Toribio Motolinía and His Historical Writings Writings

Author(s): Lino G. Canedo

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Americas, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jan., 1973), pp. 277-307
Published by: Academy of American Franciscan History
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/980054 .
Accessed: 16/04/2012 10:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of American Franciscan History is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Americas.

http://www.jstor.org
TORIBIO MOTOLINIA AND HIS HISTORICAL WRITINGS
WRITINGS
(Comments on the new edition of the Memoriales by Edmundo
O'Gorman)

RAY Toribio Motolinia,one of the famousTwelve Franciscans

who arrived in Mexico in 1524 to lay the foundations for
the systematic evangelization of the country, was also the
author of the first known historical treatises on pre-Hispanic Mexico
and on the origins of the Hispanic period. Time has only confirmed
the ancient conviction that these writings constitute the principal source
of our knowledge of those events. " Curioso investigador de tiempos
y verdades " and "hombre que por ninguna cosa dijera sino la mera
verdad, " as Mendieta writes of him.' Nevertheless it should not be
forgotten that Motolinia was first of all a missionary and a man
of action; we know that he wrote under obedience or through curiosity,
in haste, and in those brief intervals that freedom from other more
urgent duties permitted him, and that he was very conscious of the
limitations of his literary work and not at all anxious that it be made
public.2 In view of the decision and confidence with which he acted
on other occasions during his life, the modesty which he manifested
regarding his own writings is surprising. Perhaps he was convinced that
he was only " moderadamenteletrado " (moderately learned) as Sahagiin
categorizes him.3 This might help to explain the fact that his more
extensive writings either have remained in embryo or have been hurr-
iedly sketched or have not received the exposure that their importance
warranted. For the same reasons-and not because of any supposed
official suppression, which in Motolinfa's case has never been proven-
none of the Motolinia works of ethnohistoric character were ever
printed until the 19th century.
1" Carefulannotatorof old happenings"and "a man incapableof telling anything
but the exact truth" (Jer6nimode Mendieta,Historia eclesidsticaindiana,book V,
Ch. 1; book III, Ch. 22).
2 See whathe writesin
Historiade los indiosde la Nueva Espania, "
Epistolaproemial",
no. 3 and 34; introductionto treatiseII, no. 187-188,and tr. II, chap. 1, no. 190. The
quotationsrefer to the 1969edition of the Historiaby O'Gorman.
3 In El Libro de las Pldticasde los doce primerosmisionerosde Mexico, p. 30, ed.
by Fr. Jose M. Pou y Marti,O. F. M. in MiscellaneaFr. Ehrle,III (Roma,Biblioteca
Vaticana,1924).
277
278 TORIBIO MOTOLINfA

Both circumstances-the special character of the writings of Motolinia

and the manner in which they were brought to the attention of the
interested public of his time-combined to create a series of historio-
graphic problems which specialists have been trying to solve, especially
during the last century. Two historical works attributed to Motolinia
have come down to us: the Historiade los indios de la Nueva Espania
and the Memoriales. These are two factitious titles, neither of them
orginal with Motolinia, anymore than are the manuscripts in which
these works have been transmitted to us. The only known manuscript
of the Memoriales is moreover entirely anonymous. The relation-
ship between the contents of both these works is evident and
various theories have been advanced to explain this relationship. After
a first hypothesis to the effect that the Memoriales was a sort of draft-or
an outline-for the Historia, a search was made for other explanations
more in keeping with the newer data which began to make its appear-
ance. Although the above first hypothesis has been abandoned for
over half a century, perhaps a brief history of what we shall call the
cuestidn motoliniana might be useful.
1. A century of Motolinian studies.
Even though some manuscripts of the Historia had been the objects
of study since the second half of the 18th century, the first edition of
the same-very fragmentary-did not appear until 1848, in Vol. IX of
the Antiquities of Mexico, by Kingsborough, based on the manuscript
of the Escorial. Ten years afterward, Garcia Icazbalceta published
the first critical and complete edition (Mexico, 1858), preceded by an
extensive bio-bibliographical study by Jos6 F. Ramirez. Taking into
account the fact that, at that time, neither the text of the Memoriales
nor the Historia of Mendieta nor other important documents which
have appearedin the last century were known, Ramirez's work is most
meritorious. This, despite the fact that he devoted more than half of
it to the biography of Fray Toribio and that the greater part of it turns
out to be a blind apology for Fray Bartolom6 de las Casas, based
principally upon the doubtful authority of Remesal and of Quintana.
Nevertheless the data which Ramirez was able to assemble have been
greatly augmented, and in part corrected, by later research. He knew
only the Historia and the Letter to Charles V against Las Casasin 1555;
concerning the other writings of Motolinia, he had to content himself
with speculations, relying on the references he found in ancient authors.
Yet, these conjectures, especially with respect to the Historia de los
indios de la Nueva Espaiia, can still be useful to the researcher today.
 LINo G. CANEDO 279

As has been said, Ramirez did not know the Memoriales nor was he
aware of their existence, but he did observe that many of the quotations
from Motolinia found in Torquemada did not correspond to the
Historia. Perplexed by this, he concludes with this paragraph:
From these antecedents, we may deduce one of two conjectures
which are equally probable;either that these Memoriales actually
existed, as notes or memorandafrom which the author developed his
Historia;or that the Historia is the samework as the Memorialesbefore
its final editing and while still scattered among various notebooks or
treatiseswhich the author later coordinatedand retouched in the form
in which we see them today. Among or pertaining to them were
certainly the treatiseDe moribus indorum,the biographiesof the first
missionaries,the materialfor the fourth part of the Historia which we
lack, and the other passagesof Torquemadathat we cannot correlate.'
Therefore, Ramirez perceived clearly one basic fact: that the Historia
did not represent the entirety of Motolinia's writings.
Ramirez wrote this in 1858. A few years later Garcia Icazbalceta
managed to acquire the manuscript of the Memoriales that had just been
located in Madrid. Unfortunately, Ramirez-caught up in the political
vortex of those years and dying in exile in 1871-was unable to follow
the thread of his investigations; nor was Garcia Icazbalceta, broken in
health, capable of deeply scrutinizing the manuscript of the Memor-
iales.5 In a handwritten note dated July 28, 1881, he left this opinion:
Consideringthe disorderwhich one notes in it-[the manuscriptof the
Memoriales]-particularly toward the end, the confusion by which
diverse matters are combined, the slovenlinessof the style, and even
the lack of numerationin the greaterpart of the chapters,I am inclined
to believe that it is one of the drafts from which the author developed
the Historia de los Indios, already much better arranged.6
In spite of the deterioration of his health, Icazbalceta kept pushing the

4 Vida de Fray Toribio de Motolinia (Mexico, Editorial Porrnia, 1944) pp. 165-66.
This is the second edition, published as no. 4 of " Colecci6n de Escritores Mexicanos"; it
was published the first time by Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta in the introduction to his
edition of Motolinia's Historia de los indios de la Nueva Espania (Mexico, 1858).
5 See his correspondence of those years in Cartas de Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta,
compiladas y anotadas por Felipe Teizidor (Mexico, 1937).
6 This opinion was published by Luis Garcia Pimentel among the
preliminary notes
to his edition of the Memoriales (Mexico, 1903) p. VI. Contrary to O'Gorman's
interpretation, the transcribed paragraph probably does not mean that Icazbalceta
considered the Memoriales a first essay-" un primer ensayo "-of the Historia. There
is some difference between essay and draft. In any case, Icazbalceta's tentative
hypothesis does not represent the opinion about the writings of Motolinia which was
generally received until our days; we will find later that this hypothesis has been
abandoned for over half a century.
 280 TORIBIO MOTOLINfA

publication of the Memoriales and for that purpose sought the aid of
another great Mexican scholar: Francisco del Paso y Troncoso. But
the latter was either unable or unwilling to give the project much
attention. And thus the manuscript of the Memoriales remained
dormant in the library of Garcia Icazbalceta, while he himself was
departing this world and Paso y Troncoso was undertaking his own
important investigations in Europe.7 When Garcia Icazbalceta's son,
Luis Garcia Pimentel, took up the work begun by his father and
published the first edition of the Memoriales (M6xico, 1903), he con-
tented himself with printing the aforementioned opinion of 1881. This
edition reproduced fairly well the manuscript text, of which, as I have
already mentioned, we know of only one very imperfect version. The
numerous quotations from the Bible were correctly and almost com-
pletely identified. The footnotes and marginal notes are also valuable,
the latter containing chronological or bibliographical references,
especially to Torquemada's Monarquia Indiana and Zorita's Relacidn
de los seiores de Nueva Espana. On the other hand, the edition lacks
a satisfactory study on the nature of the Memoriales. It would have
been sufficent to examine carefully Torquemada'sand Zorita'sreferences
to suspect that these authors must have had knowledge of some writings
of Motolinia other than the Historia and the Memoriales.
But such an examination would have to wait. The French Ameri-
canist, L6on Lejeal did a limited exploration when he devoted several
studies in 1903-1904 to the Memoriales and its relation to the Historia.8
Analyzing some of the references to Motolinia's writings by Mendieta
and Torquemada, Lejeal noticed that Mendieta is closer to the
Memoriales than to the Historia. With regard to Torquemada, he
believed that he could explain the variants between Torquemada's
references and the parallel passages which we know to be Motolinia's
on the assumption that such references are a sort of amalgam of
Motolinian texts and the version of the same transmitted by Mendieta.
These and other speculations, all of which make interesting and some-
what still useful reading, convinced Lejeal that the Memoriales were
none other than a first redaction of the Historia,9 thereby giving as a

7See Garcia Icazbalceta, Cartas (cit. in note 5) and Silvio Zavala, Francisco del
Paso y Troncoso. Su Misidn en Europa, 1892-1916 (Mexico, 1938).
8 Two of
Lejeal's articles, with other opinions regarding the edition of the Memoriales
were collected and printed in a booklet by Garcia Pimentel himself (Mexico, 1907).
Both the Memoriales and the booklet were reprinted recently by Edmundo Avifia
in a facsimile edition (Guadalajara, 1967).
9Communication to the Congress of Americanists, Stuttgart, August 1904, which
is included in the booklet cited in note n. 8, p. 13 ss.
 LINo G. CANEDO 281

fact what Garcia Icazbalceta had only suggested as probable.

Consequently, Lejeal saw in the Memoriales not a "more or less
incoherent collection of traveler's or missionary's notes, but rather a
book already completed. "10
More than ten years were to pass before the Motolinian matter was
to come up again. Although in 1909, Manuel Serrano Sanz edited the
first part of the " Relacidn de la Nueva Espana" by Alonzo de Zorita-to
which the editor gave the title Historia de la Nueva Espaiia-in which
Motolinia is mentioned repeatedly, no one bothered to inquire about
the work mentioned by Zorita. In 1914, a new edition of the Historia
de los Indios de la Nueva Espana by Motolinia appeared thanks to the
Franciscan Father Daniel Sinchez and was preceded by a bio-bib-
liographical study which, although carefully prepared, added nothing
new to the solution of the problem. But a notable historian of the same
Order, Father Atanaisio L6pez, took advantage of this occasion to
dedicate three brief articles to Motolinia in a modest Spanish publication
not specifically concerned with historical matters." These articles
signalled the beginning on the part of their author of an interest in
Motolinia which was to last for his entire lifetime and to produce
important results. In the second of these articles Father L6pez calls
attention to the references to Motolinia made by Zorita in his Relacidn
de los seiores de Nueva Espaia (the edition of the Historia by Serrano
Sanz apparently having gone unnoticed by him) and also to the many
references made by Cervantes de Salazar in his Cronica de la Nueva
Espaia, which had also just been published in 1914. He was intrigued
by the fact that Cervantes de Salazar cited Motolinia as his authority
for matters which do not appear in his Historia nor in his Memoriales.
Father L6pez asks whether he could be referring to some other part of
the Memoriales or to the fourth treatise of the Historia, neither of which
appears in the known texts of those works. He also wonders whether
Cervantes de Salazar could be referring to that Guerra de los Indios
which is attributed to Motolinia. After mentioning several quotations
of Cervantes de Saiazar,he concludes with these prudent words: " What
has been shown is more than sufficient to undertake an examination of
the numerous anonymous relaciones which still exist in our libraries-an

1o Loc. cit. p. 19. Lejeal did recognize also the importance of the Memoriales whose
inferiority "regarding the Historia-he writes in p. 26-27-is only of literary character.
From a historical and scientific point of view, Motolinia's first version [i. e. the
Memoriales] should be preferred to the second [-i. e. the Historia-] although the
first is a little profuse."
11 El Eco Franciscano (Santiago de Compostela). The articles appeared in the
issues corresponding to December 1, 1915, January 1, 1916, and February 1, 1917.
282 ToluBmo MOTOLINf

examination which might bring to light the lost work of Father Toribio
de Motolinia since we do not know whether this in Treatise No. IV
of the Historia or some independent work. "~12
Continuing his analysis of the texts of Zorita, Cervantes de Salazar,
and G6mara, Father L6pez declared in 1921 that he was convinced
that both the Historia as well as the Memoriales might be late and
incomplete copies of a more extensive work of Motolinia; this work,
according to Zorita, comprised 292 folios of two columns each.'3 Four
years later, in 1925, he discussedthe supposed Motolinian work, " Guerra
de los Indios, " suggesting that probably it was an independent book,
and that it could have been the one used by Cervantes de Salazar,
G6mara, and Bernal Diaz in their respective chapters concerning the
conquest of Mexico.'4 Finally, in his last work devoted to this theme,
Father L6pez again collated in detail the references which Zorita makes
to Motolinia in the first published part of his Historia de la Nueva
Espaia and attempted a "reconstruction" of the lost work, which
could not be represented in its entirety either by the Historia or by the
Memoriales, both of which, however, he considered to be works of
Motolinia. "Furthermore "-he says-" as the existing manuscripts are
neither originals nor autographs it is not easy to determine by them
alone whether the Memoriales and the Historia, obviously incomplete
and badly organized, are the drafts of a more extensive work or extracts
made by some curious person who made use, or intended to make use,
of the complete work of the illustrious missionary for subsequent studies.
We suspect that both the Memoriales as well as the Historia proceed
from the same source or, in other words, from that work of Motolinia
which, up to now, has not been located. Could not the disorder and the
deficiencies noted in the published works be attributed, not to Motolinia
himself, but to the copyists or to someone who used his manuscripts?
Another supposition might be in order here-he writes further on-con-
cerning the Historia. Motolinia, desiring to give an "advance" of his
work to the Count of Benavente in the year 1541, might have picked
out some fragments from what he had written up to that point and sent
him the Historia... "51
12In the second article (January 1, 1916) p. 18.
13 "Los doce primeros ap6stoles de Mijico", in II Congreso de Historia y
CGeografiaHispano-Americanascelebrado en Sevilla en mayo de 1921. Actos y Memorias
(Madrid, 1921) pp. 315-330.
14Cuestionario hist6rico. Escribi6 Fray Toribio Motolinia una obra intitulada
Guerra de los indios de la Nueva Espadiao Historia de la conquista de Mejico?, in
Archivo Ibero-Americano, (Madrid, XXIII, 1925), pp. 221-247.
"
"5 Fray Toribio de Motolinia, misionero e historiador de Mejico en el siglo XVI ",
in Illuminare,IX, 1931,n. 71, pp. 21-34.
 LINO G. CANEDO 283

In 1933 the illustrious Mexicanist, Robert Ricard, supported the point

of view of Father L6pez through an analysis of Motolinian data which
takes into account not only Zorita, but also Las Casas,Suarez de Peralta,
and Divila Padilla. The Memoriales, Ricard thinks, cannot be con-
sidered either a draft properly speaking (bruillon) nor a first version
of the Historia; this must be simply an extract from the Memoriales,
which Motolinia wished to send in advance to the Count of Benavente,
adding to it the biography of Fray Martin de Valencia. After this
remittance, Motolinia must have continued working on his Memoriales,
as a first essay of the lost work."'
2. The new editions of the Historia(1969) and of the Memoriales
(1971).
The theory of L6pez and Ricard was generally accepted for more
than thirty years. Actually, there was only one serious re-examination
of the Motolinian bibliographical question during all that time: that of
Father Francis B. Steck in the introduction to the English translation
of the Historia de los Indios.27 Steck conducted a very careful and
erudite study-not without some errors-but he concludes by accepting
the explanation of Father L6pez as being the most reasonable. Three
years after the appearance of Steck's work, a master's thesis was pre-
sented in the Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de M6xico which has
not been printed although it deserved to have been. The author-J.
JesuisGil Salcedo-not only diligently transcribedthe text of the Historia
according to the manuscript " Ciudad de M6xico " (old Robledo) and
collated it with the manuscript of the Escorial, but also scrupulously and
with praiseworthy scientific judgment gathered everything which had
appeared up to that time on the bio-bibliography of Motolinia.s1 This
thesis was of considerable assistance to the latest editors of the Historia.
That is the way things stood until two years ago when a new edition
of the Historia appeared, prepared by Dr. Edmundo O'Gorman (M6x-
ico, Editorial Porri'a, 1969; XLII-256 pp.) It is preceded by a critical
study, three bio-bibliographical appendices and a foreword. In addition
to the text of the Historia and the letter of Motolinia to the Emperor

16 "Remarques bibliographiques, sur les ouvrages de Fr. Toribio Motolinia ", in

Journal de la Societe' des Americanistes, nouvelle srie, XXV, 1933,pp. 139-151.
7 Motolinia's History of the Indians
of New Spain. Translated and annotated by
Francis Borgia Steck (Washington, Academy of American Franciscan History, 1951;
358 p.).
1sJ.
Jesi's Gil Salcedo, Estudio bio-bibliogrdfico de Motolinia (Mixico, Centro
Universitario Mixico, 1953). Xerox copy in the Library of Congress, Washington,
D. C.
284 ToRMIo MOTOLINiA

against Las Casas (Tlaxcala, Jan. 2, 1555) the volume includes a

bibliography, a good analytical index and a summary of the chapters.
These editorial features make this edition the most useful available
to us up to the present. Moreover, the text has been improved, at least
in its literary aspects. None of the manuscriptsof the Historia, however,
were directly used for this edition and only one-the Ciudad de M6xico
Ms.-was consulted through the aforementioned copy of Gil Salcedo.
Some discrepancies from the manuscript of the Escorial are noted
according to the edition of 1868. O'Gorman was also aware of the 16th
century manuscript of the Hispanic Society of New York, but he
apparently did not attempt to go further in the use of the sources, nor
does he mention other manuscripts subsequent to the XVI century.
Although it is a great improvement that he has clarified or completed
some passages by the use of parallel sections of the Memoriales and
of Mendieta, one could hardly call this a critical edition. That is a task
which still remains to be done.
The real element of novelty of this edition lies in the critical study
with which it is prefaced. A study which sparkleswith very interesting
speculations but which, unfortunately, are very much in dispute. I have
already made known some observations in another place 19 and I shall
re-state them further along in this article, since O'Gorman reiterates
his points of view in his new edition of the Memoriales (Mexico,
Universidad Nacional Aut6noma, Instituto de Investigaciones Hist6ricas,
1971; CXXXI-591 pp.) on which I want to comment first. It is a
thick and handsome volume, very well printed, and one in which a great
amount of scholarly work is involved. The Instituto de Investigaciones
Hist6ricas and the editors deserve to be sincerely congratulated. After
a brief preface by Dr. Miguel Le6n-Portilla, director of the Instituto,
and some remarks on the method and criteria followed in the edition,
Dr. Edmundo O'Gorman offers us his lengthy and very valuable
"Estudio analitico de los estudios hist6ricos de Motolinia" (pp. XV-
CXXXI) with an impressiveamount of information and ideas for a better
understanding of Motolinia's historical writings. Next comes the text
of the Mermoriales(pp. 1-397) that does not differ noticeably from
the one published by Garcia Pimentel, since both editions are based
on the one and only known manuscript. Moreover, this manuscript,
which is a very imperfect copy, seems to have been examined rather
perfunctorily by the new editors through a simple photocopy. So the
corrections to Garcia Pimentel's text are minimal and not always an
19 Lino G6mez Canedo, "Motolinia, enigma historiograifico,"in Boletin del Instituto
de Investigaciones Bibliogrdficas, (Biblioteca Nacional de Mexico, n. 4, July-December
1970), pp. 155-177.
 LINo G. CANEDO 285

improvement, as we will see; but the explanatory notes are better and
more extensive. Furthermore, the gaps in the Memoriales have been
filled with chapters and paragraphs from the Historia. To complete
the volume there is a number (XXXV) of appendices with documents
from or regarding Motolinia in chronological order (1525-1791)
generally simple reprints and several of them without any relation to
the Memoriales; a very useful glossary of Aztec words that are found
in the Memoriales, prepared by Alfredo L6pez Austin and Roberto
Moreno de los Arcos; an alphabetical list of bibliographical works
supposedly consulted for the present edition; and finally a good analy-
tical index and a summary of the chapters.
On the whole a tremendous piece of scholarship. It is regrettable,
however, that a satisfactory description of the manuscript that contains
the Memoriales was not given. The manuscript in question is the one
that belonged to Garcia Icazbalceta and belongs now to the University
of Texas in Austin. Aside from its disorder, gaps and errors, the
manuscript has a good number of annotations, some of them of a much
later date than the text. The editors, it seemed, had at hand only a
photocopy of the manuscript and perhaps for this reason were unable
to prepare a detailed description of it. The one given by G6mez Orozco
and referred to in the present edition is totally inadequate.20 A more
minute examination would have made possible a better evaluation of
some annotations which puzzled O'Gorman. Neither was a paleo-
graphic study made of the manuscript with a view toward narrowing
somewhat the period in which it could have been written. It is by no
means unimportant this refinement of dating. Merely to say that it is a
16th century manuscript means too little.
That a direct and complete study of the only known manuscript
should have been omitted when the latter was so readily available, must
seem strange in the case of an edition such as this one. Nevertheless,
such a study probably would not have provided a text absolutely correct,
because the manuscript is so imperfect. For this reason, both Garcia
Pimentel in 1903 and now O'Gorman have attempted to fill in voids
and amend the errors in the manuscript with parallel readings from
the Historia and from authors who used Motolinia's writings, or with

20Catdlogo de la coleccidn de documentos relativos a la historia de America

formada por Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta, anotado y adicionado por Federico G6mez
de Orozco (M6xico, 1927). G6mez de Orozco limited himself to transcribing
Icazbalceta's description of the manuscript: "Memoriales de Fr. Toribio de Motolinia
en 126 ff. i'tiles, m~isun Calendario". He adds that this manuscript was a part of the
Libro de oro y tesoro indico, "c6dice del siglo XVI". He does not say any more.
286 TORIBIOMOTOLINfA

simple conjectures. It is surprisingthat O'Gorman has not made greater

use of quotationsfrom Torquemada,who frequently gives credit to
Motolinia, or from Mendieta, who usually copies Motolinia without
acknowledging his source. Garcia Pimentel did not avail himself of
these resources, either, although he made a lot of marginal references
to parallel chapters of Torquemada. If no other manuscript appears,
however, references such as these may be the only ones that could help
us make sense of, or to improve certain obscure passages of the
Memoriales.
Likewise, the identification of authors and sources appears to be
deficient. As regards the authors, it is vague and at times incorrect.
The list given in the fourth appendix of the preliminary study (pp.
CXXVI-CXXVIII) is merely an alphabetical compilation of the
unprecise references scattered through the book; it should have indicated
the work which Motolinia may have used, or at least offer some infor-
mation in this respect. As for the texts cited in the Memoriales, it is
worthy of note that those taken from the Bible are generally well trans-
scribed and identified as they already were in the first edition of 1903.
The same is not the case with the texts taken from other sources, which
are usually found to be badly copied in the original. In both respects,
the new edition represents notable progress but leaves several matters
unresolved or badly resolved. I shall mention some of them:
(Memoriales, Part I, Ch. 2, Number 47) The original reads:
Locustaest maliciaore ledes [laedens]infideli.scz. [scilicet] testimonio.
I do not see the "seu" which Garcia Pimentel and O'Gormanread.
The correct translation,in my opinion, should be "La Langosta es la
malicia que dafiacon la boca, o sea con testimonio falso." The text
is taken from the work of St. Augustine, Enarrationesin Psalmos in
the commentary to Psalm 77. It is lamentablethat the new editors
should have tried to correct Garcia Pimentel, giving us this dreadful
"in Psalmus" and "Operarum" in Note No. 33.
Pg. 30 (Ch. cit. No. 50) The "quis" from the Latin text is in error
and, consequently, so is the translation.
Pg. 212 (Ch. 54, No. 331) the biblical text was alreadyidentified in
the edition of GarciaPimentel; I do not understandwhy it was omitted
in the modern edition. It is from the Book of Judith I, 4.
Pg. 213 (Ch. 55, No. 334). I believe that Motolinia does not allude
in this passageto JosephusFlaviusnor to the destructionof Jerusalem
by Titus and Vespasianbut rather to that which took place earlierat
the hands of Antioch. This latter event was related in the 2nd book
of the Macabees, (Ch.5, verses 1-3), throughout the city, there appeared
suddenly rows of horsemen dressed in golden tunics, armed with
lances, appearing like legions, and squadrons of horses in battle array,
 LINo G. CANEDO 287

charges and counter-chargesfrom one side or another, movement of

standards,multitudesof lances, swords unsheathed,launching of darts,
shining of golden armor and cuirassesof all kinds. It is Torquemada
who pointsout the signs (Book II, Ch. 90) which, accordingto Josephus,
precededthe destructionof Jerusalemby the Romans,but Torquemada
does not quote nor follow the Memorialesin this chapter. Which is
also worth noting.
Pg. 238 (Ch. 59, No. 394). The text of the Book of Wisdom,
Ch. VII, is the following: "...omnium enim artifex docuit me
sapentia (V. 21). Est enim in illa spiritus intelligentiae, sanctus,
unicus... (V. 23)... omnem habens virtutem, omnia prospiciens...
(V.23.). Motolinia, in this case, as in others, extracts and accomo-
dates the biblical texts. But this "quem" of verse 23, is an error,
which Garcia Pimentel committed also.21
Pg. 320 (Ch. 6 of the second part, No. 573) The biblical citation
correspondsto St. Matthew, Ch. V, several verses of which condemn
fornication; the reference is probably to verse 28. Therefore, the
correct reading should be: ut Mathei 5.
Pg. 321 (Ch. cit. No. 575). The sin of Ruben is referred to in
Genesis, 22, although in Genesis XLIX, 4, there is an allusion to the
same sin. And that of Absalom is narratedin Second Kings, XVI,
21-2.
The list could be continued a little more, but I believe that the exam-
ples cited are sufficient. Still less satisfactory is the identification of the
juridical texts, since these are poorly given in the manuscript and,
furthermore, no attempt whatsoever was made to identify them in the
first edition of 1903. The manuscript contains texts which are
completely unintelligible, veritable charades. Consequently, comparison
with the correct texts is indispensable, using for this purpose the
respective printed compilations; namely the Corpus luris Canonici and
Corpus luris Civilis. This should have been attempted in chapters 6
to 9 of part two, where marriages among the Indians is the subject.
This deficiency should definitely be avoided in a new edition.
Let us look at some of these examples:

Pg. 287 (Memoriales, Ch. 69, No. 498). The reference is to the
second part of the Decreto (Decree) of Graciano, cause 35, question
21
The method of paraphrasing and accommodating biblical texts was often used
by Motolinia. So in n. 276 (Ch.50) of the Memoriales he changes the original "sedent"
of Luke I, 79 into "sedebant ". Likewise in n. 278: "'Qui vos audit me audit, qui vos
spernit me spernit" (Luke, X, 16) spernit becomes spernunt (the manuscript really has
sperenit, but it is an obvious error). In n. 280 he assembles two different texts: "et
manus nostrae contrectaverunt" (Epist. I of St. John, I, 1) and "caeci vident, claudi
ambulant", etc. of Matthew XI, 5.
288 TORIBIOMOTOLINIA

2-3, chap. 20, which contains the decision of Pope St. Gregory-not
Gregory IX of the Decretales-in a letter to St. Augustin of Canterbury
regarding the degrees of consanguinity among the recently converted
English. The first Latin word-" cuyus verba sunt "-do not pertain
to the canon; they represent simply a latinism used by Motolinia. Pg.
320 (Part 2, Ch. 6, No. 573). "Nemo blandiatur sibi" are the first
words of Ch. 4, cause 32, of the Decree of Graciano where rape, adult-
ery and fornication are condemned. The correct reading of the manu-
script should be: et in Cap? Nemo sibi blandiatur, 32, 4. The "et
neme " does not make sense.

Pg. 330. No. 601. This quotation " tua de sponsa " refers to Ch. 26 of
Title 1, Book IV, of the Decretales, "De sponsalibus et matrimonis";
this chapter commences with the words "Tua nos duxit Fraterrnitas
consulendos. " This is a letter from Pope Innocent III to the Bishop
of Brescia (1213). In order to nullify the marriage in question, the
Pope states that the existence of a condition must be evident, otherwise
it must be presumed that there was a valid marriage.

Pg. 333, No. 609. There is a chapter "Ex parte, " the 14th of Title 13,
Book II of the Decretales, that treats "De restitutione spoliatorum ". It
is true that the manuscript reads " como lo dice el Abb, " but I am not
certain that the last word should be transcribed, "Abulense "; it could
be " el Abad ".

In like manner it should have been possible to identify and clarify

other juridical references which abound in the chapters mentioned, thus
clearing up those texts whose meaning is obscure. It would have been
helpful to have done this with the chapter Gaudemus, which is the 8th
of title 19, book IV of the Decretales; where the convert is ordered to
retain his first wife; with the chapter Quanto, which is the 4th of the
book and title cited from the Decretales; the "traductio ad domum"
as proof of consent, which is mentioned in Instituta, book II, title 16,
paragraph 19. Furthermore, this failure to use complete and correct
texts causes the translationsof some of these to be less than satisfactory.
Thus, on p. 325, No. 587, I believe that the translation of the text " et
moribus utentium aprobata": should be "y aprobada por la conducta
de quienes la usan " (and approved by the conduct of those who use it).
That is to say that, for a custom to be acceptable, it should be authorized
by the good conduct of those who practice it. And, on p. 330, No.
601, the translation also fails to make sense. From the context of the
canon cited, it seems that the translation should be: "no vemos como
pudo constar" or perhaps "averiguarse ".
 LINo G. CANEDO 289

Let us proceed to another point: that of the corrections to the text

of the manuscript. Garcia Pimentel had already taken the same sort of
liberties in the first edition in 1903, and without giving any warning
notice in many cases. Up to a point, the corrections are justified, since
the manuscript, as has been stated, contains manifest copying errors.
Therefore, O'Gorman is right in accepting some of these corrections and
in adding others of his own. What one might make objection to is that
these corrections are not always identified as such. Even though some are
of obvious errors, identifying them as such could help eventually to trace
the history of the manuscript. For example, on folio 73 (55) of the
manuscript, the word " cae " is clearly used where it seems evident that
it should be " aca "; Pimentel transcribed it thus and O'Gorman does
the same, each of them punctuating the paragraph differently and not
very convincingly. Neither of them calls our attention to such correct-
ions. In folio 93 (75)-Pimentel, p. 90; O'Gorman, No. 465-not only
is there a change in punctuation, perhaps unnecessary, but also a trans-
posing of words. In folio 47 (29) v-Pimentel, p. 90; O'Gorman, last
line of No. 195-the manuscript says " son amigos y vecinos " (they are
friends and neighbors), when the sense demands that it be read " sus
amigos y vecinos" (their friends and neighbors), as both editors tran-
scribe it but without saying so. On the other hand, the passage seems
somewhat confusing and O'Gorman proposes a reconstruction based
upon the unknown original, which seems to me very speculative.
In some cases the reading of the manuscript is not correct. Thus, in
folio 50 (32) Pimentel read "plagas" and O'Gorman "placas, " al-
though with the possible meaning of " plagas " (plagues); I believe that
the first reading is the correct one. More noteworthy is the case of folio
48 (30) v-Pimentel p. 93; O'Gorman, end of No. 203-where the manu-
script clearly states "esto a [ha] ya mis de seis afios "; Pimentel
transformed it into "hay ya mas de seis afios" and O'Gorman
into "hace ya mis de seis afios ". In certain cases, perhaps, there are
errors in printing-of which the volume does have its share as one might
expect from a work of such magnitude-as in folio 52 (34) where the
word Teovacan or Teouacan appearsseveral times, one of these is tran-
scribed Teovavan (O'Gorman, No. 220). I bring all this minutiae to
light so that no one will be too severe with the poor copyist of the
Historia whose errors seem so incomprehensible to the modem editor
of Motolinfa. In the same folio, a little further along, Pimentel left
a blank after the words "de esta ciudad" (of this city) which are clear
in the manuscript. O'Gorman read without hesitation "desde Ciudad
Rodrigo ". Actually, after the word "ciudad" there is in the manu-
290 TORIBIOMOTOLINfA

script what looks like "1Ro", but the word "desde" does not exist.
It is probable that the sense may be correct, since so it appears in
Historia, II, Ch. 5, No. 222, but he should have made a clarification.
Neither do I find convincing the reading of a passage in folio 56 (38)v.
Pimentel left one word blank, not finding any meaning in the phrase
"porque suso misericordia"; O'Gorman accepts the reading of the
manuscript (No. 252), but could not this be "us6 misericordia"? The
omission or addition of one letter is not unusual in this manuscript.
We could continue the list. The examples mentioned are designed
to call attention to the necessity for a more careful reading of the
manuscript when a new edition is undertaken, and, in any case, for an
indication of what adjustments have been made in the text. What
Pimentel and O'Gorman did to the passage on p. 207, No. 317, seems
completely conjectural and I believe that O'Gorman does not improve
on the text of Pimentel on p. 218, No. 347; in both cases, the inter-
pretation of the manuscript is arbitrary. Also, I belive that the" que "
inserted by O'Gorman in No. 361 is badly placed. It would have
been better to put in a note either the correct text of the Historia, or that
of Torquemada (lib. XIV, Ch. 39), who specifically quotes Motolinia.
To conclude, I would add that O'Gorman in No. 343, penultimate
paragraph, reads "uvas" without any basis whatever in the original,
and I think that the reader would also like to know how he evolved
the reconstruction of the Latin text of p. 306, No. 533, horribly
transcribed in the manuscript. Finally, that strange word "pereados "
which he read in No. 477-could not that be " perlados "? The manu-
script permits such a reading.
One word with respect to the explanatory notes. Although they are
abundant and some of them might even be called superfluous, on other
occasions they are noticeable by their absence, as in the case of the town
of Vilvestre (p. 375, No. 748) or with respect to the "Relaci6n de
Michoacin " and its author (p. 302, note 5). On p. 142, note 4, the
explanation is incorrect, since there was never a papal bull "Veritas
ipsa, " this being simply a part of the "Sublimis Deus ". An error re-
peated on p. 146, note 13. It is suprising also that we are told on p. 180,
note 64, regarding the " Beata " of Barco de Avila: " no se ha identifi-
cado quien haya sido esa beata " (the identity of this beata has not been
determined), because this identity was established long ago. See
Bataillon, Erasmo en Espa~ia.A good number of the notes suffer from
O'Gorman's bias concerning the relationship between the Historia and
the Memoriales and from his assumption that Motolinia wrote only one
work of historiographic nature to which all the Motolinian quotations
 LINo G. CANEDO 291
mustrefer;thosemadeby Motoliniahimself,as well as thosemadeby
otherauthors. We shallreturnto this pointmorepreciselylateron.
The referenceby Motoliniain his letter 1555 (p. 407, line 2) to the
"instrucciones y mandamientos que Ilevany han Ilevadolos que van
a nuevasconquistas"(instructions and commandswhich thosegoing
out to new conquestscarry and have carriedwith them) does not
necessarilyalludeto the "LeyesNuevas" (New Laws) of 1542-1543
but couldvery well referto otherinstructions givento the conquista-
doressinceearlytimes.Beforethe LeyesNuevas,thoseof Granada(17
Nov. 1526) had been promulgatedand their stipulationshad since
been generallyincorporatedinto the "capitulaciones ". O'Gorman
is correctin pointingout the errorin the transcription which occurs
in p. 419, note 59, but his correctionis also erroneous;the correct
readingis "aquellibro que digo". Incidentallythis readingappears
alreadyin the editionof 1873 which O'Gormancites but which,
apparently, he did not consult.
This bringsus to anotheraspectof the presentwork. If it is
regrettable thata morepainstaking examination of the only manuscript
in whichtheMemoriales is preserved
didnotprecedethisre-edition, it is
alsoverystrangethatthiswholedisplayof Motolinian textswhichform
the Appendicesshouldbe basedon secondarysources. This happens
with the famousletterof 1555to the Emperorwhichis reproduced
hereaccordingto one of the printededitions. WhenO'Gormanfinds
himselfconfrontedwith doubtfulpassages,he invents,by way of
explanation, the gratuitoustheorythat these editionsdo not contain
thecompletetextof theletter. And,asis hiscustom,he speculates upon
what the supposedlyunknownoriginalcould contain. Fortunately
thisorginaldoesexistandis readilyavailablefor inspection,not in the
Archivode Simancas, asO'Gorman repeats,butin the ArchivoGeneral
de Indias,in Seville,andhasbeenpublished since1873. Moreover,this
original revealsthat the Mufiozcopy, the one commonlyusedfor the
printededitions,is substantiallycorrect,at leastas to the passages
upon
whichO'Gormancomments.Therefore,all the suppositions basedon
thesepretendeddiscrepancies betweenthe originalandthe copy should
be forgotten.
Impaired by errorsof transcriptionaresomeof the otherMotolinia
lettersincludedin the Appendices, especiallythosetakenfromCuevas.
Therewasnot , it seems,any attemptmadeto verifythesetexts. We
have a typical example of this carelessness in Appendix No. XXXV,
which contains the translation of the lives and martyrdoms of the three
children of Tlaxcala. This is simply a re-print of the 1856 edition
292 TORIBIO MOTOLINIA

included in the poorly edited collection of Documentos para la historia

de Mexico. The new editors copied even the misleading reference to
the original source given in the first edition.
The compendium of biographical notes on Motolinia which make up
Appendix II of the preliminary study is very useful and worthy of
praise. Nevertheless, it would be prudent not to state as an established
fact the date of his death as 1569. The testimony of Vetancurt on
which this date rests is a bit late, and this author has been wrong in
several other cases. On the other hand, the documentary proofs adduced
do not solve the question definitely. The fact that Bishop Ayala was
in Mexico in March 1569 does not signify that he was still there on the
9th and 10th of August of the same year. We know that Ayala was
in Mexico City at least in 1559, 1562, 1565 and 1569, and of these dates,
the two which could have coincided easily with the day Motolinia died,
according to the information available to us today are those of 1559
and 1565. In 1559, Ayala, recently named Bishop of Nueva Galicia,
arrived in New Spain on the 15th of July; he could very well have
been in the capital the 9th of August and, in fact, he was there the 1st
of September." Contrary to the supposition that Motolinia may have
died in that year, we have the repeated affirmation of Mendieta that
Fray Toribio was the last one of the Twelve to die, which gives us a
date later than the 23rd of June, 1562, on which Fr. Juan de Ribas
died.23 During his 1565 visit, Ayala was in Mexico the 11th of
October.24 If we could succeed in knowing more precisely the move-
ments of the Bishop of Nueva Galicia during those years, we might be
able, perhaps,to establishmore firmly the date of the death of Motolinia,
thus explaining the thirteen final years of his life which lie buried in
the most complete obscurity.
There are two other features in this edition about which I am dubious.
One is the insertion of chapters of the Historia to fill the gaps found
in the Memoriales. Although these insertions are perfectly well
identified, they tend in some way to denature the character of the
Memoriales making it appear to be a more perfect work than it really
is. There is the risk of trying to replenish the incomplete or mutilated
22According to a letter by the Viceroy (M6xico, September 1, 1559) the fleet in
which Ayala came, had sailed from Spain on April 18, 1559, and arrived at Veracruz
the 15th of the next July (AGI. Audiencia de Mexico, leg. 280. Published by Paso y
Troncoso, Epistolario de la Nueva Espafia, vol. VIII, p. 200). Ayala did remain in
Mixico City at least until Nov. 30, 1559, when he was the main celebrant at the
funeral services for Charles the Fifth (Garcia Icazbalceta, Obras, VI, pp. 401, 424, 432).
23 Mendieta, Historia eclesidstica
indiana, book V. Chs. 22 and 24.
24
Mariano Cuevas, Documentos iniditos para la historia de Mixico (M6xico, 1914).
 LINOG. CANEDO 293

body, which the Memoriales evidently represents, with members that

may well not have belonged to it. It could be a transplantof extraneous
materials. Would it not have been preferable to content himself with
references to the text of the Historia?
The "reconstruction " of the Memoriales which O'Gorman attempts
in the first part of his preliminary study (pp. XXI-LI) also seems to
be a little risky. Father L6pez did something similar in 1931, also using
the first published part of Zorita's Historia de la Nueva Espana. But
while Father L6pez prudently limited himself to indicating the matters
treated, according to Zorita, in specific chapters of the lost work,
O'Gorman gives a complete summary of its supposed contents and
divisions. Without having examined the fourth part of Zorita'sHistoria,
which is where he again multiplies precise references to Motolinia,
O'Gorman attempted a rather hazardous reconstruction. In fact, some
of O'Gorman's hypotheses are certainly wrong. Without getting into
other details which could carry us too far afield, the first part of
Motolinia 's lost work had, according to the data furnished by Zorita, at
least 37 chapters, as contrasted with the 31 in O'Gorman's recon-
struction. The point still needs much investigation.
3. The new theories
I would not wish my critical observations to obscure the real im-
portance which the new editions of the Historia de los indios de la
Nueva Espana and of the Memoriales have in the field of Motolinian
bibliography. The merit of these editions is undeniable. Thanks to them
we shall now be able to use a notably improved text of these works, one
that is easier to consult and-insofar as the Memoriales is concerned-one
that is typographically an improvement on the first edition. On the
other hand, I felt that it was necessary to point out the amount of re-
search still needed to achieve a satisfactory edition of the two works: a
better examination of the manuscripts and of the previous contributions
to the theme by other scholars; a full identification of authors, quo-
tations, places, persons, etc.
But such deficiencies are not the features which most invite comment
in the editorial work done by Dr. O'Gorman. As I said before, the real
newness of his contribution is to be found in the "Estudio analitico "
which precedes his edition of the Memoriales. He assembles here all,
or almost all, of what he wrote in the " Estudio critico " prefacing the
edition of the Historia, and for this reason I am going to examine both
studies conjointly. The reasoning of O'Gorman-if I understand him
correctly-stems from the assumption that Motolinia wrote only one
294 TORIBIo MOTOLINiA

work on the ancient customs of the Indians of New Spain and their
conversion to Christianity; a work which is lost today but to which
all of the Motolinian citations which we find in the chroniclers, historians
and bibliographers from the 16th to the 18th centuries must refer.
Of that lost work, he says, we have a copy, although incomplete, in
the Memoriales, while the Historia is a compendium of the same lost
work. But this compendium is not atributable to Motolinia and
probably-according to O'Gorman-it was compiled in Spain using the
original of the lost work which Zorita brought with him on his return
to his native country.25 The last statement can truly be qualified as an
unsuspectedconclusion-"conclusi6n "-as O'Gorman
insopechada does,
becausein so far as I am awarenobodyhadeversuggestedit. With
respect to the lost work of Motolinia and its relationship to the
Memoriales and the Historia, conjectures very similar to those of
O'Gorman had already been advanced. The only difference is that
O'Gorman presents his opinions as certain and definite, whereas previous
scholars suggested them as mere hypotheses. But, let us consider, part
by part, the groundwork for O'Gorman's reasoning which I have just
synthesized.
1) It is possible-just possible-that Motolinia may not have written
more than one book on the Indians of New Spain-a book today lost-
of which the Memoriales and the Historia could be a part or a derivative
in some way. Motolinia may have had also the intention of in-
corporating in this lost work other writings attributed to him. In the
Motolinian bibliography there are still so many unresolved problems
that it would not be prudent to close the door to these probabilities
or possibilities. The danger lies in considering them to be proven facts.
In part three of the analytical preliminary study, O'Gorman gives
a series of quotations from Motolinia taken from Las Casasin 1538-1539
up to Clavigero in 1780. He finds no difficulty in tracing all these
quotations to a single Motolinian work. But some of the cases seem
doubtful, to say the least; the terminology comes out vague and dis-
cordant. For example, Las Casas refers to a book that Motolinia " had
minutely assembled for the advancement of those peoples [the Indians]
25 See the critical study which precedes the Historia, whose conclusions O'Gorman
confirms in his introduction to the Memoriales. However, O'Gorman's opinions on
the nature of the Historia do not appear to me always very consistent. It never seems
completely clear whether he considered the Historia to be a fragmentary copy or a
real synthesis of Motolinia's lost work, with additions and omissions purposely made.
How can O'Gorman be sure that we have in the Historia a "versi6n compendiadapero
autintica " of the lost work ?
 LINO G. CANEDO 295

in our christian religion ", while Motolinia himself, in his letter of 1555
to the Emperor, calls the book he addressed to the Count of Benavente
an "account of the rites and ancient ways of life of this land ". It
is possible that both references are to the same work, but the " book"
mentioned by Las Casas concerned the conversion of the Indians, while
the "relaci6n" quoted by Motolinia dealt apparently with topics of
a more wordly character.26 Other testimony worthy of consideration
is that of Mendieta. This author knew Motolinia personally and was
even a subject of his in a convent he does not identify; he was also
aware of his intense interest in history, as has been stated.27 In men-
tioning Motolinia as the sixth provincial of the Province of the Holy
Gospel in Mexico, Mendieta says of him that " he was interested in many
things, and among others he left a record of the method that was
followed in the conversion of these natives, and of other ancient ways
of life, of which I have availed myself for this History, although I
would have profited more from his oral testimony, (being as he was
my Guardian), if at that time I had had the intention of getting into this
worrisome activity. " This " worrisome activity " or the task of writing
the history of the Franciscans in Mexico had been imposed first on
Father Mendieta in 1571 by the Minister General of the Order.28 It
is probable that he may have begun the duties as chronicler after his
return from Spain, at the end of the summer of 1573; we know for
certain that in March of 1574 he was engaged in compiling the report
entrusted to him by the Minister General.29 This report served later
as a basis for the " Relaci6n de la descripci6n de la Provincia del Santo
Evangelio " which Mendieta himself, assisted by Fathers Oroz and
Suirez, was to finish in M6xico on the 17th of February 1585, at the
request of another Minister General, Francisco Gonzaga, who incor-
26We know that the topics alluded to by Motolinia in his letter of 1555 were
treated in the manuscript which Zorita used, because this author quotes Motolinia in
relation to those matters (Zorita, Historia de la Nueva Espafia, part 2. chaps. 8-9)
and the same topics are found in the Memoriales. On the other hand, Motolinia's
lost work dealt also with the conversion and advancement of the Indians. So it is
possible-maybe probable-but not certain, that both the references by Las Casas and
by Motolinia himself are to the same work.
27See note n. 1.
28The official document, in Latin, is printed at the beginning of the edition of
Mendieta's Historia eclesidstica indiana by Garcia Icazbalceta (Mexico, 1870). But
the interest of Mendieta in the historical past of New Spain must have been
previous
to the General's command, since we know by his own testimony that he
sought
information from Andr6s de Olmos, who according to Mendieta himself died on
October 8, 1571. The communication between Olmos and Mendieta has to have been
before the latter left for Spain in 1569-1570.See note 36 to this article.
29Cuevas, Documentos,
p. 300.
296 TORIBIO MOTOLINiA

porated the information in the fourth part of his voluminous book De

Origine Seraphicae Religionis (Rome, 1587) .30
In this Relaciodn of 1585 two historical works are attributed to
Motolinia: De moribus Indorum and Venida de los doce primeros
padres y lo que, Ilegados acd, hicieron.3" Mendieta also attributes these
same works to Motolinia, using the same words in his Historia eclesidstica
indiana, which he finished about the year 1597, and Torquemada copied
this information from Mendieta for his MonarquiaIndiana.32 At this
time-before 1597-the lost work of Motolinia could have come into the
possessionof Mendieta,De las cosasde la Nueva Espaia y los naturales
della, the title given it by Zorita. The latter had taken this work with
him to Spain in 1566 and was getting ready to return it in 1584.
Whether this work actually arrived in Mexico and came into the
possession of Mendieta is not absolutely certain, in so far as I know."
Mendieta in his aforementioned Historia eclesidstica indiana copies or
uses Motolinia frequently, often without quoting him. Other times
he quotes him without stating the precise work.34 On one occsion-lib.
IV, cap. 24-he refers expressly to a work of his "De moribus in-
dorum ", with reference to some visions and revelations by which God

830The Relacidn ends with these words: "Which began to write some ten years
ago father Fray Jer6nimo de Mendieta, and later for its conclusion he was helped by
Fray Pedro Oroz and Fray Francisco Suirez." See the edition by Chauvet, p. 182.
81 Relacidn, p. 67. That Mendieta may have incorporated the last of these treatises-
"Venida de los doce primeros padres y lo que llegados acai hicieron "-in the final
compilation of the lost work which O'Gorman supposes was done in 1543, is only an
hypothesis. But Mendieta's reference seems to prove that previous to 1584 Mendieta
knew of such a writing by Motolinia. We will see that Mendieta's source could very
well have been more than just hearsay, as O'Gorman assumes.
82Mendieta, book V, part 1, Ch. 22; Torquemada, book XX, Ch. 25.
388Zoritadid not arrive in Spain until the summer of 1566. The vagueness and
scantiness of the quotations from Motolinia in authors like Divila Padilla (1596), Fr.
Juan Bautista (1600-1601), Torquemada (1615) and others makes it difficult to deter-
mine if they refer to the same work used by Zorita or to a copy or draft similar to the
Memoriales. Daivila Padilla (Historia de la fundacidn de la Provincia de Santiago de
Mexico, book I, Ch. 22) quotes "un libro de los ritos y conversi6n de los indios,
y hase quedado-he adds-en cuadernos de mano, mereciendo andar impreso en las de
todos "; the reference is to chapter 30 of the third part, where Motolinia told of how
the Franciscans of Tlaxcala lent the Dominican Fray Bernardino Minaya two of the
children educated by them, to serve as interpreters and catechists. This episode was
narrated by Motolinia in the Historia but is not found in the Memoriales. The work
used by Zorita had this story in chapter 8 of the fourth part. Torquemada Monarquia
Indiana, book 19, Ch. 13 (on the education of the young people among the Aztecs)
copies from Motolinia a paragraph that not only presents notable variants in regard
to the correspondingpassage of the Memorialesbut also to the one quoted by Las Casas.
Other similarly puzzling examples could be easily given.
34 So in book III, Ch. 2 refers to "un su libro ", in Ch. 46 to "aquellos sus memoriales".
 LINO G. CANEDO 297

had wished to reveal himself to the Indians. However, this material

is treated as much in the Memoriales (Ch. 51, n. 301) as in the Historia
(tratado II, cap. 8), although in the latter there is lacking a detail which
the Memoriales contains and which Mendieta copies. This closer
concordance with the Memoriales is generally verified in Mendieta's
quotations and even in references to Motolinia concerning material not
found in the Memoriales, but treated in the Historia. It does not appear,
therefore, that the Historia was the work used by Mendieta-at least
in the several cases that I have compared. The same thing is observed
in Torquemada, who did not always copy Mendieta servilely, contrary
to what is usually believed.
Mendieta's references are to one and only to one work of Motolinia,
as O'Gorman supposes?" There is a passage, apparently forgotten
by this author, where Mendieta, after offering us a very interesting
testimony concerning the writings of Fray Andres de Olmos, and after
relating to us how the latter had managed to condense into an " epilog
or summary " the content of his famous work about the ancient customs
of the Indians-the original and four copies of which had been sent to
Spain-adds: "And I, who write this, having had a desire to know
about these ancient customs, many years ago went to this same Father
Fray Andr6s, as to the fountain from which all the streams which have
treated this subject emanated,and he told me in whose possessionI would
find this last summary of his, written in his own hand, and I obtained
it and had it in my possession; and from it and from other writings of
Father Fray Toribio, one of the first twelve, I extracted what I write
in this book concerning the ancient rites of the Indians."" On the
other hand, Father Domayquia-the frustrated editor of Mendieta in
the XVIIth century-referring to the credibility of the sources used by
the latter, writes: "And the more memorable things which happened
to the twelve first religious, sons of our seraphic Father, (who like
another twelve apostles effected the conversion of these barbarous
peoples): almost all of these things were left in writing by two of them.
These two were the saintly Father Fray Francisco Jimenez, in the
life that he wrote of the saintly Fray Martin de Valencia, and the saintly

35Preliminary study to the Memoriales, pp. LXVI-LXVIII.

36 ",Y yo que esto escribo, teniendo alguindeseo de saber estas antiguallas,ha muchos
anos que acudi al mismo padre Fr. Andres, como a fuente de donde todos los arroyos
que de esta materia han tratado emanaban, y 61 me dijo en cuyo poder hallaria esta
su filtima recopilaci6n escrita de su propia mano, y la hube y tuve en mi poder; y de
ella y de otros escritos del padre Fr. Toribio, uno de los primeros doce, saqu6 lo
que en este libro de los antiguos ritos de los indios escribo" (Historia eclesidstica
indiana, prologue to the second book).
298 TORIBIOMOTOLINiA

Father Fray Toribio de Motolinfa, in a rough draft which he left written

in his own hand, and in which he included all that happened to the holy
twelve during the aforementioned conquest, as he saw it through his own
7 For the
eyes. " moment, we can only speculate on the true meaning
of these texts; nevertheless, I do not think it improbable that they
point to a plurality of Motolinia writings used by Mendieta, specifically
the treatise De moribus indorum and the book about the Venida de los
doce primerospadres y lo que, llegadosacd, hicieron."
In order to weaken the force of the testimony contained in the
Relacidn of 1585, O'Gorman adduces the "decisive consideration"
(consideraci6ndecisiva)-his own words, p. LXII-alleging that Mendieta
and his collaborators wrote from hearsay, since "they expressly
lament "-he adds-" the total lack of documents and histories of the
first periods of the evangelization, having to content themselves with
the testimony of oral tradition. " I consider this to be a facile con-
clusion. In the first place, Motolinia was not a figure of the remote
past, on the contrary he could have been very familiar to the authors of
the Relacio'n;in fact, we have seen that Mendieta had been closly asso-
ciated with him. Secondly, O'Gorman makes the text that he quotes
say too much. This text is based, actually, on the introduction to the life
of Archbishop Zumairragain which Mendieta and his collaborators, re-
ferring to the "life of this religious bishop and to those of the rest of
the illustrious religious which we here recount," lament that because
of the carelessness of "writers and chroniclers, " the biographies of
these men are "short" in the Relacilon. They had had to content
themselves, therefore, with "what we have been able to gather...
through very true accounts of elderly religious and other persons
worthy of belief, who generally agree. "" It is highly speculative
37 "Y las [cosas] memorables que sucedieron a los doce primeros religiosos hijos
de nuestro serifico Padre (que como otros doce ap6stoles obraron la conversi6n de
aquellasnaciones birbaras) esas casi las dejaron escritas dos de ellos, que fueron el santo
padre Fr. Francisco Jimenez en la vida que escribi6 del santo Fr. Martin de Valencia,
y el santo padre Fr. Toribio de Motolinia, en un borrador que dej6 escrito de su mano,
y en '1 todo lo que sucedi6 a los doce santos en la dicha conquista, como lo vio por
sus ojos" Domayquia's "Advertencias preimbulas" (preminary remarks) to his
planned edition of Mendieta's Historia in 1611. These can be found printed in the
edition by Garcia Icazbalceta.
8sWith regard to this last work, it should be remarked that Sahaguin,in his prologue
to the Coloquios, declines to write about the wonderful things that happened during
the first twenty years of evangelization by the Twelve and their successors, because
"muchas las dex6 escriptas uno de los doce primeros-que se lamaba fray Toribio de
Motolinia-y por eso las dexo yo descrevir" (Ed. Pou y Marti in Miscellanea Fr.
Ehrle III, p. 300).
8 Relacidn, p.47.
 LINo G. CANEDO 299

to conclude from these words that the authors of the Relaciodnof 1585
had only oral sources of testimony available. What they lament is not
being able to write extensively about these religious because of having
found only short accounts of their lives in the available sources. On
the other hand, we know that they made use of some written testimony.
For example, they used the fragment of the life of Fray Martin de
Valencia by Jimenez, perhaps also the letter of Fray Pedro de Gante,
1529, as Chauvet believes, and the memoirs (memorias) left by Fray
Rodrigo de Bienvenida, who died in 1575, one of the principal sources
they had at hand.40
This is what the authors of the Relacio'n themselves state. But
there is more. In the letter which they sent along with the Relacio'n
to Father Gonzaga (M6xico, 30 March, 1585) the text of which Father
Oroz conserved in his Varones ilustres, the authors, while repeating
their laments over the scarcity of sources and the carelessness of the
early religious, state that the information being sent at that time was
"taken from the reliable testimony of ancient documents and other
grave persons, and from some memoirs (memoriales) which are still
in existence, printed as well as hand-written."4 There is no doubt,
therefore, but that the authors of the Relacidn of 1585 had written
sources at their disposal, although with regard to Motolinia and his
writings Mendieta could have used the personal testimony of Motolinia,
himself. In any case, I believe that I have indicated another example-
and this has been my principal concern-of the ease with which O'Gor-
man draws conclusions. In my opinion, it is still very doubtful
whether Mendieta used only one or more than one of Motolinia's works.
Considering the lack of preciseness in his quotations, perhaps we shall
never know, unless the lost work appears. The same might be said of
Motolinia quotations used by other authors. Consequently, in any
subsequent investigation, the possibility that Motolinia wrote more than
one work or treatise on the Indians of New Spain should not be ruled
out.42

40Chauvet had already touched on the sources of the Relaci6n (pp. 26-29) demon-
strating that their authors used also written sources. As for the memoirs or writings
of Fr. Rodrigo de Bienvenida, Angelico Chavez attributes them great authority in his
recent edition of Oroz's Varones ilustres. The Oroz Codex. (Washington, Academy
of American Franciscan History, 1972).
41 A copy of this letter was kept by Oroz in Varones ilustres (Ms. Tulane
University,
fols. 5v-6). Translated and annotated by Chivez, The Oroz Codex, pp. 49-56.
421 am not taking here into consideration the somewhat mysterious "Guerra de
los indios" or "Historia de la conquista de M6xico ", whose Motolinian
authorship
is decidedly denied by O'Gorman. His arguments, however, do not seem to me so
300 TORIBIO MOTOLINIA

2) Let us proceed now to the second preconception of O'Gorman,

according to which the Memoriales is a " copy, " although incomplete,
of the lost work of Motolinia. Father Atanasio L6pez had already
suggested this theory in 1921, with respect to the Memoriales as well
as to the Historia. According to Father L6pez, both might have been
late and incomplete copies of a more extensive work of Motolinia.
However, in 1931 he was undecided as to whether these works might
have been rough drafts or extracts of the more extensive work which
is now lost. In 1933, Robert Ricard was inclined to consider the
Memoriales to be a "compilation " from which Motolinia extracted
the Historia, and, at the same time, a first sketch, after new data had
been added, of the work that has disappeared. O'Gorman disposes of
this question in less than one page. The fact of the great number of
omissions in the Memoriales, with respect to the work used by Zorita
and other authors, he explains by telling us that it is an incomplete
copy. He also suggests a journey of the orginal to Spain before 1547,
where the copy which appears in the Libro de oro y tesoro indico,
that is, our Memoriales, was made: "After the return of Motolinia's
original book to Mexico, and before Zorita carried it away again in
1565 (!) Motolinia made the slight additions to his manuscript which
appear in the Historia and not in the Memoriales."'4 As the reader
can see, it is impossible to ask for greater certainty and preciseness.
It is too bad that O'Gorman does not offer us the slightest proof of
all that he asserts.
The " indubitable " proof, he says, that the Memoriales is a copy of the
lost work lies in the correspondence between the chapters of the two
works, judging especially by the precise quotations from the lost work
that Zorita has left us. I fail to see this correspondence. While many
of the chapters of the lost work quoted by Zorita correspond in their
content to chapters of the Memoriales, the order of the chapters in the
latter is too distinct for there to be any question of a copy. If what
served as the original for the copy that we have in the Memoriales was a
complete and definitive work, it becomes difficult to explain why the
copyist did not follow the order of this orginal. No explanation is given,
either, for the great number of omissions in the Memoriales with respect
conclusive. Let's discard the one based on Motolinia's letter of 1555, because-contrary
to what O'Gorman supposes-we have the complete text of that letter. It is not
possible to discuss here all the other arguments, but I would like to remark that
Mendieta (Historia, book IV, Ch. 5) places the visit by the Michoacan king to
M6xico in 1525,and Torquemada adds: "bautiz6se y llam6se Francisco en el bautismo"
(Monarquia Indiana,book 19, Ch. 12).
43O'Gorman, Memoriales, preliminary analytical study, section two, note 50.
 LINO G. CANEDO 301

to the work of which it is presumably a copy. The case lends itself to

various forms of ingenuous speculation which may furnish us with addit-
ional clews to be investigated. Until further investigation gives new
evidence, I am inclined to believe that the Memoriales is a copy not
of the definitive work which has been lost, but at most a copy of a
rough draft, trial copy, or sketch of the said work. I am basically in
agreement with the theory of Robert Ricard. This sketch could very
well have been that first version which, according to O'Gorman, was
taken to Spain before 1547, and which served as a base for the
Memoriales and as a source for G6mara. There is no need to bring it
to Mexico again so that Zorita can take it to Spain in 1566. Probably
there were several versions or copies. It should be remembered that,
in addition to the original, four copies were made of the book by Father
Olmos; nevertheless, the work has disappeared. All this lucubration
on the part of O'Gorman, based on a sentence allegedly from the letter
of Motolinia to the emperor (1555), is without foundation. This
sentence does not exist in the original text of the letter.

3) With respect to the Historia de los indios de Nueva Espania,

O'Gorman repeats, as was to be expected, the arguments with which
he prefaced his edition of this work (Mexico, Porrfia, 1969). Accord-
ing to him, the Historia is a " condensed version " of the lost work, but
not of all of it, and with the organization of the original model
slightly altered. The result is " if not a new work, it is indeed a distinct
work, animated by the desire to satisfy the diverse requirements or
tastes of those who prompted the writing of the original. " This
means that we have here "a selective compendium" which amounts
to a distinct book that is sui generis, and which cannot and should not
be confused with the work from which it derives.44 He does not
clarify what he understands by version and compendium, but judging
by all the rest of his explanations, it seems fair to conclude that the
Historia, for O'Gorman, is a book essentially based on the lost work,
but accommodated to suit specific purposes. In this sense, the thesis
does not constitute anything new. It is what the specialists in this field
have been thinking for many years.
The novelty of O'Gorman's thesis follows. Traditionally, it has
been believed that this distinct work-condensed version, extract, or
advance copy-which the Historia represents, was written by Motolinia

44Memoriales, p. LIII and LV. In his introduction to the Historia (Mexico, Porruia,
1969) p. XIII, O'Gorman wrote: "la Historia es un libro distinto y sui generis respecto
a la obra de que es compendio y selecci6n."
302 TORIBIO MOTOLINiA

himself. O'Gorman maintainsthat " only in an indirect manner can the

paternity of this book be attributed to Motolinia, because he is the
author of the work from which it [the Historia] is derived, but not
because, as has been thought, he is the author of the work itself. " •
I agree with O'Gorman that his conclusion is possible, because the
field of possibilities is almost unlimited in this case, but I do not think
that it is very probable.
I admit, of course, that the Historia is a work with its own
characteristics, purposes, and peculiar organization, not a mere copy of
chapters or excerpts from another book. Nor do I find it difficult to
admit that the copyist or copyists of the text or texts of the Historia,
as we know it today, have modified the original, introducing changes,
errors, and even adding passages to the original. It is also possible-
although it may be pure speculation-that these copies may be derived
from a version of the Historia which was compiled in Spain after 1566.
But this mere fact would not negate Motolinia's paternity. On the
other hand, the difficulties involved in admitting that the work was
composed in Spain after 1566, to me seem greater than those involved
in agreeing with O'Gorman that the work could not have been written
by Motolinia. First of all it is strange that a compiler who is writing
after 1566 should end his account precisely at the biennium 1541-43,
without it ever occuring to him to add something about the many
things that had happened since that time. Moreover, do not the
references to Carlos V (142, n. 325; 143, n. 328) as lord of Mexico
seem to be anachronisimsafter 1566? Carlos V abdicated in 1556 and
died in 1558. It would be natural for an author writing in 1567 or
afterwards to exalt Felipe II. It is surprising that O'Gorman, who
gives so much importance to the other alleged anachronisms in the
Historia, did not advert to this one.46 Also, if we admitted O'Gor-
man's thesis, we would have a case of forgery. The work is attributed
to Motolinia in the manuscripts.

45Memoriales,p. LV-LVI, where O'Gorman refers to what he wrote in his intro-

duction to the Historia. On my part, I would refer to my article "Motolinia, enigma
historiogrifico", in Boletin del Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliogrificas (Biblioteca
Nacional de M6xico n. 4, julio-diciembre 1970), pp. 153-177.
46O'Gorman finds anachronistic and incompatible with Motolinia's authorship of
the Historia such references as to call Cortds "gobernador y capitin general",
writing of 1521 events when Cortis still did not yet have that title, and saying that Fr.
Martin de Valencia was "provincial" of the Holy Gospel when officially he was only
"cutos." I hope that I have sufficiently clarified these minutiae in my article cited
in note 45. The strange thing is that Motolinia perpetrates the same anachronism
in Memoriales, part I, Ch. 2, p. 21, n. 37, referring also to Cortis as "gobernador y
capitan general." But in this case O'Gorman makes no complaints.
 LINo G. CANEDO 303

O'Gorman attempts to prove his thesis by a variety of arguments

based on internal criticism (Memoriales, pp. LVI-LIX). I will not
comment on those developed under letters A and B, because they seem
to me to be of little or no value. With regard to those recorded under
the letter C, the supposed errors in Nihuatl may be the fault of the
copyist, particularly if the copy was made in Spain. The Memoriales,
itself, abounds in these errors of transcription. The argument would
have some value if we were considering an autograph of Motolinia.
It is very hazardous to say that " Timixtitfin" may be a corruption of
Tenuchtitlin, which was peculiar to the early Spaniards. It appears
at very late dates, in Spain as well as in Mexico. On the other hand,
a 1525 letter of Cortes is signed in Tenustitdn, and one from the city
council of Mexico to the king is dated 20 February, 1526, " in this great
city of Tenustitlhn" (AGI. Patronato, leg. 180). "Tenustitin " or
"Tenustitlin " occurs commonly in the first notary records of Mexico. 4
As for the fountain of Orizaba, a comparison of both texts shows how
easy it would have been for a copyist to omit the sentence "aunque
su propio nombre es Atliztac " (Memoriales, Ch. 57, n. 362; Historia,
tr. III, ch. 10). On the other hand, the copyist of the Historia was
more careful: he wrote "Aulizapa " while in the Memoriales we find
Auicilapan and Atlizcat instead of the correct Ahuilizapan and Atliztac.
Moreover, the copyist of the Memoriales (Ch. 58, n. 377) committed
a similar error which could have resulted in an incorrect etymology
if the error had not been offset by the wording of the Historia. I
might add that "Tlacuba" is also found in the Memoriales (part I,
Ch. 16, n. 97 and Ch. 53, n. 317); " Coyouacin " is found at least once,
and the words "teo " and "teu " are indiscriminately used for names
connected with the gods. Since all this proves, according to O'Gor-
man, ignorance of Nihuatl, and is incompatible with the attribution
of the Historia to Motolinia, should we also have to deny him the
paternity of the Memoriales?
Another proof against Motolinia's authorship of the Historia is, in

4 Agustin Millares Carlo y J. I. Mantec6n, Indice y extractos de los protocolos del

Archivo de Notarias de Mexico, D. F. Vol. I (1524-1528). The letter of
Cortes was
published by Garcia Icazbalcetain Coleccidn de documentos, I, 470-483. "Tenustitlain"
appears repeatedly in Documentos relativos a Herndn Cortes, published by Archivo
General de la Naci6n, Mexico. It would be good for
somebody to investigate the
origin of "Temistitain," "Timystitin," "Lemixtitan" and other corrupted forms
of Tenuchtitin. Could this not have been a simple case of
misreadingby the copyists?
Even in the manuscript of the Memoriales "Temichtitlin (Part I. Ch. 53, fol. 67) and
"Muchtithin" (fol. 60) appear. Certainly it is not "tin arcaismo exclusivamente
peninsular," as O'Gorman thinks.
304 TORIBIO MOTOLINIA

the opinion of O'Gorman, the errors which that work contains

regarding the primitive Franciscan history of Mexico. These errors,
apparently, boil down to two incorrect dates and one inexact qualifi-
cation. It is true that the Historia (Tr. I, Ch. 1) gives the year of 1523
as the one in which the famous Mission of the Twelve arrived in
M6xico, whereas it was actually in 1524. In another place (Tr. II, Ch.
4) he says that the three Flemish Franciscans, Tecto, Ayora and Gante,
came to Mexico "en el mismo afio que los doce " (in the same year as
the Twelve), nevertheless it was in 1523. The mistake or confusion
seems strange but not inexplicable taking into account the fact that
the Twelve embarked upon their voyage in 1523 and that Motolinia
was writing hurriedly eighteen years afterwards. That he knew the
exact dates is proved in the life of Fray Martin de Valencia (Historia,
Tr. III). It is a little puzzling that O'Gorman does not point this out
with the same zeal with which he had noted the previous error. Any-
way, Motolinia committed the same error in the lost work, in whose
second part, ch. 12, he wrote, according to Zorita,4 that "el mismo
afio que fueron los doce frailes a la Nueva Espafia habian ido alli antes
que ellos Fray Juan de Trento [sic for Tecto] natural de Gante.. ".
These errors do not seem to me inexplicable at all. It is worth noting,
among others, the case of Sahagfin who, having stated correctly in his
Historia de las cosas de la Nueva Espaniathe date of the arrival of the
Twelve-1524-in the prologue to his Arte Adivinatoria (NB. M6xico,
ms. 1628 bis) writes: "...y asi el afio de 1525 llegaron a esta tierra
doce frailes menores de S. Francisco, enuiados por el sumo pontifice
Adriano 6o .... " A double error, since Adrian the VIth was already
dead in 1525.
And what should be said about the " error" of calling Fray Martin
de Valencia "provincial " when he was really only " custos ", because
the FranciscanProvince of the Holy Gospel was then still a " Custody "?
This is a common type of inaccuracy not necessarily attributable to
ignorance. If O'Gorman had turned the page, he would have found
another passage where Motolinia calls Fray Martin "provincial o
custodio. "14

Finally, O'Gorman objects to the Monolinian authorship of the

Historia because of some omissions which, according to him, could not
be attributed to the carelessness of the copyist. He lists only three of
these omissions:
48Relacidn [Historia] de la Nueva
Espania,ms. Biblioteca de Palacio. Madrid, fol.
463.
9 Historia de los indios, tr. III, Ch. 2. See note above 46.
 LINO G. CANEDO 305
1) the aforementioned reference to the fountain of Orizaba on which
I already commented;
2) a passage in Treatise III, Ch. 2, where O'Gorman assumes that
Motolinia is copying Jimenez, and I do not perceive the copying nor
omission; and 3) the omission in Tr. III, Ch. 7, of a sentence regarding
the etymology of the name of M6xico, an omission of two lines that
I think could be done by any copyist. The surprising thing is that the
Memoriales presents many more serious omissions, garbled texts, incom-
prehensible passages without this fact eliciting any objection whatever
from O'Gorman.

Opposed to these very weak internal proofs negating the Motolinian

paternity of the Historia de los indios de la Nueva Espaiia we have the
old and consistent manuscript tradition which attributes the work to
Motolinia. There are three known 16th century manuscriptsin which
the Historia appears,preceded by the introductory Epistle to the Count
of Benavente, dated, Tehuacain, the 24th of February 1541; in two of
these manuscripts-the "Ciudad de Mexico " (City of Mexico) and that
of the Hispanic Society of New York-the Epistle is found signed by
"Fray Toribio de Paredes" and "Fray Toribio de Paredes dicho
Motolinia " (Fray Toribio de Paredes called Motolinia), respectively.
In the manuscript of the Escorial-the third of the 16th century-the
introductory Epistle does not carry the signature of Motolinia, but, in
a copy which is said to have been taken from that manuscript and
which is preserved today in the New York Public Library, the author
is identified as "uno de los doce religiosos franciscanos que primero
pasaron a entender en su conversi6n" (one of the twelve franciscan
religious who were first concerned with their conversion) (i.e. of
Nueva Espafia).o0 The same identification appears in another manu-
script of the XVIIIth century, that of the Library of the Palace,
50Manuscript in the Rich Collection under the title: Ritos antiguos, sacrificios y
idolatrias de los indios de la Nueva Espaniay de su conversidn a la Fe, y quienes
fueron los que primero les predicaron. Under the same title and with the notice of
having been copied from "c6dice X-II-574 de la Biblioteca del Escorial" its first
edition was published in Coleccidn de documentos indditos para la historia de Espai~a,
vol. 53, pp. 295-574 (Madrid, 1869). It is an anonymous work, without any name of
author or editor, foreword or annotation. Gil Salcedo noted some of the variantsin this
manuscript, I do not know if according to the forementioned edition or the original;
these variantsare also given by O'Gorman in his 1969 edition. A critical edition of the Es-
corial manuscripthas just been published by SarahJane Banks;it is a dissertation
present-
ed to the University of Southern Californiafor the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. Un-
fortunately, Dr. Banks has not been able to locate and consult the two other 16th
century manuscripts of Motolinia's Historia nor was she aware, apparently, of the
more recent developments in the field of Motolinian research.
306 TORIBIOMOTOLINIA

Madrid. This lastmanuscript bearsthe title of Hist6riade los indios

de NuevaEspaia,with a longexplanatory sub-title,thatappearsin the
of
catalog manuscripts which WilliamRobertson put at the end of
Vol. II of hisHistoryof America(London,1777). In anotherpartof
his workRobertsonattributed the manuscript to Motolinia.In all the
manuscripts of the 16thcentury,thebook of Motolinia appears entitled,
with slight variations,as Relaci6n de las cosas, ritos, idolatriasy cere-
moniasde la Nueva Espaia."
The diligent bibliographer, Le6n Pinelo, registered this book under
the sametitle in 1629 (Epitome de la bibliotecaorientaly occidental,
Madrid, 1629) stating that he had seen the manuscript. Nicolas Antonio
took this reference from Pinelo, and Beristain from Pinelo, neither of
them adding anything new. It is not too venturesome to suggest that
perhaps Le6n Pinelo refers to the same manuscript which the Hispanic
Society of New York possesses today.
In view of this manuscript tradition which clearly connects the
Historia de los indios de Nueva Espana with the introductory Epistle
to the Count of Benavente, dated in 1541, and which attributes both
writings to Motolinia, it seems to me that the reasonable thing to do is
to assume that the Historia was truly written by Motolinia. In order
to nullify the documentary proofs in favor of such authorship some-
thing more is necessary than doubtful contradictions uncovered within
the work. Likewise, the investigations and analyses made from the
time of Garcia Icazbalceta and Ramirez through Atanasio L6pez and
Robert Ricard cannot be dismissed as mere "speculations" and
" conjectures ". Their contributions are still quite useful, and in order
to invalidate them, more documentary or bibliographical data are
necessary. The research on Motolinia has a long way to go before
drawing such apodictical conclusions as O'Gorman does.
Recapitulating, my judgment on the new edition of Motolinia's
Historia and Memoriales could be condensed in the following state-
ments:
1) Neither the text of the Historia nor that of the Memoriales which
is given in the new editions, is entirely satisfactory, and all need improve-
ment through a direct and fuller use of the manuscripts.
2) The manuscript tradition and other testimony suggest that
51Contrary to what O'Gorman thinks, the Historia de los indios was not used for
the first time by Robertson in 1777; the manuscript had been so labeled in the
catalogue of the Escorial library.
 LINO G. CANEDO 307

Motolinia wrote more than one work about the ancient customs of the
Indiansand the first evangelizationof New Spain.
3) The same manuscript tradition and the testimony of Le6n Pinelo
support the traditional belief that Motolinia is the author of the Historia
de los indios de Nueva Espaiia. The arguments adduced by O'Gorman
to deny such authorship seem totally insufficient.
4) Neither does O'Gorman prove, in my opinion, that the Memoriales
is an already completed copy of the lost work of Motolinia; it could be
the copy of a draft, more or less developed.
5) Likewise, it has not been proven that the quotations from
Motolinia's writings which we find in such authors as Las Casas, Zorita,
Mendieta, DaivilaPadilla, Torquemada, etc. all derive from one and the
same work.
6) Finally, the famous letter of Motolinia to the Emperor (1555) has
come to us, fortunately, in the original, and through the original we
know that the Mufioz copy is fairly correct. The slight corrections
that the original provides do not justify in any way the repeated
speculations of O'Gorman; on the contrary, they leave most of these
speculations completely baseless. There could have been a duplicate
or draft, and a variant of this document containing the statement
which Stiarez de Peralta seems to quote. I say, "seems ", because
Peralta's reference leaves me a bit perplexed. Perhaps there may be
some other explanation. *

LINo G. CANEDO, O. F. M.
Academy of AmericanFranciscanHistory
Washington,D. C.

* Since
writing the above, I have read the well documented and very valuable
article in Caravelle,in which G. Baudot comments on the edition of the Memoriales
by
O'Gorman, and presents some of the results of his own investigation on Motolinia.
At the end, in a note, he makes a brief allusion to the article which I devoted to
O'Gorman's edition of the Historia (" Motolinia, enigma historiogr~fico," in Boletin
del Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliogrdficas, National Library of Mixico,
(July-
December 1970). I would just like to say that in that study it was not my intention to
examine directly the Motolinian question-as Professor Baudot seems to have under-
stood-but merely the acceptability of Dr. O'Gorman's conclusions, considered in the
light of the present state of the investigation. Baudot's article appears in Caravelle,
no. 17, 1971, pp. 7-35.