Angélico Chávez noted Miguel de Quintana, in the coloquio he wrote in 1732 and 1737, avoided "anything that reminded him of sin and hell." He ascribed it to a conscience that had become abnormally fixated on its sins.
That comment made me realize that Quintana was more specific. His imagination was paralyzed by the contemplation of the "Sorrowful Mysteries," the ones today called The Agony in the Garden, The Scourging at the Pillar, The Crowning with Thorns, The Carrying of the Cross, and The Crucifixion. He stopped doing exercises suggested at meetings of the Third Order, which probably included beating himself.
I wondered if his problem wasn’t mental or spiritual as suggested by Chávez, but physical. In 1734, Manuel de Sopeña said Quintana "rarely goes to mass, giving as an excuse pain in the spleen." A few years later, Quintana wrote Juan Sánchez de la Cruz, "both of my bones are somewhat better."
Within his world of the four humors, the spleen was responsible for black bile. When the fluid sank into the joints it caused arthritis and rheumatism. The organ was associated with a melancholy temperament that, according to David Osborn, were associated with "dark, morose emotions."
Today, the terms arthritis and rheumatism are applied to any pain in the joints. Within the constellation of causes, rheumatoid arthritis is recognized as a degenerative disease that appears in middle age. It starts when part of the immune system turns on itself, and begins attacking the synovial fluid that lubricates joints. This leads to self-perpetuating chain of damage to bone cells followed by chemical overreactions that leads to more injury.
The inflammation or swelling of joints combined with reduced synovial fluid makes movement difficult. The emergency chemicals send messages through the nerves to the brain that register as pain. When the pain becomes chronic, the brain begins to direct avoidance behaviors that may exaggerate the effects of actions that cause pain. These stimuli are concrete and physical.
As mentioned in the post for 19 June 2016, Quintana was raised in Ciudad de México where masses were said by secular clergy. He probably didn’t confront the Franciscan emphasis on salvation through reenacting the agonies of Christ until he was in Santa Cruz. Their practices probably didn’t affect him until he was already in such pain he didn’t need reminders of it in sermons or in penances.
He told the local head of the Inquisition, José Antonio Guerrero, in 1734, that Cruz once "spoke about the punishments suffered by the damned in hell, and he felt his heart and spirit so distressed that it seemed to him - such was the terror that came over him - that he was going to be damned."
One suspects that whenever his pain was flaring, he became more afraid of exposing himself to additional reminders. He said the previous September "he was overcome with terror and great fear while coming to mass."
He added that, "If he starts praying the rosary, it happens that in the mysteries he loses his voice because of the pain, stays in a trance, and he remains alone in contemplation."
One rather assumes, when confronted with recollections of pain his mind simply shut down to protect itself from painful stimuli, whether visual, auditory, or physical. Such avoidance reactions can be counterproductive when they prevent people with joint problems from exercising them. They also can be hazardous when they cause people to withdraw from social activities in anticipation of harm.
Quintana himself may have recognized this danger. The mere existence of his interior dialogues suggested he had enough self-awareness to try to try to overcome his apprehensions. God constantly was admonishing, "Don’t be such a coward, Miguel."
He said that, even though he was afraid to go to that mass, "he felt other forces that urged him, saying ‘Hear mass! Hear mass!’ and he went to mass and felt an unsurpassable rejoicing in his soul."
Notes:
Chávez, Angélico. "The Mad Poet of Santa Cruz," New Mexico Folklore Record 3:10-17:1949.
Guerrero, José Antonio. Interrogation of Miguel de Quintana, 8 November 1734, Santa Fé; in Lomelí.
Lomelí, Francisco A. and Clark A. Colahan. Defying the Inquisition in Colonial New Mexico, 2006; contains Spanish and English versions of all documents described here.
Osborn, David K. "Pathologies of Black Bile," Greek Medicine website.
Quintana, Miguel de. Coloquio, 1732, Santa Cruz, reprinted in Spanish and English by Lomelí.
Sopeña, Manuel de. Verification of previous statement to José Antonio Guerrero, 4 November 1734, Santa Fé; included in Lomelí.
Showing posts with label 07 Santa Cruz 21-25. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 07 Santa Cruz 21-25. Show all posts
Sunday, July 03, 2016
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Inquisition versus Miguel de Quintana
The official record of the Inquisition’s proceedings against Miguel de Quintana is presented below.
1732 March 17
Around 5 pm on the Monday that began the third week of Lent, Manuel de Sopeña reported he had been given nine sheets of paper "containing many reckless and scandalous assertions" by Quintana. His statement before the commissary of the Holy Office, José Antonio Guerrero, was notarized by José Irigoyen. Sopeña identified himself as the "minister of Nueva Villa de Santa Cruz."
1732 June 29
Quintana told Irigoyen he could not "comply with the obligation of annually going to confession and taking Communion," because "God did not ask the impossible of any of His children." He give the friar a paper justifying his refusal.
1732 July 1
Irigoyen denounced Quintana to the Holy Office, and notarized his own statement.
1732 July 12
Guerrero sent Quintana’s papers with the statements by Sopeña and Irigoyen to the Inquisition’s Holy Tribunal in Ciudad de México.
1734 May 22
The Inquisition in Mexico City reviewed Quintana’s case in its Secret Court. The men’s initial conclusion was "the case may well stem from feeblemindedness," but allowed the possibility that he was "ruled by some evil spirit." However, they said, they could not "form an opinion" because they knew nothing of this "life and habits, his abilities and talents." The Inquisitor, Diego Mangado y Cavijo, returned the paperwork to Guerrero "to reexamine and verify the statements of the two friars, according to standard directions." The Santa Fé commissary also was told to interview Quintana.
1734 May 27
Two inquisitors wrote a letter of instructions to Guerrero. In addition to the above, they told him to officially warn Quintana "drawing his attention to this court’s order that he should not inwardly believe or outwardly express such heretical assertions and that failure to comply will lead to prosecution to the fullest extent of the law." They further instructed him to have Quintana "sign a promise of obedience."
1734 November 4
Manuel de Sopeña was recalled from Picurís, but was no longer sure how many sheets of writing had been given to him by Quintana. When asked, he said the man "has his lucid intervals, but he is not completely convinced he is in his right mind, as witnessed by an occasion when he is said to have thrown stones. He does not recall who told him that, but people say that it must be fifteen years ago when this happened."
Sopeña also noted Quintana sometimes had trouble speaking when he was helping him with mass, "rarely goes to mass, giving as an excuse pain in the spleen," and did not participate in the Third Order of Saint Francis, the one open the laymen. He was told his testimony was to be kept secret. Irigoyen was the witness.
1734 November 5
Irigoyen, who was now described as a retired preacher, was recalled. Witnesses to the secret proceedings were the Franciscan’s vice custos and Francisco Manuel Bravo Lerchundi, the missionary to Pecos. The notary was José de Eguía.
The friar remembered it was around 9 in the morning on July 1 of 1732 that he had submitted his signed denunciation. He adds he told Quintana to confess on June 19 around 11 in the morning. He admitted he did not "know whether Quintana regularly takes the most holy sacraments or does virtuous actions," but does not attribute his actions "to madness or simplemindedness." He found not "a single thing to add, change or modify" in his first statement.
1734 November 8
Quintana was interrogated by Joseph Antonio Guerrero in secret in Santa Fé, with Irigoyen as the witness. Quintana explained why he thought God put "these thoughts in his mind."
1734 November 10
Guerrero sent a report to Inquisition in Ciudad de México that said he had questioned Sopeña, Irigoyen, and Quintana as instructed. He added that, since there was no sign Quintana was not mentally deficient in anyway, "I did not bring to his attention the extreme seriousness of the matter, nor did I officially warn him of the consequences as instructed."
1735 March 15
Authorities in Mexico City reviewed the documents sent by Guerrero. They noted he didn’t warn Quintana as instructed.
1735 March 24
Diego Mangado y Clavijo decided Quintana was suffering "from some delusion or damage to the imagination." He ordered Guerrero to make Quintana "appear before him and a notary, place him under oath, and warm him along the safe and easy path, which is in keeping of the commandments of God and His Holy Church, threatening him that if he should slip back into his ravings, the Holy Office will treat him with all severity." He also told Guerrero to give him a "learned and prudent confessor to him to hear his confessions."
1736 March 11
Guerrero sent more papers to Mexico City that said "Quintana was sick in bed, as he is now, and to judge by his condition, near death."
1736 July 24
Inquisitors in Ciudad de México acknowledged receipt of Guerrero’s report. They ordered him again to confront Quintana in the presence of a notary and tell him "not to publicize or tell anyone at all about these ravings he calls revelations or inspirations." He was to warn him, if he continued, he "would be treated with all the severity of the law and subject to the punishments applied to the obstinate, a fraud, and a rebel."
1737 January 22
Irigoyen went to Quintana’s house to order him to appear in Santa Fé, but found he was too sick to obey.
1737 January 23
Guerrero went to Quintana’s house at "about nine o’clock in the morning" to tell him "he should have nothing more to do with ridiculous revelations and publicizing them under the penalty of being punished as someone obstinate, a fraud, and a rebel." Quintana agreed. Guerrero assigned Irigoyen as his confessor.
Notes: Francisco A. Lomelí and Clark A. Colahan. Defying the Inquisition in Colonial New Mexico, 2006; contains Spanish and English versions of all documents described here.
1732 March 17
Around 5 pm on the Monday that began the third week of Lent, Manuel de Sopeña reported he had been given nine sheets of paper "containing many reckless and scandalous assertions" by Quintana. His statement before the commissary of the Holy Office, José Antonio Guerrero, was notarized by José Irigoyen. Sopeña identified himself as the "minister of Nueva Villa de Santa Cruz."
1732 June 29
Quintana told Irigoyen he could not "comply with the obligation of annually going to confession and taking Communion," because "God did not ask the impossible of any of His children." He give the friar a paper justifying his refusal.
1732 July 1
Irigoyen denounced Quintana to the Holy Office, and notarized his own statement.
1732 July 12
Guerrero sent Quintana’s papers with the statements by Sopeña and Irigoyen to the Inquisition’s Holy Tribunal in Ciudad de México.
1734 May 22
The Inquisition in Mexico City reviewed Quintana’s case in its Secret Court. The men’s initial conclusion was "the case may well stem from feeblemindedness," but allowed the possibility that he was "ruled by some evil spirit." However, they said, they could not "form an opinion" because they knew nothing of this "life and habits, his abilities and talents." The Inquisitor, Diego Mangado y Cavijo, returned the paperwork to Guerrero "to reexamine and verify the statements of the two friars, according to standard directions." The Santa Fé commissary also was told to interview Quintana.
1734 May 27
Two inquisitors wrote a letter of instructions to Guerrero. In addition to the above, they told him to officially warn Quintana "drawing his attention to this court’s order that he should not inwardly believe or outwardly express such heretical assertions and that failure to comply will lead to prosecution to the fullest extent of the law." They further instructed him to have Quintana "sign a promise of obedience."
1734 November 4
Manuel de Sopeña was recalled from Picurís, but was no longer sure how many sheets of writing had been given to him by Quintana. When asked, he said the man "has his lucid intervals, but he is not completely convinced he is in his right mind, as witnessed by an occasion when he is said to have thrown stones. He does not recall who told him that, but people say that it must be fifteen years ago when this happened."
Sopeña also noted Quintana sometimes had trouble speaking when he was helping him with mass, "rarely goes to mass, giving as an excuse pain in the spleen," and did not participate in the Third Order of Saint Francis, the one open the laymen. He was told his testimony was to be kept secret. Irigoyen was the witness.
1734 November 5
Irigoyen, who was now described as a retired preacher, was recalled. Witnesses to the secret proceedings were the Franciscan’s vice custos and Francisco Manuel Bravo Lerchundi, the missionary to Pecos. The notary was José de Eguía.
The friar remembered it was around 9 in the morning on July 1 of 1732 that he had submitted his signed denunciation. He adds he told Quintana to confess on June 19 around 11 in the morning. He admitted he did not "know whether Quintana regularly takes the most holy sacraments or does virtuous actions," but does not attribute his actions "to madness or simplemindedness." He found not "a single thing to add, change or modify" in his first statement.
1734 November 8
Quintana was interrogated by Joseph Antonio Guerrero in secret in Santa Fé, with Irigoyen as the witness. Quintana explained why he thought God put "these thoughts in his mind."
1734 November 10
Guerrero sent a report to Inquisition in Ciudad de México that said he had questioned Sopeña, Irigoyen, and Quintana as instructed. He added that, since there was no sign Quintana was not mentally deficient in anyway, "I did not bring to his attention the extreme seriousness of the matter, nor did I officially warn him of the consequences as instructed."
1735 March 15
Authorities in Mexico City reviewed the documents sent by Guerrero. They noted he didn’t warn Quintana as instructed.
1735 March 24
Diego Mangado y Clavijo decided Quintana was suffering "from some delusion or damage to the imagination." He ordered Guerrero to make Quintana "appear before him and a notary, place him under oath, and warm him along the safe and easy path, which is in keeping of the commandments of God and His Holy Church, threatening him that if he should slip back into his ravings, the Holy Office will treat him with all severity." He also told Guerrero to give him a "learned and prudent confessor to him to hear his confessions."
1736 March 11
Guerrero sent more papers to Mexico City that said "Quintana was sick in bed, as he is now, and to judge by his condition, near death."
1736 July 24
Inquisitors in Ciudad de México acknowledged receipt of Guerrero’s report. They ordered him again to confront Quintana in the presence of a notary and tell him "not to publicize or tell anyone at all about these ravings he calls revelations or inspirations." He was to warn him, if he continued, he "would be treated with all the severity of the law and subject to the punishments applied to the obstinate, a fraud, and a rebel."
1737 January 22
Irigoyen went to Quintana’s house to order him to appear in Santa Fé, but found he was too sick to obey.
1737 January 23
Guerrero went to Quintana’s house at "about nine o’clock in the morning" to tell him "he should have nothing more to do with ridiculous revelations and publicizing them under the penalty of being punished as someone obstinate, a fraud, and a rebel." Quintana agreed. Guerrero assigned Irigoyen as his confessor.
Notes: Francisco A. Lomelí and Clark A. Colahan. Defying the Inquisition in Colonial New Mexico, 2006; contains Spanish and English versions of all documents described here.
Sunday, June 05, 2016
José Irigoyen
Benito Crespo visited Santa Cruz in 1730 as part of his review of Franciscan missions within the bishopric of Durango. He reported that Christianized natives in Nuevo México, without specifying where, refused to confess to priests who didn’t speak their languages. His later list of the most negligent priests included Manuel de Sopeña of Santa Clara, Juan Sánchez de la Cruz of San Juan de los Caballeros, José Irigoyen of San Ildefonso, Antonio Gabaldón of Nambé, and Juan José Pérez de Mirabal of Taos.
One consequence of Crespo’s asserting his authority was friars no longer could excommunicate parishioners without his approval. Rather than provoke the bishop into defending his privileges, Irigoyen denounced a Santa Cruz poet and dramatist to the Inquisition in 1732 for refusing to confess to him or Sopeña. By then, Miguel de Quintana’s mind had become so fevered, the Holy Office in Ciudad de México demanded evidence he wasn’t feebleminded.
Irigoyen may have felt maligned by Crespo. Juan Miguel Menchero had depositions from two alcaldes that claimed the friar had "mastered the various Tanoan subgroups, despite being transferred often among those pueblos." In fact he spent time in two Towa speaking pueblos (Jémez, Pecos), two Tiwa (Isleta, Picurís), one Tano (Galiesteo), and two Tewa (Tesuque, Nambé).
The Franciscan also was assigned to four Keres locations (Ácoma, Cochití, San Felipe, Zía), who did not speak a Tanoan language. Except for the two local Tewa-speaking communities (San Ildefonso, Santa Clara), he didn’t spend two full years in any non-Castilian speaking mission.
Jim Norris published biographical details about the six priests who names appeared in the proceedings against Quintana. Three were born in Spain, Pérez de Mirabal in Málaga and Sánchez de la Cruz from some unknown location. Juan de Tagle, who was dead by the time Crespo visited the kingdom, was a Cantabrian and, apparently, close to Quintana.
The other three were first-generation criollos. Joseph Antonio Guerrero’s father came from Madrid, Sopeña’s from Viscaya, and Irigoyen’s from Navarre. The first two entered the convento grande de San Francisco in Mexico City. Irigoyen went through San Francisco de Puebla.
I don’t know if the conflicts between the two cultural groups mentioned in the post for 30 March 2016 infiltrated the Franciscan training centers, or if the two groups simply had different responses to the same situations based on childhood or adolescent experiences. It remains, the native-born friars were the ones who attacked Quintana, who himself probably was trained at the cathedral school in Ciudad de México.
I also don’t know if friars from Mexico City had more status than those from Puebla at the missionary school they both attended. What does seem clear is that Irigoyen was particularly eager to distinguish himself. He was the youngest of the men, professed in 1716 at age 17 and, at 27, one of the youngest sent to Nuevo México. Until he reached San Ildefonso in 1730, his longest assignements had been 16 months as Galisteo, 13 months at Isleta and 10 months at San Felipe. He later joined the friars proselytizing the Navajo.
Knowledge about Irigoyen is important because there are two versions of events in Santa Cruz. He controlled the official record as notary to the Inquisition office in Santa Fé headed by Guerrero. As such, he not only collected all the key documents, but also highlighted the heretical passages before they were sent to Mexico City.
The second version is the one that must be teased from details of Quintana’s life and from parsing translations of official documents.
Notes: Lomelí and Colahan made an important point about the differences between saying Nueva México and Nuevo México, and suggested the timing of the transition from one to the other was significant. Unfortunately, so many translators have been oblivious to such nuances, that it’s impossible to know which term were used without consulting their primary sources. For this reason, I am standardizing on the modern usage of Nuevo.
The post for 10 April 2016 has more on Irigoyen’s work with the Navajo. The post for 6 April 2016 discussed the missionary training school at Santiago de Tlatelolco where New Mexico friars were trained.
Chávez, Angélico. Archives of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, 1678-1900, 1957.
Crespo y Monroy, Benito. Letter to the viceroy, Juan Vásquez de Acuña, 8 September 1730; translation in Eleanor B. Adams, Bishop Tamarón’s Visitation of New Mexico, 1760, 1954; see post for 3 April 2016 for more details.
_____. Memorial ajustado que de órden del consejo supremo de Indias se ha hecho del pleyto, que siguió el Illmo, Madrid, 1738; cited by Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888, 1889. Bancroft listed five others as also negligent.
Esquibel, José Antonio. "The People of the Camino Real: A Genealogical Appendix," in Christine Preston, Douglas Preston and José Antonio Esquibel, The Royal Road, 1998; on Quintana’s education.
Lomelí, Francisco A. and Clark A. Colahan. Defying the Inquisition in Colonial New Mexico, 2006.
Mangado y Calvijo, Diego. Instructions to Joseph Antonio Guerrero, 22 May 1734, Ciudad de México; translation in Lomelí and Collahan.
Norris, Jim. After "The Year Eighty," 2000.
One consequence of Crespo’s asserting his authority was friars no longer could excommunicate parishioners without his approval. Rather than provoke the bishop into defending his privileges, Irigoyen denounced a Santa Cruz poet and dramatist to the Inquisition in 1732 for refusing to confess to him or Sopeña. By then, Miguel de Quintana’s mind had become so fevered, the Holy Office in Ciudad de México demanded evidence he wasn’t feebleminded.
Irigoyen may have felt maligned by Crespo. Juan Miguel Menchero had depositions from two alcaldes that claimed the friar had "mastered the various Tanoan subgroups, despite being transferred often among those pueblos." In fact he spent time in two Towa speaking pueblos (Jémez, Pecos), two Tiwa (Isleta, Picurís), one Tano (Galiesteo), and two Tewa (Tesuque, Nambé).
The Franciscan also was assigned to four Keres locations (Ácoma, Cochití, San Felipe, Zía), who did not speak a Tanoan language. Except for the two local Tewa-speaking communities (San Ildefonso, Santa Clara), he didn’t spend two full years in any non-Castilian speaking mission.
Jim Norris published biographical details about the six priests who names appeared in the proceedings against Quintana. Three were born in Spain, Pérez de Mirabal in Málaga and Sánchez de la Cruz from some unknown location. Juan de Tagle, who was dead by the time Crespo visited the kingdom, was a Cantabrian and, apparently, close to Quintana.
The other three were first-generation criollos. Joseph Antonio Guerrero’s father came from Madrid, Sopeña’s from Viscaya, and Irigoyen’s from Navarre. The first two entered the convento grande de San Francisco in Mexico City. Irigoyen went through San Francisco de Puebla.
I don’t know if the conflicts between the two cultural groups mentioned in the post for 30 March 2016 infiltrated the Franciscan training centers, or if the two groups simply had different responses to the same situations based on childhood or adolescent experiences. It remains, the native-born friars were the ones who attacked Quintana, who himself probably was trained at the cathedral school in Ciudad de México.
I also don’t know if friars from Mexico City had more status than those from Puebla at the missionary school they both attended. What does seem clear is that Irigoyen was particularly eager to distinguish himself. He was the youngest of the men, professed in 1716 at age 17 and, at 27, one of the youngest sent to Nuevo México. Until he reached San Ildefonso in 1730, his longest assignements had been 16 months as Galisteo, 13 months at Isleta and 10 months at San Felipe. He later joined the friars proselytizing the Navajo.
Knowledge about Irigoyen is important because there are two versions of events in Santa Cruz. He controlled the official record as notary to the Inquisition office in Santa Fé headed by Guerrero. As such, he not only collected all the key documents, but also highlighted the heretical passages before they were sent to Mexico City.
The second version is the one that must be teased from details of Quintana’s life and from parsing translations of official documents.
Notes: Lomelí and Colahan made an important point about the differences between saying Nueva México and Nuevo México, and suggested the timing of the transition from one to the other was significant. Unfortunately, so many translators have been oblivious to such nuances, that it’s impossible to know which term were used without consulting their primary sources. For this reason, I am standardizing on the modern usage of Nuevo.
The post for 10 April 2016 has more on Irigoyen’s work with the Navajo. The post for 6 April 2016 discussed the missionary training school at Santiago de Tlatelolco where New Mexico friars were trained.
Chávez, Angélico. Archives of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, 1678-1900, 1957.
Crespo y Monroy, Benito. Letter to the viceroy, Juan Vásquez de Acuña, 8 September 1730; translation in Eleanor B. Adams, Bishop Tamarón’s Visitation of New Mexico, 1760, 1954; see post for 3 April 2016 for more details.
_____. Memorial ajustado que de órden del consejo supremo de Indias se ha hecho del pleyto, que siguió el Illmo, Madrid, 1738; cited by Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888, 1889. Bancroft listed five others as also negligent.
Esquibel, José Antonio. "The People of the Camino Real: A Genealogical Appendix," in Christine Preston, Douglas Preston and José Antonio Esquibel, The Royal Road, 1998; on Quintana’s education.
Lomelí, Francisco A. and Clark A. Colahan. Defying the Inquisition in Colonial New Mexico, 2006.
Mangado y Calvijo, Diego. Instructions to Joseph Antonio Guerrero, 22 May 1734, Ciudad de México; translation in Lomelí and Collahan.
Norris, Jim. After "The Year Eighty," 2000.
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Santa Cruz Medicine
Clergymen in Ciudad de México appealed to Nuestra Señora de los Remedios before Guadalupe in the 1737 matlazáhuatl epidemic because she had been used in processions against smallpox since 1575. The most recent had occurred in 1733 and 1734.
Angélico Chávez found evidence a smallpox epidemic had ravaged Santa Ana from April to August of 1733. He also saw records in church archives of many deaths between May and June in Santa Fé and of 15 deaths in September at Laguna. Frederic Athearn found similar records for Jémez that year.
Smallpox had become routine, arriving once a generation. Robert McCaa said, everyone in Nueva España was "taught to prepare themselves for the eruption of the pustules. Once erupted, they were comforted, given water, food, and blankets, and cautioned not to bath or scratch until the scabs had fallen away."
Quarantine was the first response in Boston in 1721. Incoming ships were impounded, and guards stationed at the House of Representatives to keep out unscreened people. When the disease first reached Nueva España in 1520, McCaa said, "for the Nahua, quarantine was a completely alien notion." From the evidence of processions, it probably still wasn’t widely accepted in 1733.
Medical practice in Europe was beginning to change. Reports had been received from Turkey attesting to the effectiveness of inoculation with a weakened strain of the Variola virus. In Boston, a Puritan minister, Cotton Mather, passed on testimony from his slave, Onesimus, that he had been inoculated as a child in Africa. A friend tried the procedure on his own son and two slaves during the epidemic of 1721. When they survived, he treated another 194. Only six died. The normal death rate was 1 in 6.
The practice spread slowly. In 1743, the foundling hospital in London was inoculating its charges. Many young women who came to the city to work as servants had themselves treated before they sought employment. Inoculation still required quarantine to prevent spread of the deliberately introduced pathogen. The treated often bristled at isolation.
Smallpox returned to Mexico City in 1748, and again Chávez found evidence it spread north. In Santa Fé, 68 died between July and September of unspecified causes. Pecos had an unidentified epidemic in August. The pueblo had had a smallpox outbreak in the winter of 1738.
Santa Cruz was less prepared this time than last. One problem would have been identifying the source of the disease. Since its symptoms appear within 12 days of exposure, anyone coming north from México would have died on the trip from lack of care. That suggests it was spread by contaminated trade goods. There would have been no way or reason to scrutinize them before the disease spread.
The other problem was no one was available to oversee quarantine or mass care. Nuevo México had recruited no new barbers since those who came with the Reconquest. Antonio Durán de Armijo died in Santa Fé in 1753 at age 80. Our local man, Francisco Xavier Romero, died in 1732. For reasons mentioned in the post for 13 January 2016, he probably trained no one.
It’s possible others passed the fundamentals of medical practice through their families. Angela Leyba may have been a curing woman in the Chama area before she died in 1727. Her father had been a Tiwa translator before the Pueblo Revolt, and she had been spent the interregnum in Galisteo as a captive. Her will listed a statue of Our Lady of Remedios, a cupping glass used in promoting the flow of blood, and some coral bracelets. Her husband, who died the year before, had a picture of Remedios and a "barber’s case, with five razors and stone."
Bartolomé Trujillo may have been local practitioner. He also lived in Chama where he owned a "medicine glass" in 1764. His wife, Margarita Torres, was the daughter of Leyba and her husband Cristóbal de Torres. His parents had been Cristóbal Trujillo and María de Manzanares.
There still were herbalists in Santa Cruz, although they rarely were mentioned in official records. Tomasa de Manzanares was brought into a court case in 1748 when José Manuel Trujillo, Bartolome’s nephew, accused Antonio Valverde and his sons of wounding him. The 54-year-old said, she was providing herbal cures for "for lack of surgeons in the kingdom."
Although there were no medical professionals to treat illnesses, there must have been midwives. Although I’ve found no references to them, women were having babies. Their skill level might be inferred from the records of infant deaths within the first days after birth. It must be remembered though, children who died young may have been premature or malnourished at birth or had some other condition that couldn’t be treated then, but is now.
In addition to the five infants mentioned in the post for 9 May 2016 who received emergency baptisms, two other girls died soon after. That would mean the infant mortality rate within the first 24 hours for the 1,291 infants with at least one known parent was 5.5 per 1,000 births.
For comparison, the US rate in 2013 was 2.6, which ranked it 69th among the 176 countries compared by Save the Children. Among those with 5 deaths per 1,000 were Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Trinidad. Some of the countries with 6 deaths were Paraguay and Surinam.
Notes: The cyclic nature of smallpox epidemics was discussed in the post for16 April 2015. Early barbers were discussed in the post for 19 April 2015. Coral was used later to ward off the evil eye.
Santa Cruz baptisms records indicated one child died early whose parents weren’t known. It’s hard to estimate the number of births in this group, because the baptisms also included adolescent and adult captives. In addition, servants and others without status may have had less contact with the church, so that even if a friar recorded a birth, he might not learn about a death.
Athearn, Frederic J. A Forgotten Kingdom, 1978.
Chávez, Angélico. Archives of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, 1678-1900, 1957. The burial registers haven’t been transcribed by the New Mexico Genealogical Society. Chávez summarized what he read, and noted the things he though most important. The information recorded by friars no doubt varied a great deal; only a few may have bothered to record causes of deaths.
_____. Origins of New Mexico Families, 1992 revised edition. He didn’t know the relationship between María and Tomasa Manzanares; he surmised José Manuel Trujillo was the son of Bartolomé.
Christmas, Henrietta Martinez. 1598 New Mexico, blog.
Davenport, Romola, Leonard Schwarz, and Jeremy Boulton. "The Decline of Adult Smallpox in Eighteenth-Century London," Economic History Review 64:1289-1314:2011.
Leyba, Angela. Will, 1727, republished by Christmas as "Angela Leyba - Will 1727," 30 July 2014.
New Mexico Genealogical Society, New Mexico Baptisms, Santa Cruz de la Cañada Church, Volume I, 1710 to 1794, transcribed by Virginia Langham Olmstead and compiled by Margaret Leonard Windham and Evelyn Luján Baca, 1994.
McCaa, Robert. "Revisioning Smallpox in Mexico City-Tenochtitlan, 1520-1950," 27 May 2000.
Save the Children USA. State of the World’s Mothers 2013, 2013.
Torres, Cristóbal. Will, 1726, republished by Christmas as "Cristóbal Torrez - Will 1726," 28 July 2014.
Trujillo, Bartolomé. Will, 1764, republished by Christmas as "Bartolomé Trujillo - Will 1764," 22 May 2013.
Twitchell, Ralph Emerson. Spanish Archives of New Mexico: Compiled and Chronologically Arranged, volume 2, 1914; on Trujillo versus Valverde.
Wikipedia. Entry on Cotton Mather includes discussion of smallpox and inoculation in Boston.
Angélico Chávez found evidence a smallpox epidemic had ravaged Santa Ana from April to August of 1733. He also saw records in church archives of many deaths between May and June in Santa Fé and of 15 deaths in September at Laguna. Frederic Athearn found similar records for Jémez that year.
Smallpox had become routine, arriving once a generation. Robert McCaa said, everyone in Nueva España was "taught to prepare themselves for the eruption of the pustules. Once erupted, they were comforted, given water, food, and blankets, and cautioned not to bath or scratch until the scabs had fallen away."
Quarantine was the first response in Boston in 1721. Incoming ships were impounded, and guards stationed at the House of Representatives to keep out unscreened people. When the disease first reached Nueva España in 1520, McCaa said, "for the Nahua, quarantine was a completely alien notion." From the evidence of processions, it probably still wasn’t widely accepted in 1733.
Medical practice in Europe was beginning to change. Reports had been received from Turkey attesting to the effectiveness of inoculation with a weakened strain of the Variola virus. In Boston, a Puritan minister, Cotton Mather, passed on testimony from his slave, Onesimus, that he had been inoculated as a child in Africa. A friend tried the procedure on his own son and two slaves during the epidemic of 1721. When they survived, he treated another 194. Only six died. The normal death rate was 1 in 6.
The practice spread slowly. In 1743, the foundling hospital in London was inoculating its charges. Many young women who came to the city to work as servants had themselves treated before they sought employment. Inoculation still required quarantine to prevent spread of the deliberately introduced pathogen. The treated often bristled at isolation.
Smallpox returned to Mexico City in 1748, and again Chávez found evidence it spread north. In Santa Fé, 68 died between July and September of unspecified causes. Pecos had an unidentified epidemic in August. The pueblo had had a smallpox outbreak in the winter of 1738.
Santa Cruz was less prepared this time than last. One problem would have been identifying the source of the disease. Since its symptoms appear within 12 days of exposure, anyone coming north from México would have died on the trip from lack of care. That suggests it was spread by contaminated trade goods. There would have been no way or reason to scrutinize them before the disease spread.
The other problem was no one was available to oversee quarantine or mass care. Nuevo México had recruited no new barbers since those who came with the Reconquest. Antonio Durán de Armijo died in Santa Fé in 1753 at age 80. Our local man, Francisco Xavier Romero, died in 1732. For reasons mentioned in the post for 13 January 2016, he probably trained no one.
It’s possible others passed the fundamentals of medical practice through their families. Angela Leyba may have been a curing woman in the Chama area before she died in 1727. Her father had been a Tiwa translator before the Pueblo Revolt, and she had been spent the interregnum in Galisteo as a captive. Her will listed a statue of Our Lady of Remedios, a cupping glass used in promoting the flow of blood, and some coral bracelets. Her husband, who died the year before, had a picture of Remedios and a "barber’s case, with five razors and stone."
Bartolomé Trujillo may have been local practitioner. He also lived in Chama where he owned a "medicine glass" in 1764. His wife, Margarita Torres, was the daughter of Leyba and her husband Cristóbal de Torres. His parents had been Cristóbal Trujillo and María de Manzanares.
There still were herbalists in Santa Cruz, although they rarely were mentioned in official records. Tomasa de Manzanares was brought into a court case in 1748 when José Manuel Trujillo, Bartolome’s nephew, accused Antonio Valverde and his sons of wounding him. The 54-year-old said, she was providing herbal cures for "for lack of surgeons in the kingdom."
Although there were no medical professionals to treat illnesses, there must have been midwives. Although I’ve found no references to them, women were having babies. Their skill level might be inferred from the records of infant deaths within the first days after birth. It must be remembered though, children who died young may have been premature or malnourished at birth or had some other condition that couldn’t be treated then, but is now.
In addition to the five infants mentioned in the post for 9 May 2016 who received emergency baptisms, two other girls died soon after. That would mean the infant mortality rate within the first 24 hours for the 1,291 infants with at least one known parent was 5.5 per 1,000 births.
For comparison, the US rate in 2013 was 2.6, which ranked it 69th among the 176 countries compared by Save the Children. Among those with 5 deaths per 1,000 were Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Trinidad. Some of the countries with 6 deaths were Paraguay and Surinam.
Notes: The cyclic nature of smallpox epidemics was discussed in the post for16 April 2015. Early barbers were discussed in the post for 19 April 2015. Coral was used later to ward off the evil eye.
Santa Cruz baptisms records indicated one child died early whose parents weren’t known. It’s hard to estimate the number of births in this group, because the baptisms also included adolescent and adult captives. In addition, servants and others without status may have had less contact with the church, so that even if a friar recorded a birth, he might not learn about a death.
Athearn, Frederic J. A Forgotten Kingdom, 1978.
Chávez, Angélico. Archives of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, 1678-1900, 1957. The burial registers haven’t been transcribed by the New Mexico Genealogical Society. Chávez summarized what he read, and noted the things he though most important. The information recorded by friars no doubt varied a great deal; only a few may have bothered to record causes of deaths.
_____. Origins of New Mexico Families, 1992 revised edition. He didn’t know the relationship between María and Tomasa Manzanares; he surmised José Manuel Trujillo was the son of Bartolomé.
Christmas, Henrietta Martinez. 1598 New Mexico, blog.
Davenport, Romola, Leonard Schwarz, and Jeremy Boulton. "The Decline of Adult Smallpox in Eighteenth-Century London," Economic History Review 64:1289-1314:2011.
Leyba, Angela. Will, 1727, republished by Christmas as "Angela Leyba - Will 1727," 30 July 2014.
New Mexico Genealogical Society, New Mexico Baptisms, Santa Cruz de la Cañada Church, Volume I, 1710 to 1794, transcribed by Virginia Langham Olmstead and compiled by Margaret Leonard Windham and Evelyn Luján Baca, 1994.
McCaa, Robert. "Revisioning Smallpox in Mexico City-Tenochtitlan, 1520-1950," 27 May 2000.
Save the Children USA. State of the World’s Mothers 2013, 2013.
Torres, Cristóbal. Will, 1726, republished by Christmas as "Cristóbal Torrez - Will 1726," 28 July 2014.
Trujillo, Bartolomé. Will, 1764, republished by Christmas as "Bartolomé Trujillo - Will 1764," 22 May 2013.
Twitchell, Ralph Emerson. Spanish Archives of New Mexico: Compiled and Chronologically Arranged, volume 2, 1914; on Trujillo versus Valverde.
Wikipedia. Entry on Cotton Mather includes discussion of smallpox and inoculation in Boston.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
María de Guadalupe
Healers were the other source for baptismal names used in Santa Cruz between 1733 and 1759. Some were the traditional holy helpers who emerged during the years of the Bubonic plague: Barbara, Blas, Catarina, Gorge, and Margarita. Two were angels, Miguel and Rafael or Rafaela.
Others were Cayetano or Cayetana and Roque, if that name was derived from Saint Rocke who was active during the plague. Bernardo or Bernarda and Joana were healed. Rosa, a Dominican in Lima, was said to have cured lepers.
María de Guadalupe appeared for the first time in the preserved record in 1733 as the daughter of Antonia Martín and Miguel de Agüero. The next year, Antonia de Medina and Juan Luiz Martines named their daughter María de Guadalupe.
The name next was used in 1738 for Marta de Guadalupe Trujillo and in 1739 for Rosa María de Guadalupe Archuleta. After that, María Guadalupe was used twice in the mid-1740s and five times in the 1750s.
Between the baptism of the Agüero daughter and the christening of the Trujillo girl, Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe was transformed in México from a miracle worker into one who reversed the course of mysterious diseases. Simultaneously, she was transformed from a cult particular to Natives into a symbol shared by all people born in Nueva España. Of the eleven girls named for her in Santa Cruz, only three were Indians, probably Apache or Comanche. The rest had two known parents.
As discussed in the post for 24 February 2016, an infection began spreading through México in 1736. No one knew what matlazáhuatl was. They could only react with procedures that worked with other epidemics like the smallpox contagion of 1733. The viceroy, Juan de Vizarrón provided food and hospitals. Robert McCaa said, he funded four doctors and six pharmacists.
The city council opted for public prayers and asked the viceroy, who was also the archbishop, to lead a novena for the Virgin of Loreto in early January of 1737. When that failed, they asked to have Nuestra Señora de los Remedios brought to the cathedral for nine more days of prayers led by Bartolomé de Ita y Para.
That too failed to stem the disease that was killing more Indians than Spaniards. Rumors were spreading. Stafford Poole said, "a sick woman in delirium saw the fever in the form of a woman on the causeway to Guadalupe." Another told of an Indian woman shouting in the sanctuary at Tepeyac, "let the Spanish die also." Stories were repeated of Indians dumping corpses into aqueducts and mixing victims’ blood in bread dough.
Members of the city’s council suggested bringing the painting of Guadalupe to the city cathedral; others objected the agave fabric was too fragile. Instead, Vizarrón suggested a pilgrimage there for a Novena. Again Ita y Parra spoke.
Still no relief. A comet was seen, probably at the end of January. In February the council agreed to swear an oath of fealty to Guadalupe, with April 27 set for the ceremony. A partial eclipse of the sun occurred March 1, beginning just after noon and lasting 90 minutes. The oath was made public after a procession and mass on May 26. By chance or divine intervention, the epidemic finally began to recede.
The intensity of veneration that followed was not chance. David Brading suggested, it became the vehicle for Mexican-born criollo clergymen to assert their independence from Spanish superiors sent by the Bourbon king.
Ita y Parra, the man who preached the "The Mother of Health sermon" at Tepeyac in 1737, was a Puebla-born Jesuit. He was explicating a new founding legend couched in Old Testament symbols when he asserted Los Remedios failed to stop the epidemic because she was from Spain, a Ruth forever homeless. Guadalupe, on the other hand, would prevail because she was, like Naomi, a native.
Matlazáhuatl arrived in Zacatecas in 1737 during a grain shortage. The city stockpiled grain and called upon its one hospital, two charitable brotherhoods, and private doctors. The Franciscans took the image of Guadalupe to all the churches in mass processions that probably spread the air-born pathogen.
Within the church, men lobbied for Guadalupe’s elevation to patroness for all Nueva España, distinct from Santiago of Spain. In 1746, delegates from city councils and cathedral chapters gathered to acclaim her patronato. Benedict XIV approved their actions in 1754.
Meanwhile, Francisco de Echávarri began supervising construction of an aqueduct to take water to the shine in Tepeyac in 1741. He had been a mine inspector. This was an extension of the civil engineering then being introduced to drain mines. The water main was completed in 1751, after the end of the War of Austrian Succession in 1748.
Guadalupe bound the criollos to the Indians against the Spaniards. Once the villa of Tepeyac had its basic necessity supplied, a college of canons was established to officiate at the shrine. To be appointed, one had to speak a native language.
Notes: Marta was probably meant to be María; her last name was written Truxillo.
Comets were still unexpected phenomena, not yet explained by science. In México, Augustinian Matías de Escobar wrote it was "a phenomenon notoriously caused by the exhalations of the seas and the corrupt humours of the body," while at Cambridge Isaac Newton suspected it might appear in 1737 based on orbits of previous comets, but wouldn’t commit himself to friends or to print. It was sighted in 1737 in Jamaica on January 26, in Philadelphia on January 27, and in Lisbon on January 29. Ignatius Kegler, a Jesuit missionary for whom it was named, observed it in Beijing on July 3.
Brading, D. A. Church and State in Bourbon Mexico, 1994.
_____. Mexican Phoenix, 2002.
Brodbeck, Roland. "Solar eclipses, Mexico, Coatzacoalcos, 1700 - 2100," 1998, in cooperation with the Swiss Astronomical Society.
Escobar, Matías de. Voces de Tritón Sonora, 1746; quoted by Brading, 1994.
Ita y Para, Bartolomé de "The Mother of Health," paraphrased by Brading, 2002.
Kronk, Gary W. Cometography, volume 1, 1999.
Lynn, W. T. "The Comet of A. D. 1737," The Observatory, May 1901.
McCaa, Robert. "Revisioning Smallpox in Mexico City-Tenochtitlán, 1520-1950," 27 May 2000.
New Mexico Genealogical Society, New Mexico Baptisms, Santa Cruz de la Cañada Church, Volume I, 1710 to 1794, transcribed by Virginia Langham Olmstead and compiled by Margaret Leonard Windham and Evelyn Luján Baca, 1994. Notes in the records varied, so they couldn’t be used to identify the ethnicity of the baptized. I’m assuming if both parents were known the parents were Españoles; if only the mother’s names were known the child was illegitimate and probably Español but possibly meztiso or captive; if no parents were known I’m assuming the baptized were captives.
Newton, Isaac. Comment on comet quoted by William Whiston and reported by Lynn; elaborated by Kronk.
Poole, Stafford. Our Lady of Guadalupe, 1995.
Raigoza Quiñónez, José Luis. "Factores de Influencia para la Transmisión y Difusión del Matlazáhuatl en Zacatecas 1737-38," Scripta Nova, August 2006.
Others were Cayetano or Cayetana and Roque, if that name was derived from Saint Rocke who was active during the plague. Bernardo or Bernarda and Joana were healed. Rosa, a Dominican in Lima, was said to have cured lepers.
María de Guadalupe appeared for the first time in the preserved record in 1733 as the daughter of Antonia Martín and Miguel de Agüero. The next year, Antonia de Medina and Juan Luiz Martines named their daughter María de Guadalupe.
The name next was used in 1738 for Marta de Guadalupe Trujillo and in 1739 for Rosa María de Guadalupe Archuleta. After that, María Guadalupe was used twice in the mid-1740s and five times in the 1750s.
Between the baptism of the Agüero daughter and the christening of the Trujillo girl, Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe was transformed in México from a miracle worker into one who reversed the course of mysterious diseases. Simultaneously, she was transformed from a cult particular to Natives into a symbol shared by all people born in Nueva España. Of the eleven girls named for her in Santa Cruz, only three were Indians, probably Apache or Comanche. The rest had two known parents.
As discussed in the post for 24 February 2016, an infection began spreading through México in 1736. No one knew what matlazáhuatl was. They could only react with procedures that worked with other epidemics like the smallpox contagion of 1733. The viceroy, Juan de Vizarrón provided food and hospitals. Robert McCaa said, he funded four doctors and six pharmacists.
The city council opted for public prayers and asked the viceroy, who was also the archbishop, to lead a novena for the Virgin of Loreto in early January of 1737. When that failed, they asked to have Nuestra Señora de los Remedios brought to the cathedral for nine more days of prayers led by Bartolomé de Ita y Para.
That too failed to stem the disease that was killing more Indians than Spaniards. Rumors were spreading. Stafford Poole said, "a sick woman in delirium saw the fever in the form of a woman on the causeway to Guadalupe." Another told of an Indian woman shouting in the sanctuary at Tepeyac, "let the Spanish die also." Stories were repeated of Indians dumping corpses into aqueducts and mixing victims’ blood in bread dough.
Members of the city’s council suggested bringing the painting of Guadalupe to the city cathedral; others objected the agave fabric was too fragile. Instead, Vizarrón suggested a pilgrimage there for a Novena. Again Ita y Parra spoke.
Still no relief. A comet was seen, probably at the end of January. In February the council agreed to swear an oath of fealty to Guadalupe, with April 27 set for the ceremony. A partial eclipse of the sun occurred March 1, beginning just after noon and lasting 90 minutes. The oath was made public after a procession and mass on May 26. By chance or divine intervention, the epidemic finally began to recede.
The intensity of veneration that followed was not chance. David Brading suggested, it became the vehicle for Mexican-born criollo clergymen to assert their independence from Spanish superiors sent by the Bourbon king.
Ita y Parra, the man who preached the "The Mother of Health sermon" at Tepeyac in 1737, was a Puebla-born Jesuit. He was explicating a new founding legend couched in Old Testament symbols when he asserted Los Remedios failed to stop the epidemic because she was from Spain, a Ruth forever homeless. Guadalupe, on the other hand, would prevail because she was, like Naomi, a native.
Matlazáhuatl arrived in Zacatecas in 1737 during a grain shortage. The city stockpiled grain and called upon its one hospital, two charitable brotherhoods, and private doctors. The Franciscans took the image of Guadalupe to all the churches in mass processions that probably spread the air-born pathogen.
Within the church, men lobbied for Guadalupe’s elevation to patroness for all Nueva España, distinct from Santiago of Spain. In 1746, delegates from city councils and cathedral chapters gathered to acclaim her patronato. Benedict XIV approved their actions in 1754.
Meanwhile, Francisco de Echávarri began supervising construction of an aqueduct to take water to the shine in Tepeyac in 1741. He had been a mine inspector. This was an extension of the civil engineering then being introduced to drain mines. The water main was completed in 1751, after the end of the War of Austrian Succession in 1748.
Guadalupe bound the criollos to the Indians against the Spaniards. Once the villa of Tepeyac had its basic necessity supplied, a college of canons was established to officiate at the shrine. To be appointed, one had to speak a native language.
Notes: Marta was probably meant to be María; her last name was written Truxillo.
Comets were still unexpected phenomena, not yet explained by science. In México, Augustinian Matías de Escobar wrote it was "a phenomenon notoriously caused by the exhalations of the seas and the corrupt humours of the body," while at Cambridge Isaac Newton suspected it might appear in 1737 based on orbits of previous comets, but wouldn’t commit himself to friends or to print. It was sighted in 1737 in Jamaica on January 26, in Philadelphia on January 27, and in Lisbon on January 29. Ignatius Kegler, a Jesuit missionary for whom it was named, observed it in Beijing on July 3.
Brading, D. A. Church and State in Bourbon Mexico, 1994.
_____. Mexican Phoenix, 2002.
Brodbeck, Roland. "Solar eclipses, Mexico, Coatzacoalcos, 1700 - 2100," 1998, in cooperation with the Swiss Astronomical Society.
Escobar, Matías de. Voces de Tritón Sonora, 1746; quoted by Brading, 1994.
Ita y Para, Bartolomé de "The Mother of Health," paraphrased by Brading, 2002.
Kronk, Gary W. Cometography, volume 1, 1999.
Lynn, W. T. "The Comet of A. D. 1737," The Observatory, May 1901.
McCaa, Robert. "Revisioning Smallpox in Mexico City-Tenochtitlán, 1520-1950," 27 May 2000.
New Mexico Genealogical Society, New Mexico Baptisms, Santa Cruz de la Cañada Church, Volume I, 1710 to 1794, transcribed by Virginia Langham Olmstead and compiled by Margaret Leonard Windham and Evelyn Luján Baca, 1994. Notes in the records varied, so they couldn’t be used to identify the ethnicity of the baptized. I’m assuming if both parents were known the parents were Españoles; if only the mother’s names were known the child was illegitimate and probably Español but possibly meztiso or captive; if no parents were known I’m assuming the baptized were captives.
Newton, Isaac. Comment on comet quoted by William Whiston and reported by Lynn; elaborated by Kronk.
Poole, Stafford. Our Lady of Guadalupe, 1995.
Raigoza Quiñónez, José Luis. "Factores de Influencia para la Transmisión y Difusión del Matlazáhuatl en Zacatecas 1737-38," Scripta Nova, August 2006.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Baptismal Names
Baptismal names in this period reflected a conviction the rite brought an infant under the church’s protection. The majority of the names used in both Nuevo México and New England had biblical origins, but the local ones were drawn from oral tradition while the others came from the Bible itself.
One element of the Reformation rejected by the Roman Catholic church was making translations of Bibles in vernacular languages available to parishioners. In Spain, owning a Bible was used as evidence a person was Jewish. The Inquisition made even references to the Jewish Old Testament suspect.
Between 1733 and 1759, 50% of the 1909 children baptized in Santa Cruz had New Testament names, but only less than 1% came for the older section. In one of my grandparent’s families living in Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine in those years, 62% of the 149 children had names taken from the Old Testament and 28% from the new.
* = .15%
In Santa Cruz, the two Benitos alluded to Benjamin, founder of one of the twelve tribes of Israel in Genesis. The one Susana had a name that appeared in Daniel. In contrast, in New England where the Bible was readily available, names came primarily from Genesis, Kings, Chronicles, and Samuel.
The most common New Testament name in both areas came from the four Gospels. In Santa Cruz, there were 305 girls baptized with María as a first or second name. In my family, 11 were called Mary. One wonders, with nearly a third of the 948 girls given the same name, what they were called informally to differentiate them. One of the New England Marys was known as Molly.
Juan, after one of the apostles, was the second most common name for boys in Santa Cruz, and also used as Juana for girls. Joseph was the third most popular male name. Josepha was the female counterpart. José didn’t appear. John was given to five boys in New England. I suspect the six named Joseph were for the patriarch sold into slavery in Genesis.
Many of the other New Testament names used in Santa Cruz appeared in all four gospels. However Juan and Santiago did not appear in John and Joana was found only in Luke. Manuel from Emmanuel and Juan Baptista came from Matthew, the book most famously consulted by Francis of Assisi.
The local names that came from other books of the New Testament were Pablo and Paula from Acts, and Manuel, Manuela, Miguel and variants of Michaela from Revelations. In New England, Acts and Timothy were the other sources.
While English Calvinists drew their views on the human condition from the unpredictable Yahweh of the Old Testament, Spanish Catholics were given the church as exemplar for lives dedicated to perpetuating its patrimony. The lives of saints in the Flos Sanctorum was the accepted source for information about both Him and his guardians.
Anna and Joachin or Joachina, the names of Mary’s parents, came from that source, as did another 87 names used in Santa Cruz. The most popular were Lorenzo/Lorenza, Nicholas/Nicolosa, Patricio, and Dorotea. As discussed in the post for 24 April 2016, the English translation of Golden Legend also was widely read. My family named girls Anna, Lucia, and Dorothy.
Most of the remaining names used in Santa Cruz, some 47% came from saints and church fathers. Children were symbolically dedicated to the continuation of the institution. Franciscan fathers Antonio and Francisco ranked first and fourth among male names, and second and tenth among female. Ignacio and Ignacia acknowledged the progenitor of the Jesuits, and Gertrudis the champion of the Sacred Heart. Luis, with the female Luisa, was patron of the secular third order of the Franciscans.
Some of the saints recognized in Santa Cruz were unique to Spain. Many editions of Flos Sanctorum had been expanded with biographies of local heroes and heroines. The most common in Santa Cruz were Ramon or Reymundo, Quiteria, and Visente. Ones beatified in the New World included Aparicio, Beltran and Toribio. The names of mystics were only given to girls: the Benedictine Lugarda, the Augustinian Rita, and the Carmelite Teresa of Ávala.
One other naming habit shared by parents in both Santa Cruz and New England was the use of Christian virtues. Here they applied attributes to María and named girls Angela, Ascension or Prudencia. Boys were called Atanacio, literally meaning without death, and Ynociencio. My family used Mercy and Patience.
Female names without sources appear in the list of male names
Notes:
Santa Cruz data from New Mexico Genealogical Society, New Mexico Baptisms, Santa Cruz de la Cañada Church, Volume I, 1710 to 1794, transcribed by Virginia Langham Olmstead and compiled by Margaret Leonard Windham and Evelyn Luján Baca, 1994.
The sacramental register has a number of missing pages, so the total is an undercount. The total also does not include Spanish-speakers living near San Juan or Santa Clara who baptized their children in one of those missions. Those omissions would have affected the demographic statistics, but probably wouldn’t have altered conclusions regarding naming patterns.
My grandparent’s immigrant ancestor William and his wife arrived in Massachusetts Bay Colony before 1637 with their four children, William, Thomas, Sarah, and John. Their great-grandchildren, the fourth generation, born between 1733 and 1760 were the ones used for the statistics for comparative New England naming patterns.
The family’s only atypical characteristic was that William was not a Puritan. His children, who had common English names, adopted Calvinist ones for their children, the third generation, and most probably affiliated with the church.
Quotations from Jonathan Edwards in the post for 24 April 2016 gives an idea of the Puritan concept of God.
The Flos Sanctorum, or Golden Legend, was discussed in the post for 1 May 2016.
One element of the Reformation rejected by the Roman Catholic church was making translations of Bibles in vernacular languages available to parishioners. In Spain, owning a Bible was used as evidence a person was Jewish. The Inquisition made even references to the Jewish Old Testament suspect.
Between 1733 and 1759, 50% of the 1909 children baptized in Santa Cruz had New Testament names, but only less than 1% came for the older section. In one of my grandparent’s families living in Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine in those years, 62% of the 149 children had names taken from the Old Testament and 28% from the new.
| Source | Santa Cruz | New England |
| Old Testament | * | 62% |
| New Testament | 50% | 28% |
| Founder | 24% | |
| Healer | 8% | |
| Golden Legend | 7% | 3% |
| Mystic | 3% | |
| Spanish Saint | 2% | |
| Attribute | 1% | 1% |
| Other Saint | 3% | |
| Other | 2% | 6% |
| Total | 100% | 100% |
In Santa Cruz, the two Benitos alluded to Benjamin, founder of one of the twelve tribes of Israel in Genesis. The one Susana had a name that appeared in Daniel. In contrast, in New England where the Bible was readily available, names came primarily from Genesis, Kings, Chronicles, and Samuel.
The most common New Testament name in both areas came from the four Gospels. In Santa Cruz, there were 305 girls baptized with María as a first or second name. In my family, 11 were called Mary. One wonders, with nearly a third of the 948 girls given the same name, what they were called informally to differentiate them. One of the New England Marys was known as Molly.
Juan, after one of the apostles, was the second most common name for boys in Santa Cruz, and also used as Juana for girls. Joseph was the third most popular male name. Josepha was the female counterpart. José didn’t appear. John was given to five boys in New England. I suspect the six named Joseph were for the patriarch sold into slavery in Genesis.
Many of the other New Testament names used in Santa Cruz appeared in all four gospels. However Juan and Santiago did not appear in John and Joana was found only in Luke. Manuel from Emmanuel and Juan Baptista came from Matthew, the book most famously consulted by Francis of Assisi.
The local names that came from other books of the New Testament were Pablo and Paula from Acts, and Manuel, Manuela, Miguel and variants of Michaela from Revelations. In New England, Acts and Timothy were the other sources.
While English Calvinists drew their views on the human condition from the unpredictable Yahweh of the Old Testament, Spanish Catholics were given the church as exemplar for lives dedicated to perpetuating its patrimony. The lives of saints in the Flos Sanctorum was the accepted source for information about both Him and his guardians.
Anna and Joachin or Joachina, the names of Mary’s parents, came from that source, as did another 87 names used in Santa Cruz. The most popular were Lorenzo/Lorenza, Nicholas/Nicolosa, Patricio, and Dorotea. As discussed in the post for 24 April 2016, the English translation of Golden Legend also was widely read. My family named girls Anna, Lucia, and Dorothy.
Most of the remaining names used in Santa Cruz, some 47% came from saints and church fathers. Children were symbolically dedicated to the continuation of the institution. Franciscan fathers Antonio and Francisco ranked first and fourth among male names, and second and tenth among female. Ignacio and Ignacia acknowledged the progenitor of the Jesuits, and Gertrudis the champion of the Sacred Heart. Luis, with the female Luisa, was patron of the secular third order of the Franciscans.
Some of the saints recognized in Santa Cruz were unique to Spain. Many editions of Flos Sanctorum had been expanded with biographies of local heroes and heroines. The most common in Santa Cruz were Ramon or Reymundo, Quiteria, and Visente. Ones beatified in the New World included Aparicio, Beltran and Toribio. The names of mystics were only given to girls: the Benedictine Lugarda, the Augustinian Rita, and the Carmelite Teresa of Ávala.
One other naming habit shared by parents in both Santa Cruz and New England was the use of Christian virtues. Here they applied attributes to María and named girls Angela, Ascension or Prudencia. Boys were called Atanacio, literally meaning without death, and Ynociencio. My family used Mercy and Patience.
| Girls' Names | Number | Source |
| Maria | 305 | NT - mother of Jesus |
| Antonia | 99 | Founder - Franciscans |
| Joana | 41 | NT Luke - healed by Christ |
| Manuela | 37 | |
| Juana | 34 | |
| Barbara | 32 | Holy helper |
| Josepha | 32 | |
| Anna | 23 | James - mother of Mary |
| Gertrudis | 22 | Mystic - Sacred Heart |
| Francisca | 19 | |
| Rosa/Rosalia | 33 | Healer |
| Teresa | 15 | Spanish mystic |
| Margarita | 14 | Holy helper |
| Isabel | 13 | Founder - Poor Clares |
| Micaela/Micalina/Mica | 15 | |
| Juliana | 12 | |
| Ignacia | 11 | |
| Lugarda | 11 | Mystic - Benedictine |
| Luisa | 10 | |
| Rita | 10 | Mystic - Augustinian |
| Boys' Names | ||
| Antonio | 179 | Founder - Franciscans |
| Juan | 129 | NT - apostle |
| Joseph | 115 | NT - father of Jesus |
| Francisco | 44 | Founder - Franciscans |
| Manuel | 37 | NT Matthew |
| Miguel | 34 | NT Revelations |
| Cristobal | 25 | Healer |
| Pedro | 25 | NT - apostle |
| Domingo | 20 | Founder - Domincans |
| Julian | 18 | Healer |
| Felipe | 17 | NT - apostle |
| Santiago | 17 | NT - apostle |
| Salvador | 15 | NT - attribute of Christ |
| Ignacio | 14 | Founder - Jesuits |
| Luis | 11 | Founder - Franciscans |
| Pablo | 11 | NT Acts - apostle |
| Andres | 10 | NT - apostle |
| Gregorio | 10 | Other - pope |
| Joachin | 10 | James - father of Mary |
| Juan Bapitsta | 10 | NT Matthew - baptized Christ |
Female names without sources appear in the list of male names
Notes:
Santa Cruz data from New Mexico Genealogical Society, New Mexico Baptisms, Santa Cruz de la Cañada Church, Volume I, 1710 to 1794, transcribed by Virginia Langham Olmstead and compiled by Margaret Leonard Windham and Evelyn Luján Baca, 1994.
The sacramental register has a number of missing pages, so the total is an undercount. The total also does not include Spanish-speakers living near San Juan or Santa Clara who baptized their children in one of those missions. Those omissions would have affected the demographic statistics, but probably wouldn’t have altered conclusions regarding naming patterns.
My grandparent’s immigrant ancestor William and his wife arrived in Massachusetts Bay Colony before 1637 with their four children, William, Thomas, Sarah, and John. Their great-grandchildren, the fourth generation, born between 1733 and 1760 were the ones used for the statistics for comparative New England naming patterns.
The family’s only atypical characteristic was that William was not a Puritan. His children, who had common English names, adopted Calvinist ones for their children, the third generation, and most probably affiliated with the church.
Quotations from Jonathan Edwards in the post for 24 April 2016 gives an idea of the Puritan concept of God.
The Flos Sanctorum, or Golden Legend, was discussed in the post for 1 May 2016.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)