines the contemporaneous language and concepts of
migration. Analysis of these factors provides a foundation for thinking about the social
dynamics that structured communities ; the inclusion of new members to them. In thisway, a more complex picture of migration is developed in which issues that haveemerged from this archival study are further contextualised.
In focusing on the migration patterns of members of the lower strata, it is apparent
that their attitudes to their native places differed from members of the property owning
sections of society ; property-less people often formed strong bonds to the places theymigrated to while property-owning people maintained sense of belonging to their birthplaces. Bearing this in mind, Don Quixote’s squire, Sancho Panza clearly appears as an
exceptional member of the lower strata. It may be argued that Sancho Panza’s joyous
declaration to his pueblo, “Open your eyes, beloved home of mine ［mi pueblo］, andbehold your son Sancho Panza come back again”, which perhaps marks a step towards
more modern notions of mi patria, is an expression of upper strata ideas.（93） Needless tosay, Cervantes was not writing social realism and his text may be read as a source for
attitudes to migration of the upper strata. Considering the construction of Sancho Panza’s character, with his faltering attempts to imitate his master, it would not seem fanciful
to suggest that Cervantes made him express ideas above his social position.
An understanding of the ties that the upper strata held to their native places is foundin other parts of Cervantes’ text. For example, Cervantes depicted fidelity to one’s land
and lineage in the episode of “the captured” in Don Quixote. The magistrate Juan Perez
de Biesma, the captured’s brother, related how his younger brother went to Peru andmade his fortune there. According to the magistrate, his younger brother, in addition to
returning all the money his father had given him before he left for the Indies, continued
to send money to his father, living in his native village in Las Montañas de León, eventhough he was a man of property and had no need to be provided for.（94） Cervantes’description is indicative of upper strata loyal attitudes to their native places. Such alleclose ties with their feudal estates by constructing convents and hospitals within theirterritories, participating in local festivals, as well as providing for the local poor.
In terms of the argument developed in this article that the search for employment
was a fundamental concern for the lower strata, it may be argued that they did not necessarily maintain strong ties to the place where they were born, but to their adoptive
places. Although evidence for lower strata attitudes is problematic, they may be
detected in a number of different sources. In literary representations, for example, of thelower strata may be considered. They are portrayed as lacking a sense of belonging totheir birthplaces. Lazarillo de Tormes, throughout the seven chapters of his life, neverNon-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

giances could be expressed in a number of forms ; noble families actively promoted theirlooked back with nostalgia on the days he lived in his native village.（95） Neither did El
Buscón once recall his hometown.（96） In this context it is worth noting that we do not97even know whether Sancho Panza was a native to his pueblo. All Cervantes tells hisreaders is that he went back to his house where his wife and children awaited.
Following these literary texts, it may be argued that instead of maintaining an exclusive sense of belonging to their native places, members of the lower strata demonstrated
a sense of belonging to the places they chose to settle in. An original perspective onlower strata migrants’ contrasting attitudes to their birth places and adoptive places isdiscerned in a close reading of the discursos de la vida. In particular the use of verbs of
movement, especially the verbs “return” and “go”, is examined and provides valuable
insights into migrants’ attitudes. A clear sense of the usage and definition of these terms
requires careful scrutiny. In some cases it is apparent that “returning” to a place meant
going to a place once visited in the past, as is demonstrated in the case of Xaime Manobel, who employed the verb “return” not only when he referred to his native or adoptive
places, but also to all places he had once visited. He related ;“I was born in the said village of Sarinena in my parents’ house where...I stayed until theage of fifteen or seventeen, from there I went to Huescar...from there I went toValencia...then I returned to Huescar...afterwards I went to live in the village ofSarinena...from there I went to...Zaragoza...from there I went to the Capital de
Huescar...from there I returned to...Sarinena...from there I went to Catalonia...then I cameback to Sarinena and from there I returned to Zaragoza...［my italics］”（97）However, other discursos de la vida indicate that migrants distinguished “return” from“go”, and used the verb “return” when they referred to the place with which they
identified a sense of belonging. This is apparent in cases of return migrants. Two distinct
tendencies in the use of the verb “return” may be noted that correspond with theindividual migration patterns of return and non-return migrants.
In section two, three historiographical views on migration were discussed. The first ofthese, which argued for Spanish Villages as immobile and isolated, may also be identified
with a related historiographical convention, which is the concept of inhabitants’ loyal
allegiance to their birthplaces as mi patria.（98） As was indicated in the analysis of the
Cervantes characters, the notion of an emotional and ideological attachment to a native
place was an upper strata attitude. A demonstration of how the lower strata would shift
their allegiance to places where they took up residence and found work is indicated in
人文・自然研究第号

15

the use of the verb “return” in the discursos de la vida. Following the arguments of “mipatria” historians, it would be expected that migrants would use the verb “return” torefer to their birth places. An example of this is Francisco Tornamira, a returnee who
seems to have considered his native place as his pueblo. He distinguished between where
he “went to” and where he “returned to”. He recounted that “he was born in
Tudela...from Tudela he went to Logroño...from there he returned to Tudela...from there
he went to San Sebastian...from there he went to Verara, from there he returned to98

Tudela and then to Zaragoza, and from there to Tudela and then to Madrid, and from

Madrid he returned to Tudela, ...［my italics］”（99） It is clear that he exclusively used
“return” when referring to Tudela, his native place.
However, in the case of non-return migrants the use of the verb “return” indicates
their shift of loyalty and sense of belonging to a new place. For example, a non-return
migrant Luis Gutiérrez, aged forty, was born in Cuenca and raised in Huete until the ageof seven or eight. At the time of his trial before the Inquisition he was a resident ofToledo. In his discurso he referred to Toledo, not Cuenca, whenever he employed theverb “return”.（100） It may be concluded from this use of the verb “return” that Toledo,
his adoptive city, was the place he felt he belonged to and thus returned to.
Non-return migrants’ application of the verb “return” to identify a sense of belonging
to a new place, is also noted in the discursos of migrants who visited their birth places,
but did not settle there. They did not use the verb “return” when describing their journeys back home, but employed it to refer to journeys to their adoptive places. Pedro
Chamorro, born in villa de Trijeque, left his hometown when he was eleven or twelve.
Although he visited Trijeque, he never lived there again. As an adolescent he went to
Alcalá de Henares, forty kilometers south-west of Trijeque, where he spent eight years.
At the age of twenty, he left Alcalá de Henares for Salamanca. After three or four years,“he returned to Alcalá de Henares［my italics］”. But when he finally went back to Trijeque, his native village, he declared that “he came to the villa de Trijeque ［myitalic］.”（101） The discurso of Juan Baptista further illustrates this. Like Chamorro, Baptista visited his birth place, but he never stated that he returned to his birth place.
Instead, whenever he referred to his visits, he stated that ; “I went to Daimiel（his native
village）.”（102）For Baptista, the place he returned and belonged to was no longer Daimiel,
but Toledo, where he had settled. Thus, this analysis further demonstrates that a
migrant’s native place was not always the one to which he or she returned or held asense of belonging to.
Through this survey of migrants’ language in the discursos de la vida, it has been
did not necessarily maintain a lifelong identification with their birthplaces. The contrast
to the upper strata attitudes, as well as those of the mi patria historians, is clear.
Although a parallel may be drawn between the attitudes of return migrants and theupper strata, it is important to remember firstly, that they are a minority and secondly,that they remained in their birth places because they could sustain themselves there. It
may thus be argued that the non-return migrants, who left their native places in searchof work, are more representative of the lower strata. To conclude this survey, an additional group of sources needs to be considered.
The attitudes of non-return migrants are clearly depicted in a Golden Age Castilian

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

shown that the lower strata formed new ties to adoptive places and communities andproverbs compiled by Maestro Gonzalo Correas［1571-1631］such as ; “for the good man
distant lands are his patria［Al buen varón, tierras ajenas su patria le son］”.（103） Similar99

proverbs which express sense of belonging toward adoptive places abound. The following are some comparable examples, although their precise date is unknown ; “you are notfrom where you were born, but where you graze your flock.［No eres de donde naces,sino de donde paces.］”（104）; “where one finds well-being, there you find your patria［Allíestá la patria, donde uno bien se encuentra ; Donde se está bien, allí está la patria］”（105）; or“the place you find well being, make it your patria.［La tierra en que te vaya bien, por tu
patria la ten.］”（106） While the value of these texts as historical sources is problematic,
nonetheless, as further evidence of lower strata attitudes to migration to new communities, they are significant.
It may be argued that the language of migrants and these proverbs signal the dual
nature of migration : migrants’ abandonment of their native places and their integration
into new communities. Their labour contribution would have been the first stage of
migrants’ integration, which would have accompanied their fulfillment of the social practices and obligations required to obtain vecindad. With regard to the historical researchon vecindad, further scrutiny of the discursos de la vida would be valuable, as manyrefer to migrants’ identities as vecinos in their adoptive places, such as in the case of
Pedro López, a native of Mora, who later on became a vecino of Toledo.（107）註（１）Jerónimo de Alcalá Yáñez y Rivera, Alonso, mozo de muchos amos o El donado hablador（Madrid : Promoción y Ediciones, 1980）（２）La vida de Lazarillo de Tormes y de sus fortunas y adeversidades（Madrid : Espasa-Calpe,1993）;Francisco de Quevedo, El Buscón（Madrid : Editorial Castalia, 1990）（３）Archivo Histórico Nacional Inquisición, legajo 33, expediente 30（hereafter AHN INQ, leg.
exp. ）（４）For example, some local concejos［municipal government］required non-native would-be
vecinos to give provisions and/or money to other vecinos, while natives were partiallyexempt from such duties. See for example the compilation of local ordinances in theregion of Cantabria in Pérez Bustamante and Baró Pazos（eds.）,El Gobierno y la administración de los pueblos de Cantabria（Santander : Institución Cultural de Cantabria, 1988）
p. 331. “Ordenanzas del Concejo de Tudes. 1591. Capítulo 5. Sobre admisión de vecinos”（５）Margarita Ortega, “El período Barroco（1565-1700）” in E. Garrido（ed.）, Historia de las
Mujeres en España（Madrid : Editorial Sintesis, 1997）,p. 270.
（６）For example, even if an immigrant had passed the examination to become a licensed journeyman or master elsewhere, guild regulations required that all would-be workers had toretake the local guild exam.
（７）Carlos Gómez-Centurión, “Los horizontes geográficos de los españoles” in J. N. Alcalá-（８）See for example articles in Antonio Eiras Roel and Ofelia Rey Castelao（eds.）, Migracio-

第（９）María F. Carbajo Isla, La Población de la Villa de Madrid. Desde finales del siglo XVI

15

hasta mediados del siglo XIX（Madrid : Siglo XXI, 1987）, pp. 115-125 ; -, “La población de号

人文・自然研究

Zamora（ed.）, La vida cotidiana en la España de Velázquez（Madrid : Ediciones Temas de
Hoy, 1989）,pp. 29-30.
nes internas y medium-distance en la Península Ibérica, 1500-1900（Santiago de Compostela : Xunta de Galicia, 1994）

la villa de Madrid desde finales del siglo XVI hasta mediados del siglo XIX.” in Boletín dela Asociación de Demografía Histórica, vol. II-3, 1984, p. 6 ; Allfredo Alvar Ezquerra, El

100

Nacimiento de una Capital Europea. Madrid entre 1561 y 1606（Madrid : Turner Libros.

Ayuntamiento de Madrid, 1989）, pp. 17-63 ; -, Demografía y Sociedad en la España de losAustrias（Madrid : Arco Libros, 1996）; David Ringrose, Madrid and the Spanish Economy,（1560-1850）（Berkeley : University of California Press, 1983）, p. 23 ; Juan Luís de Reyes
León, “Evolución de la Población” in V. Pinto Crespo and S. Madrazo Madrazo（eds.）,
Madrid. Atlas histórico de la ciudad. siglos IX-XIX（Madrid : Fundación Caja de Madridy Lunwerg Editores, 1995）, pp. 140-45 ; Jerónimo López-Salazar Pérez, Estructuras agrarias y sociedad rural en la Mancha（ss.XVI-XVII）（Madrid : Instituto de Estudios Manchegos, 1986）, pp. 90-99 ; As a consequence of the migrations absorbed into Madrid, bountiful villages became depopulated and some were even abandoned ［despoblados］.
Biblioteca Nacional de España mss.11317（32）La villa de Madrid sobre la mundança dela corte..., 1600.
（10）Jean-Claude Larquié, “Les families madrilènes à lʼépoque moderne （aspects
démographiques）” in S. Madrazo and V. Pinto（eds.）, Madrid en la época moderna : Espacio, sociedad y cultura （Madrid : Universidad Autónoma, Casa de Velázquez, 1991）,
pp. 159-76.
（11）Jordi Nadal and Emili Giralt, Immigració i redreç Els francesos a la Catalunya dels segles
xvi i xvii（Barcelona : Eumo Editorial, 2000）,pp. 87-254 ; Ofelia Rey Castelao and Francisco
Pérez Rodríguez, “Movimientos migratorios en el municipio de A Cañiza, siglos XVII al
XIX” in A. Eiras Roel（ed.）, Aportaciones al estudio de la emigración gallega. un enfoquecomarcal（Santiago de Compostela : Xunta de Galicia, 1992）, pp. 33-44 ; Ofelia Rey
Castelao, “Migraciones internas y medium-distance en Galicia, siglos XVI-XIX” in Migraciones internas y medium-distance en la Península Ibérica..., pp. 85-130 ; Alberto Marcos
Martín, Auge y declive de un núcleo mercantil y finaciero de Castilla la Vieja. Evolución
demográfiica de Medina del Campo durante los siglos XVI y XVII（Valladolid : Universidad de Valladolid, 1978）,pp. 261-96.
（12）Antonio Eiras Roel, “Migraciones internas y medium-distance en España en la Edad Moderna” in Migraciones internas y medium-distance en la Penísula Ibérica..., pp. 37-84 ; David
E. Vassberg, The Village and the Outside World in Golden Age Castille : Mobility and
Migration in Everyday Rural Life（Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1997）（13）See Vassberg, The Village and the Outside World..., pp. 98-102. For percentages of outmarriages, see Alfredo Floristán Imízcoz, La Meridad de Estella en la Edad Moderna : loshombres y la tierra （PamplonaDiputación Foral de Navarra, 1982）, pp. 146-50 ; Ramón
Lanza García, Población y Familia campesina en el Antiguo Régimen. Liébana, siglos
XVI-XIX（Santander : Ediciones Librería Estudio, 1988）, pp. 53-56, 159-60 ; Miguel Rodríguez Cancho, “Migraciones Internas en la Extremadura Moderna” in Migraciones internas
y medium-distance en la Península Ibérica..., pp. 334-35.
（14）Vassberg, The Village and the Outside World..., pp. 48-66.
（15）Vassberg, The Village and the Outside World..., pp. 110-14.
（17）Carmelo Viñas y Mey, Relaciones histórico-geográfico-estadísticas de los pueblos deEspaña. hechas por iniciativa de Felipe II. Reino de Toledo （tercera parte）（Madrid :CSIC, 1963）,p. 474.
（18）Alberto Marcos Martín pointed out the same criticism with respect to the limits of marriage and hospital registers as a source of information, though he did not provide new
evidence to overcome the said limits. Marcos Martín, Auge y Declive..., pp. 271-72 ; Demographer Massimo Livi Bacci commented on the method and scope of historical demography. He claimed that macro and micro approaches should be “conceptually reconciled”,
instead of employing only one of the approaches. See Massimo Livi Bacchi, “New Dimensions for Historical Demography”” in. H. Étienne（ed.）,Historiens et Populations（Louvainla Neuve : Academia, 1991）,pp. 11-23.
（19）Jean-Pierre Dedieu, “Les quatre temps de lʼInquisition” in B. Bennassar（ed.）,LʼInquisition

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain（16）Vassberg, The Village and the Outside World..., pp. 165-68.

espagnole. XVe-XIXe siècle（Paris : Hachette, 1979）,p. 25.
（20）Jean-Pierre Dedieu, “The Archives of the Holy Office of Toledo as a Source for Historical101

Anthropology” in G. Henningsen and J. Tedeschi（eds.）, The Inquisition in Early Modern
Europe（Dekalb, Illinois : Northern Illinois University Press, 1986）,pp. 158-89.
（21）José Luis González Novalín, “La Inquisición Española” in R. García-Villoslada（ed.）, Historia de la Iglesia en España（Madrid : Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1980）,p. 138.
（22）AHN INQ, leg.75, exp. 2（23）AHN INQ, leg. 23, leg. 24, leg. 25, leg. 26, leg. 27, leg. 28, leg. 29, leg. 30, leg. 32, leg. 33,
leg. 34, leg. 35, leg. 36, leg. 37, leg. 38, leg. 39, leg. 40, leg. 41, leg. 42, leg. 43, leg. 44, leg. 45,
leg. 46, leg. 47, leg. 48, leg. 69, leg. 70, leg. 71, leg. 72, leg. 73, leg. 74, leg. 75, leg. 76, leg. 77,
leg. 78, leg. 79, leg. 80, leg. 81, leg. 82, leg. 83, leg. 84, leg. 85, leg. 86, leg. 87, leg. 88, leg. 89,
leg. 90, leg. 121, leg. 122, leg. 123, leg. 124, leg. 125, leg. 126, leg. 127, leg. 128, leg. 129, leg. 204,leg. 205, leg. 206, leg. 207, leg. 208, leg. 209, leg. 210, leg. 211, leg. 212, leg. 213, leg. 214,
leg. 215, leg. 216, leg. 217, leg. 218, leg. 219, leg. 220（24）AHN INQ, leg. 204, exp. 46 ; AHN INQ, leg.41, exp. 8（25）AHN INQ, leg. 75, exp. 36 ; AHN INQ, leg. 221, exp. 5 ; AHN INQ, leg. 209, exp. 2 ; AHN
INQ, leg. 74 exp. 9 ; AHN INQ, leg. 206, exp. 23 ; AHN INQ, leg. 129, exp. 11 ; AHN INQ,
leg. 217, exp. 10（26）Of these 346 individuals, 323 were men and 23 were women.
（27）cobblers, tailors, bakers, carpenters, engravers, stonemasons, sword-makers, weavers,
bricklayers, shearer, plasterers, tanners, hosiers, carders, blacksmith, basket-makers, drapers, silversmiths, silk-spinners, dyers, head-dress makers, etc.
（28）AHN INQ, leg. 219, exp. 11 ; A student at the University of Alcalá de Henares, Pero
Gutiérrez’s father and his uncles were also peasant-farmers. See AHN INQ, leg. 71, exp. 29（29）Jean Pierre Dedieu, “Le Modèl Sexuel : La Défense du Mariage Chrétien” in LʼInquisition
Espagnole, p. 322 ; Jaime Contreras, Santo Oficio de la Inquisición en Galicia 1560-1700
Poder, Sociedad y Cultura（Madrid : Akal Editor. 1982）,p. 648.
（30）Ana Hernández, a vecina of Villa de Lillo married three times in her life. First, she married to a neighboring farmer and had two children. After her husband died, she became awidow and remarried another neighboring farmer and had a daughter with him. But theirmarriage did not last long, not because her second husband died but because he disappeared. Tired of waiting for him to come back, Ana remarried a third time in the Villa deLillo. AHN INQ, leg. 26, exp. 1（31）A typical phrase of blasphemy was “I renounce God and the mother who gave birth tohim.”（32）Juan Blázquez Miguel, La Inquisición en Castilla-la Mancha（Madrid : Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Córdoba, 1986）, pp. 133-35 ; Jaime Contreras, El Santo Oficio de laInquisición... ; Jean-Pierre Dedieu, “Le modèle religieux : Les disciplines du langage et delʼaction” in LʼInquisition espagnole, pp. 241-68 ; García Carcel, Herejía y sociedad..., pp. 34344 ; Stephen Haliczer, Inquisition and Society in the Kingdom of Valeacia, 1478-1834（Berkeley : Universitg of California Press, 1990）,pp. 296-98.
（33）AHN INQ, leg. 31, exp. 1（34）Dedieu, “Le modèle sexuel”, pp. 326-27.
（35）Ricardo García Carcel and Doris Moreno Martínez, Inquisición. Historia Crítica
（Madrid : Ediciones Temas de Hoy, 2000）, pp. 297-98 ; Haliczer, Inquisition and Society...,p. 299.
人文・自然研究第号15（36）AHN INQ, leg. 73, exp. 31 ; Dedieu, “Le modèle sexuel”, pp. 326-35 ; Perry, Gender and Disorder..., chapter 7 ; Contreras, El Santo Oficio..., pp. 627-43.
（37）In his study of migration in pre-industrial England, Malcolm Kitch also used biographicaldetails recorded in court depositions to find out about the frequency of leaving home. Yet,according to him, these records did not give full descriptions of witnesses’ geographicalmobility. “unfortunately they under-state the amount of movement. Witnesses sometimes
omitted some of the moves they had made and even occasionally gave an incorrect birthplace. In late sixteenth and early seventeenth-century Sussex and Buckinghamshire only102

17 and 9 per cent respectively of the witnesses deposed that they had moved more than

twice, probably too low a figure, especially for Buckinghamshire.” Malcolm Kitch, “Population movement and migration in pre-industrial rural England”, in B. Short（ed.）,The English Rural Community : Image and analysis（Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,
1992）,p. 73.
（38）AHN INQ, leg. 208, exp. 29 ; See similar examples in AHN INQ, leg. 38, exp. 19, AHN INQ,
leg. 39, exp. 20, AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 36, AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 37, AHN INQ, leg. 70,
exp. 38, AHN INQ, leg. 71, exp. 6. AHN INQ, leg. 204, exp. 46, AHN INQ, leg. 205. exp. 30,
AHN INQ, leg. 206, exp. 28, AHN INQ, leg. 207, exp. 33, AHN INQ, leg. 209, exp. 2, AHN
INQ, leg. 209, exp. 6（39）59 out of 279 migrants did not give information on the age at leaving home.
（40）AHN INQ, leg. 71, exp. 12 ; See similar cases in AHN INQ, leg. 37, exp. 25, AHN INQ,
leg. 73, exp. 24, AHN INQ, leg. 73, exp. 36（41）Vassberg, The Village and the Outside World..., pp. 86-94.
（42）Archivo Histórico Provincial de Toledo, Protocolos Notariales（hereafter AHPT P）1738.
Similar cases abound. Pedro Hernández, a laborer and vecino of Villa de Guadamur, sent
his fifteen years-old daughter, María to Juan Vargas’ house in Toledo, 18 kilometres awayfrom Guadamur, to do domestic service. AHPT, P. 1647 ; Ana de Pastriana, Martin Díaz’s
widow, vecina of Villa de Mora, bound over Isabel, her sixteen years-old daughter toToledo, 33 kilometres away from home to do domestic service for Francisco Rodríguez.
AHPT, P. 1647
（43）AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 30（44）AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 24（45）David-Sven Reher, Town and Country in Pre-Industrial Spain : Cuenca, 1550-1870（Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1990）, p. 296 ; Vassberg, Village and the Outside World..., p. 95.
（46）AHPT, P. 1738. See other examples of the same sort. Diego Hernández, labrador andvecino de Toledo, sent his seven year-old daughter Escolástica to do domestic service inToledo for García Logroño, a cap-maker. AHPT, P. 1738 ; Catalina Rodriguez, Alonso Campos’ wife, vecino de Toledo, also sent her thirteen year-old son Juan, to Gabriel Serrano in
Toledo. AHPT, P. 1738.
（47）AHN INQ, leg. 211, exp. 4（48）AHN INQ, leg. 76, exp. 13（49）AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 1 ; see also other cases of labradores who stayed in their hometowns until they came of age in AHN INQ, leg. 36, exp. 21 ; AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 28 ;AHN INQ, leg. 74, exp. 33.
（50）Leslie Page Moch, Moving Europeans : Migration in Western Europe since 1650（Bloomington & Indianapolis : Indiana University Press, 1992）,p. 37.
（51）Moch, Moving Europeans..., pp. 37-38. Two examples she provided from historiography
migrated in family unit to the village of Artigat in French Navarre despite the fact thatthey owned a good portion of land in Spanish Navarre. Natalie Zemon Davis, The Returnof Martin Guerre（Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1983）; Alan Macfarlane’s study
demonstrated that the village of Lupton in seventeenth century lost half of the families
after two generations : half of the landowning families abandoned their original location.
Alan Macfarlane, “The Myth of the Peasantry : Family and Economy in a Northern Parish” in R. M. Smith（ed.）, Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle（Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2002）,pp. 333-50.
（52）David E. Vassberg, Land and Society in Golden Age Castille（Canbridge : Cambridge University Press, 1984）,pp. 120-50.
（53）Lanza García, Población y familia campesina en el Antiguo Régimen..., pp. 52-67.
（54）AHN INQ, leg. 204, exp. 47

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

are from studies of Natalie Zemon Davis and Alan Macfarlante. Martin Guerre’s family（55）AHN INQ, exp. 43, exp. 5（56）See also Satoko Nakajima, “Advenedizos en Santiago de Compostela en el siglo XVII. Un

103

estudio sobre el registro de bautismo en la parroquia de Corticela” in Ad Limina. Revista
de Investigación del Camino de Santiago y las peregrinaciones, vol. II, 2012, pp. 149-63.
（57）José Antonio Salas Auséns, “Migraciones internas y medium-distance en Aragón（15001900）” in A. Eiras Roel and O. Rey Castelao（eds.）, Migraciones internas y medium-distance en la Península Ibérica, 1500-1900, Vol. II（Santiago de Compostela : Xunta de
Galicia, Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, 1994）,p. 255.
（58）Moch, Moving Europeans..., p. 31.
（59）AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 30（60）AHN INQ, leg. 37, exp. 25（61）Following cases include migrants who travelled more than 500 kilometres. AHN INQ,
leg. 69, exp. 2 ; AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 3 ; AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 9 ; AHN INQ, leg. 69,
exp. 13 ; AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 16 ; AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 32 ; AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 34 ;AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 16 ; AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 21 ; AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 26 ; AHN
INQ, leg. 70, exp. 27 ; AHN INQ, leg. 70, , exp. 28 ; AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 29 ; AHN INQ,
leg. 70, exp. 31 ; AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 32 ; AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 33 ; AHN INQ, leg. 70,
exp. 34 ; AHN INQ, leg. 71, exp. 2 ; AHN INQ, leg. 71, exp. 3 ; AHN INQ, leg. 71, exp. 5 ; AHN
INQ, leg. 72, exp. 16 ; AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 2 ; AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 20 ; AHN INQ,
leg. 72, exp. 22 ; AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 24 ; AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 26 ; AHN INQ, leg. 72,
exp. 34 ; AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 41 ; AHN INQ, leg. 73, exp. 1 ; AHN INQ, leg. 73, exp. 5 ;AHN INQ, leg. 73, exp. 12 ; AHN INQ, leg. 73, exp. 14 ; AHN INQ, leg. 73, exp. 20 ; AHN
INQ, leg. 73, exp. 24 ; AHN INQ, leg. 73, exp. 34 ; AHN INQ, leg. 74, exp. 3 ; AHN INQ,
leg. 74, exp. 7 ; AHN INQ, leg. 74, exp. 14 ; AHN INQ, leg. 74, exp. 34 ; AHN INQ, leg. 75,
exp. 2 ; AHN INQ, leg. 75, exp. 3 ; AHN INQ, leg. 75, exp. 15 ; AHN INQ, leg. 75, exp. 30（62）Ida Altman, Emigrants and Society : Extremadura and Spanish America in the SixteenthCentury（Berkeley : University of California Press, 1989）p. 248.
（63）Altman, Emigrants and Society..., p. 249.
（64）For definitions of returnees and visitors, see Altman, Emigrants and Society..., p. 262.
（65）AHN INQ, exp. 205, exp. 38 ; for other cases of returnees, see AHN INQ, leg. 36, exp. 21,
AHN INQ, leg. 43, exp. 5, AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 2, AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 34, leg. 70,
exp. 44, AHN INQ, leg. 71, exp. 19, AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 1, AHN INQ, leg. 73, exp. 34,
AHN INQ, leg. 74, exp. 9, AHN INQ, leg. 74, exp. 14, AHN INQ, leg. 75, exp. 26, AHN INQ,
leg. 205, ex`.38, AHN INQ, leg. 206, exp. 37, AHN INQ, leg. 207, exp. 2, AHN INQ, leg. 207,
exp. 5, AHN INQ, leg. 207, exp. 7, AHN INQ, leg. 206, exp. 37, AHN INQ, leg. 207, exp. 2,
AHN INQ, leg. 207, exp. 5, AHN INQ, leg. 207, exp. 7, AHN INQ, leg. 209, exp. 12, AHN
INQ, leg. 210, exp. 13, AHN INQ, leg. 212, exp. 10, AHN INQ, leg. 219, exp. 3（66）AHN INQ, leg. 205, exp. 20 ; Another similar case of visitor is the case of Antón de Taragona, an emigrant head-dress maker born and raised in Calatayud. He returned to his birthplace several times but always moved on before long. After spending his childhood in
Calatayud with his mother and stepbrothers, he left for Barcelona to work, where hestayed for two months and returned to Calatayud via Zaragoza. Two years later, he again
left Calatayud but went to Toledo this time, where he stayed for five or six months.
Again he returned to Calatayud only to go back to Toledo the following year, where thistime he stayed. AHN INQ, leg. 210, exp. 23 ; See similar cases in following sources. AHN
INQ, leg. 31, exp. 38, AHN INQ, leg. 41, exp. 9, AHN INQ, leg. 44, exp. 28, AHN INQ, leg. 46,
人文・自然研究第号

15exp. 49, AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 5, AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 13, AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 16,
AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 26, AHN INQ, leg. 70. exp. 33, AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 22, AHN INQ,
leg. 72, exp. 41 ; AHN INQ, leg. 75, exp. 3, AHN INQ, leg. 75, exp. 34, AHN INQ, leg. 75,
exp. 36, AHN INQ, leg, 76, exp. 13 ; AHN INQ, leg. 77, exp. 2 ; AHN INQ, leg. 78, exp. 15,
AHN INQ, leg. 79, exp. 10, AHN INQ, leg. 81, exp. 8, AHN INQ, eleg. 81, exp. 11, AHN INQ,
leg. 90, exp. 6 ; AHN INQ, leg. 128, exp. 14 ; AHN INQ, leg. 129, exp. 1, AHN INQ, leg. 129,
exp. 3, AHN INQ, leg. 129, exp. 5, AHN INQ, leg. 129, exp. 11, AHN INQ, leg. 129, exp. 15,
AHN INQ, leg. 205, exp. 20, AHN INQ, exp. 205, exp. 47, AHN INQ, leg. 208, exp. 47, AHN

104

INQ, leg. 209, exp. 6, AHN INQ, leg. 210, exp. 23, AHN INQ, leg. 211, exp. 1, AHN INQ,

leg. 211, exp. 4, AHN INQ, leg. 211, exp. 32, AHN INQ, leg. 211, exp. 33, AHN INQ, exp. 212,
exp. 24, AHN INQ, leg. 214, exp. 13, AHN INQ, leg. 217, exp. 10, AHN INQ, leg. 220, exp. 10,
AHN INQ, leg. 220, exp. 12（67）Altman, Emigrants and Society..., p. 248.
（68）Altman, Emigrants and Society..., p. 248 ; James Lockhart, “Letters and People to Spain” in
F. Chiapelli（ed.）, First Images of America. The Impact of the New World on the Old, 2（Berkeley : University of California Press, 1976）,pp. 790-91.
（69）David Jacoby, “The Migration of Merchants and Craftsmen : a Mediterranean Perspective（12th-15th Century）” in Simonetta Cavaciocchi （ed.）, Le Migrazioni in Europa. secc.
XIII-XVIII（Firenze : Le Monnier, 1994）,pp. 533-60.
（70）Olwen H. Hufton, The Poor of Eighteenth-Century France 1750-1789（Oxford : Clarendon
Press, 1979）,p. 70.
（71）AHN INQ, 69, exp. 13（72）AHN INQ, leg.30, exp. 4（73）AHN INQ, leg. 205, exp. 32 ; Isabel Hernández, another non-return migrant, also had avery good knowledge of all her relatives’ whereabouts despite ten years of absence fromher hometown. She informed herself of her family most possibly thanks to her husband,
who was a carter. See AHN INQ, leg. 204, exp. 18（74）The only exception is the case of Gerónimo Orizon. AHN INQ, leg. 207, exp. 5（75）AHN INQ, leg. 205, exp. 38（76）AHN INQ, leg. 207, exp. 2 ; For similar concentration of returnees’ kinships in one place,see AHN INQ, leg. 36, exp. 21, AHN INQ, leg. 75, exp. 34 ; AHN INQ, leg. 222, exp. 7, AHN
INQ, leg. 205, exp. 38 ; AHN INQ, leg. 219, exp. 3 ; AHN INQ, leg. 212, exp. 10 ; AHN INQ,
leg. 220, exp. 12 ; AHN INQ, leg. 129, exp. 1 ; AHN INQ, leg. 90, exp. 6 ; AHN INQ, leg. 77,
exp. 2（77）A critical attitude to this evidence must be maintained; it is probable that some nonreturn migrants’ relatives lived in their hometowns unknown to the non-return migrants.
Some migrants had no idea of their relatives’ whereabouts due to their protracted
absence from their hometowns, and so their kinsmen may in fact have still lived there.
For example, Antonio Popula, an emigrant tailor in Madrid, had left his hometown at theage of seven or eight, and when he gave his testimony to the inquisition aged fifty he had
scarce knowledge about his family. He declared that he had never met his paternal
grandparents nor had any memory of them. He continued to say that neither had he had
any contact with his maternal grandparents since leaving his birth place as a child. He
had never met his uncles and aunts, nor did he have brothers and sisters. The only
knowledge he did have about his family was his deceased parents’ names. AHN INQ,
leg.208, exp.3（78）AHN INQ, leg. 33, exp. 30（80）AHN INQ, leg. 205, exp. 38（81）AHN INQ, leg. 207, exp.2; Ana Sánchez, a returnee esparto worker［an artisan work of
preparing fiber from a wiry grass to make paper and cordage］who also did not abandon
a new her hometown, had her father and her brother working as espartero in her hometown. .AHN INQ, leg. 209, exp. 12 ; See also AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 2 ; AHN INQ, leg. 69,
exp. 33 ; AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 34 ; AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 44 ; AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 1 ;AHN INQ, leg. 74, exp. 14 ; AHN INQ, leg. 75, exp. 26 ; AHN INQ, leg. 206, exp. 10 ; AHN
INQ, leg. 207, exp. 2 ; AHN INQ, leg. 207, exp. 7（82）AHN INQ, leg. 41, exp. 9 ; AHN INQ, leg. 46, exp. 49 ; AHN INQ, leg. 222, exp. 7 ; AHN INQ,
leg. 25, exp. 5（83）See indentures of apprenticeship in AHPT, P. 1738.
（84）Taking into account that master Pedro in Alcañiz who Juan Francés had served as a liv-

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain（79）AHN INQ, leg. 208, exp. 15

ing-in servant was a stonemason, it is likely that master Pedro recommended Juan
Francés to go to Bujalaroz.

105

（85）AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 30（86）The five exceptions are Diego de Cabañas, vecino de Talavera, aged 46 who served for
Don Juan de Giguera, for 28 years, Diego Duran, aged 18 who served for a Cardenal of
Talavera for 6 years, Domingo Herrero, aged 20, who worked for Juan de Salinas for 3
months, Juan Jiménez, aged 46, who served for the monatstery of Our Lady in Guadalupe,and Antonio de Villafaña, aged 25, who worked for Juan Pardo for 15 years. AHN INQ,
leg.69, exp. 20 ; AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 13. AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 4 ; AHN INQ, leg. 204,
exp. 47 ; AHN INQ, leg. 211, exp. 16（87）Two exceptions are AHN INQ, leg. 74, exp. 7 and AHN INQ, leg. 74, exp. 34 ; David Vassberg pointed out that adolescent servants often did not stay with their initial employers,
but changed families with whom they served for, and even moved to different villages
several times before adulthood, and in meantime they were on lookout for potential
spouses, with whom they would marry far away from their natal villages. Vassberg, The
Villages and the Outside World..., p. 95.
（88）Vassberg. The Villages and the Outside World..., p. 62.
（89）AHN INQ, leg. 46, exp. 58（90）AHN INQ, leg. 42, exp. 28 ; See also Vassberg, The villages and the outside world..., p. 70.
（91）Altman discusses the importance of migrants’ family connection with the locals in thedecision making of staying on the island. Ida Altman, “Towns and the Forging of the
Spanish Caribbean” in Kimberly Lynn and Erin Kathleen Rowe（eds.）,The Early Modern
Hispanic World : Transnational and Interdiscplinary Approaches（Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press, 2017）,pp. 23-44.
（92）Vassberg, The Village and the Outside World..., pp. 94-7.
（93）Cervantes, Don Quijote, part II, chapter 72. Translation from Don Quixote of La Mancha,translated and with an Introduction by Walter Starkie,（New York : The New American
Library, 1964）,p. 1038 ; Thomas Shelton translated mi pueblo to “my native Country”. The
History of the valorous and wittie Knight-errant Don Quixote of La Mancha, translated byThomas Shelton（London : Richard Hodgkinsonne, 1652）fols. 269v-270.
（94）Cervantes, Don Quixote..., part I, chap. XLII（95）Lazarillo de Tormes...
（96）Quevedo, El Buscon...
（97）AHN INQ, leg. 90. exp. 6 ; see also AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 2 ; AHN INQ, leg. 212, exp. 24（98）Vassberg, The Village and the Outside World..., p. 6 ; For Mi Patria historians, see forexample Victor Balaguer, Historia de Cataluña y de la Corona de Aragón, escrita para
darla a conocer al pueblo, recordándole los grandes hechos de sus ascendientes en VIRTUD, PATRIOTÍSMO Y ARMAS, y para difundir entre todas las clases del amor al Paísy la memoria de sus glorias pasadas Tomo III and IV（Barcelona : Librería de Salvador
Manero, 1862）, especially pp. 703-82 in tomo III and pp. 167-205 in tomo IV ; Manuel Murguía, Historia de Galicia（first published in 1866）（A Coruña : V. de Ferrer Hijo, 1901）;
Pedro Novia de Salcedo, Defensa histórica, legislativa y económica del señorío de Vizcaya
y provincias de Álava y Guipúzcoa, contra las Noticias históricas de las mismas que publicó D. Juan Antonio Llorente, y el informe de la Junta de reformas de abusos de la realhacienda en las tres Provincias Bascongadas（first published in 1829）（Bilbao : Librería deDelmas é Hijos, 1851）;Josep Torras i Bages, La tradició catalana（first published in 1892）
人文・自然研究第号

15（Barcelona : Edicions 62, 1981）, pp. 62-65 ; Enric Prat de la Riba, La Nacionalidad catalana（1906）（Madrid : Alianza Editorial, 1987）, p. 29 ; Rafael Altamira, Psicología del Pueblo
Español（Barcelona : Antonio López, 1902）, p. 40 ; historian Carlos Gómez-Centurión’s definition of a seventeenth-century Spaniard as “before anything, a native of his village, towhich people used to call〈mi patria〉”, and discussed that Spaniards’ native villages “werethe main source of identities for the inhabitants”. Carlos Gómez-Centurión, “Los horizontes
geográficos de los españoles”, pp. 29-30.
（99）AHN INQ, leg. 211, exp. 1 ; See also cases of returnees who used “return” to refer exclu-

106

sively to hometown in AHN INQ, leg. 30, exp. 3 ; AHN INQ, leg. 36, exp. 21 ; AHN INQ,

leg. 43, exp. 5 ; AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 2 ; AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 44 ; AHN INQ, leg. 72,
exp. 20 ; AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 22 ; AHN INQ, leg. 72, exp. 41 ; AHN INQ, leg. 74, exp. 9 ;AHN INQ, leg. 74, exp. 14 ; AHN INQ, leg. 205, exp. 39 ; AHN INQ, leg. 207, exp. 2, AHN
INQ, leg. 210, exp. 13, AHN 211, leg. 4, AHN INQ, leg. 212, exp. 10, AHN INQ, leg. 220,exp. 12（100）AHN INQ, leg. 37, exp. 25 ; For similar cases, see also AHN INQ, leg. 70, exp. 30 ; AHN
INQ, 79, exp. 10 ; AHN INQ, leg. 123, exp. 22 ; AHN INQ, leg. 208, exp. 3 ; AHN INQ,
leg. 208, exp. 15 ; AHN INQ, leg. 211, exp. 9, AHN INQ, leg. 220, exp11.
（101）AHN INQ, leg. 69, exp. 34.
（102）AHN INQ, leg. 77, exp. 2 ; A certain Portuguese man born in Campomayor in Portugal
used “return” when referring to his adoptive place, Madrid where he was a vecino, andalso to Lisbon. AHN INQ, leg. 81, exp. 8 ; See also AHN INQ, leg. 75, exp. 3 ; AHN INQ,
leg. 75, exp. 34 ; AHN INQ, leg. 76, exp. 6 ; AHN INQ, leg. 78, exp. 15 ; AHN INQ, leg. 210,
exp. 23 ; AHN INQ, leg. 129, exp. 3, AHN INQ, leg. 129, exp. 5, AHN INQ, leg. 220, exp. 10（103）Gonzalo Correas, Vocabulario de refranes y frases proverbilaes y otras fórmulas comunes
de la lengua castellana en que van todos los impresos antes y otra gran copia que juntó el
Maestro Gonzalo Correas（Madrid : Visor Libros, 1992）,No. 1554.
（104）Note also a similar proverb which frequently appears in Don Quixote. “No con quien
naces, sino con quien paces“ See chapter 10 and chapter 68 in Second Part.
（105）Jesús Cantera Ortiz de Urbina, Diccionario Akal del Refranero Latino（Madrid : Ediciones Akal, 2005）,p. 256, p. 288.
（106）http://www.refranespopulares.com/（107）AHN INQ, leg. 205, exp. 20

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

107

Abstract

Non-return migration in Sixteenth-Century Spain

Satoko NAKAJIMA
This article on migration in Spain in the sixteenth century is based on two areas of study. Firstly,
through a review of the secondary literature, I examine a number of historiographical questions.
An analysis of these questions provides an overview of the valuable research on migration which
this article draws on. Furthermore, it signals an important aspect of migration that has not beenaddressed by historians until now, which is the fact that the majority of migrants did not return totheir birthplaces. Building on this historiographical study, the second part of this article explores
the complex social phenomenon of migration through an analysis of a new body of evidence
drawn from my extensive archival research on Procesos de Fe（Trials of Faith）. Through an examination of this evidence, it is demonstrated that “non-return migration” was a common practiceamongst men and women of the lower strata in sixteenth-century Spain.

Hitotsubashi Review of Arts and Sciences 15109

人文・自然研究第 15 号