Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Spanish and Nahuatl Viewson Smallpox and demographic catastrophe in…

- - - - appeared. Diaz del Castillo's two versions of the Historia Verdadera is a well-known example. The earliest copy was sent to Spain in 1576, but he continued to revise a second copy in Guatemalahis death in I584. The first was printed in a bastardized almost a half-century after his death (I632); the second published until 1904.
    - - The writings of Motolinia and suffered similar travails. The Historia attributed to Motolinia was a hurried copy of his Memoriales (portions of which have since been lost) made, probably in Spain, by a copyeditor/publicist who lacked training in Nahuatl and also lacked Motolinia's zeal for accurac
    - - The earliest Spanish recording of smallpox in central Mexico, dated August 30, 1520, is a report to Charles V by Vazquez de Ayllon, judge of the Real Audiencia of Santo Domingo. This report, first published in I866, has gone unnoted by most histo- rians. Judge Vazquez de Ayllon, writing only a few months after the event, described a voyage with the Narvaez flotilla to Cozu- mel, an island off the east coast of the Yucatan peninsula, and then to Veracruz. On Cozumel he found very few natives and attributed their disappearance to smallpox. According to the judge, the natives had been "stuck" (pegado) by the disease intro- duced by Indians from the island of Fernandina (Cuba) who were brought to Cozumel as auxiliaries in the company of Spaniards Vazquez de Ayllon had no theory of contagion, but his shows that he understood how the pasty mucous of spread (pegado as in pegante, originally
    - - appears in more texts including indigenous
      - The introduction of smallpox among the Aztecs is frequently attributed to a black slave, given the name-Francisco Eguia-in one account. Hallowed by repetition, this story has become some- thing of a trope-unlike the almost ignored tale of "Joan Garrido," also a black slave, the first to sow and harvest wheat in Mexico. The anecdote of the smallpox-infected slave occurs in most Span- ish chronicles of the conquest (those by Motolinia, L6pez de Gomara, and Diaz del Castillo-but not Cortes or Sahagun), in native-mestizo accounts such as the Relacion Geogrdfica for Tlax- cala by Munoz Camargo, the Codex Ramirez, Ixtlilxochitl's De- cima Tercia Relacion, and even in many modern textbook descrip- tions of the conquest of Mexico
      - Brooks version of the black slave
        
        According to Brooks, reciting the story undermines the cred- ibility of all would-be chroniclers of smallpox in two ways. First, it reveals their dependence on Motolinia, the first-known written account of the tale and, second, "Motolinia's" own Historia is fable, an exercise in "mythopoesis," a strained allegory for the biblical account of the Ten Plagues. Brooks reasons that Motolinia needed an "Ethiopian" and that without a theory of contagion, no Spaniard would have made the connection much less remem- bered a source for the disease.
  - - - From May to September I520, smallpox spread land, I5o miles to Tepeaca and Tlaxcala, and then on titlan in September or October. A second eyewitness smallpox is reported in another letter to Charles V, that dated May 15, 1522, ten months after the fall of Tenochtitlan. Cortes, seeking to justify his transgressions and to position self to claim vast rewards from the newly conquered vided an exceedingly detailed report of his actions. He the high regard which native leaders had for him and justified his usurpation of royal authority in appointing rulers. Cortes wrote that "many chieftains were dying wished that by my hand and with your approval and be put in their place." The many deaths of leaders were "the smallpox distemper which also enveloped those of like those of the islands." I emphasize what Brooks' omitted: Cortes' explicit comparison of the impact in with what had happened in
      - Hispañola
        
        widespread agreement about the population of Hispaniola and if Cortes compares the situation in mexico with that we can be quite confident that it was bad.
        
        The guessing about how many natives peopled the before 1492 continues without relief (ranging for Hispaniola 8 million to as few as 60,000), but there is widespread that depredation and disease drove the native population extinction b
        
        cortés other mentions
        
        actions. Otherwise disease is scarcely mentioned in his letters. From 1520 to 1526, Cortes addressed some 250 pages of corre- spondence to the emperor, but his account of smallpox amounts to less than a half-page of
        
        does explain Maxixcatzin died of smallpox ->Cortes names only one leader who died of smallpox, Maxix- catzin, a Tlaxcalan. In 1519, Maxixcatzin was the first highland ruler to embrace Cortes' cause, and then, following the Noche Triste (June 30, I520), the first to provide succor to the badly beaten cristianos. In the ensuing weeks, when the Mexica sought to press their victory by rallying all the native kingdoms against the invaders, Maxixcatzin spoke forcefully and persuasively for Tlaxcalans to remain loyal to Cortes. Fortunately, Maxixcatzin's death from smallpox occurred after his people had been assured, but the precise date is unrecorded
    - - CUITLAHUACTZIN AND OTHER NATIVE RULERS DIED OF SMALLPOX Although Brooks flatly denied it, Cuitlahuactzin, ruler, also died of smallpox, as did many other native and enemies alike. Within a pair of parentheses, consign to the historian's dustbin the standard story hero's death from smallpox-without citing a authority. The most trustworthy indigenous source, Tenochtitlan (Codex Aubin), chronicled Cuitlahuatzin's "The tenth ruler was installed in Ochpaniztli, ruled for only eighty days; he died at the end of pustules (smallpox), when the Castilians had gone This account placed the death in the month of in I520 fell in late November or early December September as Brooks stated), scarcely a month renewed the assault on the Mexican stronghold
      - confusion about the death that may arise
        
        Some confusion about Cuitlahuatzin's death cause Cortes did not report the event. Indeed, scarcely acknowledged the name of his most formidable nent. On the night of June 30, the Noche Triste, troop fought their way out of Tenochtitlan, forces nearly annihilated the castellanos and their iliaries. L6pez de G6mara cited Cuitlahuactzin's lomatic successes in rallying the natives and also death as occurring from smallpox, before Christmas del Castillo remembered Cuitlahuactzin as "the us from Mexico" and attributed his death to having occurred before Christmas. Motolinfa cannot for these accounts because the Franciscan chronicler, did not mention Cuitlahuactzin. In Spain, Cuitlahuactzin's is first chronicled by Martyr in De Orbe Novo, written own death in 1526. Martyr reported that Cuitlahuactzin rectly referred to as "Hastapalappa," the ruled) "had been named king at Temistitan [Tenochtitlan], but after a reign of four months had died of smallpox and had been succeeded by his sister's son, Catamazin [Cuauhtemoc]." Martyr did not reveal his sources, but he was not following any of Cortes' extant Cartas.17
      - same story in the indigenous anals
        
        Sixteenth-century indigenous annals told the same story: "Upon the death of Mutezuma those of Mexico made Cuitlavazi from Estapalapa, brother of Mutezuma, their leader. He was lord for eighty days: smallpox was given to all the Indians and many died, before they [the Castilians] returned to conquer the city." The Cronica Mexicayotl, written down in I609, interpreted "Quecholli" as December 3 and noted as well the death of Axay- acatzin, Cuitlahuactzin's son, also from smallpox (totomonalliztli). Sahagun's personal history of the conquest, completed in 1585, confirmed these accounts and tersely assessed the military signif- icance of the epidemic: "Among the Mexicans who fell victim to this pestilence was the lord Cuitlahuactzin, who they had elected a little earlier. Many leaders, many veteran soldiers, and valiant men who were their defense in time of war, also died." Orozco y Berra, a meticulous nineteenth-century Mexican historian, as- cribed Cuitlahuactzin's death to smallpox, dated about Novem- ber 25.
  - - - Diaz del Castillo attested as well that the lord of Chalco died of smallpox, but Lopez de G6mara only noted the death without stating the cause. Cortes scarcely mentioned the Chalco incident, and Motolinia ignored it entirely. The absence of comments by Cortes or Motolinia is insignificant because there is ample inde- pendent evidence of smallpox striking down many of the native elite.
    - - Other Nahuatl sources related the epidemic in a single sen- tence, such as the Anales de Tlatelolco, where some 4,000 words were allotted to the conquest but only two lines to the epidemic: "Then a plague [cocoliztli] broke out of coughing, fever, and pox [(ahuatl]. When the plague [cocoliztli] lessened somewhat, (the Spaniards) came back." In Cuauhtitlan, the entry for 1520 reads: "Then Yohualtonatiuh was inaugurated. It was in his time that the Spaniards arrived. Both Citlalcoatl and Yohualtonatiuh died of the smallpox." Outside the central basin and fifty miles south- east of Puebla in the district of Tepeaca, the surviving copy of the Annals of Tecamachalco, which dates from the I59os, chronicled the event-of-the-year for 1520 as "very frightful great smallpox" ("cenca temahmauhti ynic mo chiuh huey zahuatl"). This chronicle omitted any mention of conquest or deaths due to war. Smallpox was the event for I520.2
    - - The military significance of the pestilence was enormous. Upon accession Mexica rulers quickly sought to establish hege- mony and legitimacy through force, by raiding subject towns. In 1520, with the sudden death of Cuitlahuatzin and the ascent of the youthful Cuauhtemoc, there was no opportunity to impose allegiance through war. Instead, Cortes proceeded to pick off subject-towns, often through diplomacy, one-by-one. An au- thoritative military history contended that ultimately: "Cortes' victory was more political than military, . . . With the fall of Tenochtitlan, the rest of Mesoamerica fell to Spanish domination with little or no stru
  - - - MOTOLINIA AND OTHER CONTEMPORARY SOURCES Brooks ques- tioned the veracity of supposed eyewitness accounts of the epi- demic claiming that they were derived from a "Franciscan myth," a history authored by Motolinia and tailored to fit biblical proph- ecy. Brooks saw "Motolinia's" Historia as the keystone in the argument that smallpox devastated Mexico in I520. The com- monalties among the texts were seen as weakening their credibil- ity, but common threads may strengthen the fabric, reenforcing agreement on key themes. Brooks suggested that Lopez de G6- mara copied from the Historia and, in turn, Diaz del Castillo from L6pez de Gomara, yet their descriptions differ, as shown in Table 2. Lopez de G6mara repeatedly acknowledged his depen- dence upon Motolinia-a fact long recognized by Mexicanists- but Cortes' secretary also used a variety of other sources, some of which are no longer available. In turn, Diaz del Castillo's "True History" was written, in part, to correct the excesses of Lopez de Gomara's "Conquistas de Cortes." I was surprised to discover that Motolinia reported only one anecdote regarding smallpox, whereas Lopez de Gomara recounts three, and Diaz del Castillo, five. 23
      - the authors never cited the same episodes to prove their points but all agree that they were devastating
    - - Any assertion that Diaz del Castillo never saw smallpox Mexico is simply false. Diaz del Castillo arrived in Cempoala May 1520 and was present later in Tlaxcala, when Cortes appointing leaders to replace those felled by the disease. uary 1 52, Diaz remarked that, upon beginning the final against Tenochtitlan, he and his companions reentered a twin city of the Aztec capital, without opposition, in to the fact that many warriors were still recovering from and were too weak to fight as a result of the illness which spread throughout the land. Abridged English translations Historica Verdadera often omit this and other episodes dealing smallpox.25
    - - Also mistaken is the argument that Motolinia simply to emphasize parallels between the suffering of the chosen in Egypt and the natives in New Spain. Motolinia recounted Ten Plagues, but then, in a passage expunged from the challenged popular Spanish beliefs by contrasting the biblical Egypt with those of contemporary
      - Historia vs Memoriales
        
        Since I982 scholars have known that the Historia is an abridged version, rather "an atrocious mutilation," of the Me- moriales. The Historia was extracted from the Memoriales, hastily edited and transcribed, perhaps dictated, and certainly altered, probably in Spain by someone poorly informed of conditions in New Spain, wholly ignorant of Nahuatl, unclear about the mak- ing of tortillas, and even wrong about the year the Franciscans first arrived in New Spain. Brooks compounded the folly by imagining the Memoriales to be a derivative of the Historia. Mo- tolinia, an informed, sympathetic observer who entered New Spain in I524, quickly became a skilled Nahuatl linguist and continued his ecclessiastical work in Mexico for almost forty-five years. He would not have committed the factual and linguistic errors unique to the Historia. O'Gorman argued that the Historia was constructed in Spain from Motolinia's Memoriales to provide testimony for revoking the New Laws. The mutilation of the text is so extensive that O'Gorman maintained that the Historia should no longer be attributed to Motolinia.
        
        writers who favoured the memorials
        
        Sixteenth-century chroniclers-Lopez de Gomara, Zorita, Cervantes de Salazar, Mendieta, and Torquemada among others- favored the Memoriales, often quoting long passages from it. Brooks argued that Mendieta "simply copied" Motolinia, which he did (a fact widely recognized by modern historians who rarely cite Mendieta's account of the conquest), but it is the Memoriales that he relied upon, not the Historia. Twentieth-century historians and translators, unfortunately, favor the Historia. This choice is a double misfortune, because the smallpox story in the Historia is an exaggeration of the Memoriales. The Historia subverts Motoli- nia's intentions by excising the contrasts present in the Memoriales. The Historia compounds the offense by heightening the argument of divine punishment through the insertion of the phrase "y castigo esta tierra y a los que en ella se hallaron." The greatest distortion is inflating the proportion dying from "half" to "more than
        
        O'Gorman points out the mistakes
        
        O'Gorman detailed many of the mutilations in Motolinfa's Historia, although the embellishment of the dying from smallpox is not
  - - - For sixteenth-century Spain, Villalba's classic Epidemiologia
        listed forty-nine epidemics, half attributed to plague (peste) but
        only six to smallpox. From the brevity of the passages on smallpox, Villalba did not seem to be greatly concerned with the
        disease. Likewise, Perez Moreda's recent, comprehensive history
        of mortality crises in early modern Spain disposed of smallpox in
        a few pages. The period of greatest concern was the eighteenthcentury, when efforts were being made to limit virulence. Two centuries earlier, smallpox was ubiquitous, but mortality crises due to the disease uncommon. Ashburn reported that "so common was smallpox in Spanish children that Ruy Diaz de Isla cited as remarkable the fact that he knew a man who had not had it until after his twentieth
    - - Fracastoro classified smallpox with mild diseases of childhood
        such as chicken pox and measles that "attack children especially,
        adults rarely, the elderly hardly ever. But they seem attack everyone once in life." Fracastoro's translator noted that
        "since small-pox, under variolae, is so lightly treated by Fracastorius, as a malady to which practically everyone was then subject, it must have been a mild and rarely fatal strain." According to the most authoritative modern study the strain or strains of smallpox common to that era were exceedingly benign throughout sixteenth-century Europe. Only in the following century and later did it become a virulent killer.3
      - in contrast it was very bad in the Indies
  - - - field research from Measles has revelaed that acquired from a family member it is more lethal.
      - The genetic key to successfully against an attack of virulent smallpox is the production histocompatibility antigens. Unfortunately, in this regard, show only one-sixty-fourth the genetic diversity or Europeans. The odds worsen when exposure is and from multiple sources, particularly from members one's own family. The close living quarters, described by de Gomara and Sahagun, would heighten virulence as the spread through families and compactly settled
- - - - Twenty-ninth chapter, where it is said how, at the time the
        Spaniards left Mexico, there came an illness of pustules of which
        many local people died; it was called 'the great rash' (Before the Spaniards appeared to us [again], first an epidemic
        broke out, a sickness of pustules. It began in Tepeilhuitl ['which at the end of September,' according to the accompanying gloss]. Large bumps spread on people, some were entirely covered.
        They spread everywhere, on the face, the head, the chest, disease) brought great desolation; a great many died of it. could no longer walk about, but lay in their dwellings and places, no longer able to move or stir. They were unable to position, to stretch out on their sides or face down, or raise heads. And when they made a motion, they called out loudly. pustules that covered people caused great desolation; very people died of them, and many just starved to death; starvation reigned, and no one took care of others any longer. On some people, the pustules appeared only far apart, they did not suffer greatly, nor did many of them die of many people's faces were spoiled by it, their faces and noses made rough. Some lost an eye or were blinded.
        The disease of the pustules lasted a full sixty days; after days it abated and ended. When people were convalescing reviving, the pustules disease began to move in the direction Chalco. And many were disabled or paralyzed by it, but they not disabled forever. It broke out in Teotleco, and it abated in Panquetzaliztli. The Mexica warriors were greatly weakened
        by it.4
      - Brooks misinterprets this and states that it "it is reasonable to credit their collective memory with knowledge that not many died."
      - The third great epidemic of the century
        
        On November 8, I576, as the third great epidemic century unfolded, Sahagun, in a rare direct intervention General History and for which there is no corresponding text, mused whether the present plague would exterminate native people. He addressed the question directly and forcefully, leaving no doubt that the smallpox attack of 1520 was exceedingly lethal (murio casi infinita gente)-more deadly even than the the deadliest was the matlazahuatl epidemic of 1545, great and universal pestilence where, in all of New Spain, greater part of the people who lived alone, Sahagufn claimed to have buried Io,ooo and fell ill to the
        disease himself. As he wrote in November 1576, the number deaths mounted daily. According to Sahagun, many were dying
        of hunger, without care, and with no one even to provide a of water-charitable relief having been exhausted. He feared that
        if the contagion continued for another three or four months that
        no natives would be left, that the land would revert to wild beasts
        and wilderness. He reasoned that Spaniards were too few to settle the land, and the Indians were becomingtherein died
        
        Pomar
        
        land, and the Indians were becoming extinct.49
        Pomar, the historian of the city of Texcoco, also singled out
        three great epidemics of the century-I520, 1545, and 1576-but
        characterized that of 1520 as the
        
        Camargo
        
        I prefer the most explicitly quantitatively reasoned assessment,
        by Munoz Camargo for the province of Tlaxcala which was drafted in the 1580s but only published in the 1981
        
        Other sources
        
        Evidence from a wide variety of sixteenth-century Spanish
        and Nahuatl sources point to a single conclusion: the smallpox
        epidemic of I520 ranked among the three worst demographic
        crises of the century. The death rate from smallpox and starvation
        in 1520-2I was probably less than for the matlazahuatl epidemics
        of 1545-46 and 1576-77. Nonetheless, if we accept the intelligence offered by one of the most celebrated native chroniclers of the colonial era, the smallpox epidemic of 1520 was demographic catastrophe of the century for the Nahuatl-people of central Mexico the greatest
        49