The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History. Hubert Howe Bancroft
![The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History - Hubert Howe Bancroft](limg_read213899.jpg "The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History - Hubert Howe Bancroft")
the details of modern history, withholding the privilege of reference to books or documents.
Of the Nahua hieroglyphic system and its capabilities enough has been said elsewhere.264 By its aid, from the beginning of the Toltec period at least, all historical events were recorded that were deemed worthy of being preserved. The popular knowledge of these events was perpetuated by means of poems, songs, and plays, and this knowledge was naturally faulty in dates. The numerous discrepancies which students of the present day meet at every step in the investigation of aboriginal annals, result chiefly from the almost total destruction of the painted records, the carelessness of those who attempted to interpret the few surviving documents at a time when such a task by native aid ought to have been feasible, the neglect of the Spanish priesthood in allowing the art of interpretation to be well-nigh lost, their necessary reliance for historical information on the popular knowledge above referred to, and to a certain degree doubtless from their failure to properly record information thus obtained.
But few native manuscripts have been preserved to the present time, and only a small part of those few are historical in their nature, two of the most important having been given in my second volume.265 Most of the events indicated in such picture-writings as have been interpreted are also narrated by the early writers from traditional sources. Thus we see that our knowledge of aboriginal history depends chiefly on the hieroglyphic records destroyed by the Spaniards, rather than on the few fragments that escaped such destruction. To documents that may be found in the future, and to a more careful study of those now existing, we may look perhaps for much corrective information respecting dates and other details, but it is not probable that newly discovered picture-writings or new readings of old ones will extend the aboriginal annals much farther back into the past. These remarks apply of course only to the Aztec documents; the Maya records painted on skin and paper, or inscribed on stone, are yet sealed books, respecting the nature of whose contents conjecture is vain, but from which the future may evolve revelations of the greatest importance.
Closely connected with the consideration of tradition and hieroglyphic records as authorities for my present subject, is that of the Spanish and native writers through whom for the most part American traditions, both hieroglyphically recorded and orally transmitted – in fact, what was known to the natives at the Conquest of their own past history – are made known to the modern student. These were Catholic missionaries and their converts, numerous, zealous, and as a class honest writers. Through an excess of religious zeal they had caused at the first irreparable harm by destroying the native records, but later they seem to have realized to a certain extent their error, and to have done all in their power to repair its consequences by zealously collecting such fragments of historical knowledge as had been preserved among the people. Their works have passed the test of severe criticism, and the defects of each have been fairly pointed out, exaggerated, or defended, according to the spirit of the critic; but the agreement of the different works in general outline, and even their differences in detail and their petty blunders, show that in their efforts to record all that could be ascertained of the history of the New World and the institutions of its people, their leading motive was the discovery of the truth, although they were swayed like other writers of their time, and all other times, by the spirit of the age, and by various religious, political, and personal prejudices.
The prevailing weakness of Spanish writers on America is well known – their religious enthusiasm and strong attachment to church dogmas, which, in view of some of its consequences, is pronounced at least mistaken zeal even by devoted churchmen of the present day. They believed in the frequent miraculous interposition of God in the work of converting the native pagans; in the instrumentality of the devil in the spiritual darkness preceding the Conquest. In their antiquarian researches a passage of scripture as commented by the Fathers brought infinitely stronger conviction to their minds than any sculptured monument, hieroglyphic record, historical tradition, or law of nature. In short, they were true Catholics of their time.266 The prevalence of this religious spirit among the only men who had an opportunity to clear up some of the mysteries of the American past is to be regretted. They could have done their work much better without its influence; but, on the other hand, without such a motive as religious enthusiasm there is little probability that the work would have been done at all. It is not only in American researches, however, that this imperfection prevails. As we recede from the present we find men more and more religious, and religion has ever been an imperious mistress, brooking no rivalry on the part of reason. Reliance on superstition and prejudice, rather than facts and reason, is not more noticeable perhaps in works on ancient America than in other old works. The faith of the Spaniards renders their conclusions on origin and the earlier periods of primitive history valueless, but if that were all, the defect would be of slight importance, for it is not likely that the natives knew anything of their own origin, and the Spaniards had no means not now accessible of learning anything on that subject from other sources. We may well pardon them for finding St Thomas and his Christian teachings in the Toltec traditions of Quetzalcoatl; the ten lost tribes of Israel in the American aborigines; Noah's flood and the confusion of tongues in an Aztec picture of a man floating on the water and a bird speaking from a tree; provided they have left us a correct version of the tradition, a true account of the natives and their institutions, and an accurate copy of the picture referred to. But it is not improbable that their zeal gave a coloring to some traditions and suppressed others which furnished no support to the Biblical accounts, and were invented wholly in the interests of the devil. Fortunately it was chiefly on the mythological traditions supposed to relate to the creation, deluge, connection of the Americans with the Old World peoples, and other very remote events that they exercised their faith, rather than on historical traditions proper; fortunately, because the matters of origin and the earliest primitive history were entirely beyond the reach of such authorities, even had they been represented with the most perfect accuracy.
The writings of the authors in question were moreover submitted to a rigorous system of censorship by Spanish councils and tribunals under the control of the priesthood, without the approval of whose officials no work could be published. The spirit that animated these censors was the same as that alluded to above, and their zeal was chiefly directed to the discovery and expurgation of any lurking anti-Catholic sentiment. Many valuable works were doubtless suppressed, but such of them as were preserved in manuscript, or those whose contents have since been made known, have not proved that the censors directed their efforts against anything but heterodoxy and unfavorable criticism of Spanish dealings with the natives.
Spanish credulity accepted as facts many things which modern reason pronounces absurd; shall we therefore reject all statements that rest on Spanish authority? Do we reject all the events of Greek and Roman history, because the historians believed that the sun revolved about the earth, and attributed the ordinary phenomena of nature to the actions of imaginary gods? Should we deny the historical value of the Old Testament records because they tell of Jonah swallowed by a whale, and the sun ordered to stand still? Do we refuse to accept the occurrences of modern Mexican history because many of the ablest Mexican writers apparently believe in the apparition of Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe? And finally, can we reject the statements of able and conscientious men – many of whom devoted their lives to the study of aboriginal character and history, from an honest desire to do the natives good – because they deemed themselves bound by their priestly vows and the fear of the Inquisition to draw scriptural conclusions from each native tradition? The same remarks apply to the writings of converted and educated natives, influenced to a great degree by their teachers; more prone, perhaps, to exaggeration through national pride, but at the same time better acquainted with the native character and with the interpretation of the native hieroglyphics. To pronounce all these works deliberately executed forgeries, as a few modern writers have done, is too absurd to require refutation.
The writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who derived their information from original sources, and on whose works all that has been written subsequently is founded, comprise, 1st, the conquerors themselves, chiefly Cortés, Diaz del Castillo, and the Anonymous Conqueror, whose writings only touch incidentally upon a few points of ancient history. 2d. The first missionaries who were sent from Spain to supplement
Vol. ii., pp. 523-52.
pp. 544-9.
The fact that they were Spaniards and Catholics is enough to condemn them with critics of a certain class, of which Adair may be quoted as an example: 'I lay little stress upon Spanish testimonies, for time and ocular proof have convinced us of the labored falsehood of almost all their historical narrations… They were so divested of those principles inherent to honest enquirers after truth, that they have recorded themselves to be a tribe of prejudiced bigots.'