José Fernando Ramírez
1862/1898
translated by Jason Colavito
2026
|
NOTE |
For centuries, a persistent thread in pseudohistorical thought alleged that the Apostle Thomas had traveled to the New World after the Resurrection and preached the Gospel to Native peoples of the Americas, accounting for their knowledge of Bible stories like the Flood and their supposed knowledge of Christian virtue. These stories, which first emerged in the seventeenth century, eventually mutated into the modern claim that white Atlanteans visited the ancient Americas to bequeath culture. The claims about Thomas appear in Graham Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods in support of this claim, for example. The story traces back to the work of Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora (1645-1700), a Jesuit historian of colonial Mexico, who made the claim in his book Fénix del Occidente (The Phoenix of the West), which was never published and the manuscript was lost. All that survives are scattered references by later writers and an idea of the sources used in compiling the book, which indicated that the story originated in a combination of ignorance and fantasy wrapped around a shaky command of Nahuatl. In 1862, the historian José Fernando Ramírez (1804-1871), about to serve as foreign minister under the Emperor Maximilian, compiled a 625-page volume collecting the documents he felt were the likely inspiration for the Phoenix, a book he believed was wrongly attributed to Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora, whom he argued merely possessed a collection of notes and excerpts collected by a different Jesuit cleric, Manuel Duarte (d. 1689). The prologue laid out his case (which is accepted by many modern scholars), including excerpts from the relevant texts, and it was later used as a supplement in his series of biographies of Mexican writers collected in an omnibus of his works published in 1898. It is from this edition that I translate the text below. It is a fascinating investigation into the literary history of a stubbornly false claim, which seems to have gained traction because the original argument was lost. I attempted to follow the Spanish text as closely as possible, but the author’s exuberant punctuation, particularly his promiscuous use of em-dashes, did not always make this easy. Believe it or not, I have pruned many em-dashes beyond those still present. Following this, I present in translation additional information published in 1885 by Alfredo Chavero (and reprinted in 1905 and 1907) partly disputing Ramírez’s conclusions on the authorship of the Phoenix.
|
DUARTE [Manuel].
_____
A Coadjutor of the Society of Jesus wrote:
These are the short treatises that, in my judgment, led our bibliographers to attribute to Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora the work they cite under the title Phoenix of the West, Saint Thomas the Apostle, &c. They circulated separately in two different manuscript collections belonging to various individuals, and there are several copies of the shorter one. Having managed to discover them, I made a transcript of them and, adding the dissertation written on the same subject by Dr. Don Servando Mier, I compiled a quarto volume of 625 pages. I prefaced it with a Prologue, or rather a critical inquiry, aimed specifically at determining the true author of the manuscript, given that both the original (which is in my possession) and the copies circulate anonymously. I gave this varied collection the title shown on the following title page, and the aforementioned Prologue follows immediately after it.
- Pluma de Rica: The New Phoenix of America.
- History of Quetzalcoatl.
- Historical Fragments.
- Preaching of the Gospel in the Indies.
These are the short treatises that, in my judgment, led our bibliographers to attribute to Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora the work they cite under the title Phoenix of the West, Saint Thomas the Apostle, &c. They circulated separately in two different manuscript collections belonging to various individuals, and there are several copies of the shorter one. Having managed to discover them, I made a transcript of them and, adding the dissertation written on the same subject by Dr. Don Servando Mier, I compiled a quarto volume of 625 pages. I prefaced it with a Prologue, or rather a critical inquiry, aimed specifically at determining the true author of the manuscript, given that both the original (which is in my possession) and the copies circulate anonymously. I gave this varied collection the title shown on the following title page, and the aforementioned Prologue follows immediately after it.
THE
APOSTLE SAINT THOMAS
IN THE
NEW WORLD.
A collection of accounts and memoirs regarding
the preaching of the Gospel in America
prior to its discovery by the Spaniards.
PROLOGUE BY THE COMPILER.
|
Information regarding the treatise by Sigüenza titled Fénix del Occidente.
|
More than a century ago, our unfortunate and tireless antiquarian Don Lorenzo Boturini lamented the futility of his efforts to locate the treatise entitled FÉNIX DEL OCCIDENTE (Phoenix of the West), which was written by Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora with the aim of proving that the Apostle Saint Thomas had preached the Gospel in the New World. Our historian Don Mariano Veytia, who gathered some of Boturini’s notes, instructions, and papers (which had been scattered and ultimately lost due to the colonial government’s negligence), pursued the same quest with equally poor results. “I have been unable,” he said, “to find anything other than the knowledge that [Sigüenza] wrote this work; yet I have found no one who has seen it, let alone anyone who could shed light on how to locate it.”—Given these century-old accounts, we should not expect much new insight from later writers who merely copied or summarized their predecessors, a group that includes Eguiara, Beristain, Father Mier, and Bustamante. One should not be misled by Beristain’s description, which appears to have been written with the actual text at hand; in reality, he merely copied a portion of the title. Let us, therefore, turn to the author himself and his contemporaries, for they are the only ones who can offer us any certainty in this investigation.
The earliest reference to that treatise known to me is the one Sigüenza himself provides in the prologue to the chronicle of the Convent of Jesús María, a work he wrote under the title Paraíso Occidental (Western Paradise). Lamenting that his poverty and lack of patronage prevented him from printing his writings, he remarked: “They will likely die with me ... though may God Our Lord grant that this not be the fate of what I have ascertained regarding the preaching of Saint Thomas the Apostle in this land and its early Christian community.” Given that the approvals and licenses for the work’s publication date from mid-1682 and the edition itself appeared in 1684, we may infer from that statement that the author possessed nothing more than rough notes at the time.
In 1690, his Libra astronómica y philosophica was published, thanks to the patronage of Don Sebastián de Guzmán y Córdoba, who is listed as the editor. In his Prologue—dated January 1st of that same year—Guzmán provides more precise details, as shown in the following two paragraphs: “If, in my opinion, this book (La Libra Astronómica) is exceptionally good, I judge others already perfected by its author to be even better. I can speak of them as one who has read them with great pleasure; and since there is a risk they might be lost through neglect if not printed, I shall list their titles and summarize their subjects here, so that at least a record of them might be preserved.”—“PHOENIX OF THE WEST: ST. THOMAS THE APOSTLE, discovered under the name QUETZALCOATL amidst the ashes of ancient traditions preserved in stone, in Toltec Teoamoxtles [sacred books], and in Teochichimec and Mexican songs. In this work, he demonstrates that the Apostles preached throughout the world—and consequently in the Americas, which were not entirely unknown to the ancients.” He also demonstrates that “QUETZALCOATL was the glorious Apostle St. Thomas, proving this through the meanings of both names, his attire, his doctrine, and the prophecies he articulated; he recounts the miracles performed, describes the locations, and identifies the sites where the Holy Apostle left traces of his presence while enlightening these regions—where he had at least four disciples.” — This brief summary, which I believe was written by the author himself, leaves no doubt that the work was already fully completed by that date.
Friar Agustín de Vetancurt supports this deduction in the account he gives of the works he consulted to write his Teatro Mexicano. After listing the printed works of Sigüenza—whom he calls “his compatriot and friend”—and acknowledging his debt for valuable literary assistance, he states: “He also has many written books that he has not yet printed, such as Año Mexicano; Fénix de Occidente, regarding Saint Thomas the Apostle found amidst the ashes of ancient traditions, papers, &c.” — This was written between 1696 and 1698.
Our historian Clavigero also mentions Sigüenza in the “account of the writers on the ancient history of Mexico” as the author of “a long and very learned dissertation on the preaching of the Gospel in Anahuac, carried out, as he believed, by the Apostle Saint Thomas, drawing upon Indian tradition, the crosses found and venerated in Mexico, and other monuments.”
He wrote this in Bologna in 1780, and Clavigero was certainly referring to data he had gathered prior to the expulsion of the Jesuits, in whose library Sigüenza had read his manuscripts. Thus, there is all the evidence human certainty can provide to believe that a work on this subject did exist; yet, with the exception of the editor of the Libra astronómica, who told us 171 years ago that he had read it, I believe that from then until now we can repeat with Veitia that no one has seen it, a suspicion that extends even to Clavigero himself.
But if that curious short treatise has been lost, I believe we possess all, or the greater part, of the materials that served for its creation, now gathered in this volume by the most remarkable coincidence.
The earliest reference to that treatise known to me is the one Sigüenza himself provides in the prologue to the chronicle of the Convent of Jesús María, a work he wrote under the title Paraíso Occidental (Western Paradise). Lamenting that his poverty and lack of patronage prevented him from printing his writings, he remarked: “They will likely die with me ... though may God Our Lord grant that this not be the fate of what I have ascertained regarding the preaching of Saint Thomas the Apostle in this land and its early Christian community.” Given that the approvals and licenses for the work’s publication date from mid-1682 and the edition itself appeared in 1684, we may infer from that statement that the author possessed nothing more than rough notes at the time.
In 1690, his Libra astronómica y philosophica was published, thanks to the patronage of Don Sebastián de Guzmán y Córdoba, who is listed as the editor. In his Prologue—dated January 1st of that same year—Guzmán provides more precise details, as shown in the following two paragraphs: “If, in my opinion, this book (La Libra Astronómica) is exceptionally good, I judge others already perfected by its author to be even better. I can speak of them as one who has read them with great pleasure; and since there is a risk they might be lost through neglect if not printed, I shall list their titles and summarize their subjects here, so that at least a record of them might be preserved.”—“PHOENIX OF THE WEST: ST. THOMAS THE APOSTLE, discovered under the name QUETZALCOATL amidst the ashes of ancient traditions preserved in stone, in Toltec Teoamoxtles [sacred books], and in Teochichimec and Mexican songs. In this work, he demonstrates that the Apostles preached throughout the world—and consequently in the Americas, which were not entirely unknown to the ancients.” He also demonstrates that “QUETZALCOATL was the glorious Apostle St. Thomas, proving this through the meanings of both names, his attire, his doctrine, and the prophecies he articulated; he recounts the miracles performed, describes the locations, and identifies the sites where the Holy Apostle left traces of his presence while enlightening these regions—where he had at least four disciples.” — This brief summary, which I believe was written by the author himself, leaves no doubt that the work was already fully completed by that date.
Friar Agustín de Vetancurt supports this deduction in the account he gives of the works he consulted to write his Teatro Mexicano. After listing the printed works of Sigüenza—whom he calls “his compatriot and friend”—and acknowledging his debt for valuable literary assistance, he states: “He also has many written books that he has not yet printed, such as Año Mexicano; Fénix de Occidente, regarding Saint Thomas the Apostle found amidst the ashes of ancient traditions, papers, &c.” — This was written between 1696 and 1698.
Our historian Clavigero also mentions Sigüenza in the “account of the writers on the ancient history of Mexico” as the author of “a long and very learned dissertation on the preaching of the Gospel in Anahuac, carried out, as he believed, by the Apostle Saint Thomas, drawing upon Indian tradition, the crosses found and venerated in Mexico, and other monuments.”
He wrote this in Bologna in 1780, and Clavigero was certainly referring to data he had gathered prior to the expulsion of the Jesuits, in whose library Sigüenza had read his manuscripts. Thus, there is all the evidence human certainty can provide to believe that a work on this subject did exist; yet, with the exception of the editor of the Libra astronómica, who told us 171 years ago that he had read it, I believe that from then until now we can repeat with Veitia that no one has seen it, a suspicion that extends even to Clavigero himself.
But if that curious short treatise has been lost, I believe we possess all, or the greater part, of the materials that served for its creation, now gathered in this volume by the most remarkable coincidence.
NOTES ON THE MS.
______
|
Pieces comprising the Collection. — Anonymous author. — It deals with the same subject as the Fénix del Occidente. — The manuscript passes into the possession of Sigüenza. — Boturini and Veitia collect parts of it. — Discovery of the principal piece in the Library of La Profesa. — Description. — Observations regarding this copy. — Conjectures that the manuscript is the same one owned by Sigüenza and preserved in the Jesuit Library. — Its literary merit. — Even if it is not the work attributed to Sigüenza, it provided the materials for it.
|
In the passage I cited earlier, Boturini stated:—“I possess some historical notes on the preaching of the glorious Apostle Saint Thomas in America. They are found on 34 sheets of China paper, which I suppose served Don Carlos Sigüenza y Góngora in writing the work Fénix del Occidente, &c., on the same subject.” — These notes were still preserved in the Viceroyalty Archives in 1745, as recorded in the inventory conducted that year. — Five years later, Veitia arrived in this City (Mexico), and there is no doubt that he acquired that same manuscript or a copy of it; for, speaking of the ancient Mexican paintings he owned, he says:—“Among the papers I have collected, I have a complete explanation of one of these maps, which contains the principal tenets of our faith ... and the author of this explanation states that the map was given to him by the Bachelor Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora, &c.” I do not believe he was aware of the other manuscript. An oversight by the printer and the editor completely distorts this passage, as the text implies that Sigüenza gave the map to the author, whereas the reverse was actually the case. This is clearly evident in entry no. 56, which states: “I wish to set down here a history painted through figures in the manner of the Indians—one I held in Mexico for over fourteen years without fully understanding it until I read the account copied here from Herrera regarding Cealco—a history which, in the year 1680, when I returned to the Philippines, I left with the Reverend Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora, Professor of Mathematics, along with a manuscript notebook of more than fifty-two leaves containing information on the preaching of Saint Thomas the Apostle in New Spain, &c.” This passage provides the correction for the error that crept into Veitia’s printed text—specifically, the substitution of the article el [“the”] for the al [“in the”] found in the original. It also confirms that the manuscript referred to by Veitia is the same one associated with Boturini. The original manuscript has been lost, and the only version known to me is the copy left by Veitia himself in one of his manuscript volumes titled Curious Papers on the History of the Indies Collected, &c., which is the property of my friend Don José María Andrade. The copy is quite careless, yet it has been included in this collection with all its flaws; it constitutes the final short treatise.
The very passage cited also assures us that Sigüenza possessed another, more extensive manuscript on the same subject, one left to him by its author upon the latter’s departure for the Philippines. Could it have been the long-sought Fénix del Occidente? .… Nothing was known for certain; for although Veitia’s copy begins with the same notes found in the other, older manuscript, its length in no way matches the fifty-two folios left by the traveler to the Philippines. Did Veitia have that other manuscript before him? ……. He must have rejected it, for otherwise he would have included it in his collection. — Moreover, the five chapters he devoted to this subject, in which he strove to prove the preaching of Saint Thomas, are drawn entirely from his own copy, transcribing the same information, including its numerous historical and philological errors. — I believe he was unaware of the other manuscript.
I had been determined to find it, and just when I had lost all hope, a most remarkable stroke of luck placed it in my hands. — I was busy collecting two poor copies of the History of Tlaxcala in order to produce a third, less defective version, when I recalled that Baron von Humboldt had mentioned seeing a copy in the Biblioteca de La Profesa. Fortunately, the librarian at the time was the Rev. Father Felipe Villarello, an accomplished gentleman, distinguished as much for his courtesy as for his learning. He bore no resemblance to the typical, intractable guardians of such literary treasures, men who drive away those who might make good use of the works and stand idly by as they are lost to ruin, or who even welcome those intent on stealing them. — Father Villarello offered to look for the manuscript for Mr. Andrade; when I returned to learn the outcome, he presented me with a folio volume, noting that while the specific document I sought was not there, the book did contain material relating to Tlaxcala. It was a single sheet containing a petition from the local town council requesting an exemption from tribute. Although I was curious to examine the volume further, neither the time nor the circumstances were favorable; judging Mr. Villarello by my past experiences with many others of his calling, I did not even consider asking for permission to take the volume away, especially since it was the first time I had met him. Yet, his Reverence overcame my reticence by placing it in my hands, urging me to take it with me and authorizing me to copy whatever I deemed of interest.
This singular, generous stroke of luck in my long career of research led me to the discovery of what I had so eagerly sought, and gave me the chance to reunite two related pieces, separated for many years, that could only shed light on their shared origin when brought together. The volume to which I refer has lost its title page; it is bound in parchment, and running along the spine is the following title in black ink, in a mix of old italic and Gothic characters: — “FRAGMENTOS DE MEMORIAS MEXICANAS” [Fragments of Mexican Memoirs]. — Leaf 262 bears writing on only one side, consisting of scattered, disordered notes that look exactly like a rough draft beginning with this line: “Rich pen, new Phoenix of America: Didimo: Solorzano Poli. L. 1, cap. 1, fol. 3, col. 1 (a).”
These words immediately brought to mind Don Carlos de Sigüenza’s Fénix del Occidente, and I felt as though I already held it in my hands. — Leaf 263 begins:
The very passage cited also assures us that Sigüenza possessed another, more extensive manuscript on the same subject, one left to him by its author upon the latter’s departure for the Philippines. Could it have been the long-sought Fénix del Occidente? .… Nothing was known for certain; for although Veitia’s copy begins with the same notes found in the other, older manuscript, its length in no way matches the fifty-two folios left by the traveler to the Philippines. Did Veitia have that other manuscript before him? ……. He must have rejected it, for otherwise he would have included it in his collection. — Moreover, the five chapters he devoted to this subject, in which he strove to prove the preaching of Saint Thomas, are drawn entirely from his own copy, transcribing the same information, including its numerous historical and philological errors. — I believe he was unaware of the other manuscript.
I had been determined to find it, and just when I had lost all hope, a most remarkable stroke of luck placed it in my hands. — I was busy collecting two poor copies of the History of Tlaxcala in order to produce a third, less defective version, when I recalled that Baron von Humboldt had mentioned seeing a copy in the Biblioteca de La Profesa. Fortunately, the librarian at the time was the Rev. Father Felipe Villarello, an accomplished gentleman, distinguished as much for his courtesy as for his learning. He bore no resemblance to the typical, intractable guardians of such literary treasures, men who drive away those who might make good use of the works and stand idly by as they are lost to ruin, or who even welcome those intent on stealing them. — Father Villarello offered to look for the manuscript for Mr. Andrade; when I returned to learn the outcome, he presented me with a folio volume, noting that while the specific document I sought was not there, the book did contain material relating to Tlaxcala. It was a single sheet containing a petition from the local town council requesting an exemption from tribute. Although I was curious to examine the volume further, neither the time nor the circumstances were favorable; judging Mr. Villarello by my past experiences with many others of his calling, I did not even consider asking for permission to take the volume away, especially since it was the first time I had met him. Yet, his Reverence overcame my reticence by placing it in my hands, urging me to take it with me and authorizing me to copy whatever I deemed of interest.
This singular, generous stroke of luck in my long career of research led me to the discovery of what I had so eagerly sought, and gave me the chance to reunite two related pieces, separated for many years, that could only shed light on their shared origin when brought together. The volume to which I refer has lost its title page; it is bound in parchment, and running along the spine is the following title in black ink, in a mix of old italic and Gothic characters: — “FRAGMENTOS DE MEMORIAS MEXICANAS” [Fragments of Mexican Memoirs]. — Leaf 262 bears writing on only one side, consisting of scattered, disordered notes that look exactly like a rough draft beginning with this line: “Rich pen, new Phoenix of America: Didimo: Solorzano Poli. L. 1, cap. 1, fol. 3, col. 1 (a).”
These words immediately brought to mind Don Carlos de Sigüenza’s Fénix del Occidente, and I felt as though I already held it in my hands. — Leaf 263 begins:
“For the greater glory of God and the honor of the Holy Apostle Thomas”— continuing up to folio 267 with information regarding the matter, drawn from the chronicle of the Society of Jesus in Brazil, written by Fr. Simón de Vasconcelos. It concludes with the following statement: “It agrees word for word with the cited original from the History of the Society of the Province of Brazil written by Fr. Simón de Vasconcelos, from which I extracted it and to which I refer; in Mexico, on September 26, 1679. — M. Duarte.” (a flourish).
Veitia, or the scribe, abbreviated that ending in his copy, writing instead: “It agrees with the original from which it was copied in Mexico on September 26, 1679. Brother M. Duarte.” — The copyist’s handwriting and flourish were also imitated as best as possible.
Veitia’s manuscript, which I described earlier, begins with this information, continuing with a copy of the Boturini manuscript, also previously mentioned. However, the original at La Profesa contains somewhat more material, as it proceeds with further information drawn from Fr. Vasconcelos; this concludes on the reverse side of the following folio with § 44 and this note: “Thus far the said author; he continues by speaking of Brazil.” A flourish. After four and a half lines that were crossed out, and which contained information drawn from the chronicler Herrera, there begins the Notable History of Quetzalcoatl, &c., continuing to the end of the volume. The volume concludes at folio 309, although traces indicate there was once an additional folio, and that the text ended roughly halfway down its first page. I have noted these minor details because they will help us trace the author.
The neatness with which the accounts preceding the Notable History of Quetzalcoatl were copied—and the wording of the Concuerda (collation note)—suggest that this is a transcription from another copy. This is indicated by: 1) its very neatness; 2) the difference in the Concuerda formula and the addition of the word “brother”; and 3) the statement that it was taken verbatim from the original History of Father Vasconcelos. This is a notable error, as that history was originally written in Portuguese, and I am unaware of any Spanish translation. Such circumstances explain the noted difference between the Veitia manuscript and the La Profesa manuscript regarding the material missing from the former. — The copy was likely made from another document that served as the original for both; or, if it was derived from the La Profesa manuscript, it was done before the latter’s subsequent additions were made. The uniformity of the handwriting clearly shows that the continuation, extending to the end of the manuscript and the History of Quetzalcoatl, was executed by Duarte himself in the copy he kept for himself. The evidence also confirms that this is the original; although the main text is very clean, it contains so many haphazardly placed marginal notes that reading it methodically is impossible. Most were written in the natural order, while others were scrawled across the page, and many were so displaced that their corresponding entry point appears two or three pages ahead or behind, often without any mark indicating the connection. — Given this uncertainty, I have placed them where they make the most sense in relation to the text.
The text is frequently interrupted by the word “Note”—sometimes in parentheses and sometimes without—breaking the flow of the narrative. This irregularity initially led me to suspect the copyist’s ignorance, thinking he might have inserted marginal notes from his original directly into the main text. However, upon further reflection, I became convinced that they were the work of the author himself, who jotted down and interspersed his own observations as they occurred to him. This conclusion was confirmed by the nature of the work, which is essentially a compilation of information drawn from various histories and American chronicles, linked with the ideas and concepts necessary to provide a degree of unity and fulfill the compiler’s aim, which was to demonstrate the preaching of the Gospel by Saint Thomas. — Thus, the manuscript is essentially a series of notes interspersed with reflections that occurred to the compiler, which he marked with the word “Note.” As this jumble created considerable confusion and obscurity in the work as a whole, I took the liberty of amending it by separating the notes from the text and placing them at the bottom of the page in this copy. Upon reviewing the copy, I noticed that a few remained interspersed, and I wish to draw attention to them. Although this amendment neither harms nor alters the essence of the work, in order to preserve its original character as faithfully as a copy allows, I have marked its principal features in the margin using red ink. I have indicated which elements are marginalia or notes and noted their form in the original text, while adding others of my own to facilitate reading. It should be understood, then, that everything written in red ink is an addition of my own.
I shall conclude the descriptive section regarding the manuscript with a few observations intended to confirm a previously stated conjecture: namely, that this is the very manuscript the copyist Duarte claims to have left to Sigüenza. According to his account, the manuscript contained more than 52 leaves—a phrasing that, by virtue of its specific limitation, suggests the total fell short of 60. As it happens, the manuscript, now bound within the La Profesa volume, currently comprises 49 leaves plus a fragment of another. Tucked inside is a loose, truncated leaf written in a different, though likewise old, hand; it deals with the same subject, though one cannot surmise how many additional leaves it may have originally included. Assigning it merely three or four more leaves provides enough to reach the total count indicated by Duarte. The following evidence supports the presumption that the volume in question belonged to Sigüenza:
1. A document spanning folios 36 to 75, with the following heading: “ON THE UPRISING AND MUTINY OF THE INDIANS OF MEXICO.
“Copy of a letter from Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora, the King’s cosmographer in New Spain, a professor at the Royal University, and Chief Chaplain of the city’s Royal Hospital of Amor de Dios, in which he provides an account of the tumult to Admiral Don Andrés de Pez.” — This entire title is in Sigüenza’s handwriting, and the copy concludes with his full signature, which I recognize very well. The letter is dated August 30, 1692.
2. The document occupying folios 76 to 101 bears the following heading, also written in his hand: — “Order from His Excellency for Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora to survey the Bay and Port of Pensacola in the Gulf of Mexico, and the account he provides thereof, &c.” —There follow the titles of his offices and honors. —The report is written in a different hand but contains corrections made by him. It is dated May 15, 1693.
3. An undated account (folios 139–142) given by Don Damián Manzanet to Sigüenza regarding the discovery of Espíritu Santo Bay and the Tejas River. Although not addressed to him, yet connected to his research, another long account appears in the volume, written by Friar Francisco de Jesús María to the Viceroy, the Count of Gálvez, concerning the Indian tribes inhabiting the territory of Tejas. — Documents of this type and quality lend probability to the conjecture that Sigüenza was the compiler and that this volume belonged to his collection of manuscripts.
4. It is a well-established fact that he bequeathed twenty-eight of them to the Jesuit Library; Eguiara states that he saw eight folio volumes there in his time bearing the title Fragmentos de Historia Mexicana [Fragments of Mexican History]. This title corresponds almost word-for-word with the one currently preserved on the La Profesa manuscript; and considering that the word Memorias in that frequently used title is easily misread as Historias, it is not unlikely that Eguiara, glancing at it quickly, mistook one for the other, for I myself, while examining it carefully, made precisely that error when noting the correspondence in the first copies I made of certain pieces. This conjecture is supported by a detail from Eguiara, omitted by Beristain, regarding a letter written by Admiral Don Andrés de Pez concerning the Mexico City riot and other short treatises, which includes the following mention: “Historicam narrationem seditionis Indorum Mexici anno 1692. Testimonia et Opuscula multiplicis argumenti.” This description aligns well with the contents of our volume, though it reveals that the bibliographer, like most of his kind, did not closely examine every piece within it; unless we assume he did not intend to attribute the Opuscula multiplicis argumenti to Sigüenza.
5. I find the final piece of evidence in the way Clavigero refers to Sigüenza’s work on the preaching of Saint Thomas; he assigns it no title, even though the name Fénix del Occidente was widely known and cited, and describes it simply as “a long and very learned dissertation, &c.” This characterization fits the manuscript perfectly: as I noted, it is a compilation of numerous and varied accounts, scrupulously citing their original authors, that appears at first glance to be a work of immense erudition, lacking chapter or section divisions and following the standard format of a dissertation or memoir. Clavigero’s circumspection in omitting the title is easily understood when one realizes that the original bears none. I therefore presume that this is the manuscript to which he refers; if he attributed it to Sigüenza, it was because he found it among the latter’s papers and because Sigüenza himself had claimed to be the author of a work on the subject. That is also why I previously remarked that I suspected he was unfamiliar with Sigüenza’s own work on the matter. A comparison of dates further reinforces some of these conjectures. We previously saw that when Sigüenza discussed this topic in the Prologue to his Paraíso Occidental, he indicated that he possessed only notes. Now, given that the work was already completed and undergoing revision by mid-1682, and recalling that Duarte claimed to have handed over his manuscript in 1680, it seems highly probable that this was the manuscript to which Sigüenza referred. To summarize my conjectures: even if the short treatise forming the second part of this volume is not the long-sought and much-heralded Fénix del Occidente, it—along with the first part—provides, at the very least, the raw material for it.
The merit of this collection has two aspects. Viewed as a repository of specific information focused on a single subject, it is invaluable, as it spares the researcher lengthy and tedious investigations, though one must still contend with difficulties arising from cross-references, whether due to errors or to discrepancies between the editions cited. Its intrinsic merit also has two facets: the historical and the critical-philological. The historical merit is nil, for the evangelical labors attributed to Saint Thomas are entirely baseless; even the accounts of his mission in India are doubtful (and, to my mind, improbable). The attempt to lend plausibility to his presence in the Americas has given rise to countless critical and philological errors, both on the part of the compiler of these notes and by all others who have undertaken this same endeavor, since their entire system rests on utterly fanciful interpretations of Mexican pictorial records and on forced, spurious etymologies. It is certainly acknowledged that the compiler did not know the Mexican language and consulted with individuals who were not particularly knowledgeable either, or who allowed themselves to be captivated by the pious nature of the subject, a tendency also observed in another of our writers.
This fact alone would suffice to dismiss the notion that the manuscript was the work of Sigüenza, who was reputed to be a consummate expert in the Mexican language. I share this view, though without thereby endorsing the assessment of his great linguistic proficiency, for I have noted serious errors in the few etymological translations of his that have come down to us. One need only look at the Relación del Viaje by Gemelli Careri, undoubtedly his own work, to find patent and inexcusable errors. Who, then, might be the author of those notes? The immense effort involved in compiling them well deserves that we devote a few lines to investigating the matter.
Veitia, or the scribe, abbreviated that ending in his copy, writing instead: “It agrees with the original from which it was copied in Mexico on September 26, 1679. Brother M. Duarte.” — The copyist’s handwriting and flourish were also imitated as best as possible.
Veitia’s manuscript, which I described earlier, begins with this information, continuing with a copy of the Boturini manuscript, also previously mentioned. However, the original at La Profesa contains somewhat more material, as it proceeds with further information drawn from Fr. Vasconcelos; this concludes on the reverse side of the following folio with § 44 and this note: “Thus far the said author; he continues by speaking of Brazil.” A flourish. After four and a half lines that were crossed out, and which contained information drawn from the chronicler Herrera, there begins the Notable History of Quetzalcoatl, &c., continuing to the end of the volume. The volume concludes at folio 309, although traces indicate there was once an additional folio, and that the text ended roughly halfway down its first page. I have noted these minor details because they will help us trace the author.
The neatness with which the accounts preceding the Notable History of Quetzalcoatl were copied—and the wording of the Concuerda (collation note)—suggest that this is a transcription from another copy. This is indicated by: 1) its very neatness; 2) the difference in the Concuerda formula and the addition of the word “brother”; and 3) the statement that it was taken verbatim from the original History of Father Vasconcelos. This is a notable error, as that history was originally written in Portuguese, and I am unaware of any Spanish translation. Such circumstances explain the noted difference between the Veitia manuscript and the La Profesa manuscript regarding the material missing from the former. — The copy was likely made from another document that served as the original for both; or, if it was derived from the La Profesa manuscript, it was done before the latter’s subsequent additions were made. The uniformity of the handwriting clearly shows that the continuation, extending to the end of the manuscript and the History of Quetzalcoatl, was executed by Duarte himself in the copy he kept for himself. The evidence also confirms that this is the original; although the main text is very clean, it contains so many haphazardly placed marginal notes that reading it methodically is impossible. Most were written in the natural order, while others were scrawled across the page, and many were so displaced that their corresponding entry point appears two or three pages ahead or behind, often without any mark indicating the connection. — Given this uncertainty, I have placed them where they make the most sense in relation to the text.
The text is frequently interrupted by the word “Note”—sometimes in parentheses and sometimes without—breaking the flow of the narrative. This irregularity initially led me to suspect the copyist’s ignorance, thinking he might have inserted marginal notes from his original directly into the main text. However, upon further reflection, I became convinced that they were the work of the author himself, who jotted down and interspersed his own observations as they occurred to him. This conclusion was confirmed by the nature of the work, which is essentially a compilation of information drawn from various histories and American chronicles, linked with the ideas and concepts necessary to provide a degree of unity and fulfill the compiler’s aim, which was to demonstrate the preaching of the Gospel by Saint Thomas. — Thus, the manuscript is essentially a series of notes interspersed with reflections that occurred to the compiler, which he marked with the word “Note.” As this jumble created considerable confusion and obscurity in the work as a whole, I took the liberty of amending it by separating the notes from the text and placing them at the bottom of the page in this copy. Upon reviewing the copy, I noticed that a few remained interspersed, and I wish to draw attention to them. Although this amendment neither harms nor alters the essence of the work, in order to preserve its original character as faithfully as a copy allows, I have marked its principal features in the margin using red ink. I have indicated which elements are marginalia or notes and noted their form in the original text, while adding others of my own to facilitate reading. It should be understood, then, that everything written in red ink is an addition of my own.
I shall conclude the descriptive section regarding the manuscript with a few observations intended to confirm a previously stated conjecture: namely, that this is the very manuscript the copyist Duarte claims to have left to Sigüenza. According to his account, the manuscript contained more than 52 leaves—a phrasing that, by virtue of its specific limitation, suggests the total fell short of 60. As it happens, the manuscript, now bound within the La Profesa volume, currently comprises 49 leaves plus a fragment of another. Tucked inside is a loose, truncated leaf written in a different, though likewise old, hand; it deals with the same subject, though one cannot surmise how many additional leaves it may have originally included. Assigning it merely three or four more leaves provides enough to reach the total count indicated by Duarte. The following evidence supports the presumption that the volume in question belonged to Sigüenza:
1. A document spanning folios 36 to 75, with the following heading: “ON THE UPRISING AND MUTINY OF THE INDIANS OF MEXICO.
“Copy of a letter from Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora, the King’s cosmographer in New Spain, a professor at the Royal University, and Chief Chaplain of the city’s Royal Hospital of Amor de Dios, in which he provides an account of the tumult to Admiral Don Andrés de Pez.” — This entire title is in Sigüenza’s handwriting, and the copy concludes with his full signature, which I recognize very well. The letter is dated August 30, 1692.
2. The document occupying folios 76 to 101 bears the following heading, also written in his hand: — “Order from His Excellency for Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora to survey the Bay and Port of Pensacola in the Gulf of Mexico, and the account he provides thereof, &c.” —There follow the titles of his offices and honors. —The report is written in a different hand but contains corrections made by him. It is dated May 15, 1693.
3. An undated account (folios 139–142) given by Don Damián Manzanet to Sigüenza regarding the discovery of Espíritu Santo Bay and the Tejas River. Although not addressed to him, yet connected to his research, another long account appears in the volume, written by Friar Francisco de Jesús María to the Viceroy, the Count of Gálvez, concerning the Indian tribes inhabiting the territory of Tejas. — Documents of this type and quality lend probability to the conjecture that Sigüenza was the compiler and that this volume belonged to his collection of manuscripts.
4. It is a well-established fact that he bequeathed twenty-eight of them to the Jesuit Library; Eguiara states that he saw eight folio volumes there in his time bearing the title Fragmentos de Historia Mexicana [Fragments of Mexican History]. This title corresponds almost word-for-word with the one currently preserved on the La Profesa manuscript; and considering that the word Memorias in that frequently used title is easily misread as Historias, it is not unlikely that Eguiara, glancing at it quickly, mistook one for the other, for I myself, while examining it carefully, made precisely that error when noting the correspondence in the first copies I made of certain pieces. This conjecture is supported by a detail from Eguiara, omitted by Beristain, regarding a letter written by Admiral Don Andrés de Pez concerning the Mexico City riot and other short treatises, which includes the following mention: “Historicam narrationem seditionis Indorum Mexici anno 1692. Testimonia et Opuscula multiplicis argumenti.” This description aligns well with the contents of our volume, though it reveals that the bibliographer, like most of his kind, did not closely examine every piece within it; unless we assume he did not intend to attribute the Opuscula multiplicis argumenti to Sigüenza.
5. I find the final piece of evidence in the way Clavigero refers to Sigüenza’s work on the preaching of Saint Thomas; he assigns it no title, even though the name Fénix del Occidente was widely known and cited, and describes it simply as “a long and very learned dissertation, &c.” This characterization fits the manuscript perfectly: as I noted, it is a compilation of numerous and varied accounts, scrupulously citing their original authors, that appears at first glance to be a work of immense erudition, lacking chapter or section divisions and following the standard format of a dissertation or memoir. Clavigero’s circumspection in omitting the title is easily understood when one realizes that the original bears none. I therefore presume that this is the manuscript to which he refers; if he attributed it to Sigüenza, it was because he found it among the latter’s papers and because Sigüenza himself had claimed to be the author of a work on the subject. That is also why I previously remarked that I suspected he was unfamiliar with Sigüenza’s own work on the matter. A comparison of dates further reinforces some of these conjectures. We previously saw that when Sigüenza discussed this topic in the Prologue to his Paraíso Occidental, he indicated that he possessed only notes. Now, given that the work was already completed and undergoing revision by mid-1682, and recalling that Duarte claimed to have handed over his manuscript in 1680, it seems highly probable that this was the manuscript to which Sigüenza referred. To summarize my conjectures: even if the short treatise forming the second part of this volume is not the long-sought and much-heralded Fénix del Occidente, it—along with the first part—provides, at the very least, the raw material for it.
The merit of this collection has two aspects. Viewed as a repository of specific information focused on a single subject, it is invaluable, as it spares the researcher lengthy and tedious investigations, though one must still contend with difficulties arising from cross-references, whether due to errors or to discrepancies between the editions cited. Its intrinsic merit also has two facets: the historical and the critical-philological. The historical merit is nil, for the evangelical labors attributed to Saint Thomas are entirely baseless; even the accounts of his mission in India are doubtful (and, to my mind, improbable). The attempt to lend plausibility to his presence in the Americas has given rise to countless critical and philological errors, both on the part of the compiler of these notes and by all others who have undertaken this same endeavor, since their entire system rests on utterly fanciful interpretations of Mexican pictorial records and on forced, spurious etymologies. It is certainly acknowledged that the compiler did not know the Mexican language and consulted with individuals who were not particularly knowledgeable either, or who allowed themselves to be captivated by the pious nature of the subject, a tendency also observed in another of our writers.
This fact alone would suffice to dismiss the notion that the manuscript was the work of Sigüenza, who was reputed to be a consummate expert in the Mexican language. I share this view, though without thereby endorsing the assessment of his great linguistic proficiency, for I have noted serious errors in the few etymological translations of his that have come down to us. One need only look at the Relación del Viaje by Gemelli Careri, undoubtedly his own work, to find patent and inexcusable errors. Who, then, might be the author of those notes? The immense effort involved in compiling them well deserves that we devote a few lines to investigating the matter.
CONJECTURES REGARDING THE AUTHOR.
|
Continuation of information regarding the manuscript. — The period in which it was written. It was written in Mexico. Conjecture identifies the author as Brother Manuel Duarte of the Society of Jesus. Passages from Jesuit history and a Mexican diary corroborate this.
|
The uncertainties into which this investigation plunged me are indescribable, for I had grounds to attribute the manuscript to three different individuals, or even to surmise that it comprised the work of various annotators consolidated into a single copy through the scribe’s ignorance or carelessness. Evidence of aliena manu (another’s hand) does appear, and I have noted it wherever I observed it. — I shall now set forth the details scattered throughout the text which, when reconciled, should lead us to the conjecture we seek.
First to present a claim to authorship is the frequently cited Duarte; yet his Concuerda (Cross-reference), which we have already examined, and other notes distributed throughout the text suggest he was merely a copyist of no great literary sophistication. This is evidenced by a marginal note in §74 stating that he was omitting the Latin texts there — to avoid making solecisms. Nevertheless, in those very passages and others, it is clear that he was not a mere transcriber but a compiler of excerpts; he would extract verbatim whatever he found on the subject while adding his own reflections, as I have discussed at greater length elsewhere. Nor does he appear to have harbored authorial ambitions; rather, he limited himself to copying information that might assist a more knowledgeable person in carrying out a pious undertaking, namely, to establish the history of the preaching of Saint Thomas in the Americas. This is clearly stated in the fervent invocation concluding § 78, which explains the motives and sentiments that led him to gift his manuscript to Sigüenza, one of the most renowned men of letters of the era, who was particularly dedicated to historical studies of the Americas. — The first part of this work was completed on September 26, 1679, and the remainder during the course of that year, as indicated by the dates cited in §§ 51, 55, 61, and 71. The task strikes me as too long and arduous to have been merely begun in such a short time; therefore, and judging by the appearance of the manuscript, I surmise that a copy of what we shall call the “text” was made at that time, and that the numerous marginal notes, which now make reading so tedious, were added at a later date.
Given the foregoing, it is hardly necessary to point out that the compiler was writing in Mexico City, a fact he explicitly states in the cited sections, most notably §§ 55 and 71, and even more so in § 47, where he clearly reveals himself to be a Jesuit. This is evidenced by the following words: “that this sacred Apostle passed through Brazil to Paraguay and Peru is stated by Fr. Pedro de Ribadeneira of our Society, &c.” — In another of the cited passages, he mentioned residing at the college then known as San Pedro y San Pablo (later San Gregorio). From other recollections of the compiler, we know he visited Cuernavaca and Xochicalco, writing a description of the latter’s pyramid that is now lost to us, and that he had traveled through the other Americas, the Philippines, and Japan, and knew the Tagalog language. I found it more difficult to ascertain whether he knew Mexican [Nahuatl], as there is room for conjecture on every point. This very contradiction kept me perplexed for a long time, wondering if the manuscript contained the work of different individuals; however, I rely on the evidence of his errors and on his own statement at the end of § 57 regarding the word Tetzcatl: — “If the name,” he says, “is misspelled, I do not know the language.”
Ultimately, the preceding information provides the following conjectural details about the compiler: he was a Jesuit; he was in Mexico between 1679 and 1680; he returned to the Philippines in the latter year; and upon his departure, he left a manuscript with Sigüenza. It also seems highly probable that he was the same man named Duarte who is explicitly listed as the copyist. Was there anyone in the Society of Jesus to whom these details applied and who was capable of grasping such a work? ... That is the question. Since the Fathers Pérez de Rivas, Florencia, Oviedo, and Alegre, historians of the Mexican Province, as well as contemporary bibliographers and writers, shed no light on the individual in question, it occurred to me to search for information in the Philippines. While examining the second part of the Historia de su Provincia [History of his Province], written by Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, I found the following passage on folio 356v; I believe it provides the answer, and I quote it verbatim:
“Brother Manuel Duarte was born in Oporto, Portugal, on December 25, 1624, and in 1652 he entered the Society in Manila. He served as Procurator of the College for two years; he traveled as a companion to the Province’s Procurator to Madrid and Rome, and remained in Mexico for fourteen years as Procurator for this Province; upon returning to the Province, he died in Iloilo in 1689.”
Encouraged by this interesting detail, I sought to find its justification, hoping also to expand my knowledge of the matter. In the Diario de sucesos notables (Diary of Notable Events) by Licentiate Robles, I found only that on January 18, 1680, the gentleman-in-waiting from the China ship Santa Rosa arrived in Mexico; that between March 4 and 8, replacement troops departed for Acapulco; and that on the 29th, the galleon set sail for the Philippines. Furthermore, from the aforementioned Father Murillo, we know that on June 24, the ship anchored in Manila Bay, carrying on board Don Fray Diego de Aguilar, the consecrated Bishop of Cebu, and, in all likelihood, Brother Manuel Duarte. While residing in that region, he wrote the short treatise copied here from Veitia’s collection; indeed, it was evidently his final work.
These facts provide two points of correspondence that cannot be considered coincidental. 1. Brother Duarte explicitly states that he left Mexico for the Philippines in 1680, and it is proven that a galleon sailed from Acapulco to those islands that same year. It is well known that communication with Mexico took place solely via this route and at specific times; thus, there is near certainty that Brother Duarte embarked at that time. 2. In the same passage, he states that he had kept the manuscript in question in Mexico for over fourteen years and had gifted it to Sigüenza upon his departure. The Jesuit chronicle of the Philippines confirms his stay in that city for an equal period; therefore, it appears that the identity of the manuscript and its author is sufficiently established.
I conclude this Prologue with the following note, which outlines the pieces comprising the Collection and the specific circumstances surrounding them.
1. PLUMA RICA. NUEVO FÉNIX DE LA AMÉRICA.
These are the words written at the top of the page where the original manuscript begins, a manuscript which, as I previously mentioned, contains only a series of disjointed and discordant notes written in draft form. A copy of this section appears in the first fragment. Strange as the title Pluma rica [Rich Feather] may seem, it is not without originality, nor can there be any doubt that this was the title the author assigned to his notes. He is alluding to the Mexican word Quetzalli, or Quetzal in compound form, which all writers translate as Pluma rica, meaning a very fine and highly prized feather. That word is the root of the compound Quetzalcoatl, the name of the mysterious figure who appears in the most ancient traditions as the civilizer of Mexico—and, according to some, of all the Americas. It is also claimed that he was the Apostle Saint Thomas himself and that, under that name, he preached the Gospel in the New World. Establishing this identity is the aim of the work. The initial notes were completed on September 26, 1679. It appears that the compiler suspended his work at this point and that copies were made from it, including the one placed at the beginning of the aforementioned volume of Veitia’s manuscripts, which contains nothing more than this section. The compiler later resumed the work.
2. HISTORY OF QUETZALCOATL.
This short treatise or compilation which appears here as a separate piece, follows immediately after the preceding notes in the original manuscript. It is in this History that one finds the countless crossings-out, marginal notes, and cross-references mentioned in the Prologue, all of which make reading it so difficult. The entire text consists of information drawn from the history of Saint Thomas’s preaching in the East Indies and from American traditions regarding Quetzalcoatl, Kukulkan, &c., interwoven with the opinions of chroniclers from both Americas who attempt to deduce, through comparison, the identity of a single individual in the person of Saint Thomas.
3. FRAGMENTS.
In the original, they occupy two sheets: the first is placed at the beginning of the work and is filled with notes and jottings, as I have previously described. The second was loose within the volume, and I have been unable to determine its proper place. All these pieces form a single body within the original manuscript that Fray Duarte left to Sigüenza upon departing for the Philippines. With the exception of the first sheet, which was inserted at the beginning of the Veytia Collection, the others remained unknown.
4. PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL IN THE INDIES.
This was the Compiler’s final literary undertaking; it was certainly written in the Philippines after his return from Mexico, given that he mentions therein the manuscript he had left to Sigüenza (§56) in 1679. — It also seems certain that the original formed part of Boturini’s rich museum of antiquities, as can be gathered from the following entry in §24, no. 6 of his catalogue.
“I also possess,” he says, “some historical notes regarding the preaching of the glorious Apostle Saint Thomas in America. They are found on 34 sheets of Chinese paper which, I surmise, served Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora in writing his work on the same subject, Fénix del Occidente, a work I have been unable to obtain to date, as it was never published. &c.”
This information is confirmed by the inventory of that unfortunate antiquarian’s possessions drawn up at the time of his imprisonment in 1742, which is preserved in the Museum alongside the original record of his legal proceedings; it is listed there with the exact same description under item no. 54 of Inventory 8. — It was still in existence in 1745, when a second inventory was made, but it no longer appears in the third inventory conducted in 1804. —The whereabouts of the original are unknown; however, we possess a copy, albeit a rather flawed one due to the scribe’s carelessness. This copy actually constitutes the second item referred to in the Veytia manuscript, the first being the text contained in the present volume, although in that manuscript both appear as a single work with the title Predicación del Evangelio en las Indias, &c. [Preaching of the Gospel in the Indies, &c.]. — It is not known whether this was the original title or one devised by Veytia, though the latter may be conjectured. Today, it exists as a folio volume with a title page, featuring two illustrations, one printed and one pen-and-ink drawing, both pasted on, at the spots marked by small squares. As the dimensions of my copy do not allow for them to be placed exactly as they are in Veytia’s folio, I have merely marked the location where they appear in the original. — It seems certain that this copy was made from the same original manuscript once owned by Boturini. This is indicated by the following passage from the Advertencia [Foreword] that Veytia placed at the beginning of the volume.
“Regarding the papers contained in this book, the first is a very curious manuscript by an unknown author, though it appears to have been written in Manila, according to the Chevalier Boturini in the index of the ancient monuments he collected, as it consists of 34 sheets of Chinese paper from which this copy was made; its subject is to prove that Saint Thomas the Apostle preached in New Spain.” — Veytia refers to this same manuscript in Chapter 16, Book 1 of his Ancient History of Mexico in the following words:
“Among the papers I have collected, I have a full explanation of one of these maps (or hieroglyphic paintings of the Indians) that contains the principal tenets of our faith. It begins with the creation of man, his sin, his banishment from Paradise, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel; it continues with the Incarnation, birth, Passion, and death of Christ, and the coming of an Apostle who preached the Gospel in those early times; and the author of this explanation states that the map was given to him by the Bachelor Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora, &c.” — This recollection and the description of the manuscript leave no doubt as to its identity. The subject at hand is the same as the preceding one, though it includes additional information regarding the mythology, customs, and origins of the American peoples; it once again features, as a highly singular element, the interpretation of the ancient painting the collector bequeathed to Sigüenza, explaining it entirely as a symbolic representation of the principal events and mysteries of Christianity. All of this amounts to nothing more than phantoms born of religious zeal and a lack of knowledge regarding the subject matter. Judging by the description, it appears the painting merely depicted a dispute between two Oaxacan towns, resulting in injuries and a homicide, that ultimately culminated in an execution of justice. Yet Veytia endorsed this explanation, embellishing it to the point of adding the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and so forth!
5. PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL IN AMERICA BEFORE THE CONQUEST.
The preceding piece concludes the literary works of Fray Duarte; however, given the thematic relevance, I have added the dissertation written by the celebrated former friar Don Servando Teresa de Mier regarding the preaching of Saint Thomas. While noteworthy as a display of ingenuity, it possesses no historical merit, nor philological, because their interpretations and explanations are entirely arbitrary and just as fanciful as those previously mentioned. Most of them rely on the composition, or rather, the corruption and distortion, of Mexican words. Veytia also devoted chapters 15 through 20 of Book I of his Ancient History of Mexico to this same subject; however, since they contain nothing new or noteworthy, and given that his work is widely available, I deemed it unnecessary to pad this volume by reproducing them.
As the volume consists of several pieces bearing different titles, it was necessary to provide a collective title that encompassed the subject matter. The title The Apostle Saint Thomas in the New World seemed to me to serve this purpose, as it embraces them all.
First to present a claim to authorship is the frequently cited Duarte; yet his Concuerda (Cross-reference), which we have already examined, and other notes distributed throughout the text suggest he was merely a copyist of no great literary sophistication. This is evidenced by a marginal note in §74 stating that he was omitting the Latin texts there — to avoid making solecisms. Nevertheless, in those very passages and others, it is clear that he was not a mere transcriber but a compiler of excerpts; he would extract verbatim whatever he found on the subject while adding his own reflections, as I have discussed at greater length elsewhere. Nor does he appear to have harbored authorial ambitions; rather, he limited himself to copying information that might assist a more knowledgeable person in carrying out a pious undertaking, namely, to establish the history of the preaching of Saint Thomas in the Americas. This is clearly stated in the fervent invocation concluding § 78, which explains the motives and sentiments that led him to gift his manuscript to Sigüenza, one of the most renowned men of letters of the era, who was particularly dedicated to historical studies of the Americas. — The first part of this work was completed on September 26, 1679, and the remainder during the course of that year, as indicated by the dates cited in §§ 51, 55, 61, and 71. The task strikes me as too long and arduous to have been merely begun in such a short time; therefore, and judging by the appearance of the manuscript, I surmise that a copy of what we shall call the “text” was made at that time, and that the numerous marginal notes, which now make reading so tedious, were added at a later date.
Given the foregoing, it is hardly necessary to point out that the compiler was writing in Mexico City, a fact he explicitly states in the cited sections, most notably §§ 55 and 71, and even more so in § 47, where he clearly reveals himself to be a Jesuit. This is evidenced by the following words: “that this sacred Apostle passed through Brazil to Paraguay and Peru is stated by Fr. Pedro de Ribadeneira of our Society, &c.” — In another of the cited passages, he mentioned residing at the college then known as San Pedro y San Pablo (later San Gregorio). From other recollections of the compiler, we know he visited Cuernavaca and Xochicalco, writing a description of the latter’s pyramid that is now lost to us, and that he had traveled through the other Americas, the Philippines, and Japan, and knew the Tagalog language. I found it more difficult to ascertain whether he knew Mexican [Nahuatl], as there is room for conjecture on every point. This very contradiction kept me perplexed for a long time, wondering if the manuscript contained the work of different individuals; however, I rely on the evidence of his errors and on his own statement at the end of § 57 regarding the word Tetzcatl: — “If the name,” he says, “is misspelled, I do not know the language.”
Ultimately, the preceding information provides the following conjectural details about the compiler: he was a Jesuit; he was in Mexico between 1679 and 1680; he returned to the Philippines in the latter year; and upon his departure, he left a manuscript with Sigüenza. It also seems highly probable that he was the same man named Duarte who is explicitly listed as the copyist. Was there anyone in the Society of Jesus to whom these details applied and who was capable of grasping such a work? ... That is the question. Since the Fathers Pérez de Rivas, Florencia, Oviedo, and Alegre, historians of the Mexican Province, as well as contemporary bibliographers and writers, shed no light on the individual in question, it occurred to me to search for information in the Philippines. While examining the second part of the Historia de su Provincia [History of his Province], written by Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, I found the following passage on folio 356v; I believe it provides the answer, and I quote it verbatim:
“Brother Manuel Duarte was born in Oporto, Portugal, on December 25, 1624, and in 1652 he entered the Society in Manila. He served as Procurator of the College for two years; he traveled as a companion to the Province’s Procurator to Madrid and Rome, and remained in Mexico for fourteen years as Procurator for this Province; upon returning to the Province, he died in Iloilo in 1689.”
Encouraged by this interesting detail, I sought to find its justification, hoping also to expand my knowledge of the matter. In the Diario de sucesos notables (Diary of Notable Events) by Licentiate Robles, I found only that on January 18, 1680, the gentleman-in-waiting from the China ship Santa Rosa arrived in Mexico; that between March 4 and 8, replacement troops departed for Acapulco; and that on the 29th, the galleon set sail for the Philippines. Furthermore, from the aforementioned Father Murillo, we know that on June 24, the ship anchored in Manila Bay, carrying on board Don Fray Diego de Aguilar, the consecrated Bishop of Cebu, and, in all likelihood, Brother Manuel Duarte. While residing in that region, he wrote the short treatise copied here from Veitia’s collection; indeed, it was evidently his final work.
These facts provide two points of correspondence that cannot be considered coincidental. 1. Brother Duarte explicitly states that he left Mexico for the Philippines in 1680, and it is proven that a galleon sailed from Acapulco to those islands that same year. It is well known that communication with Mexico took place solely via this route and at specific times; thus, there is near certainty that Brother Duarte embarked at that time. 2. In the same passage, he states that he had kept the manuscript in question in Mexico for over fourteen years and had gifted it to Sigüenza upon his departure. The Jesuit chronicle of the Philippines confirms his stay in that city for an equal period; therefore, it appears that the identity of the manuscript and its author is sufficiently established.
I conclude this Prologue with the following note, which outlines the pieces comprising the Collection and the specific circumstances surrounding them.
1. PLUMA RICA. NUEVO FÉNIX DE LA AMÉRICA.
These are the words written at the top of the page where the original manuscript begins, a manuscript which, as I previously mentioned, contains only a series of disjointed and discordant notes written in draft form. A copy of this section appears in the first fragment. Strange as the title Pluma rica [Rich Feather] may seem, it is not without originality, nor can there be any doubt that this was the title the author assigned to his notes. He is alluding to the Mexican word Quetzalli, or Quetzal in compound form, which all writers translate as Pluma rica, meaning a very fine and highly prized feather. That word is the root of the compound Quetzalcoatl, the name of the mysterious figure who appears in the most ancient traditions as the civilizer of Mexico—and, according to some, of all the Americas. It is also claimed that he was the Apostle Saint Thomas himself and that, under that name, he preached the Gospel in the New World. Establishing this identity is the aim of the work. The initial notes were completed on September 26, 1679. It appears that the compiler suspended his work at this point and that copies were made from it, including the one placed at the beginning of the aforementioned volume of Veitia’s manuscripts, which contains nothing more than this section. The compiler later resumed the work.
2. HISTORY OF QUETZALCOATL.
This short treatise or compilation which appears here as a separate piece, follows immediately after the preceding notes in the original manuscript. It is in this History that one finds the countless crossings-out, marginal notes, and cross-references mentioned in the Prologue, all of which make reading it so difficult. The entire text consists of information drawn from the history of Saint Thomas’s preaching in the East Indies and from American traditions regarding Quetzalcoatl, Kukulkan, &c., interwoven with the opinions of chroniclers from both Americas who attempt to deduce, through comparison, the identity of a single individual in the person of Saint Thomas.
3. FRAGMENTS.
In the original, they occupy two sheets: the first is placed at the beginning of the work and is filled with notes and jottings, as I have previously described. The second was loose within the volume, and I have been unable to determine its proper place. All these pieces form a single body within the original manuscript that Fray Duarte left to Sigüenza upon departing for the Philippines. With the exception of the first sheet, which was inserted at the beginning of the Veytia Collection, the others remained unknown.
4. PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL IN THE INDIES.
This was the Compiler’s final literary undertaking; it was certainly written in the Philippines after his return from Mexico, given that he mentions therein the manuscript he had left to Sigüenza (§56) in 1679. — It also seems certain that the original formed part of Boturini’s rich museum of antiquities, as can be gathered from the following entry in §24, no. 6 of his catalogue.
“I also possess,” he says, “some historical notes regarding the preaching of the glorious Apostle Saint Thomas in America. They are found on 34 sheets of Chinese paper which, I surmise, served Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora in writing his work on the same subject, Fénix del Occidente, a work I have been unable to obtain to date, as it was never published. &c.”
This information is confirmed by the inventory of that unfortunate antiquarian’s possessions drawn up at the time of his imprisonment in 1742, which is preserved in the Museum alongside the original record of his legal proceedings; it is listed there with the exact same description under item no. 54 of Inventory 8. — It was still in existence in 1745, when a second inventory was made, but it no longer appears in the third inventory conducted in 1804. —The whereabouts of the original are unknown; however, we possess a copy, albeit a rather flawed one due to the scribe’s carelessness. This copy actually constitutes the second item referred to in the Veytia manuscript, the first being the text contained in the present volume, although in that manuscript both appear as a single work with the title Predicación del Evangelio en las Indias, &c. [Preaching of the Gospel in the Indies, &c.]. — It is not known whether this was the original title or one devised by Veytia, though the latter may be conjectured. Today, it exists as a folio volume with a title page, featuring two illustrations, one printed and one pen-and-ink drawing, both pasted on, at the spots marked by small squares. As the dimensions of my copy do not allow for them to be placed exactly as they are in Veytia’s folio, I have merely marked the location where they appear in the original. — It seems certain that this copy was made from the same original manuscript once owned by Boturini. This is indicated by the following passage from the Advertencia [Foreword] that Veytia placed at the beginning of the volume.
“Regarding the papers contained in this book, the first is a very curious manuscript by an unknown author, though it appears to have been written in Manila, according to the Chevalier Boturini in the index of the ancient monuments he collected, as it consists of 34 sheets of Chinese paper from which this copy was made; its subject is to prove that Saint Thomas the Apostle preached in New Spain.” — Veytia refers to this same manuscript in Chapter 16, Book 1 of his Ancient History of Mexico in the following words:
“Among the papers I have collected, I have a full explanation of one of these maps (or hieroglyphic paintings of the Indians) that contains the principal tenets of our faith. It begins with the creation of man, his sin, his banishment from Paradise, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel; it continues with the Incarnation, birth, Passion, and death of Christ, and the coming of an Apostle who preached the Gospel in those early times; and the author of this explanation states that the map was given to him by the Bachelor Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora, &c.” — This recollection and the description of the manuscript leave no doubt as to its identity. The subject at hand is the same as the preceding one, though it includes additional information regarding the mythology, customs, and origins of the American peoples; it once again features, as a highly singular element, the interpretation of the ancient painting the collector bequeathed to Sigüenza, explaining it entirely as a symbolic representation of the principal events and mysteries of Christianity. All of this amounts to nothing more than phantoms born of religious zeal and a lack of knowledge regarding the subject matter. Judging by the description, it appears the painting merely depicted a dispute between two Oaxacan towns, resulting in injuries and a homicide, that ultimately culminated in an execution of justice. Yet Veytia endorsed this explanation, embellishing it to the point of adding the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and so forth!
5. PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL IN AMERICA BEFORE THE CONQUEST.
The preceding piece concludes the literary works of Fray Duarte; however, given the thematic relevance, I have added the dissertation written by the celebrated former friar Don Servando Teresa de Mier regarding the preaching of Saint Thomas. While noteworthy as a display of ingenuity, it possesses no historical merit, nor philological, because their interpretations and explanations are entirely arbitrary and just as fanciful as those previously mentioned. Most of them rely on the composition, or rather, the corruption and distortion, of Mexican words. Veytia also devoted chapters 15 through 20 of Book I of his Ancient History of Mexico to this same subject; however, since they contain nothing new or noteworthy, and given that his work is widely available, I deemed it unnecessary to pad this volume by reproducing them.
As the volume consists of several pieces bearing different titles, it was necessary to provide a collective title that encompassed the subject matter. The title The Apostle Saint Thomas in the New World seemed to me to serve this purpose, as it embraces them all.
Mexico City, September 16, 1862.
THE PHOENIX OF THE WEST.
ALFREDO CHAVERO
THE PHOENIX OF THE WEST. This work was the first to argue for the arrival of the Apostle Saint Thomas, whom the author linked to the figure of Quetzalcoatl. This idea gained great currency, and various short treatises written on the subject are well known. Such was not the fate of Sigüenza’s work; not only did it remain unpublished, but it even came to be believed—and asserted—that it had been lost.
During Sigüenza’s lifetime, the work was mentioned in the prologue to his Paraíso Occidental; the editor, Don Sebastián de Guzmán y Córdoba, also provided information about it in the prologue to the Libra astronómica y filosófica. There, he discusses the work’s content, proving it was already written by that date, January 1, 1690, and reveals its title, which was:
--Phoenix of the West: Saint Thomas the Apostle, found under the name Quetzalcoatl amidst the ashes of ancient traditions preserved in stone, in Toltec Teoamoxtles, and in Teochichimeca and Mexican songs.
Fray Agustín de Vetancourt, a contemporary and friend of our author, also mentions the manuscript in question, calling it Phoenix of the West, St. Thomas the Apostle, found amidst the ashes of ancient traditions, papers, etc. It is certain that Vetancourt, writing around 1698, saw the manuscript. It is unlikely that Clavigero saw it; writing in Bologna in 1780, he discusses the work based on data gathered at the Jesuit library, to which Sigüenza had bequeathed his manuscripts. Boturini, who had diligently sought this piece, lamented his inability to find it. Don Mariano Veytia met the same fate, writing: “I have been unable to find anything other than the record that [Sigüenza] wrote this [work].” Eguiara, Beristain, and Mr. Mier y Bustamante all cite it, though not because they had actually seen it, but rather based on written accounts regarding it.
The loss was great, and the discovery promised to be significant. Today, the manuscript is in my possession, contained within a codex that I have named the CODEX SIGÜENZA, both because it holds several of his works and because he himself compiled it. The treatise consists of fifty folio-sized leaves written in a dense hand, with marginal annotations filling the space in every direction. It begins with the words: Pluma Rica: nuevo Fénix de la América: Didimo. This first leaf, serving as a title page, contains a multitude of citations, arranged like epigraphs, and a list of consulted authors. Within the codex, the work occupies the final leaves, numbered 262 through 310.
In entry No. 6 of paragraph XXIV of his catalog (p. 50), Boturini stated: “I also possess some Historical Notes on the Preaching of the Glorious Apostle Saint Thomas in America. They are found on thirty-four leaves of China paper, which I surmise Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora used to write his work on the same subject, Fénix de Occidente, etc.” This manuscript was copied by Veytia, and that copy is found in a volume titled Papeles curiosos de Historia de Indias [Curious Papers on the History of the Indies], compiled by Veytia himself; this volume once belonged to the rich library of Don José María Andrade and was, unfortunately, sold in Europe along with that collection in 1867.
Mr. Ramírez, in a fascinating and scholarly historical inquiry, which I possess in manuscript form, set out to determine the author of this treatise, which, as previously mentioned, had belonged to Boturini’s museum. Suffice it to say that, finding it to be partly the same text (albeit incomplete) as the Fénix de Occidente found in the Codex Sigüenza, he discovered that the author of both was the Jesuit Manuel Duarte. Duarte had come to Mexico from the Philippines and, after residing there for fourteen years, returned to Manila in 1680. Mr. Ramírez’s arguments, which I deem unnecessary to repeat here, led me to doubt whether the Codex Sigüenza treatise was indeed by this author; yet I was held back by the consideration that, were it true, Don Carlos would have been nothing more than a plagiarist who appropriated the work of others and passed it off as his own.
However, the Philippines manuscript states categorically: “I wish to record here a history depicted through figures in the manner of the Indians, one I possessed in Mexico for over fourteen years without fully understanding it, until I read the account copied here from Herrera regarding Cealcoquin. In 1680, upon returning to the Philippines, I left this document with Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora, a professor of mathematics, along with a manuscript notebook of more than fifty-two leaves containing information on the preaching of Saint Thomas the Apostle in New Spain.” I have pondered these difficulties at length and have come to believe that Father Duarte was a collaborator of Sigüenza’s; he likely assisted with the research, acting as a secondary hand, or even, one might say, as a scribe. This view is reinforced by the fact that the manuscript titled “Annotations on Bernal Díaz and Torquemada”—undoubtedly a fair copy—is written in Duarte’s own hand. Thus, while not denying the role Duarte may have played, the concept and the work itself, that of the Phoenix of the West, remain the achievement of Don Carlos Sigüenza y Góngora, as does the short treatise found within his codex.
During Sigüenza’s lifetime, the work was mentioned in the prologue to his Paraíso Occidental; the editor, Don Sebastián de Guzmán y Córdoba, also provided information about it in the prologue to the Libra astronómica y filosófica. There, he discusses the work’s content, proving it was already written by that date, January 1, 1690, and reveals its title, which was:
--Phoenix of the West: Saint Thomas the Apostle, found under the name Quetzalcoatl amidst the ashes of ancient traditions preserved in stone, in Toltec Teoamoxtles, and in Teochichimeca and Mexican songs.
Fray Agustín de Vetancourt, a contemporary and friend of our author, also mentions the manuscript in question, calling it Phoenix of the West, St. Thomas the Apostle, found amidst the ashes of ancient traditions, papers, etc. It is certain that Vetancourt, writing around 1698, saw the manuscript. It is unlikely that Clavigero saw it; writing in Bologna in 1780, he discusses the work based on data gathered at the Jesuit library, to which Sigüenza had bequeathed his manuscripts. Boturini, who had diligently sought this piece, lamented his inability to find it. Don Mariano Veytia met the same fate, writing: “I have been unable to find anything other than the record that [Sigüenza] wrote this [work].” Eguiara, Beristain, and Mr. Mier y Bustamante all cite it, though not because they had actually seen it, but rather based on written accounts regarding it.
The loss was great, and the discovery promised to be significant. Today, the manuscript is in my possession, contained within a codex that I have named the CODEX SIGÜENZA, both because it holds several of his works and because he himself compiled it. The treatise consists of fifty folio-sized leaves written in a dense hand, with marginal annotations filling the space in every direction. It begins with the words: Pluma Rica: nuevo Fénix de la América: Didimo. This first leaf, serving as a title page, contains a multitude of citations, arranged like epigraphs, and a list of consulted authors. Within the codex, the work occupies the final leaves, numbered 262 through 310.
In entry No. 6 of paragraph XXIV of his catalog (p. 50), Boturini stated: “I also possess some Historical Notes on the Preaching of the Glorious Apostle Saint Thomas in America. They are found on thirty-four leaves of China paper, which I surmise Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora used to write his work on the same subject, Fénix de Occidente, etc.” This manuscript was copied by Veytia, and that copy is found in a volume titled Papeles curiosos de Historia de Indias [Curious Papers on the History of the Indies], compiled by Veytia himself; this volume once belonged to the rich library of Don José María Andrade and was, unfortunately, sold in Europe along with that collection in 1867.
Mr. Ramírez, in a fascinating and scholarly historical inquiry, which I possess in manuscript form, set out to determine the author of this treatise, which, as previously mentioned, had belonged to Boturini’s museum. Suffice it to say that, finding it to be partly the same text (albeit incomplete) as the Fénix de Occidente found in the Codex Sigüenza, he discovered that the author of both was the Jesuit Manuel Duarte. Duarte had come to Mexico from the Philippines and, after residing there for fourteen years, returned to Manila in 1680. Mr. Ramírez’s arguments, which I deem unnecessary to repeat here, led me to doubt whether the Codex Sigüenza treatise was indeed by this author; yet I was held back by the consideration that, were it true, Don Carlos would have been nothing more than a plagiarist who appropriated the work of others and passed it off as his own.
However, the Philippines manuscript states categorically: “I wish to record here a history depicted through figures in the manner of the Indians, one I possessed in Mexico for over fourteen years without fully understanding it, until I read the account copied here from Herrera regarding Cealcoquin. In 1680, upon returning to the Philippines, I left this document with Don Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora, a professor of mathematics, along with a manuscript notebook of more than fifty-two leaves containing information on the preaching of Saint Thomas the Apostle in New Spain.” I have pondered these difficulties at length and have come to believe that Father Duarte was a collaborator of Sigüenza’s; he likely assisted with the research, acting as a secondary hand, or even, one might say, as a scribe. This view is reinforced by the fact that the manuscript titled “Annotations on Bernal Díaz and Torquemada”—undoubtedly a fair copy—is written in Duarte’s own hand. Thus, while not denying the role Duarte may have played, the concept and the work itself, that of the Phoenix of the West, remain the achievement of Don Carlos Sigüenza y Góngora, as does the short treatise found within his codex.
|
Source: José Fernando Ramírez, Obras del lic. Don. José Fernando Ramírez, vol. 2 (Mexico City, 1898), 126-166; A. Chavero, “Sigüenza y Góngora,” Anales del Museo Nacional de México, vol. 3 (Mexico City: Imprenta de Ignacio Escalante, 1885), 262-263.
|
