Bartolome de Las Casas, an Essay in Hagiography and Historiography Author(s): Lewis Hanke Reviewed work(s): Source: The Hispanic

American Historical Review, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Feb., 1953), pp. 136-151 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2509649 . Accessed: 29/04/2012 23:31
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.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Hispanic American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

NOTES AND COMMENT

BARTOLOME DE LAS CASAS, AN ESSAY IN HAGIOGRAPHY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY
LEWIS HANKE*

Some controversies over figures of the past have no more urgency for modern men than the famous medieval disputes concerning the number of angels that could be accommodated on the point of a pin. Consideration of the questions raised below falls into a different category and is therefore worth making today, for upon the reply rests our conception of the permanent value of Las Casas, one of the greatest men Spain sent to America. Disputes over Las Casas have an astonishingly perennial quality. So persistent have been misunderstandings of some of his actions, for example his supposed connection with the establishment of the Negro slave trade from Africa to America, that Fernando Ortiz has recently produced a long and carefully wrought defense of Las Casas entitled "La leyenda negra contra Fray Bartolome.."l Indeed, such tremendous differences of interpretation are now current that it is difficult to believe that some historians, for example Edmundo O'Gorman of Mexico, are not talking about another person in history who happened to have the same name. Temperamentally and philosophically Las Casas and Edmundo O'Gorman probably would have misunderstood each other had they lived at the same time; and even had they enjoyed the opportunity of discussing their disagreements face to face it is doubtful that they would have been able to resolve them on any fundamental aspect of the Spanish conquest of America. With four centuries of time between them, it is not surprising that O'Gorman has worked out theories of the doctrine of Las Casas which appear strange to some other students of Las Casas; if Fray Bartolome were with us today it is quite possible that he would be puzzled and, given his impetuous temperament, indignant over some of the views attributed to him by O 'Gorman. Let us examine the principal and more challenging allegations of O'Gorman, to see how far they can be substantiated.
* The author is professor of Latin-American history at the University Texas-Ed. 1 Cuadernos Americanos (Mexico), Ano XI, No. 5, 146-184. of

NOTES

AND

COMMENTS

137

The interpretation is made by one who is a friend and admirer of both the sixteenth-century Spanish Dominican and the contemporary Mexican philosopher of history. I Did Las Casas Have the Experimental Spirit of a Physical Scientist? One of O 'Gorman 's most doubtful interpretations is that Las Casas had the spirit of an experimental scientist. In commenting on the attempt by Las Casas and other Dominicans to preach the faith peacefully in Guatemala, O'Gorman observes that:
when Las Casas accepts the challenge [of the Spaniards] and embarks on the Vera Paz experiment his attitude in no essential respect differs from that of the physicist who, armed with a hypothesis, interrogates nature . . . [the attempt] is, in the most precise terms, an experiment.2

Surely this is either a misunderstanding of Las Casas or of the nature of an experiment. The physical scientist develops a hypothesis which may or may not be proved correct when put to the test of experiment. He may or may not believe that the hypothesis is correct, and he certainly does not consider whether the hypothesis is in accordance with Christian justice or precepts; whatever the result of the experiment, he accepts the decision rendered by nature. The hypothesis for him is an instrument to be used to explore or verify nature and not a religious truth to be defended or demonstrated. How different was the approach of Las Casas! He was convinced, profoundly and passionately, that the peaceful method of preaching the faith was the only true and just method for a Christian to practice. He was eager for an opportunity to demonstrate this conviction by putting the idea into practice in Guatemala, but his spirit in so doing seems to me to have nothing in common with that of a physical scientist in conducting his experiments. We do not have to look far for an explanation of Las Casas' decision to act in Guatemala, and in particular we do not need to consider his spirit one of premature modernity "lurking beneath his monk's habit and his scholastic loquacity. "3
2 Edmundo 0 'Gorman, Fundamentos de la historic de America (Mexico, 1942). Here are his words: "'Tal es lo que va implicando en ese reto. Y cuando el P. Las Casas lo acepta y se embarca en el experiment de la Vera Paz, su actituci no difiere en nada esencial de la del fisico que, armado de una hipotesis, interroga a la naturaleza (p. 79). . . . Es, en la aceptacion mas precisa, un experimento" (p. 80.) 30 'Gorman, "Lewis Hanke on the Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America," HISPANIC AMERICANHISTORICAL REVIEW, XXIX (1949), 563-571. The quotation appears on p. 570.

138

THE HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

The Spanish colonists living in Guatemala were hugely amused, we are told, when the troublesome Las Casas proposed, in a documented treatise, the peaceful method of preaching to the fierce Indians in the territory called Land of War. As one chronicler describes it, "even through the book was written in elegant Latin," the colonists laughed at it and at its author. The Lord had delivered this troublesome fellow into their hands, or so the colonists believed, and their contempt took the form of urging Las Casas to put into practice his proposal to convert the Indians by peaceful means alone. They were very certain that even if he should escape with his life, his failure would be so resounding that they would henceforth be spared his absurd and annoying sermons. The Spanish authorities provided an opportunity for the theory put forward by Las Casas to be tested and may be said to have approached the problem in an experimental mood. But neither Las Casas nor the colonists in Guatemala felt any doubt whatsoever of the outcome. Certainly Las Casas did not consider the proposal to be an experiment at all, but a demonstration of God's truth. He strongly emphasized the fact that Christ did not rest content with uttering His truths, but insisted on putting them into practice in the world about Him. As one of Las Casas' favorite authorities, John Chrysostom, had declared:
Men do not consider what we say but what we do-we may philosophize interminably, but if, when the occasion arises we do not demonstrate with our actions the truth of what we have been saying, our words will have done more harm than good.4

The above account assumes that the story of the Vera Paz experience of 1537 is true. In a recent and penetrating analysis5 of this episode by Marcel Bataillon it appears that many of us have been too quick to accept the romantic version of the seventeenth-century Dominican chronicler Antonio de Remesal, upon whose sole testimony the story rests. Bataillon concludes, after a spirited and ironical recapitulation of the colorful story as told by Remesal-the dramatic challenge of the Guatemalan colonists to Las Casas and his acceptance of the gage of battle, the Indian merchants with their ballads and their sweet music which helped to convert the Indians, the strategic marriage of a chieftain-was hagiography rather than history and
4Las Casas, Del knico modo de atraer a todas las gentes a la verdadera religi6n (Mexico, 1941), p. 273. 1 Marcel Bataillon, "La Vera Paz. Roman et histoire," Bulletin Hispanique (Bordeaux), LXIII, 235-300.

NOTES AND COMMENTS

139

was concocted by the Dominican chronicler to exalt his order in general and Las Casas in particular. Arguing partly from silence and partly from documents-with much common sense mixed in-Bataillon sets forth the idea that the peaceful preaching effort was in reality a slow, secret undertaking, at least in its early stages, until Las Casas was named Bishop of Chiapa in 1543 and could use his powerful influence at court on behalf of the missionary effort. But this combination of careful research, imaginative interpretation, and effective presentation of the problem by Bataillon was not available at the time O 'Gorman wrote and we must consider his views in the light of the situation as it was then accepted. It would still be interesting to know how O'Gorman, using the Vera Paz story as then generally accepted, elaborated the extreme and, it seems to me, unproved supposition that the missionary effort in Guatemala had all the characteristics of a physical experiment. A much more likely example for his purpose of showing the sixteenth-century transition from scholasticism to pre-Cartesianism would have been the sociological experiments carried on in the islands in the years immediately before the peaceful preaching episode in Guatemala. Here we see Spanish administrative officials actually trying to discover, by experiments more akin in spirit to those of the physicist than the Las Casas missionary attempt, whether the Indians could "live like Christian laborers of Castile." They even had a control village in somewhat the same way modern sociologists would carry on their work to find out what would happen under certain conditions.6 But even here we should be cautious and not assert that these administrative attempts were, "in the most precise terms," experiments. Las Casas would certainly be surprised to find himself likened to a physical experimentalist, and doubtless if he were here today would write a well-documented treatise entitled "Fifty-seven Reasons To Prove How Dr. Edmundo O 'Gorman Has Misunderstood My Doctrine on the Only Way to Preach the True Faith to All Peoples." II What Was the Only Trite Method of Preaching the Faith? Las Casas wrote an enormous treatise onl this subject and, though only a portion has been preserved and printed, that remnant is a large volume. Nevertheless, we are still arguing what the true
e Hanke, The First Social Experiments 40-71. in America (Cambridge, 1935), pp.

140

THE

HISPANIC

AMERICAN

HISTORICAL

REVIEW

method was. O'Gorman, reacting against what he describes as the "consecrated interpretation' '7 of Las Casas as a humanitarian and pacifist, has elaborated a distinctly original answer. For him "the central idea of Las Casas is not evangelization by peaceful means, as has traditionally been asserted; it is evangelization by means of reason, which is not the same thing. "8 This exegesis seems to me a shaky one, dependent upon a questionable emphasis for whatever appearance of truth it presents. The idea that infidels should be persuaded by reason to accept the faith was indeed put forward by Las Casas, as safely grounded in Christian example and doctrine. Las Casas takes this idea for granted and never argues the point in that part of his treatise which has come down to us. It is quite possible, of course, and even probable that he did explain and defend the idea, with numerous citations of authorities, in one of the chapters now lost. He fought stoutly, indeed, to make sure that the Indians understood the new faith before being baptized. Many missionaries, eager to ring up an imposing number of souls saved, were willing to baptize hundreds or even thousands of Indians in one day without any emphasis on previous instruction and catechism. Against such attitude and action Las Casas protested so vigorously that the crown on March 31, 1541, referred the matter to one of the ablest theologians of the realm, Francisco de Vitoria. As the royal order explained it,
Las Casas has just come baptized, whether Indians indoctrinated in the faith. these people even though from the Indies and requests that no one there be or Negroes or other infidels, until they are thoroughly He says that it is the custom in the Indies to baptize they understand nothing of the faith.9

And the crown requested that Vitoria and other theologians of the University of Salamanca send their signed opinions on the subject to the Council of the Indies.
7Fundamnentos, p. 56. "La idea central de Las Casas no es, pues, la evangelizaci6n por mnedio de la paz, como tradicionalmente se viene sosteniendo; es la evangelizaci6n por medio de la raz6n, lo que no es lo mismo." Fundamentos, p. 58. Italics by
8

0 'Gorman.
9 Real cedula al Fray Francisco de Vitoria. Se le escribe que Las Casas ahora ha venido de las Indias y pide que alla nadie bautice indios adultos ni negro ni otro infidel hasta que esten bien doctrinados en la fe, y dice se acostumbra hacer sin que el bautizado entienda nada, y se manda a Vitoria que de su parecer con los te6logos de la universidad y lo envie firmado al consejo de Indias. Archivo General de Indias, Indiferente General 423, lib. 19, fols. 226-229.

NOTES AND COMMENTS

141

On July 1, 1541, a decision was handed down, duly signed by Vitoria, Domingo de Soto, and several other theologians, which supported Las Casas' viewpoint, and they cited the ancient authorities and usages of the church.10 If this emphasis on understanding is an evidence of pre-Cartesian thought, as O 'Gorman believes, there were a number of embryonic rationalists in both Spain and the Indies, and their intellectual roots go back to Augustine and Aquinas. As Sergio Mendez Arceo has pointed out, some of the passages cited by O'Gorman to illustrate his view on this matter are passages not from Las Casas himself but quotations from treatises by Aquinas."1 The ideas in which O'Gorman sees a pre-Cartesian spirit were ideas common to both Aquinas and Las Casas. The second idea, that the faith should be preached peacefully, was much more important in Las Casas' mind. Perhaps he took the evangelization by means of reason for granted, as something clearly "enjoined by Jesus and His apostles, by the custom of the church and its decrees, and by the holy doctors."1'2 Las Casas always asserted that infidels must be taught the faith by a method both pacifica y razonable,13but he devoted most attention to establishing his contention that the faith should be preached by unwarlike methods. His insistence upon a rational and peaceful method was not a brand-new thought of Las Casas. He probably learned about this doctrine and became convinced of its truth as the result of the example of the Dominican, Pedro de Cordoba, whom he knew well, and he was familiar with the first attempt to use "the only true method" which Cordoba conducted in 1516 on the coast of northern South America near Cumana. After Las Casas entered the Dominican Order in 1522 and spent eight years quietly studying in a convent on the island of Hispaniola he knew well the theological and juridical bases for the peaceful and rational approach, as was made clear in the Del uinico,modo, treatise. During these years of meditation, he may have run across St. Bernard of Clairvaux's famous treatise on the peaceful rather than the forcible conversion of the Jews at the time
10 Coleccitn de documentos ineditos relatives al descubrimiento, conquista, y organizaci6n de las antiguas posesiones espaiole& de America y Oceania (42 vols., Madrid, 1864-84), III, 543-555. 11ReBvista de Historia de America, No. 15 (Mexico, 1942), p. 356. 12 This view is succinctly set forth in Las Casas, Treinta proposiciones rnuy jurbdicas . . . (Sevilla, 1552), proposici6n 22. : 3 Del (nico modo, p. 199.

142

THE

HISPANIC

AMERICAN

HISTORICAL

REVIEW

of the Second Crusade in the twelfth century. At any rate, he became convinced of the truth of peaceful preaching in these years and never wavered in allegiance to it throughout the remainder of his long life. In conclusion on this point, Las Casas did not "hit upon the idea that the only method to spread the faith was by reason in order to escape from the embarrassing implications of the doctrine of just war. "14 Rather he worked out his theory of rational and peaceful method of preaching the faith because his study of church doctrine, church law, and church fathers convinced him that this method was the correct Christian way to win over infidels. And in his approach to the baptism of the Indians, Las Casas supported the idea that the Indians should fully know about the faith before embracing it, and his view was approved by Vitoria and other theologians of Salamanca. The next astonishing statement by O'Gorman on the thought of Las Casas is that:
for Las Casas, way is not evil, about justice. What happens is those made f or the purpose of intention is not praiseworthy but but good, inasmuch as it is a way to bring that there are unjust wars and he considers preaching the faith unjust, not because the because the method is not effective.15

This brings O'Gorman close to making Las Casas a pragmatist. It is true that Las Casas believed that peaceful preaching is more effective than warlike means, but this statement is made casually and the basic argument he makes rests upon the example and teachings of Jesus, the apostles, Chrysostom, Augustine, and other Christian authorities as he comprehended their doctrine. If anyone has any doubt on this point, he should stop reading glosses by O'Gorman or Hanke and consult Las Casas' own words in Del U'nico modo, especially pp. 221-235. One of the advantages of such discussions as we are now having is that Las Casas' works will be more widely and intensively read than ever before. Those who consult the writings of Las Casas will find that he exalts peace and condemns war. According to him war is irrational, unnatural and not in consonance with human nature. Moreover, it is
14

O'Gorman, "Lewis Hanke on the Spanish Struggle for Justice .

."

loc.

cit.
15 Fundamentos, pp. 56-57. "'. . . para Las Casas la guerra no es un mal, es un bien, puesto que es medio de hacer justicia. Lo que pasa es que hay guerras injustas, y como tales, reputa las que se hacen con propositos misioneros, no porque la intenci6n no sea loable, sino porque la manera es ineficaz." Italics are by O'Gorman.

NOTES AND COMMENTS

143

against Christ's instructions and intentions as well as those of the apostles. War violates the commandment which charges every man to love his neighbor as himself, is an indecent and infamous act which at most can affect material things and not the spirit, and of all methods "the most miserable and criminal, full of every kind of evil and cruelty, a method adopted by robbers and the most impious of men. It will lead infidels to depreciate religion and avoid those who are preaching the faith." Clearly, therefore, warlike methods to establish a kingdom or to propagate Christianity "are incompatible with either the goodness of Christ or the royal dignity." Instead there must be used "the sweetness of His doctrine, the sacraments of the church, and mercy which will bestow many benefits with graciousness, gentleness, charity, and peace."'1 Of course Las Casas, in common with practically all Spaniards of his time (Luis Vives was an exception who condemned all war), believed that war could under certain conditions be just. In the Del U'nico modo treatise he refers once, in passing, to the fact that "no war is just unless there is a just cause for declaring it, "17 and he clearly followed Augustine on what constituted just war. What distinguished Las Casas, however, was not that he agreed with most of his contemporaries on the theory of just war but that he declared the wars against the New World natives to be unjust, particularly as a prelude to their conversion. He condemned the use of force, not merely because the clamor and horror of armed conflict provided an unsuitable background against which Indians might listen to and consider the new doctrine of love and salvation, but also-and here is a point O 'Gorman does not mention and apparently does not consider worth mentioning-because warlike methods had been condemned by Christ, by the apostles, and by the fathers of the church and other authorities. The practice of using force and war to advance Christianity was directly contrary to the faith that was being preached, Las Casas held, and therefore he advocated peaceful persuasion in its stead.
1" Del (Inico modo, p. 499. The whole treatise should be read but the more important passages on war and peace are to be found on pp. 13, 21, 27, 35, 39, 41, 43-51, 55, 57, 95, 137, 149, 163, 177-189, 215, 227-229, 339, 395, 399, 411, 413, 415, 421, 435, 475. l7Ibid., p. 515.

144

THE

HISPANIC

AMERICAN

HISTORICAL

REVIEW

III Were the Ideas of Las Casas Fundamentally Aristotelian or Fundamentally Christian? It may be surprising to some that this question is raised at all. We know that Las Casas stated before King Charles in 1519 at Barcelona that "Aristotle was a Gentile, and is now burning in Hell, and we are only to make use of his doctrine as far as it is consistent with our Holy Faith and Christian customs. "18 At that time he was opposing the first full-fledged presentation of the argument that the newly discovered Indians should be considered slaves "by nature," according to the Aristotelian doctrine that certain rude persons of limited understanding are inferior a natural and that it is only just and natural that prudent and wise men have dominion over them for their own welfare as well as for the service of their superiors. Las Casas replied in 1519 that Indians were not inferior beings and that Aristotle's dictum obviously did not apply to them. The question was raised with much greater insistence during the great dispute which took place in 1550 and 1551 at Valladolid between Las Casas and Juan Gines de Sepuilveda.'9 The contestants were both doctrinally opposed and emotionally upset by the discussion, and its true meaning has been and still is in doubt in some quarters. Despite the great attention paid to the argument the full story is not yet known, partly because the record of the proceedings of the encounter have not been found and also because the lengthy Apologia presented by Las Casas for five straight days still remains in manuscript. It is concerning this dispute that O'Gorman brings up another of his startling paradoxes, for he states categorically that "all of Las Casas' thought is fundamentally Aristotelian, while Sepulveda is just as much of a Christian as Las Casas."20
18 Las Casas, Historia de las Indias, lib. 3, caps. 149-151, gives a description of this encounter. The reference to Aristotle burning in Hell is in cap. 149. 19 The most recent and in many respects the best treatment of this dispute is by Venancio D. Carro, La teologia y los teologos-juristas espanoles ante la conquista de Ame'rica (2nd ed.; Salamanca, 1951), pp. 561-673. Also valuable on the Aristotelian aspects of the problem is Silvio Zavala, Servidumbre natural y libertad cristiana, segi'tn los tratadistas espanoles de los siglos XVI y XVII (Buenos Aires, 1944). 20 O 'Gorman, "Sobre la naturaleza bestial del indio americano," Filosofia y Letras (Mexico, 1941), No. 1, pp. 141-158; No. 2, pp. 305-315. On p. 312 appears this statement: "Todo el pensamiento de Las Casas es fundamentalmente aristote'l'eo. I"

NOTES AND COMMENTS

145

Without attempting to measure the exact Christianity displayed by Sepulveda, an interesting point in itself but not necessary to the present discussion, let us examine the alleged Aristotelianism of Las Casas' thought. It is true that Las Casas in his arguments both at Barcelona in 1519 and at Valladolid in 1550-1551 appears to accept the theory of Aristotle that some men are by nature slaves. It is also true that there are numerous references to various works of Aristotle in the Del U'nico mnodotreatise, and that his compendious Apologe'tica historia was put together by Las Casas to prove that the American Indians fulfilled, and in a most satisfactory manner, all the conditions listed by Aristotle as being necessary for the good life. But does this add up to making "all his thought fundamentally Aristotelian" ? It must be realized that though Las Casas never attempts to break down Aristotle 's concept of natural slavery, neither did he defend it or seek to extend its scope. Rather he tried to confine the operation of the theory to the smallest area possible. Not only did he vigorously deny that the Indians fell into the cateogry of natural slaves but his argument tended to lead to the conclusion that no nation of mankind should be condemned as a nation to such a life." For, declares Las Casas in one of his most compelling passages:
All the peoples of the world are men . . . all have understanding and volition, all have the five exterior senses and the four interior senses, and are moved by the objects of these, all take satisfaction in goodness and feel pleasure with happy and delicious things, all regret and abhor evil. . . . No nation exists today, nor could exist, no matter how barbarous, fierce, or depraved its customs may be, which may not be attracted and converted to all political virtues and to all the humanity of domestic, political, and rational man.22

Natural slaves are consequently few in number and must be considered as mistakes of nature, such as men born with six toes or only one eye. And even more rarely is to be found a man deficient in reason.23 How therefore should we look upon 0 'Gorman's latest pronouncement that
Father Las Casas endeavored to be as good an Aristotelian as his formidable opponent, and therefore he was obliged to concede the existence of slaves by nature, so that the polemic resulted in favor of Sepulveda in the theoretical plane of the discussion. But at the decisive moment Las Casas, with a gesture Las Casas, Historia de las Indias, lib. 3, caps. 150-151. These quotations come from his Apologetica historia (Madrid, 1909), pp. 127-128, and Historia de Las Indias, lib. 2, cap. 58. 23 Ibid., lib. 3, cap. 151.
21 22

146

THE HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

worthy of one devil-possessed, abandons reasons to go over to faith, and thus rejects the authority of the philosopher who so greatly disturbs him, asserting as a final argument that Aristotle was a Gentile and burning in Hell.24

Both fact and interpretative emphasis are questionable in this passage. For Las Casas never abandoned Aristotle entirely, so far as the documents now available show; the statement about the burning occurred in 1519, thirty years before in Barcelona, and not, so far as I know, at Valladolid, and, most serious of all, O 'Gorman neglects to consider the other three main divisions of the basic argument carried on at Valladolid. Sepulveda declared it lawful and necessary to wage war against the Indians for these four reasons: 1. For the gravity of the sins which the Indians had committed, especially their idolatries and their sins against nature. 2. On account of the rudeness of their natures, which obliged them to serve persons having a more refined nature, such as the Spaniards. 3. In order to spread the faith which would be more readily accomplished by the prior subjugation of the natives. 4. To protect the weak among the natives themselves.25 Only in point two does Aristotle's theory of natural slavery enter the picture and, even there, Las Casas accepted but did not defend it. Why did he accept it at all, even in a limited and restricted sense? My own interpretation is that Las Casas here manifested that realistic and legalistic spirit which characterized a considerable part of his action. Part of his opponent's attack rested upon the allegation that the American Indians were slaves by nature. The defense of Las Casas was not to attack Aristotle frontally but to show that the doctrine should not be applied to the Indians. At the same time his explanation of what kind of person might fall into the Aristotelian category of natural slavery shows how faintly applicable it was in his
24 0 'Gorman, La idea del descubrimiento de Am6rica (Mexico, 1951). On p. 143 this statement occurs: El padre Las Casas trataba de ser tan buen aristot6lico como su formidable opositor, y por eso se vio obligado a conceder la existencia real de siervos por naturaleza, con lo que la polemica quedaba a favor de Sepu'lveda en el plano teorico de la discussion. Pero en el momento decisivo, Las Casas, con un gesto magnifico de energuimeno, abandon la raz6n para entregarse a la fe, y se saeude asi la autoridad del filosofo que tanto le estorbaba, afirmando comio argument contundente que Aristoteles era gentil y que estaba ardiendo en los infernos. 25 Lewis Hanke, The Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America (Philadelphia, 1949), p. 120. Chapter VIII of this volume gives my view in greater detail on the Valladolid dispute.

NOTES

AND

COMMENTS

147

opinion to the world at large. One might well conclude, therefore, that Las Casas paid lip-service to Aristotle for the purpose of refuting the application of his doctrine to the Indians. One may sympathize with O'Gorman's annoyance at the uncritical attitude of the nineteenth century on the dispute with Sepulveda,26 but the charge that Las Casas' thought was "all fundamentally Aristotelian" remains to be proved, in my opinion. When Agustin Millares Carlo produces his long-expected and much-needed index to the authorities and writings cited by Las Casas in his voluminous works it will then be clearly seen, I believe, that the body of his thought was thoroughly, even monotonously, Christian. As Las Casas remarked in that forceful letter written to the ecclesiastics of Guatemala at the age of almost ninety, he had studied the law assiduously for forty-eight years, and everything he had advocated with respect to the Indians, "no matter how rigorous or hard," he had substantiated with principles taken from St. Thomas Aquinas.27

IV
Did Las Casas Falsify History? O'Gorman has devoted some attention to the enmity between Las Casas and Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes, particularly as shown in the different versions given in their respective histories of the colonization attempt made in 1521 by Las Casas on the coast of Venezuela.28 In discussing the matter O'Gorman asserts that one of the citations Las Casas gives from the text of Oviedo is false and that in another case Las Casas omits pertinent information. Thus, O'Gorman observes, Las Casas "does not show evidence of the inThis is a grave tellectual honesty that one would like to see. "29 charge, which requires proof.
0 'Gorman's feelings on this point are made manifest in a review which appeared in Fitosofia y Letras (Mexico, 1941), No. 3, pp. 142-145. 27 A. M. Fabie, Vida y escritos de Fray Bartolome de Las Casas, II (2 vols., Madrid, 1879), 578-579. 28 Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo, Sucesos y dialogo de la Nueva Espaiia. Prolo~go y selection de Edmundo O 'Gorman (Mexico, 1946), Biblioteca del estudiante universitario, 62, pp. 155-171. 29 "Una de las citas que hace Las Casas como textual de Oviedo es falsa. (la que se refiere a los pareceres que dio Oviedo al Consejo), y en la cita que hace al final del cap. 160, omite Las Casas la parte uIltima del texto citado que seria pertinente. . . . En la Bistoria de las Indias lo cita con frecuencia en forma tan desfavorable como apasionada, e incluso dedica unos eapitulos polemicos donde, a decir verdad, no da muestras el P. Las Casas de la probidad intelectual que seria de desearse'" (ibid., p. 157).
28

148

THE HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

The charge that Las Casas was a prejudiced historian is not new. Since the first publication of his Brevisimca relation de la destruccion de las Indias in 1552, Las Casas has been attacked for the exaggerated statements he made on the number of Indians killed by Spaniards, and it has also been charged that he was more propagandist than historian. But it is only in recent years that he has been accused of deliberately falsifying documents for his own purposes. The Argentine historian Romulo D. Carbia, beginning about 1930, entered upon a vigorous campaign to convince the world that Las Casas in some instances forged documents and in others deliberately lied.30 Carbia maintained, for example, that Las Casas manufactured the 1498 Columbus letter as well as his Journal, the Toscanelli letter, the life of Columbus by his son Ferdinand, and other documents. For years Carbia published such accusations and strongly denounced Las Casas in lecture halls and at conference tables. He never presented proof for his charges, though always promising to do so soon, and died without documenting his bill of indictment. Today it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to find a single historian in Europe or America who would repeat Carbia's charges. If Las Casas did falsify history, O 'Gorman has chosen a doubtful terrain on which to fight-the Venezuela colonization attempt. Indeed, the recent and revealing study31 by Marcel Bataillon shows rather conclusively that on this particular episode in the life of Las Casas Oviedo was the offender and not Las Casas. In the light of this recent article by the French scholar, it will be necessary for O'Gorman to document his charges before they will be accepted by historians.
30For a discussion of the value of Las Casas as a historian and a description of the Carbia campaign, with citations of the copious bibliography on the subject, see the writer's Bartolome de Las Casas: Historian (University of Florida Press, 1952). A Spanish version of this essay appeared as the introduction to the new edition of the Las Casas Historiat de las Indias (3 vols., Mexico, 1951), which was edited by Agustin Millares Carlo. I d 'une legende: les 'caballeros pardon' de Las Casas," 31 " Cheminement Symposium, VI (Syracuse, 1952), No. 1, pp. 1-21. After Bataillon examines the legend that Las Casas' 1520 colonization plan was designed to make noble knights out of peasants, which he believes was fabricated by Oviedo out of malice toward Las Casas, Bataillon observes: "Tous les documents authentiques mis au jour de notre temps confirment la v6racite du recit de Las Casas et (p. 4). Another recent fundamental study on the justifient sa rectification'' subject is Manuel Gimenez Fernakndez, El estatuto de la tierra de Casas (Seville, 1949).

NOTES AND COMMENTS

149

Conclusion Every allegation by O'Gorman, if established, would tend to diminish the stature of Las Casas. For to O'Gorman,Las Casas was not a man of intellectual honesty, but a falsifier of history; not a Christianmissionarywho favored the peaceful preaching of his faith because that faith required its messageto be promulgatedpeacefully, but one who would resort even to war to achieve his ends if that methodwere successful; not fundamentallya Christianthinker,but an Aristotelian, who also had affinitieswith Descartes. To this bundle 's of paradoxes may be added O'Gorman latest pronouncementon Las Casas:
His head was confused, his learning as diffuse as it was undigested, his passion great, his intention good, his style extremely digressive. . . . Las Casas proceeded through life illuminated by an ideal, a curious and difficult mixture of heroic piety and systematic rationalism . . . the most credulous person that ever lived . . . to expect a bit of coherence from him is to ask an elm tree to produce
pears.32

Students of the Spanish conquest of America in the future may find it strange that so much controversyexisted today-four hundred years after his first treatises were printed in Sevilla-on the true doctrine of Las Casas. They may conclude that all of us who are now attempting to grasp his significance have sought to relate him and his ideas too closely and too arbitrarily to the present world. Standing today on the top of a mountain of controversialwritings about Las Casas through the centuries,perhaps we are all inclined to forget that he lived in the sixteenth century and must be judged ultimately as a man of his time. The fact that Las Casas cherishedideas on various subjects which seem laughable now is brought forward to ridicule him by O'Gorman who also believes that scholars today "mutilate" Las Casas, and thereby give a false view of his work, by omitting reference to his views on magic and other beliefs considered absurd today. "Let
32 The quotations come from O'Gorman's La idea det descubriniiento de "Su cabeza era confusa, su erudicion tan dilatada America (Mexico, 1951). como indigesta, su apasionamiento grande, su intention buena, su estilo digresivo en extremos de desesperacion . . . (p. 131) ; Pedirle a Las Casas un poquito de congruencia es pedir peras al olmo. (p. 141) . . .; Marcha el padre Las Casas iluminado por un ideal, curioso y dificil mezela de piedad heroica y sistematico racionalismo . . . (p. 132); No duda Las Casas, pues es el ser mas credulo que jams haya existido . . . (p. 141)

150

THE HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

anyone who wishes to get easily an intellectual profile of Las Casas," exclaims O'Gorman, "examine the Apologetica historia of Las Casas, his most 'scientific' work. Here he will see discussed various problems of magic, such as whether witches may be converted into animals, and other things like this. "33 Is it not more sensible to see in these instances the inevitable complexity of sixteenth-century man which can so delight tweintiethcentury readers? Sir Francis Bacon is generally believed to have had a firm comprehension of scientific method and has been described as the father of modern science; does it invalidate his claim to respect as an outstanding thinker of his time to know that he also believed-we are told34-that the strong breath of lions caused them to lose their teeth, and that gun powder taken with water just before battle would make soldiers and sailors brave? Or, to cite illustrations from Spanish history, take the case of Oviedo who is still considered a substantial historian. Though a much more sophisticated writer than Las Casas, Oviedo included a number of chapters in his work which seem ludicrous to us today. He discoursed on such subjects as the crowing of roosters and the caterwauling of cats in the New World (they made less noise, thus permitting Oviedo to study more coneentratedly than in Spain), and pointed out that birth-pains of women were different in the New World (Oviedo cited the experiences of his own wife) .35 Even such a wise and learned fellow as the seventeenth-century polygraph Antonio de Leon Pinelo was firmly convinced that Paradise was located in the New World and that Noah's Ark sallied forth on its famous voyage from some spot in America.36 At least one sixteenth-century writer was convinced that the Indian god Quetzalcoatl was in reality Thomas Aquinas. Legends relating to the Mexican Indians continued to fascinate other students in later years. The nineteenth-century English anthropologist Edward Tylor supported the theory that the ten lost tribes of Israel had somehow wandered to Mexico, and he also believed that Quetzalcoatl was not only a real man but suggested that he might have been an Irishman.37
3SIbid., p. 144. 34 A. Wigfall Green, Sir Francis Bacon (1952). 35Gonzalo FernAndez Oviedo y Valdes, Historia general y natural de las Indias, islas y Tierra-Firme del mar Oceano (Madrid, 1851-1855), lib. 6, cap. 40. See also, for a hodgepodge of ancient history, lib. 6, caps. 49-50. 3" El Paraiso en el Nuevo Miundo. .Commentario apolog6tica, historia natural y peregrina de las Indias Occidentales y tierra flrme del mar oceano (Madrid, 1656), p. 301. 37Robert R. Marett, Tylor (New York, 1936), p. 36.

NOTES

AND

COMMENTS

151

Can Las Casas be dismissed as scatter-brained because he held some ideas now known to be far-fetched, any more than we dismiss Bacon, Oviedo, Leon Pinelo, or Tylor as unworthy of serious consideration? It is in the basic doctrine of Las Casas that we find his permanent contribution. Yet even on his fundamental thought disagreement continues to flourish as may be seen from the various paradoxes of O'Gorman. Other points of disagreement could be mentioned, but the reader must be spared further elaboration; we should leave something for future Lascasistas to do, particularly in the field of his theology. Perhaps some theologian will arise to study the precise nature of Las Casas' doctrine of grace and will show that all previous interpretations require revision. Let us hope that by 2052, historians at least will be able to agree on what the real doctrine of Las Casas was. For it is clear that they do not agree today and it is also clear that in dealing with a figure as important in the work of Spain in Amercia as was Las Casas, paradoxes-no matter how brilliant-are not enough.