I

n 1524, twelve Spanish missionaries arrived in Mexico, entrusted by the Spanish crown with the important objective of introducing the Nahua of central Mexico to Christianity. Following the conquest of Mexico, their arrival signified Spain’s need to justify their conquest, and religion appeared to be the optimal way to do so. For Spain, evangelization and colonization were congruent: “the Crown must have its gold but God must in return have His souls.”[1] While the monarchy’s response to the Indian soul could be described as one of apathy, the same trait cannot be contributed to the Spanish missionaries in early sixteenth-century Mexico; their efforts were characterized by an almost zealous concern for Indian welfare and morality. The Nahua quickly incorporated Christian elements presented by the Spanish into their existing religion, which led the friars to prematurely describe their mission in terms of success. After the initial excitement generated over Christianity began to wane, the Nahua remained open to the aspects of Christianity that fit well with their existing religious practices. The Spanish friars were ultimately unsuccessful in their quest to convert the Nahua to Christianity because of irreconcilable differences in theology and the friars’ inability to effectively use Nahuatl in the conversion process. Despite Spanish efforts, Christianity failed to replace firmly rooted Indian beliefs, which resulted in the Nahua accepting aspects of both religions.

The official evangelical effort in Mexico began with the arrival of the first friars to the colony in 1524, known simply as the original Twelve. Though religious interaction had taken place in the colony since the time of conquest almost five years earlier, 1524 marked the beginning of “methodical evangelization” on behalf of the Spanish.[2] As the seat of the old empire for centuries, central Mexico became the center of the new colony after the arrival of the Spanish. The people who inhabited this region, the Nahua, came into closer contact with the colonial administration than did the more isolated areas of the colony.[3]

Central Mexico also served as the center of the colonial Church, and therefore became the area where the Spanish carried out their most intense evangelization efforts. In the initial decades of evangelization, the mendicant sects of Catholicism dominated interaction with the Nahua, the most prominent in the colony being the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Augustinians. The first twelve friars belonged to the Franciscan order, which dominated the mission in number and influence, followed by missionaries of the other sects which became significant in number as well within the next decade. The Franciscans were known for their “simpler, more personal faith,” and their ascetic lifestyle, with which the Indians came to identify.[4] This was significant in attracting Indians to the Christian faith since the Nahua easily related the Spanish friars’ lifestyles to those of their native priests. All three orders left important records, but those of the Franciscans were particularly detailed and influential in regard to Indian society. These missionaries entered into the closest contact with the Nahua, hoping to establish in Mexico an exemplary Christian civilization which they assumed was achievable by living among the Nahua and learning their language and customs. A deep commitment to the Indians and a strong belief in their ability to change characterized the friars’ mission, which resulted from the major debates and reforms occurring in Spain at this time.

Numerous crucial issues and questions faced the Spanish priests who came to Mexico, and to better understand the context under which evangelism was carried out, a cursory explanation of these concerns must be addressed. The Spanish involvement in America made up the majority of writings and discussions in Spain during this period. Theologians and other great minds of Spain were particularly interested in deciphering the true nature of the Indians. This issue was certainly the most dominant of the sixteenth century and best illustrates the strong opinions present in Spain concerning the validity of its mission. The largest debate during this period on both sides of the ocean judged whether the Indians possessed the capability to become Christians and sustain the accompanying lifestyle. In making this judgment the Spanish never doubted their standards of logic were the best to apply. Their capacity to “live like Spaniards” then became the criteria by which the Spanish judged the Indians. Most Spaniards did not comprehend the ascetic lifestyle of the Indians and their lack of material wealth, and often held it against them when deciding whether the Indians possessed the capability to live like the Spanish.[5] While today the error in this line of thinking is obvious, the Spanish saw little problem in using their own culture and beliefs to judge another society. These views illustrate how the conclusions reached by the Spanish, though well intentioned, were fundamentally flawed.

To the Spanish, the issue was not whether God created the Indians, but whether they possessed the capability to think as rational human beings. Bartolomé de las Casas, an outspoken supporter of Indian equality, sought to establish that the Indians were rational human beings like their Spanish counterparts. The majority of the Spanish during the first half-century of the conquest viewed the inhabitants they encountered as either “noble Indians” or as a “naturally lazy and vicious people.”[6] Through his writings, las Casas sought to distinguish the Indians from the negative image many Spanish had of them, and to prove they were a virtuous and obedient people. Las Casas devoted a substantial portion of his History of the Indies to answering the critics of Indian rationality, namely historian Gonzalo Hernández de Oviedo. He refers to Oviedo as the major enemy of the Indians and notes that Oviedo “generalizes from an absolute position, attributing infamous and terrible customs to all the nations of the continent, making all Indians incapable of receiving Faith, doctrine and virtue.”[7] Central to las Casas’ History was his firm belief that the Indians lived in an evolved culture, with their own social, political, and religious hierarchy. In his work, las Casas emphasized these characteristics of Indian society in order to repudiate the claims of his contemporaries, who viewed the Indians as a “bestial race” and in that belief justified the Spanish conquest. To dispel this myth, he focuses on the hierarchical structure of Indian society, their hospitality, and their strong sense of community.[8] To refute the beliefs that the Indians were vicious and lazy, las Casas emphasized in his writings the fact that the Indians were part of a different culture with different morals. Las Casas insightfully recognized the flaw in judging the Indians in light of Spanish values, and tried to show his contemporaries how to overcome it.

The conflict over the Indian’s true nature continued throughout the sixteenth century. Practically every important voice on both sides of the water delivered an opinion on the capacity of the Indians to accept Christianity and live their lives as rational human beings. One such man was the Spanish theologian Francisco de Vitoria, who set out to defend the Indians from the “charge of irrationality” placed against them. Vitoria believed that the Indians had “a certain order in their affairs, for they have properly governed cities, regulations of matrimony, [and] leaders – all of which require the use of reason. They lack neither God nor the natural abilities to cope with everyday life such as are necessary for the majority of the human species.”[9]

While Vitoria supported the right of Spain to colonize America, he also respected the rights of its existing societies, and dedicated much of his time to exploring the justice of the Spanish activities in the New World. Specifically in regard to Church behavior, Vitoria focused on the role and effects of coercion in matters of religion. He found its practice evil and likely to yield results opposite of those the Catholic Church intended in their involvement with unbelievers. Vitoria notes that, “instead of the benevolent and proper affection required for belief, forcible conversion would generate immense hate in them, and that in turn would give rise to pretense and hypocrisy. We could never be sure whether or not they truly believed in their hearts; there would be nothing to move them to have faith, only intimidation and threats.”[10] Vitoria wisely recognized that forceful conversion most often leads to resentment on the part of those being forced. Most theologians in Spain and America recognized this principle. As an alternative they favored more lenient and compassionate methods which they felt were more successful in conversion and would produce more concrete and sincere believers.

Under these conditions and preexisting notions, the friars began their efforts to convert the Nahua of Mexico to Christianity. The friars who arrived in Mexico in 1524 did not consider living among the Indians and preaching Christian doctrine sufficient efforts to warrant the respect of the Nahua needed for conversion to take place. While the Spanish crown viewed these acts as adequate, the friars understood that to save souls, their efforts must go deeper. The work of the friars during the first half of the sixteenth century was characterized by a genuine care for the Nahua and a concern over the destination of their soul in the afterlife, a missing attribute of the secular priests of the later centuries. As these friars moved from town to town they established schools throughout Mexico, stressing literacy and Spanish values as important traits necessary for the Indians to adopt. In this respect, education and reform were second only to the proliferation of Christian teaching.[11] In addition to their genuine consideration for the welfare of the Indians, the Spanish friars also committed themselves to an ascetic lifestyle and a deep belief in the need to teach by example. The necessity of teaching by example became especially important in the initial years of contact between the friars and the Indians, before the Spanish learned to speak Nahuatl.[12]

The friars’ willingness to live among the Indians and the emphasis they placed on learning their language and culture had important effects on their interaction with the Nahua. When foreign cultures interact for the first time, the lack of a common language makes profound interaction almost impossible. While the Spanish missionaries initially faced this problem, they soon learned the Nahuatl dialect and used it effectively in making meaningful connections with the natives of Mexico. The Franciscan friars of the early sixteenth century in particular remain unrivaled in the importance they placed on the use of language in understanding the Nahua, and in their contributions to its study. As trained linguists, the Franciscans produced a number of critical works in the Nahuatl language during this period. As early as the 1540s, the Franciscans produced a detailed collection of Nahuatl grammar, and more significant works followed in the next decades. In the 1550s, fray Alonso de Molina produced a Spanish-Nahuatl dictionary, and work commenced on perhaps the most important collection of writings on Nahua culture during the colonial period, by friar Bernardino de Sahagún, in this decade as well. Completed in the 1570s, Sahagún’s work covered every aspect of pre-conquest Nahua life and was recorded in their native dialect, only later being translated into Spanish.[13]

The work of Sahagún was instrumental in the understanding of Nahua culture by later missionaries, and was a tool used to further their evangelization efforts. Sahagún also had a keen desire to understand the Spanish conquest through the eyes of the Indians who experienced it. After spending an extensive period teaching and evangelizing in Mexico, Sahagún realized that customary interaction with the Nahua would not warrant the satisfactory efforts necessary for authentic conversion. Sahagún purported that the missionaries must further possess a deep knowledge of the Indian language and ancient culture for acculturation to take place.[14] Because of this, Sahagún’s Florentine Codex is one of the foremost sources concerning the Indian response to the military and cultural invasion of the Spanish. In this work, Sahagún undertook a detailed study of Nahua life, which is accepted as an “authentic expression of indigenous people, containing lore and attitudes both from the time of the events and from the time of composition (1555 and thereafter).”[15]

Though historians do not fully understand the process by which Sahagún recorded the Florentine Codex, they acknowledge that Sahagún and his aides collected statements and testimony from the Nahua, most commonly those of an advanced age and status. Sahagún’s aids recorded these statements in Nahuatl, though Sahagún remained in charge of the writing process. The most pertinent question that arises from this work involves deciphering the extent to which the Florentine Codex is an accurate reflection of Nahua opinions and recollections. Overall, this project originated with Sahagún, who dictated what topics should be given consideration and to what extent. While the degree of involvement of the aides and informants will perhaps always remain a mystery, most scholars accept that “Sahagún had great respect for the integrity of the texts written down by the aides and representing some mixture of their own views, language, and concepts with those of the informants.” [16]

Book Twelve of the Florentine Codex is particularly informative for scholars in regard to Indian conceptions of the Spanish. Sahagún’s work records the first moments of interaction, as well as the Indian’s initial response to the invaders. The Florentine Codex purports that the Nahua believed the Spanish to be divine beings, an idea supported by the Indian’s initial response to the arrival of the Spanish. After their first contact with the Spanish, Book Twelve explains that the Nahua returned to Moctezuma, their leader, and proclaimed, “We went to see our lords the gods, in the midst of the water.”[17] This is not the only divine reference towards the Spanish in the Florentine Codex; it is a recurrence throughout Book Twelve. To support this reference, Sahagún records a sacrificial offering sent to the Spanish by Moctezuma in their honor, which was splattered with human blood. This action “sickened and revolted” the Spanish. It is recorded that Moctezuma did so because “he thought them gods; he took them for gods; he paid them reference as gods. For they were called and named ‘gods come from the heavens.’”[18]

This belief is also referenced in another document recorded by or for Sahagún in 1564, the Coloquios, which purportedly represents the first dialogues between the Spanish missionaries and the priests of the Mexican capital of Tenochtitlan. The priests acknowledged the divine authority of the Spanish and told them, “We know that you come from among the clouds and mist in the sky.”[19] All of the Nahuatl references to the Spanish as gods were written much later, which leads one to question this idea’s presence at the time of conquest. Whether the Nahua truly viewed the Spanish as gods at the time of the conquest has been much discussed, and Nahuatl scholars tend to agree that this belief was formed post-conquest, possibly by the Spanish for their own purposes, and not received by the Indians as a sign of providential action.[20] While the term may not have been used by the Nahua in reference to the Spanish in 1519, its recording in the Florentine Codex shows that this idea was well-spread and had become significantly influential by the middle of the sixteenth century. James Lockhart, a Nahuatl proficient, states that, “Although we may never know the details of meaning, connotation, and use, one can hardly doubt that the word [god] did in fact circulate in the first generation in reference to Spaniards, and there is no doubt at all that by the 1540s or so the Nahua of that generation were convinced that the generation of 1519-1521 had used the term.”[21] The term’s acceptance in 1519 seems inconsequential considering its usage was well spread by the time of writing of the Florentine Codex. Most of the Nahua would have some familiarity with this reference, and therefore its relation to Spanish authority and the friars’ mission is momentous. Even if they did not necessarily accept this idea, their belief that past generations did would have had significant effects on their reaction to the evangelization efforts of the Spanish.

While the actual acceptance of Christianity varied widely, complete acculturation by the Indians was minimal. In this respect, so was widespread resistance. Although the Indians had very little choice, it is clear that the Nahua, after the initial twenty-year period about which very little is known, were not “in a mood for active resistance.”[22] The Nahua responded well to the Spanish ingenuity of building on the tenants of indigenous society that already existed. The Nahua adopted Spanish customs that they viewed as practical and rejected those they misunderstood or saw as futile, which can hardly be described as resistance. What the Nahua came to accept as Christianity cannot be considered orthodox, but by the close of the sixteenth century, Spanish priests had become complacent in their roles and offered the Nahua little to “resist.”

In Mexico, the friars set out to create a new society free from the sin and corruption they associated with home, while the Nahua, too culturally distanced from the Spanish to understand the significance of European beliefs, quickly set out to make the most of the new religion by integrating Spanish deities and rites into their existing religion. The Nahua's early acceptance of certain elements of Christianity led the friars to record their experiences with the former in a “hopeful language, full of hyperbole and glowing with a triumphal spirit.”[23] While these feelings of excitement deteriorated with each passing decade, friars in the early sixteenth century had good reason to believe in the legitimacy and sincerity of the Indian conversions they had witnessed. Friars immediately eliminated a number of non-Christian elements from Indian society, namely human sacrifice, pagan temples, and the Aztec class of priests.[24] The friars interpreted the lack of resistance on the part of the Nahua as cooperation. The friars expected the average person to know by heart the basic tenants of Christian doctrine, such as a number of Catholic prayers, the Ten Commandments, the Seven Deadly Sins, and other proclamations. For adults, weekly attendance at mass, sermon, and adult catechism classes was mandatory, as well as yearly confession.[25]

While active resistance to religious teaching was minimal, the problems of translation and limited education resulted in most Nahua accepting no more than the most basic concepts of Christianity. The Spanish assumed that Christianity had been firmly rooted in Nahua society in the sixteenth century, when in reality, Christianity had been “Nahuatized” by the Indians who “considered themselves genuine Christians even as they worshipped many spiritual beings, disregarded the significance of the teachings of salvation, and continued to make this-worldly ends the legitimate object of their religious devotion.”[26] Most Nahua during this period accepted the rites of Christianity, while their pre-conquest religious foundation remained intact. Often referred to as Nahuatized Christianity, the Indians combined what they accepted of Christianity with their existing religious beliefs, as opposed to replacing one with the other.

A profound understanding of Nahua beliefs and culture today remains unestablished, and historians continue to decipher the extent to which Christianity affected Nahua religion. Even into the twenty-first century the view of the conversion efforts in Mexico as a “spiritual conquest” persisted, with Robert Ricard’s Spiritual Conquest of Mexico, originally published in 1933, still retaining its influence. The conquest theory refers to the process by which the Spanish missionaries supposedly conquered the idolatry and paganism of the Mexican Indians quickly and sufficiently. However, the triumphant manner of the term “spiritual conquest” was never accepted as the most appropriate way to describe conversion in the sixteenth or twenty-first centuries, nor have historians conclusively described the efforts of the friars in terms of success.[27] Recently, scholars have rethought the accepted premises of Indian-Spanish religious interaction, and have forever cast in doubt the appropriate description of this process as a “spiritual conquest.” Prior to the profound work of Charles Gibson in the mid-twentieth century, historians had made little progress in understanding the Indians after the arrival of the Spanish. While Latin American historiography had included Indians for years, scholars viewed them in light of Spanish actions and attitudes and in terms of the conquered or converted.[28] The uniqueness of Gibson’s work stemmed from its basis on American records and not solely those of Spain, though his work with Nahuatl documents was not exhaustive. The increased usage of Nahuatl documents after Gibson’s work has greatly changed how historians view sixteenth-century Mexico.

Along with this new interest in colonial Indian society has come an increased curiosity about colonial religion and Indian responses to Christianity. The use of Nahuatl documents has further allowed historians to better understand Nahua-Spanish interactions since prior research conducted in the early twentieth century. Many of the preeminent Nahua scholars, such as Klor de Alva, Lockhart, and León-Portilla, have dedicated their research to the study of Christianization. The translation and study of significant Nahuatl documents, such as Sahagún’s Florentine Codex, and even seemingly trivial documents have led to a more concise view of the Indian response to conversion and colonial Mexican society. Recent scholarship has debunked the myth of Ricard and other institutional historians that the Indians were quick to accept Christianity and adhere to its beliefs. Institutional historians focused on colonial Latin America from a Spanish perspective, using government and church sources that promulgated this myth of simple Indian conversion. The works of later historians have emphasized the complexities of Nahua-Spanish interaction in colonial Mexico, and have illustrated that the conversion efforts of the Spanish were less successful than they originally seemed.

It is important to note, however, that the Nahua remained open to the teachings of the Spanish, out of both curiosity and their religion’s acceptance of varying deities. The only colonial document that explains the religious conceptions popular among the Nahua at this time was the Coloquios, which was recorded by fray Bernardino de Sahagún in 1564 and purportedly represents the first dialogues between the priests of Tenochtitlan and the original Twelve. To the priests, the acceptance of Christianity was not an all-or-nothing proposition. While they acknowledge the supremacy of their own deities, they do not deny the existence of the Spanish’s, but instead advise the friars “to act on this matter very slowly, [and] with great deliberation.”[29] Regardless of its authenticity, the significance of the Coloquios lies not only in its representation of the Nahua religious views during the period of contact, but also the views of unacculturated Nahua at mid-century. Most Nahua held on to the beliefs of their ancestors but were also open to Christianity, especially in areas where the two religions shared similarities.

In addition, the introduction of the Christian God into their religion would have come as no surprise to the Nahua people. It was a natural concept of Indian culture that religious beliefs were imposed on conquered nations through military conquests. For the people of pre-conquest Mesoamerica, “victory was prima facie evidence of the strength of the victor’s god.”[30] They expected that the conqueror would impose his deity without necessarily displacing one’s own. Their religion was not considered universal in scope, and their pantheon allowed for the addition of deities into their religion. Since deities contained many of the same attributes, assimilation was easy, and the Christian God was no different in that respect. Therefore, the Nahua needed less to be converted than instructed, which seemed to correspond well with the mission of the friars, who spoke more of instruction than actual conversion.[31] The Nahua expected the conversion efforts of the Spanish, which made the task of the friars easier and more difficult at the same time.

The Nahua also saw Christianity as a continuation of their religion, which helps to further explain the Nahua’s acceptance of Christianity. Nahua religion allowed for the addition of new deities, the transformation in the significance of old ones, and the rejection of those they no longer considered relevant.[32] It is precisely this idea that successful deities should replace weaker ones that made the Nahua so willing to assimilate Christian God into their established religion. In Indian society, it was possible and even typical for a conquered people to show respect for the victorious ruler without having to show the same reverence for his deities. One of the fundamental failures of the Spanish was their inability to separate Christianity from pre-conquest religion in the eyes of the Nahua. Although the missionaries tried to present Christianity as a separate religion, similarities that existed between the two made a distinction impossible. The Indians most readily embraced the overt aspects of Christianity, namely because of their similarities to pre-conquest rituals and beliefs. The Nahua continued to participate in fiestas, which the Church now sponsored and usually held in honor of holy days or the community’s patron saint. Combining Christian observations with traditional forms of Indian ritual, fiestas emphasized cooperation between the two groups; the Indians continued to sing and dance at these festivals, but now in honor of a Christian figure or significant holiday.[33]

In fact, the decision to allow song and dance as legitimate forms of worship was a major breakthrough in attracting Indians to Christianity. The Nahua also admired other forms of artful expressions, such as Catholicism’s emphasis on images and especially religious dramas, which were written in Nahuatl and acted out by Indians. These plays were similar to the Nahua tradition of deity impersonation, in which an actor would take on the deity’s identity by dressing in its attributes.[34] Sahagún discusses this ceremony in his History of Ancient Mexico, noting that during the Indian festivals, “everyone dressed up in the same clothes as the god, as if they were his image or someone who meant the same as the god, and, attired in that way, they held dances and chants accompanied by drums and jingles.”[35] The Nahua also found the physical setting of Christian evangelization appealing. The Catholic Churches were located in the center of the community, and were structurally very similar to pre-conquest indigenous places of worship. The same building materials were often reused, and in many cases these churches were located on the same spot as Nahua pagan temples. The Catholic priests presided from an open chapel and the Indians thus observed the rites from outdoors, similar to when they watched their own priests perform rituals and sacrifices.[36]

The Nahua also would have found the church hierarchy appealing, which in most communities involved indigenous staff. Priests were almost always Spanish, so the indigenous staff would have occupied important roles in colonial society. When a language barrier existed, indigenous members of the staff mediated between the priest and his congregation. Furthermore, where priests might be called on to travel and were therefore absent for long periods of time, the church staff remained stable in their roles. Known as the fiscal of the church, the leader of the staff controlled the day-to-day operations of the church, as well as the church’s assets. The Nahua considered the fiscal as a person of great social prestige and usually of noble lineage. It is not clear however, if the notoriety of the position was present at the role’s inception. The friars started filling this position as soon as they consecrated church buildings, but the position is not mentioned in Nahuatl documents prior to 1570. The lack of early documentation is usually attributed to the friars’ dismissal of the indigenous priesthood and its characteristics, so it took time for a similar position to again be accepted. Regardless, the Nahua would have recognized the similarity between the Catholic church staff and their former indigenous hierarchy. The Nahua referred to the staff as teopantlaca, which translates as “the church people.” Though the term is not rigorously defined in Nahuatl texts, it appears to be a carryover from pre-conquest notions of the temple hierarchy.[37]

The Nahua instinctively recognized the benefits of acceptance and the possible consequences of resistance, which further purports why they remained open to the teachings of Christianity. While many oppressed Nahua initially hoped that the native gods would come to their aid, they still made great efforts to acculturate the Spanish “new order” into their lives, a large part of it being Christianity. Although most Nahua never came to understand or fully accept church doctrine, they made great efforts to assimilate Christianity into their lives, most often for personal and societal gains. An interesting example of such a society was the central Mexican city of Tlaxcala. As active allies of the Spanish against other surrounding indigenous groups, the people of Tlaxcala were in “a peculiarly appropriate position for the adoption of Christian life.”[38] Though its citizens initially opposed the friars’ teachings, Tlaxcala is remembered for its enthusiastic and apparently authentic acceptance of Christianity. The people’s original reluctance to adopt Christianity in the early post-conquest years was seldom questioned by the Spanish, who more highly valued the Tlaxcalan as military allies than brothers in Christ. This is in contrast to other indigenous cities in which the Spanish pillaged temples and destroyed idols as they made their way through Mexico.[39] To the, it was possible to support and even participate in the conquest alongside the Spanish without accepting the latter’s Christian teachings.

Large-scale conversion efforts following the first decade of colonial rule were met with phenomenal results from the Tlaxcalan. Their rapid conversion to Christianity in the 1530s is often contributed to both the tremendous efforts of many of the original Twelve Franciscan friars who settled in Tlaxcala, as well as to the fact that many citizens saw little choice in anything but acceptance. They would have been fully aware of the consequences of resistance and the benefits of alliance. The Florentine Codex documents the gathering of the lords of Tlaxcala upon the impending arrival of the Spanish. In discussing possible responses, the lords decide to submit to the Spanish and to “make friends of the foe” for the benefit of their society.[40] If many gave in under duress in the beginning, some of them eventually came to accept Christian teachings over time. To the people of Tlaxcala, if those who aligned themselves with the Spanish could prove they accepted Christianity prior to the conquest, they could win the right to “consider themselves conquerors.”[41] By mid-century, the majority of Tlaxcala’s inhabitants had received baptism and were proud of their connection with the Catholic Church. Whether for God or for glory, Tlaxcala exemplifies the cities throughout central Mexico that found numerous ways to prosper through their contact with Christianity.

In addition, the overwhelming number of Indians who sought baptism before learning anything about Christianity further illustrates the Nahua’s understanding of the benefits of acceptance. Fray Toribio de Benavente (whom the Nahua nicknamed “Motolinía”), one of the original Twelve, noted that, “When they go to be baptized some go begging…others ask for it on their knees, others raising and stretching out their hands…others demand it and receive it weeping and sighing.”[42] Why then, were millions of Nahua baptized in honor of a religion they hardly accepted or understood? The answer lies in understanding that the Nahua experienced their religion primarily as a social phenomenon. Along with the native recognition of local churches and patron saints, baptism served as the gateway to the new church and the community as a whole. The decision to refuse baptism was undertaken at great spiritual and political risks.[43] Although the majority of Nahua adults had been baptized by the late 1550s, most had yet to fully accept the doctrine of the Catholic Church, proving that participation in rituals did not translate into religious acceptance. The inability of the friars to distinguish Christianity as a new and distinct religion greatly inhibited their conversion efforts. Since the Indians were unable to view the religions as two separate ideas, they saw no reason to accept these new beliefs fully, and the fact that they only understood them in light of the old, made full assimilation nearly impossible.

By the mid-sixteenth century, the excitement generated over Christianity began waning, as well as the hopeful language the friars initially used in describing their success. By the 1550s, church attendance had already begun to decline. Even in the most Christianized areas only about one-fifth of the population attended mass.[44] Many problems attributed to this change, namely the friar’s loss of power to the newly instituted secular priests, the Nahua’s less discreet return to pagan rituals, and finally, the studies on native life written during this period which spread the idea of native indifference to church teachings. The introduction of the secular clergy began in the 1550s and was virtually complete within the next three decades. Though the mendicant sects occupied most pastoral positions in this early period, their roles were considered provisional from their inception. Their ability to administer the sacraments, as well as other powers granted to them under papal dispensation, were understood as limited to the early stages of conversion and always considered temporary by the crown and the secular church.[45] It appeared that the friars’ success in attracting converts soon rendered them unnecessary in the eyes of the ecclesiastical powers.[46] Since most religious authorities accepted the successfulness of the friars, they saw little reason to continue such heavy conversion practices.

Most of the secular priests were less than worthy of the position they occupied. Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza, a royal official not partial to either side, commented, “the seculars who come here are bad priests. They are all looking out for their own interests, and if it were not that they are under orders from His Majesty, and administer baptism, the Indians would be better off without them.”[47] Concern for the spiritual well-being of the Indians was seldom the primary motivation of the secular clergy. While this position attracted men who possessed ideal pastoral characteristics, it also attracted those with little sense of calling whose position stemmed for their desire for personal prestige and power. Much of the evidence of priestly misconduct comes from a small number of extreme cases, which makes the universality of such claims hard to determine. However, cases of personal ambition and pastoral preoccupation with material wealth were typical and well documented, and left the secular clergy open to outside criticism.[48]

Furthermore, complaints of absenteeism and inadequate spiritual care were common and added to the growing disapproval of clerical behavior. Some priests chose to reside in the city, where their professional and familial ties were stronger, than in rural areas. These clerics preferred an urban environment to that of their diocese, traveling to their parishes for Sunday services or special occasions.[49] For the most part, the Indians were then left alone to practice their own version of Christianity. Priests presided when necessary but entered into very little dialogue with the Nahua, finding themselves satisfied with the Indians’ appearance of Christian living. Therefore, most of what the Indians retained of Christianity was learned in the first half of the sixteenth century, under the careful teachings of the early Spanish friars.[50] As a consequence, the second phase of evangelization was characterized by pessimism and disappointment on behalf of the Spanish friars. By the end of the century, most of the clergy had lost their passion for evangelism, meeting the Indians’ return to paganism with little resistance.

Throughout the conversion process of the sixteenth century, idolatry and pagan rituals persisted. While Motolinía contended that idolatry had been completely wiped out by the 1530s, later records disagreed with his assertions, and modern thought reveals that its absolute elimination would have been unlikely. With the Spanish religious leaders no longer an everyday fixture in Indian society, many returned to their pre-conquest practices. The speed with which the Nahua reverted back to idolatry amazed many of the religious leaders. They often spoke of instances when they found the Indians practicing their religion secretly at night, worshipping their gods and offering them sacrifices. Ironically, the Indians would hide their idols within the altars of the Christian churches, so they were able to worship them under the guise of Christian devotion.[51] Later priests spoke of their inability to expel many of the ancient practices of the Indians, and that they were furthermore fearful to speak out against them. They found themselves unable to diminish the drunkenness, concubinage, and truancy that persisted in Indian society.[52] For the most part, the continuance of pagan practices was not active resistance on the part of the Indians. Many still considered themselves Christians, regardless of their attachment to their pre-conquest idolatry. Their inability to differentiate between the two religions resulted in the Nahua accepting rituals from both.

The body of church literature produced during this period helped to spread further the ideas of native indifference to Christian teaching throughout the colony and home to Spain. Works by Sahagún and fray Diego Durán recorded the Spanish conquest and more importantly highlighted many significant aspects of Nahua cultures and beliefs. Recorded is the Indian response to Christian doctrine and Sahagún is in general considered very much ahead of his time in his questioning of certain methods used for evangelization and the authenticity of Indian conversion. Sahagún concluded that the early friars prematurely considered the Indians’ conversion to Christianity as complete; it was only after he and others became more familiar with the native language and beliefs that the “superficiality of conversion” became apparent.[53] Sahagún remained skeptical regarding these conversions, and later came to declare, “[T]his new Church is founded on falsehood.”[54]

Durán’s work, Historia de las Indias de Nueva España [The History of the Indies of New Spain], is also very informative in regard to the conquest of Mexico, as well as in its representation of Indian beliefs. As with Sahagún’s work, Durán called into question the Indians’ complete acculturation and their willingness to abandon their pre-conquest rituals. In his work, Durán reflects on a conversation with a Nahua man about his people’s religious beliefs. When the Indian replied that they were “in the middle,” Durán urged him to explain: “He answered that since they were not yet well rooted in the faith, I should not be astonished that they were still neutral; that they neither responded to one law nor the other or, better yet, that they believed in God and at the same time kept their ancient customs and the rites of the devil. And this is what he meant by his abominable excuse that they were still “in the middle” and were neutral.”[55]

In the mid-sixteenth century, this is where most Indians found themselves, “in the middle.” While the Nahua’s superficial acceptance of Christianity cannot necessarily be classified as a failure, it could hardly be considered a success. The Nahua remained content in accepting certain rituals and rites of Christian doctrine, and the complacent church clergy of the later sixteenth century was satisfied with the indigenous acceptance of externals. Spanish friars were ultimately unsuccessful in their quest to convert the Mexican native population to Christianity. The Spanish and the Nahua could only interpret each other’s beliefs in light of their own, making genuine interaction difficult and authentic acculturation impossible. Their failure resulted from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Nahua belief system, and their inability to effectively use the Nahuatl language to explain Christian concepts in terms the Indians could comprehend.

Spanish misconceptions about Indian beliefs and their inability to thoroughly explain Christianity are undoubtedly linked. The friars were faced with the complex and difficult challenge of remaking a foreign society into their own image. The fundamental difference in their worldviews became the major obstacle between the two groups; the contrast between the Christian view of two distinct realms, the earthly and the spiritual, and Nahua monism, which recognized no clear separation between the two.[56] Because of their outlook, the Nahua did not distinguish the soul as completely separate from the body, further adding to their inability to separate the earthly from the spiritual. This is not to suggest that the Nahua were incapable of adopting a Christian worldview; many Indians did become successfully acculturated. For the majority of the Nahua population, however, Christian doctrine as presented to them was too basic and superficial to cause the fundamental shift in beliefs that would have been necessary for complete conversion to take place.[57]

Related to monism is the Nahua belief that the soul is composed of many different elements, many of which it shared with other aspects of nature. The monistic view of the Nahua made it impossible for them to accept two significant premises of Christianity: the survival after death of a single, eternal soul, and the idea that the soul would be rewarded or punished in the afterlife based on the moral quality of one’s actions while here on Earth.[58] Fray Juan Bautista noted the Indians’ disbelief of these premises in a manual for confession. He recorded the Indians as saying, “Let us eat and drink while we live, because after we die we will not return again from Hell to eat and drink.”[59] Bautista noted that while this comment is true, it reveals more than just the Indian concept of Hell. When the Indians acknowledge there will be no eating or drinking after death, they are in effect claiming that there is no life, spiritual or other after the present, which Bautista warrants as a direct contradiction with the teachings of God.[60]

Furthermore, Sahagún discusses the Indian’s superficial use of the sacrament of confession, which he confirms they took part in before they had any knowledge of the Christian faith. He explains the Indians took part in confession “to escape worldly punishment meted out for such sins, to escape from being condemned to death…Even now if one of them kills or commits adultery, he will come to our homes or monasteries and without saying a word about their evil deeds, simply say that they want to do penance.”[61] This illustrates that the Indians had little concern for their soul in the afterlife, which the friars constantly emphasized through their teachings. Instead, they took part in confession and other sacraments to escape public punishment and humiliation. This is evidence of the Nahua’s’ focus on the effects of this life, whereas the missionaries were constantly emphasizing the next.

The worldly focus of the Nahua explains why they felt more inclined to offer sacrifices to gain a deity’s favor than to gain salvation from the Christian God. Indian religion was fundamentally apotropaic, meaning it focused on averting evil through appropriate actions. Sickness, drought, and poverty were just some of the mundane misfortunes the Nahua sought to avoid through sacrifice. These sacrifices were in effect, made to “pay back” the gods for their blessings of good fortune, in hopes of their continuation.[62] Sahagún and Durán reference such offerings throughout their works on colonial Mexico, which often involved human sacrifice as the ultimate form of appeasement. Sahagún notes that the Indians tore out their victims’ hearts “in honor of the gods of rain, so that they might grant them abundant rain,” and Durán purports in The History of the Indies of New Spain that the Nahua offered the same sacrifice as an offering to “the solar deity.”[63] The Nahua considered keeping evil forces at a distance as their ultimate spiritual goal, which they could only achieve through appeasement. After decades of interaction, most Nahua were unable to grasp the Christian focus on the world to come. This dualistic nature of Christianity proved too fundamentally different from the monistic view of the Nahua to ever hope for some kind of middle ground. The majority of the Indians were never able to comprehend a God for whom appeasement was not necessary. For the Nahua, the rituals of Christianity were empty, since they understood little of what stood to be gained through their completion.

While the friars tried to utilize the Nahuatl language, the difference in religious doctrine made coherent explanation of Christianity extremely difficult. The Indians’ inability to become the model Christians the friars hoped for resulted in part from poor communication. A good deal of Christian doctrine was simply “lost in translation.”[64] Christian teaching was effective only to the extent that it was compatible with existing Nahua beliefs. The Spanish friars learned Nahuatl in light of their own language, thus decreasing their effectiveness in explaining Christian doctrine and adversely the effectiveness of their mission. Although the friars’ aim was to gain more insight into native culture to better evangelize, they lacked a fundamental understanding of Nahua thought and culture. The use of the Nahuatl language to evangelize was a significant aspect of the friars’ methods, and their ability to use it effectively was fundamental to their mission. Going deeper than making the Indians merely understand Christian doctrine, the Spanish had to further persuade them to accept new ideas and beliefs. Since most friars protested the use of violence to persuade, words became their most strategic weapon. Evangelization had to be carried out in the native tongue because the friars considered their mission “too urgent” to introduce the substantial acculturation program necessary to impose the Spanish language on such a large native population.[65]

In order to use Nahuatl effectively, the missionaries used appropriate metaphors and other forms of expression to present Christian concepts in terms the Indians could more clearly understand. The extent to which the missionaries should use the native language in evangelization was the source of much debate in the sixteenth century. Many friars, including Sahagún, instinctively recognized the problem in using Nahuatl to describe Christian concepts, and instead favored the introduction of Spanish terms as an alternative of ascribing new meaning to Nahuatl terms. Sahagún feared the use of Nahuatl terms would render Christian teachings superficial in the eyes of the Nahua, which would allow them to continue their pagan practices and ideology. Those in favor of using Nahuatl claimed that the use of their native dialect made Christianity more intelligible to the Indians.[66] The use of metaphors was not a foreign method of teaching to the Nahua, whose elders used the same techniques to explain moral teachings passed down over generations.[67] If the friars could succeed in replacing the authority of the past with that of Christianity, they stood to gain a substantial amount of control and influence over the individual, as well as Nahua society as a whole. When taken out of Nahuatl context however, Christian doctrine meant little. The friars in effect, could only “successfully manipulate the system by adapting to it.”[68]

One such example is in the Coloquios, the record of the first interaction between the original Twelve and the priests and lords of Tenochtitlan. The friars explained the true nature of the pagan gods in terms that could only have been met with confusion by the Natives. The missionaries taught that Satan created the Nahua religion and that the gods they worshipped were, in actuality, demons. No other area of Christianity “was more charged with bewilderment and danger for the post-conquest natives than that which concerned the belief there existed clearly malevolent spirits, when these has previously been recognized as morally ambivalent.”[69] When considering the earthly focus of the Nahua, it is understandable that they found the existence of demons more frightening than did the Spanish missionaries. The friars believed God protected them from these malevolent forces, which is something the Nahua seldom experienced in relation to their deities.

In interaction with the Nahua, the friars used the native term most closely related to the concept they were trying to explain when a direct translation was not possible. These concepts were alien to the Nahua, but the friars saw little choice but to present the closest parallel they could find. When examining these metaphors, their intended Christian meaning is often quite at odds with its Nahuatl translation. This can be contributed to the earthly rather than spiritual focus of Indian morality. The Nahua understood Christian teaching in terms of the present whereas the focus of the friars was always in explaining the consequences one’s actions in this life had on the next. One such substitute was for the Christian concept of sin. The friars adopted tlatlacolli as a synonym for sin, which loosely translates as “something damaged.” Used in Christian contexts to refer to moral corruption, the term could also be used to describe any sort of error, intentional or not. The potential confusion for the usage of this term is apparent. The use of the word tlatlacolli places more emphasis on the effect rather than the cause; on the outcome of the act rather than the act itself. While it is possible the Nahua may have interpreted this concept to mean sin, the two terms are not synonymous. Tlatlacolli does represent sin, but not to the full extent of its Christian meaning. [70]

The dissimilarity once again lies in the Nahua’s’ disregard for the afterlife. While the Nahua understood the basic concept of sin, they believed its effect was limited to the present life and did not affect his or her fate after death. This contradicts the dualistic beliefs of Catholicism, which stresses the importance of one’s earthly actions in determining his or her place in the afterlife. Both religions, however, share an emphasis on guilt and shame.[71] In different ways, guilt is an important aspect to both belief systems. In Christianity, death serves as the ultimate punishment for sin, which everyone commits. For the Nahua, the possibility for the punishment of immoral acts by the gods would have to relate to some concept of sin and shame. Nahua religion stressed the need for sacrifice to appease the gods, whose anger was believed to be caused by sinful human action.

The friars also used ambiguous terms to define the differences between God and demons. The friars accepted the Nahua concept of deity, teotl, as a term for their own deity, the monotheistic Dios. For the Nahua, their indigenous deities did not set the standards for moral authority as did the Christian God. Their deities were tricksters, drunkards, priests, and family members, who could cause immoral behavior and then punish the wrongdoer.[72] The appeasing actions of the Nahua arose more from fear of their deities’ power than from any reverence on behalf of the Indians. For example, Sahagún describes a situation in which a number of Nahua contract a terrible disease, which the afflicted relate as punishment from the gods for some offensive action. After the affliction, “it was understood that all such ailments were punishments meted out by this god, and they made him promises and vows to relieve them and relent his resentment, lifting the scourge off them.”[73] This is hardly the concept of their deity the friars wanted the Nahua to adopt. They then sought to redefine the Indian concept of teotl by stripping the native deities of their divine status, and referring to the former gods as demons. The friars, who very much believed in the power of evil forces, assumed that the native deities were demons, not products of the Indian’s imagination. As described in the Coloquios, the friars considered Satan the creator of the Nahua religion, as well as the source of their idolatry and pagan practices.[74] They clearly made this known to the lords and priests of Tenochtitlan, who took offense to the friars’ blatant declaration that their gods were demons unworthy of their respect and obedience.

The metaphorical concepts of sin and deity help to illustrate the complexities of Nahuatl-Christian dialect in colonial Mexico. The Spanish strategically chose the terms used in conversion to foster some resemblance between Indian traditional religion and the Nahua’s’ version of Christianity. Though certain concepts smoothly transitioned into Nahuatl, more significant aspects of Christian theology did not. This allowed the Nahua to keep their traditional structure while still remaining open to Christian teachings. Despite the incorporation of many Christian elements, the belief system of the majority of the Nahua remained unchanged. The Nahua failed to understand the fundamental differences between their pre-conquest religion and Christianity, and the Spanish friars failed to recognize this fact. These fundamental errors on both sides allowed the Nahua to continue their traditional religious practices without much conflict arising with their new beliefs.

Nahua and Christian beliefs were not only two religions but two different kinds of religions. Only the highly literate and educated elite could have comprehended the differences between monistic and dualistic religions, which most of Nahua society was not. The term syncretism, which refers to the attempt to merge two opposing religious views into a clear conciliation, does not quite fit the resulting religious practices of the Nahua. The interaction between these two religions could not be described as truly syncretic, which implies a halfway meeting point between Nahua religion and Christianity. Most Nahua misunderstood the premises of Christianity and therefore could only integrate external aspects of Christianity into their religion. The combining of a Christian surface with a Nahua structure was “syncretic” in the sense that it contained aspects of both religions, but not in the sense of equally combining religious doctrine.[75] There is no middle ground between monistic and dualistic points of view as in Nahua religion and Christianity, making a doctrinal combination between the two religions unattainable. While the possibility of acculturation existed, the number of cases was relatively few and examples of meaningful conversions were less.

This lack of compromise between Indian and Christian beliefs seemed to parallel the Nahua’s’ intentions for Christianity. In the first half of the sixteenth century, initial interest soon turned into complacency and the Nahua remained open to the aspects of Christianity that fit well with their existing religious practices. By mid-century, the Nahua recognized the benefits of conformity and despite their attachment to pre-conquest habits, many still saw little contradiction between Christianity and their Nahua beliefs. This led the early friars to conclude their conversion mission was successful when in reality the Nahua had already returned to many of their pagan practices, some of which they had not abandoned in the first place. The inability of Christianity to replace the firmly rooted Nahua religion cannot be contributed to discrepancies of the followers of either religion. For the most part, both groups seemed open to the other and genuinely interested in what they stood to gain. This inability must ultimately be contributed to the fundamental differences in Christian and Nahua perspectives, and the lack of a mediating dialect to explain them. The resulting Indian religion could be considered as an unsatisfying compromise between the two traditions, which ultimately came to represent the concluding circumstances between the friars and the Nahua as well. By the time later friars exposed the early mission as less than successful, it was too late to uproot the enduring Nahua beliefs so that genuine conversion could truly take place.

[ [ [ [ [ [[

---

[1] Louise M. Burkhart, The Slippery Earth: Nahua-Christian Moral Dialogue in Sixteenth-Century Mexico (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1989), 15.

[2] Robert Ricard, The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico: An Essay on the Apostolate and the Evangelizing Methods of the Mendicant Orders in New Spain: 1523-1572 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), 21.

[3] Burkhart, The Slippery Earth, 4.

[4] Ibid., 16.

[5] Lewis Hanke, The Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949), 41.

[6] Lewis Hanke, Bartolomé de las Casas: An Interpretation of His Life and Writings (Netherlands: The Hague, 1951), 11.

[7] Bartolomé de las Casas, History of the Indies (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1971), 270.

[8] Andrée Collard, ed. in Bartolemé de las Casas, History of the Indies, xiii.