New Worlds and Th eir Challenges 125brutal, and that the Spaniards were consequently rescuers of the Incan sub-
jects from tyranny. Th is thesis was set out in 1571 in an anonymous publica-
tion that was clearly inspired by Toledo, entitled “Defense of the Legitimacy
of the Rule of the Kings of Spain in the Indies, in Opposition to Bartolomé
de las Casas.” It referred to the tyranny of the Inca kings and expressly dis-
puted the thesis, asserted by las Casas, that the Incans had been voluntarily
accepted as lords by the people.
Not content with this, Toledo set in motion a formal inquiry into the his-
tory of Incas, carried out in 1570– 72. Th is informaciones pro cess (as it was
offi cially called) entailed taking testimony from over two hundred Indians
at eleven diff erent locations in Peru. Modern social scientists would look
askance at the methods employed. Elaborate statements were put to the In-
dian witnesses, to which they were then expected to give a simple yes or no
response. Th e conclusion reached, not surprisingly, was the one that Toledo
obviously sought: that the Incan monarchs had been tyrants and that the
Spanish were welcome deliverers. Th e informaciones also provided helpful
evidence of such perverted practices by the Incans as human sacrifi ce and
cannibalism.
Th e conclusions of the informaciones were promptly attacked by a promi-
nent Spanish Jesuit writer and renowned orator named José de Acosta. He
taught theology at various Jesuit institutions, initially in Ocaña in central
Spain and then (from 1569) in Peru, fi rst in Lima and later in Cuzco. Over a
period of some fi ft een years in Peru, he founded a number of colleges and
became thoroughly familiar with the people and conditions there. His ac-
count of his many travels marks him as a pioneer of the science of anthro-
pology. To international law, his contribution was a fi rm rejection of the
humanitarian justifi cation for Spanish conquest. Th is was on two grounds.
Th e fi rst was that, as a matter of fact, the Incan kings had not been cruel op-
pressors as alleged. Second, and more interestingly, Acosta disputed the law-
fulness of humanitarian intervention in principle. Even if the Incan rulers
had mistreated their subjects, that would not justify conquest by Spain. “[I]t
is not lawful,” Acosta insisted, “to rob a thief, nor does the crime committed
by someone else add to our own justice.”