Appendix: Essay on the Sources "Religious Aspects of the Conquest
of Mexico" by Charles S. Braden, 1930.
The causal reader will have been satisfied to accept uncritically the source
materials presented in the body of this book, however much he may have dissented from the writer's conclusions drawn from
them. Students of history particularly want, however, to know something about the sources employed, by whom written,
under what circumstances and to what degree it is probable that they report the facts correctly. For such readers a
brief critical evaluation of the chief sources is here attempted.
One group of sources is the considerable number
of books or codices which have been preserved. The Mexicans possessed the art of picture writing and of book-making.
There were many codices in existence at the time of the conquest and a few of them have been preserved. Some of those
that remain were produced about the time of the coming of the white man, other shortly after. Some of them are clearly
the work of Christians, and the interpretation of all of them has been the work of Christians, though employing in that
task the aid of older Indians, who still were able to read them.
Alfredo Chavero, to whom we are indebted for much
of the information regarding the sources, has written at length regarding them in the introduction to the first volume
of "Mexico a traves de los Siglos." There is just one thing to be noted about Chavero which may have affected his judgment
in regard to questions of religion. He has displayed in his writings an anti-Catholic bias, at times almost violent.
Yet it has seemed to the writer that, in his weighing of the sources, he has kept this feeling under control and that his estimates
of the value of the religious material is essentially sound.
Regarding these codices and their interpretation, made
for the most part shortly after the conquest, "some by aged Indians who translated them into the common tongue," he
says:
"It would seem at first sight that such interpretations ought to be given entire credence, but they must be
taken seriously in all that refers to religion, for from the beginning the Spanish writers and, naturally, the Indians
neophytes who followed them, showed the tendency to correlate aboriginal traditions with Biblical narratives and since
then have sought in their paintings to discover the accounts of the flood, the tower of Babel, the confusion of tongues, etc.
They sought also from time to time to hide all that encourage the conservation of the dethroned idolatry, which resulted
in their leaving the explanations incomplete."
Speaking particularly regarding the interpreter of the Codex Vaticanus,
Padre Rios, he says,
"He shares the defect already indicated of wanting to explain all their antiquities by Biblical
ideas."
Of the interpreter of the Codex Borgiano, Padre Luis Fabrega, he says,
"He likewise falls into the common
error of subjecting the beliefs of the Mexicans to the traditions and ideas of the Christians."
One of the most
valuable of the Codices is the Codex Ramirez. It was written by an Indian about the time of the conquest. He was doubtless
a Christian. He refers with severity to the ecclesiastics, calling them indolent in the matter of Christian instruction,
saying that they did not baptize Montezuma because the priests who came with the Spaniards were more concerned with
seeking riches than in catechising the poor Indians. The Codex purports to have received the facts narrated from eye-witnesses.
It is early date is evidenced by the fact that the author speaks of the ruins of the great temple as it still existed
at the time he wrote. Chavero considers this the purest of the historical sources and the most important for the genuine
tradition of the Mexican people. It contains a long story regarding the patron god of the Mexicans quoted in part on pages
43- 44. This codex has been published recently in English by Paul Radin, who also rates it very highly. ("Sources and
Authenticity of the History of the Ancient Mexicans")
There exist also a few other ancient poems and writing which
throw some light on the native religion. Brinton has collected these and published them with an introduction telling
their origin. (Brinton, "Rig Veda Americana, Sacred Songs of Ancient Mexicans") Some of them very clearly antedate the
period of the conquest. Care must be taken in the use of these writings to consider them as the expression of a very
limited number of people out of the mass of Indians. They do not in any sense reflect the thought of the people as a
whole.
The most complete description of the religion of the Indians is to be found in the works of the early Spanish
writers, most of them ecclesiastics, though not all. Great care must, of course, be exercised in taking the description
of a religion from its opponents. Even though some of the writers were laymen and soldiers, they were without exception
so thoroughly Catholic that they could but look with horror upon the religious practices of the natives. The chief authorities
of this sort are as follows:
Bernandino de Sahagun was born early in the 16th century in the town of Sahagun, in
Spain; was educated in the university of Salamanca, and arrived in New Spain in 1529 together with nineteen other priests to
help in the conversion of the Indians. He became a close student of the Indian languages and history. He wrote a considerable
number of books in the native tongue and about 1566 finished his great history of New Spain in twelve books. This was
written in the native language and later translated into Spanish. The manuscript was sent to Spain but was not published
for more than two hundred years. It was finally discovered in the Franciscan convent at Tolouse, in Navarre, and published
almost simultaneously by Kingsborough in London and by Bustamante in Mexico, about 1829.
It will be worth our while
to examine the method which the author employed in securing the material which the books contain. Fortunately a detailed
description of his procedure is given in his introduction. He says:
"All writers seek to authenticate their writings
as fully as possible, some by trustworthy witnesses, others by reference to previous writers who have secured sure testimony
as to the facts, still others by reference to the Holy Scripture. But these means are wholly lacking in my case for
the twelve books I have written, and I see no other way of authenticating what I have written than by stating here the
extreme care which I exercised in securing the data. As stated elsewhere, I was ordered by my superiors to write, in
the Mexican tongue, whatever I thought would be useful for the doctrine, the culture and the maintenance of the Christianity
of the natives of New Spain and would help those who are seeking to indoctrinate them. As soon as I received the command,
I made, in Spanish, a list of all the subjects that ought to be treated. I then went to the town of Tepeopulco and began
to seek material. I went about it in this way. I had the head man of the village, D. Diego de Mendoza, an old man of
great ability, well practiced in things priestly, military, political and even idolatrous, call together the chief men
of the place. When they were met, I proposed what I wished to accomplish and asked that they furnish me with skillful and experienced
persons with whom I could talk, who would be able to explain to me the things I might ask. They replied that they would confer
together about it and would let me know next day …. Next day they came together again and with much solemnity assigned
ten or twelve of the chief older men, saying that I might communicate with them and that they would explain all that
I might ask. . . . With these I conversed over a period of two years (following the list that I had made). Everything
about which we conferred they gave me in paintings, which was their method of writing. The grammarians (four of these
had been pupils of his in an earlier period) translated them into the common language writing the explanations at the
bottom of the pictures. I still have these originals. . . . Later I went to live at Santiago de Tlaltelolco, where I gathered together
another group with whom I might explained what was already written. The governor assigned eight or ten of the chief men
who were well trained in their own language and well acquainted with the ancient traditions. With these and with four
or five students, all of whom spoke three languages, we spent more than a year amending and adding to what I had brought
already written from Tepeopulco."
He then relates in detail how he submitted the work to different individuals and
groups and secured their approval of it. What shall we say as to his writings? Certainly no more careful piece of work was
done in that early day. But may we trust it as a true description of the religion, remembering that he was a priest, and that
most of the men whom he questioned were Christians, at least nominally? In his introduction to the book dealing with the
religion of the people he states as his reason for writing it that the physician who would cure an ill must know what
the ill is. He says:
"It is not enough to say that among these people there exist no longer sins of drunkenness,
dishonesty and carnality. There are other sins and much more serious which are in great need of a remedy, the sins of
idolatry, idolatrous rites, idolatrous superstitions and auguries and idolatrous ceremonies. These are by no means all ended.
To
preach against these things and indeed to be able to know whether they exist or not, it is necessary to know how they were
used in the time of idolatry." (Sahagun, "Relacion de las Cosas de la Nueva Espa`na, I, xiii.) It seems to the writer
that, notwithstanding his bias, he has come nearer giving the facts than any other writer of his time save possibly
one other, Bernal Diaz del Castillo, of whom we shall speak later. As simple description of what was done, Sahagun can
probably be safely considered as trustworthy, though where interpretation enters in, caution should be used in following
him.
Fray Toribio de Motolina was another of the very early writers whose works are still preserved. He was a Franciscan
monk who came to New Spain as a missionary in 1524. His principal work appeared in 1541 under the title "Historia de
Los Indios de la Nueva Espana." Prescott, author of the "History of the Conquest of America," says of him,
"Never
losing sight of his mission for a moment, the author interrupts the sequence of the subject which immediately occupies
him to relate an anecdote or tell of some event which illustrates his ecclesiastic interests. He recounts the most marvelous
happenings with grave credulity. . . . He repeats as true a host of miracles more than sufficient to provide for the
rising religious communities of New Spain. Nevertheless in the midst of all this, the investigator of Mexican antiquities
will find much important and curious material. The long and intimate association of the author with the Indians gave
him opportunity to acquire a vast knowledge of their theologies and science. The deduction in which the superstitions
of the age and peculiar character of the author are reflected cannot be taken with entire confidence; but since his integrity
and his means of gaining his knowledge are indisputable, he is a first authority in the study of antiquities of Mexico. (Prescott,
"History of the Conquest of Mexico", II, p. 98.)
Alfredo Chavero says of him:
"We consider Motolinia as the
first and principal source of our written history and whatever eulogy we might write regarding his work would be of
little account in comparison with his merit. ("Mexico a Traves de los Siglos", I, xiv).
It will be noted that he
is rated very highly by both these men as an authority in purely historical matters, but no so highly in matters of
religious.
Other early authorities are Gonzalo Fernando de Oviedo y Valdes who published, in 1535, an extensive
general and natural history of the Indies, "Historia General y Natural de las Indias." What he did not actually see
himself he took from eye-witnesses. He is not so valuable a source for religious investigation as for historical and geographic
study.
Among the most valuable ought to be the writings of Ixtlilxochitl, himself a descendant of the emperors of
Mexico. His mother was the daughter of the next to the last Mexican emperor. He served in his later years as interpreter
in the Indians court. However, he is not to be relied upon as exact in all his statements. In the first place he was
a Christian and writers from that standpoint. What seems to be one of the most important stories pointing toward an advanced
idea of the One God, we owe to him. It is recounted twice in his different books. We cannot be sure, however, that he
has not read back into the experience more than was really there. Chavero says of him: "He wished to represent his
forebears always as conquerors and twists the history of Mexico to that end. He invented for them an impossible culture
given the epoch and the social milieu in which the people lived." ("Mexico a Traves de los Siglos," I, x1viii)
Spence
in his book "Myths of Mexico and Peru," says:
"He was cursed with or blessed by a strong leaning toward the marvelous
and has colored his narratives so highly that he would have us regard the Toltec or ancient Nahuan civilization, as by
far the most splendid that ever existed. His description of Tezcuco, if picturesque in the extreme is manifestly the
outpouring of a romantic idealist mind, which in its patriotic enthusiasm desired to vindicate the country of his birth
from the stigma of savagery and to prove its equality with the great nations of antiquity." (p. 46)
If one approaches
his writings with this fact in mind and is careful in using his materials, there is a great deal of value to be found in his
work.
Bernal Diaz del Castillo was one of the companions of Cortes throughout the whole conquest and seems to have
been quite close to his commander. He was not a learned man in any sense, nor practiced the art of writing. His history
is just the story of what he saw and heard during the years of fighting that won Mexico to the crown of Spain. He makes
no pretence of any literary skill, indeed he constantly laments his inability as a writer. Nevertheless, or it may be
chiefly just because of this, his narrative is generally accredited to-day ["1930"] as true. Chavero says of him:
"This
soldier-historian, companion of Cortes, was eye-witness of the events which he describes. He has written only that which
he saw with his eyes and heard from the Indians. He is an honest and trustworthy witness. His genuineness is revealed
on every page and his account may be taken as the very truth." (Mexico a Traves de los Siglos, I, 1.)
although
one must recognize the extremely bias of Diaz, the very naivete of his descriptions strikes the writer as being the best evidence
of the accuracy of what he writes. Ramirez says of him:
"with his genius for investigation he inquired into everything
with his natural frankness told everything, leaving us, thus, in his rude writings the most precious gem of Mexican
history." (Jose F. Ramirez, "Bautismo de Moteuhzoma Novena Ray de Mexico," Boletin de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografia
y Estadistica, la epoca (1863), X, 366)
invaluable in any study of the period of the conquest are the letters of
the man whose genius made it possible, the Conquistador himself, Hernando Cortes. He wrote five long letters to the emperor,
Charles V, relating the story of his adventures, at some point in very great detail. They were written very soon after
the events they narrate, so that it may be supposed that the reports are faithful accounts of what happened, unless
we are to suspect that, in some cases in which Cortes own character or his own fortunes are involved, he may have colored
his narrative. He has been charged with this by his enemies. The dates of the letters are, July 10, 1519; October 30, 1520;
May 15, 1522; October 15, 1524; and September 3, 1526. Fortunately these have been made available to English readers by Francis
A. MacNutt who has edited them and added valuable notes and comments, in two large volumes, published by Putnam's, N.Y.,
in 1908.
Aside from those longer letters, scores of letters and government orders of all sorts from the hand
of Cortes are to be found in the great collection, "Coleccion de Documentos Ineditos," which are quite as valuable,
or possibly even more so, as those to the emperor, since many of these were doubtless written without thought of their teaching
the imperial eye, and may therefore be more trustworthy.
Two others of Cortes' companions have left brief records of
the conquest which are highly regarded by historical students. The author of one is unknown, being known simply as El
Conquistador Anonimo. It was edited and published by Joaquin Garcia Icazbelceta, in volume two of his "Coleccion de
Documentos Para la Historia de Mexico." Chavero thinks it may have been written by Francisco Terrazas, father of the
early Mexican poet Terrazas. It has but little to say regarding religion, aside from one chapter which describes the
native temples, rites and ceremonies. The other was by Andres de Tapia, one of the officers of the conquering army, under the
title "Relacion sobre la conquista de Mexico," and is published by Icazbalceta in the same volume with the former. In the introduction
he says of it:
"This document, until now entirely unknown, is of the greatest importance. Its author was one of
the most notable captains in Cortes' army. He was in all the wars and expeditions, figured prominently in the discord
between the governors of Mexico, went with Cortes to Spain, and returning, lived neighbor to him until his death." (Garcia
Icazbalecta, "Coleccion de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, Intro. P. 1xi.)
Perhaps the best known of all
the early writers on Spain in the New World is Bartolome de las Casas, fiery champion of the Indians against their exploitation
at the hands of the Spaniards. His writings have enjoyed probably a wider circulation than those of any other writer
of the period, having been translated into English, Dutch, French, and German at least, particularly his one work "Brevisima
Relacion de la Destruccion de las Indias," which he first published in Seville in 1552. In it he recounted the fearful cruelties
and injustices practiced upon the Indians by their conquerors. It doubtless made very interesting reading and effective propaganda
against Spain in the enemy-territories, though many of them were no less guilty than she of grossly mistreating the conquered
peoples under their sway in the New World.
While, doubtless, there was much of truth in what Las Casas wrote, he is
too much under suspicion as a propagandist for his writings to rank high as sober history. He wrote with such passion,
and in some cases so evidently overstated his case that his statements require rigorous checking before they can be
used. Oddly enough, one of his most powerful opponents and critics was the gentle self-effacing Franciscan friar, Toribio
Benevente, better known by his Indian `sobre-nombre' Motolinia, concerning whose work we have already written, himself
also a staunch friend of the Indians. Several of his letters condemning Las Casas are extant.
Only slight use of
Las Casas is made, in one section of the paper. The fact that he is not used more extensively, given the character of his
writings and the popular esteem in which he is held, requires this explanation. What is said here is no reflection at all
on the great service which the fearless and tireless friend of the Indians rendered them, and no man in the whole history
of this stirring drama of conquest proved himself a more genuine or more powerful friend of the oppressed natives. The
judgment here is wholly as to the merit of his literary work as source-material for our present purpose.
Francis
A. MacNutt, the translator of Cortes' letters, has written a monograph on Las Casas, including the translation of the "Brevisima Relacion",
in which he vigorously defends the "protector" and assigns greater worth to his historical writings than that conceded
by most Spanish writers.
Other first-hand writers consulted have been so little used that they need not be discussed
here. They are Suarez de Peralta who wrote in 1589 his "Noticias Historicas de la Nueva espa`na; Dorantes de Carranza,
"Sumaria Relacion de las Cosas de la Nueva Espa`na; Saavedra Guzman, who wrote a lengthy poem, "Peregrino Indiano," which,
while lacking great poetic merit, does furnish valuable material, particularly for the secular [lay] historian.
Among
the most valuable sources, especially regarding the work of conversion by the priests and the development of the church
in Mexico, are the following:
"Concilios Provinciales, Primero y Segundo, Celebrados en la Ciudad de Mexico en
1555 y 1565," published by archbishop Francisco Antonio Lorenzana of Mexico City. It bears the date of 1769, but was taken from
the original proceedings of these councils, the manuscripts of which were preserved in the Metropolitan church in the capital.
The third council, held in 1585, is said by Lorenzana to have furnished the norm for ecclesiastical procedure in his
own time. Unfortunately a copy of its decrees has not been found in any of the libraries to which we have access. It
was published by Don Juan Perez de la Serna in 1622. However, the volume of the Archbishop is of very great value, for
it gives not only the proceedings of the two formal councils, but of the very first "Junta Apostolica," which took place during
the closing days of 1524 and the early days of 1525. the original minutes of the gathering have been lost but the summary taken
from Torquemada and Mendieta is given and probably represents fairly well what was done at that time. It was not dignified
with the name of Council, because at that time there was no bishop of archbishop in Mexico. By means of a comparison
of the three documents it is possible to see something of the progress that was being made and of the problems that
were emerging. These are official pronouncements, and while they probably by no means always represent what was actually
practiced, they do show what the church was attempting to do and the ideals for which she stood.
There exist also
an interesting appendix to these council reports, though it is not always bound with the volume by Lorenzana. The copy found
in the Ayer Collection at the Newberry Library (Chicago) was bound separately. It is called "Apendice a los Concilios,
Primero y Segund Mexicanos, and contains a "Carta Original de los Obispos de Mexico, Guatemala y Oaxaca," asking for
instructions regarding the matter of attending the general council of Trent; inquiring concerning different points,
such as tithes; and seeking directions for the sound planting of the faith in the new world. This letter, written in
1537, was the result of a meeting held at the request of the king through the viceroy, that they might discuss matters relating
to the good of the Indians and their conversion and instruction in the Holy Faith. It is signed by the three bishops; Zumarraga
of Mexico City, Zarate of Antequera, and Marroquin of Guatemala.
In reply to this letter the emperor expressed the
desire that they should assemble the bishops and other ecclesiastical leaders to draw up rules for governing the church
and the spreading of Christianity. Such an assembly met in 1539. The bishops had drawn up for their consideration a
tentative set of rules which were discussed and the response of the clergy to each section was inserted in the margin. Why
this was not technically called a council does not appear. The document is found also in the "Apendice a los Concilios",
thus furnishing a complete file of the group pronouncements of the early church of Mexico.
Another source of
very great value is the "Recopilacion de Leyes de Los Reinos de la Indias," printed and published by order of King Charles
II. The royal order fir its printing is dated 1681. The edition from which quotations are taken is the second edition, Madrid,
1756. It consists of four large volumes of some six hundred pages each, double column. The first book, containing two hundred forty-six
pages is wholly devoted to religious and ecclesiastical matters. Some of the titles of chapters are: Concerning the Holy Catholic
Church; Concerning Archbishops, Bishops and Visitors; The Clergy; Religious Teachers. Some of the chapters of titles, as
they are called, have as many as fifty laws or more. Besides this first book, laws relating to like matters are scattered
throughout the whole compilation, which may be easily found by a system of cross- references.
Here are brought
together the royal orders and those of the royal council of the Indies which were promulgated from time to time from the
very beginning of the new era of discovery. In each case the date of the order and its author are given. The place to which
it is particularly meant to apply usually appears also, though most of them are general prescriptions for use throughout
the whole domain. It is, of course, the source-book for all official pronouncements regarding the conversion of the
Indians and their treatment. Just the reading of the headings of the various chapters and laws provides an excellent
running commentary on the world of that day.
No other single individual has contributed more to the study of the history
of Mexico, particularly the phase of it that engages us here, than has Don Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta, who has edited and
published sound critical introductions to them. It was he who edited and published Motolinia's great work and volume
I of his "Coleccion de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico." It was he who, in the second volume, gave us the "Relacion
de Andres de Tapia, El Conquistador Anonimo" and various other documents of great worth. It was Icazbalceta who edited
Mendieta's "Historia Eclesiastica Indiana," one of the very best sources, discussed in more detail on pages 325- 326;
and it was he who edited a remarkably valuable collection of documents in five volumes under the title, "Nueva Coleccion
de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico."
Volume one of this collection entitles "Cartas de Religiosos de Nueva Espana,
1539-1594", contains a wealth of material which reflects the religious conditions at various periods during the sixteenth century.
If it offered no more than the eight letters of Mendieta which appear there, it would be of immense worth, but it has a
great many other letters as well; for example, one expressing the opinion of the Franciscans regarding the "Repartimiento"
of the Indians in 1594.
Volume two, "Codice Franciscano," is one of the most important sources for this study.
It gives more explicitly than any other document just what the Indians were to be taught. The doctrine which they used
is here represented both in Spanish and the Indian dialect [language: there are hundreds of "Indian dialect" in one "Indian language"…
just my thought]. In addition there are many letters, mostly of ecclesiastics, all Franciscans, covering the years 1533- 1569.
Volume three contains two "Relaciones," one that of Pomar, a half breed of Tezcuco who wrote under the title "Breves y
Sumaria Relacion de los Se`nores y Maneras y Diferencias que habia en la Nueva Espa`na y en Otras Provincias." Neither
is of great value for our purpose save as they here and there open up a window through which one catches momentary glimpses
of the religious changes that were taking place. Volumes four and five form what he calls the "Codice Mendieta." Not
all the letters and document are by mendieta, but Icazbalceta thinks that many of those not specifically attributed
to him were really his.
Another collection of original documents is the large work, "Coleccion de Documentos Ineditos
Relativos al Descubrimiento, Conquista y Colonizacion de las Posesiones Espanolas," the second series of which is still
being published. These include hundreds of letters and government orders, many of them having direct reference to the
religious phase of the conquest. The orders given by Cortes "for the good government of the people," orders from the king to
the viceroy, reports from the viceroys to their kings, reports of law suits, criminal trials, and commercial contracts—all
throw some light on our problem. The particular sources within the collection are cited when quotations are used from
them. Just the titles of those read in the search for pertinent material would fill many pages.
Other less extensive
and less valuable collection exist, and they have been consulted, but so little material has proved to be germane to
this particular field of investigation, that they need not be discussed here. They are merely name in the bibliography.
Thus
far the sources discussed have, in the main, been original first- hand writings by people who lived during the period covered
by their writings. Passing to the group of writers at second-hand, probably Gomara ought to be mentioned first, for
he wrote much earlier than many of those who were actual participants in the events which they so graphically describe.
His great work "Historia de las Conquistas de Hernando Cortes," was finished in about 1553. The sources of his information
were various. He is said to have had personal contact with many of the conquerors who returned from Mexico. Ramirez declares
that Gomara's work may be thought of almost as the testimony of an eye witness, and to have the authority of Cortes own
writings, since it was likely written under his inspiration and perhaps even his dictation. In a footnote, Ramirez quotes
Garcilaso de la Vega, the Peruvian writer ("Comentarios Reales del Peru," Libro II, Capitulo viii) as saying that Cortes
himself wrote it. He affirms that he knows "trustworthy gentlemen" who told him so, and he laments that Cortes did not
publish it under his own name. Ramirez adds that where Cortes own personal character is involved, the book should be read
with caution, for Gomora was an apologist for Cortes whom he served as chaplain while the latter was in Spain. Bernal Diaz
del Castillo criticizes his narrative at many points, indeed one motive which the "true historian" alleges for writing
his own confessedly imperfect narrative is that he may correct the mistakes of Gomora.
Mendieta, of whose letters
we have already spoken, is for this study one of the chief sources, for he wrote particularly of the subject which engages
our attention, the conversion of the Indians, under the title "Historia Eclesiastica Indiana" (Ecclesiastical History of
the Indies). Chavero says of him:
"If he is not one of the first hand writers, he must not be confused with those
who wrote at second hand, although he himself says that he made use of the writings of Olmos and Motolinia. Although less original
than Motolinia, he writes more extensively and observed better order and more precise method. At every step he reveals
his vehemence of character which is still more clearly shown in his letters." (Mexico a traves de los siglos, pp. li-lii)
Garcia
Icazbalceta who, as stated above, had edited much of his work, says that his Historia Ecleciastica was finished in 1596,
but that it was sent to Spain for publication and he never saw it again. No writer after Torquemada made use of it though
he used the manuscript extensively. It was not until 1861 that the manuscript again came to light and it was published
by Icazbalceta in 1870. He says of the writer:
Mendieta, a man of strong character, possessed of the spirit of his Order
(Franciscan), jealous for the honor of God, lover of justice and truth, living more nearly in the times of the conquest,
witness of the great miracles of the Indians and their quest, witness of the great miracles of the Indians and their
hardy defender, although not blind to their defects, looses his pen and without fear or favor points out and even exaggerates
the vices, disorders, abuses, tyrannies and evils of the conquerors, not excepting the governors, nor even the king
himself. If Mendieta is not in the strict sense of the word an eye-witness, he is original in his acts as well as judgments
and merits a distinguished place among our historians." (Nueva Coleccion de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, I, xxxix)
Of
course, for the purpose of this study, while he is not an eye- witness of the earliest attempts, he is a prominent actor
in the later efforts at conversion and deserves high rank as indicating the progress which Christianity had made.
Fray
Diego Duran based his work chiefly on the "Codex Ramirez," but greatly enlarged it, taking much of his material from contemporaries.
Says Chavero:
"We do not hesitate to say that his "Historia de las Indias de la Nueva Espana y las Islas de Tierra
Firme" is the best and most complete account we have of the ancient history of the Mexicans." (Mexico a traves de los
Siglos, I, lii)
He was a Dominican monk, born in Mexico shortly after the conquest. He finished his work in 1581,
but it was not published until 1867 and 1880. The elements used by him that were not found in the "Codice Ramirez" were
taken from ancient Mexican paintings, and from Indians and Spaniards contemporary with the conquest.
"La Historia
Natural y Moral de las Indias," by Jesuit Fray Jose de Acosta appeared in 1590 in Seville. The work has been extensively circulated,
for it was translated into English, German, Flemish, Latin, and French. It was very highly regarded by earlier historians,
but Chavero denounces it as simply plagiarism of the work of an Indian writer who gave us the "Codice Ramirez." This, however, while
it discredits Jose de Acosta, does not take away from the value of the work itself which has very great merit.
Next
to Mendieta, perhaps Juan Torquemada, among secondary authorities, is of most importance for this study, for of his great work,
"Monarquia Indiana," written during the first decade of the 17th century, he devotes the greater part to the religion of
the natives and the efforts at their conversion. He relied largely on what had already been written, but he himself
lived early enough and was keen enough observer to record much invaluable material for tracing the progress of the gospel
among the Indians. Chavero says of him:
"He took word for word whatever he found in Motolinia, Olmos, Sahagun and
Mendieta, paying no attention to the contradictions which arose from such different opinions. Yet his work is very important
for he gathered up what had already been said. He lacked the critical faculty, but the materials for criticism are there."
(Ibid., p. liii)
Ramirez calls him the "most illustrious and recommendable of our historians."
We have thus
far discussed the original sources and the writing of those who were but little removed in point of time from the events which
they recounted. There were many later writers who have left very valuable material, but they depended largely on those
already mentioned, adding very little that was not at least implied in the earlier works. Herrera, Solis, Betancourt,
Boturini, Clavigero, Baron Humboldt, Orozco y Berra, Palacios, Alfredo Chavero, our own Prescott and Bancroft, and others
have made rich contributions to the field, but all on the basis of the originals.
In the matter of native myth and
tradition we acknowledge indebtedness particularly to Daniel G. Brinton, the American writer who has gone most thoroughly
into the study of Mexican religions. He rendered a very useful service to all students of the subject by editing and
publishing many original Indian writings. We cannot always agree with Brinton in his interpretation of the myths, for he seems
to be entirely obsessed with the notion that all mythology centers about light and darkness, but if this be kept in mind
as he is read, his books are filled with excellent material.
Lewis Spence writes much more popularly than Brinton
and is not so profound a student as the latter, but does make a contribution to the field. Albert Reville, the French
historian of religion, in his "Native Religions of Mexico and Peru," has given perhaps as satisfactory a discussion
as any that has appeared.
Listed in the bibliography will be found a large number of books of travel and description
of Mexico written at intervals throughout the history of Mexico. In these we have constantly sought to find mirrored
the religious life of the period with the view of comparing the situations and trying to determine what has been the religious trend
since the beginning of the conversion. Unfortunately few writers of books of that character are skilled observers, and
most of them had no particular interest in the matter we are studying. Hence a great deal of reading has netted but
meager results. One of the most valuable works of the sort was E.B. Tylor's "Anahuac; Mexico and the Mexicans, Ancient
and Modern."
In the attempt to follow down one conspicuous instance in which an ancient Mexican shrine was taken
over and devoted to the Virgen, a number of books recounting the story of the Virgin of Guadalupe have been consulted,
all of them save one bearing the "Imprimatur" of the ecclesiastical authorities. What a queer mixture of fact and legend! No
historical accuracy is demanded of these sources, for their interest lies not so much in the exactness of their statements,
as in the fact that such statements and claims could be made and believed. They do, nevertheless, establish clearly
enough that the Virgin did displace the ancient pagan goddess Teo-tenantzin.
|