Juan Diego: Difference between revisions

3 bytes removed ,  3 months ago
m
 
===Becerra Tanco, ''Felicidad de México''===
The third work to be published was written by Luis Becerra Tanco who professed to correct some errors in the two previous accounts. Like Sánchez a Mexican-born Spanish diocesan priest, Becerra Tanco ended his career as professor of astrology and mathematics at the Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico.<ref>{{harvp|Poole|1995|pp=143f}}</ref><ref>{{harvp|Brading|2001|p=89}}</ref><ref>For his claim to be correcting errors in previous accounts, see p. viii of the prologue to the 1883 edition of ''Felicidad'' and p. 24 where he calls his account "la tradicion primera, mas antigua y mas fidedigna" (the first, most ancient and most credible tradition). Among the alleged errors are those relating to Juan Diego's residence in 1531 (Tolpetlac, p.2), and the material of the tilma (said to be palm, not maguey, fibre, p. 42).</ref> As first published in Mexico City in 1666, Becerra Tanco's work was entitled ''Origen milagroso del Santuario de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe'' ("Miraculous origin of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guadalupe") and it gave an account of the apparitions mainly taken from de la Cruz' summary (see entry [1], above).<ref>{{harvp|Brading|2001|p=81}}</ref> The text of the pamphlet was incorporated into the evidence given to a canonical inquiry conducted in 1666, the proceedings of which are known as the ''[[Informaciones Jurídicas de 1666]]'' (see next entry). A revised and expanded edition of the pamphlet (drawing more obviously on the ''[[Nican Mopohua]]'') was published posthumously in 1675 as ''Felicidad de Mexico'' and again in 1685 (in [[Seville]], Spain). Republished in Mexico in 1780 and (as part of a collection of texts) republished in Spain in 1785, it became the preferred source for the apparition narrative until displaced by the ''Nican Mopohua'' which gained a new readership from the Spanish translation published by Primo Velázquez in Mexico in 1929 (becoming thereafter the narrative of choice).<ref>{{harvp|Brading|2001|pp=76, 89, 95}}</ref> Becerra Tanco, as Sánchez before him, confirms the absence of any documentary source for the Guadalupe event in the official diocesan records, and asserts that knowledge of it depends on the oral tradition handed on by the natives and recorded by them first in paintings and later in an alphabetized Nahuatl.<ref>1883 edition, prologue, pp. vii and viii and p. 28 for the absence of official records; pp. 33-36 for records of the native traditions.</ref> More precisely, Becerra Tanco claimed that before 1629 he had himself heard "cantares" (or memory songs) sung by the natives at Guadalupe celebrating the apparitions, and that he had seen among the papers of [[Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl]] (1578?–1650) (i) a "''mapa"'' (or pictographic codex) which covered three centuries of native history, ending with the apparition at Tepeyac, and (ii) a manuscript book written in alphabetized [[Nahuatl]] by an Indian which described all five apparitions.<ref>For the "cantares" see p.38 of the 1883 edition; for reference to the native documents held by Alva, see pp. 36f of the 1883 edition.</ref> In a separate section entitled ''Testificación'' he names five illustrious members of the ecclesiastical and secular elite from whom he personally had received an account of the tradition – quite apart from his Indian sources (whom he does not name).<ref>1883 edition, pp.44–48; the named sources included Pedro Ponce de León (1546–1626), and Gaspar de Prabez (1548–1628) who said he had received the tradition from Antonio Valeriano.</ref>
 
===''Informaciónes Jurídicas de 1666''===
 
===de Florencia, ''Estrella de el Norte de México''===
The last to be published was ''Estrella de el Norte de México'' by Francisco de Florencia, a Jesuit priest. This was published in Mexico in 1688 and then in [[Barcelona]] and [[Madrid]], Spain, in 1741 and 1785, respectively.{{efn|It contains a reference to 1686 as the date when the work was still being composed.<ref>{{harvp|de Florencia|1688|loc=cap. XIII, n° 158, fol. 74r.}}</ref>}}<ref>for the dates of the 18th-century editions, see [http://www.prbm.com/interest/hm-ff-g.php The Philadelphia Rare Books & Manuscripts Company], online catalogue, accessed February 26, 2011. It was republished in Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico in 1895. A paperback edition was published in 2010 by Nabu Press, [https://www.amazon.com/estrella-del-Norte-Mexico-milagrosa/dp/1174902698 Amazon online catalogue], accessed February 26, 2011.</ref> Florencia, while applauding Sánchez's theological meditations in themselves, considered that they broke the thread of the story. Accordingly, his account of the apparitions follows that of Mateo de la Cruz's abridgement.<ref>{{harvp|de Florencia|1688|loc=cap. XIV, n° 182, fol.89v.; n° 183, fol.89v}}</ref> Although he identified various Indian documentary sources as corroborating his account (including materials used and discussed by Becerra Tanco, as to which see the preceding entry), Florencia considered that the cult's authenticity was amply proved by the tilma itself,<ref>{{harvp|de Florencia|1688|loc=cap. X ''passim'', n° 65–83, foll. 26r.–35r.}}</ref> and by what he called a "constant tradition from fathers to sons .&nbsp;.. so firm as to be an irrefutable argument".<ref>"la tradición constante de padres á hijos, un tan firme como innegable argumento", {{harvp|de Florencia|1688|loc=cap. XI, n° 84, fol.35v. (and cap. XI ''passim'')}}; cf. passages to similar effect at {{harvp|de Florencia|1688|loc=cap. XII, n° 99, fol.43v., cap. XIII, n° 152, fol.70v., ''etc''}}</ref> Florencia had on loan from the famous scholar and polymath [[Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora]] two such documentary sources, one of which – the ''antigua relación'' (or, old account) – he discussed in sufficient detail to reveal that it was parallel to but not identical with any of the materials in the ''[[Huei tlamahuiçoltica]]''. So far as concerns the life of Juan Diego (and of Juan Bernardino) after the apparitions, the ''antigua relación'' reported circumstantial details which embellish rather than add to what was already known.<ref>{{harvp|de Florencia|1688|loc=cap. XIII §10}}</ref> The other documentary source of Indian origin in Florencia's temporary possession was the text of a memory song said to have been composed by Don Placido, lord of [[Azcapotzalco]], on the occasion of the solemn transfer of the Virgin's image to [[Tepeyac]] in 1531 – this he promised to insert later on in his history, but never did.{{efn|Florencia's treatment of the various documentary Indian sources for the Guadalupe event<ref>{{harvp|de Florencia|1688|loc=capp. XIII §§8–10, XV, and XVI}}</ref> is both confusing and not entirely satisfactory on several other grounds, including much of what is objected by {{harvp|Poole|1995|pp=159–162}}, and {{harvp|Brading|2001|pp=104–107}}.}}
 
==Historicity arguments==