Abstract For a half-century, the historiography on Spanish Habsburg rule suggested that the crown envisioned Indies society as best divided into two segregated sociolegal groups: the republic of the Spaniards and the republic of the Indians. This model was popularized by the eminent mid twentieth century Swedish historian Magnus Mörner and has since become a foundational concept in the field. However, using extensive archival evidence, this article suggests that the Mörner Thesis of the Two Republics is flawed. Historicizing sixteenth-century uses of the concept of the republic, it finds that contemporaries conceived of a complex social order in which many political communities such as municipalities and groups of petitioners could overlap within larger meta-republics, such as the Indies republic and the Christian faith-republic. It then turns to subjects’ uses of the two republics, noting that this conceptual duality appeared rarely in the petitions of Spanish officials, commoners, Indians, Afro-descendants, and mestizos, and was also rare in royal and viceregal legislation. Moreover, this binary most often served to suggest Spaniards’ and Indians’ common ground. The article then reflects on other approaches to understanding the Indies’ Spanish-Indian binary, the place of non-Spanish, non-Indian vassals within republic-thinking, and the staggering complexity of Indies laws, categories, and social interactions.

中文翻译：

---

二、一、多、无：重新思考 16 世纪西班牙印度群岛的西班牙人和印第安人共和国

摘要 半个世纪以来，关于西班牙哈布斯堡王朝统治的史学表明，王室认为印度社会最好分为两个隔离的社会法律群体：西班牙人共和国和印第安人共和国。该模型由 20 世纪中叶著名的瑞典历史学家 Magnus Mörner 推广，此后成为该领域的基本概念。然而，使用大量档案证据，这篇文章表明两个共和国的莫纳论点是有缺陷的。对 16 世纪对共和国概念的历史化使用，发现同时代人构想了一个复杂的社会秩序，其中许多政治社区，如自治市和请愿者团体，可以在更大的元共和制内重叠，如印度共和国和基督教信仰共和国。然后转向臣民对两个共和国的使用，并指出这种概念上的二元性很少出现在西班牙官员、平民、印第安人、非洲裔和混血儿的请愿书中，在王室和总督立法中也很少见。此外，这个二进制最常用于暗示西班牙人和印度人的共同点。然后，文章反思了理解印度的西班牙-印度二元的其他方法、非西班牙、非印度附庸在共和思维中的地位，以及印度法律、类别和社会互动的惊人复杂性。这个二进制最常用于暗示西班牙人和印度人的共同点。然后，文章反思了理解印度的西班牙-印度二元的其他方法、非西班牙、非印度附庸在共和思维中的地位，以及印度法律、类别和社会互动的惊人复杂性。这个二进制最常用于暗示西班牙人和印度人的共同点。然后，文章反思了理解印度的西班牙-印度二元的其他方法、非西班牙、非印度附庸在共和思维中的地位，以及印度法律、类别和社会互动的惊人复杂性。