soliciting the tlacuilos to “tell the story of how they were conquered,” the missionaries found themselves in the position of being observed by the observed. This page poses a dramatic instance of the observer-observed in that the tlacuilo managed to represent a most vulnerable aspect of the Christian theological edifice, one that perhaps was commonly accepted as a long tradition of debate between the different orders and philosophical traditions but that brought about a crisis when articulated by an Indian painter. The depiction of a Dominican friar imparting baptism on a willing Indian leaning over the baptismal font makes manifest the centrality of the proper indoctrination of Indians before baptism favored by the Dominican order and in particular by Bartolomé de Las Casas. We have already spoken of the preference of the Dominicans for an evangelical practice that emphasized the understanding and the formation of an intellectual habitus in the process of exposing Indians to Christian truths. Now, observe that on the right-hand section of this folio we find a Franciscan holding a doctrine, perhaps a confessional manual, that would have laid down the articles of the faith that Indians were required to accept as true simply on the grounds that they were informed that these tenets of the church were true because they were revealed by God. The Franciscans preferred multitudinal baptisms that would then be followed by the implantation of the doctrine and confession. In practice, once baptized one had the obligation to accept the Christian dogma. So, the whole process of conversion comes down to the practice of leading neophytes to will and desire to live according to the Catholic dogma.
Plate 2.1 Codex Telleriano-Remensis, fol. 46r (Courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France)
Earlier on we read passages from Sahagún that illustrated this position among Franciscans. Declarative sentences call for a willing Indian subject. Confessional manuals were thus designed to lead the subject through the Ten Commandments, the theological and cardinal virtues, and, once examined, the subject would express repentance and contrition. The tlacuilo lucidly depicts these two attitudes that, on a deeper philosophical level, imply incompatible philosophical traditions. Universality on these grounds is a desired end rather than an established fact. It is a horizon in which the different traditions debate but also know that it is futile to pursue an agreement when the backgrounds, that is, the absolute presupposition from which and against which philosophical doctrines makes sense of the world, are radically heterogeneous. They presuppose different understandings of the self and culture that lead to different ethnographic practices. Elsewhere, I have discussed these differences in more detail (Rabasa, 1998). The tlacuilo of the Codex Telleriano-Remensis manifests a particularly critical acumen in depicting the dominant evangelicals and their philosophical traditions from and against a background that remains unintelligible to missionaries.
Epilogue: Ignorantiam Invincibilem
In the introduction to this chapter I mentioned that in the sixteenth century one finds most lucid critiques of empire among Spanish, mestizo, and Indian intellectuals. The tlacuilo of Telleriano-Remensis made manifest with exceptional acuity the limits of empire when he responded to the request, “tell me the story of how I conquered you” by providing a “snapshot” of the observer. This snapshot reminded the missionary that he had been observed all along in ways that eluded and continued to elude his gaze. The tlacuilo exposed a blind spot that further deepened the crisis missionaries faced when they realized that the truths of Indian life would remain inaccessible regardless of how willing informants might be to convey the secrets of their cultures: the missionary would have to assume the background from which and against which an indigenous subject would not only make sense of their own world but of that of the missionaries. This dwelling in multiple worlds would entail a perspectival distance that underscored the truth that Indian worlds were articulated in their specific languages and backgrounds. Minimally, this crossing over would force the missionary to reflect in and on Nahautl terms. Is this what the project of the nahuatlization of Christianity entailed? Only by learning to debate and feel the world would the evangelical mission of converting Indians by appealing to the understanding or by working on the transformation of affect ever begin to leave a mark. If willing to entertain the necessity of a two-way street, the missionaries would have come to the realization that their understanding and affect also would be transformed in the process.
In closing I would like to briefly mention Alonso de la Vera Cruz’s treatise on just war and dominion, Relection de dominio infidelium & justo bello (A discussion on the dominion of unbelievers and just war) — a series of lectures he delivered at the University of Mexico in the academic year of 1553—4.3 In these lectures Vera Cruz analyzes the basis for arguing whether the supreme pontiff had supreme power, whether the emperor was lord of the world, whether the indigenous leaders were their own master, and whether Spaniards had the right to deprive them of their dominion. But Vera Cruz also raises questions pertaining to the payment of tribute, when to make restitution when abuse has been committed, and the examination of whether the recognition of Spanish sovereignty and the appropriation of lands were attained without extortion and violence. These are just a few questions and doubts the treatise examines. Now, these lectures were delivered with the intent of training future confessors of Spaniards. Confessors would be charged with leading Spaniards into a thorough examination of motives, practices, and awareness of ways in which they might have abused Indians. It is in the context of these questions that Vera Cruz addresses the need to consider the possibility of excusing Spaniards from restitution or from being evicted from lands in their possession. It is a treatise clearly more concerned with the effects of colonization and the pursuit of remedies than with the legality of the Spanish invasion. With regard to this point he is clearly on the side of those who condemn the conquest:
I beg you, good reader, to put aside prejudice and reflect on what law, by what right did the Spaniard who came to these regions, and armed to the teeth, attack these people subduing them as though they were enemies and occupying lands not their own, seeking arbitrarily with force and violence all their valuable possessions and robbing the people? I do not see by what law or right; perhaps I am just beating the air. (Vera Cruz, 1968: 2, 163)
The last lines read in the Latin as “Ego non video; fortassis in medio sole decutio!” (I cannot see; perhaps I am melting in the midst of the sun!).
The humility of Vera Cruz leads him to question his own certainty. Moreover, the question of “ignoratiam invincibilem” would retain the possibility that some Spaniards, or, for that matter, Indian rulers and caciques, might have broken a law or, even more precisely, acted in bad faith. Vera Cruz demands that the will of the people be taken into account in assessing the justice of transactions, even if it is in the nature of government for those who rule to interpret the will of the people. There remains the semblance of caciques who “are not lords but rather like wretched slaves do they help in exacting tribute for the Spaniards themselves”; however, note that he is not blaming the caciques here but underscoring the abuse by the Spaniards that leads them to act on their behalf: “they are insulted, they are flung into prison, they ‘bear the day’s burden and heat’, a condition proper not to lords but rather to servants” (ibid.: 2, 201). Vera Cruz also mentions caciques that have been bought with wine, European clothing, a horse, and what not. The examination of conscience would find its limit in “ignoratiam invincibilem”; this state, however, would in some instances absolve Spaniards from the obligation to restitute goods illegally obtained or the losses incurred owing to violence. But there are other occasions in which ignorance does not exclude fault and restitution demanded. We would only wish that our leaders today who have made war on Afghanistan and Iraq would be subjected to the thorough examination of conscience that Vera Cruz recommended for his contemporaries. But also consider the blind spots we carry, the “ignoratiam invincibilem” of the violence we inflict, when exposing the writing violence of yesterday but also of today.
NOTES
1 1
