The Virgin of Guadalupe and the Conversos: Uncovering Hidden Influences from Spain to Mexico by Marie-Theresa Hernández (review)

This book was inspired by the author’s discovery in the archives of the New York Public Library of some works of Manuel Espinosa de los Monteros (1773–1838), a canon of the collegiate church of Guadalupe. Her purpose is “to challenge the oft-repeated narrative of the disappearance of the judaizantes in Spain and the Americas” (p. 10). Historians today speak of Catholicisms in the plural, a term as applicable to the peninsula as it is to Spanish overseas dominions. This book contains valuable insights and much of value. At the same time there are serious flaws that prevent an overall favorable review.

It is not an easy read, as it jumps from one topic to another. The style is meandering. Thus Marie-Theresa Hernández deals with Benito Arias Montano on pages 93–94, interrupts the treatment, and resumes the discussion on page 104. She probably overestimates converso impact on Catholic Spain: “A concentrated voice of Jewish Christian existence that left its traces in all aspects of culture and tradition” (p. 34).

She cites the copy of the Nican mopohua in the New York Public Library but seems unaware that it was originally published by Laso de la Vega in 1949. She does not cite his work in the bibliography. She seems to accept the story of Winfield Scott’s seizure of the Guadalupan documents as related by Mariano Cuevas (unreliable in matters of Guadalupe) and does not cite Ernest Burrus’s refutation of this legend. She repeats the commonly accepted but inaccurate assertion that the Mexican Guadalupe is pregnant (p. 14). There is no basis for this in Nahua belief or practice. Spanish kings were not crowned (pp. 96–97) but ruled the different kingdoms of the peninsula according to different constitutions and forms of government.

The book contains surmises and suppositions such as “very likely” (p. 128), “[i]t is likely (p. 133), “[i]t is possible” (p. 134), “[i]t is very possible” (p. 138), “[i]t is very likely” (p. 142), and “[w]as he trying to hide something within his communication?” (p. 153).

She overemphasizes role of the Inquisition (pp. 16–17) and overlooks the complexity of the tribunal. It was not a static institution but varied from time to time and place to place such as in Castile, Aragon, and New Spain. She also overlooks hostility to the Inquisition by Spanish traditionalists. The introduction of the tribunal into New Spain upset a delicate balance of power. Archbishop Moya de Contreras, the first inquisitor in Mexico, complained that Viceroy Martín Enríquez treated it “with contempt.” Hernández does not cite Henry Kamen’s revisionist interpretation.

She also ignores the local nature of religion in Spain and does not cite the works of William Christian. She considers Philip II to be a semi-heretic, although he was a devout Catholic who pursued antipapal policies. She states, “According to Scripture the Virgin Mary did not die; instead she ascended into heaven” (p. 25). Scripture says nothing about Mary’s death. In addition, Hernández confuses the Order of Santiago with a religious order (pp. 93, 112). It was a military order, mostly lay, that was in a high degree honorary. She defines audiencia as congress and cabildos as government administrators (p. 122).

There are several typographical errors such as Jaen (p. 53) for Jaén and Jean for Jaén (p. 41). The author mistranslates pinceps [sic] missus a celo as “the prince who relates the secret” (p. 92) when it means “the prince sent by God”—a reference to John 1: 6.

Most arguable is Hernández’s treatment of the first known account of the Mexican Guadalupe apparitions: Miguel Sánchez’s Imagen de la Virgen María (1648). She dates the revision of this...