All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 13, 2010 - Skeptoid
18:55
Skeptoid #201: The Virgin of Guadalupe

Mexico's Virgin of Guadalupe played an important role in the Catholic colonization of the Americas. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
The Virgin of Guadalupe Legend 00:10:55
One of the world's most famous and most reproduced images, the Virgin of Guadalupe from ancient Mexico, has a history that goes all the way back to the Spanish conquistadors and the baptism of millions of Aztecs by the Catholic Church.
But it was much more than a simple piece of devotional art.
It was a marketing tool, devised as part of a complicated and devious plan.
We're going to find out all about that right now on Skeptoid.
Hi, I'm Alex Goldman.
You may know me as the host of Reply All, but I'm done with that.
I'm doing something else now.
I've started a new podcast called Hyperfixed.
On every episode of Hyperfixed, listeners write in with their problems and I try to solve them.
Some massive and life-altering, and some so minuscule it'll boggle your mind.
No matter the problem, no matter the size, I'm here for you.
That's HyperFixed, the new podcast from Radiotopia.
Find it wherever you listen to podcasts or at hyperfixedpod.com.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
The Virgin of Guadalupe.
Today we're going to travel back to the time of the conquistadors, when Spanish soldiers marched through the Aztec jungles and spread Catholicism to the new world.
We're going to examine an object that is central to faith in Mexico, an image called the Virgin of Guadalupe.
The Virgin of Guadalupe is basically Mexico's version of the Shroud of Turin.
Both are pieces of fabric, hundreds of years old, on which appears an image said to be miraculous.
Both are considered sacred objects.
But the Virgin of Guadalupe is a much more powerful icon to many Mexicans.
There's hardly anywhere you can go in Mexico and not find a reproduction of it.
Its importance as a religious and cultural symbol cannot be understated, for it came from the very hands of the most holy Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Queen of Mexico, and Empress of the Americas.
A legend well known in Mexico tells how it came to be.
In 1531, the Spanish had been occupying Mexico for about 10 years.
An indigenous peasant, Juan Diego, was walking in what's now Mexico City when he saw the glowing figure of a teenage girl on a hill called Tepeyac.
She identified herself as the Virgin Mary and asked him to build her a church on that spot.
Diego recounted this to the Archbishop of Mexico, Juan de Sumarga.
Sumarga was skeptical and told Diego to return and ask her to prove her identity with a miracle.
Diego did return and encountered the apparition again.
She told him to climb to the top of the hill and pick some flowers to present to the bishop.
Although it was winter and no flowers should have been in bloom, Juan Diego found an abundance of flowers of a type he'd never seen before.
The Virgin Mary bundled the flowers into Diego's cloak, woven from common cactus fiber and called a tilma.
When Juan Diego presented the tilma to Sumarga, the flowers fell out and he recognized them as Castilian roses, not found in Mexico.
But more significantly, the tilma had been miraculously imprinted with a colorful image of the Virgin herself.
This actual tilma, preserved since that date and showing the familiar image of the Virgin Mary with her head bowed and hands together in prayer, is the Virgin of Guadalupe.
It remains perhaps the most sacred object in all of Mexico.
The story is best known from a manuscript written in the Aztecs' native language, Nahuatl, by the scholar Antonio Valeriano, the Nikon Mopahua.
By the European watermark on its paper, it's known to have been written sometime after 1556.
This was widely published in a larger collection in 1649 by the lawyer Luis Lasso de la Vega.
Sumarga and Juan Diego were both dead by the time Valeriano wrote it, so where did he get his information?
A red flag that a number of historians have put forth is that Bishop Sumarrega was a prolific writer.
Yet in not a single one of his known letters is there any mention of Juan Diego, his miraculous apparition, the roses, or the cloak bearing the image, or any other element of the story in which Sumarga was alleged to have played so prominent a role.
Not everyone agrees.
In the 2000 book in Spanish, A Life of Holiness That Made History, author Eduardo Chavez Sánchez gives at some length various quotations from letters by Sumarga that he believes confirms the Juan Diego narrative.
I found his list to be extraordinarily unconvincing, and I would honestly describe it as a really desperate scraping of the bottom of the barrel to find a quote-minable quote.
In fact, the only quote from Sumarga I found that was remotely close was, An Indian goes to Brother Taribio and all will be in praise of God.
That sounds great because he mentions an Indian talking to a Catholic figure, but there's no mention of this Indian's name, no mention in the Juan Diego stories of a brother Toribio that I could find, and no elements of the Juan Diego story included in this single sentence snippet.
So unless some more of Sumarga's writings come to light, I'm going to agree with the historians who say Sumarga wrote nothing of these events, which casts doubt on his role in something that would have been of such great importance to him.
The name Juan Diego itself suggests that the story was a fictional invention.
It basically translates as John Doe, a generic everyman whose identity is unimportant.
This doesn't prove anything since there certainly were real people named Juan Diego, but it is an intriguing element.
It is the actual image of Mary itself that tells us the most about its true history.
As every schoolchild knows, Hernán Cortés was the Spanish conquistador who overthrew the Aztec Empire and placed much of Mexico under Spanish control in 1521.
He was born in a region of Spain called Estremadura and grew up to revere Our Lady of Guadalupe, a statue of a black version of the Virgin Mary at the Santa Maria de Guadalupe monastery in Estremadura.
This statue is credited with miraculously helping to expel the Moors from Spain in the Reconquista.
Cortes brought reproductions of this European image of Mary with him when he went to the New World.
Her dark skin resembled the Aztecs, and she became the perfect icon for the missionaries who followed Cortes to rally the natives into Christianity.
One such missionary was Fray Pedro de Gante, a Franciscan monk from Belgium who learned the Aztec language and created the first European-style school in Mexico, San Jose de los Naturales.
One of his promising art students was a young Aztec man with the Christian name Marcos Sipac de Aquino, one of three known prolific Aztec artists of the period.
In 1555, the newly arrived Archbishop of Mexico, Alonso de Montufar, successor to the deceased Sumarga, was looking to commission a portrait of the Virgin Mary as a sort of teaching aid to help convert the Aztecs.
Montufar found the young artist Marcos at Degante's school.
And so, in 1555, the Aztec artist Marcos Sipac de Aquino painted a portrait of the Virgin Mary with dark skin, with head slightly bowed and hands together in prayer on a common cactus fiber canvas.
The painting was named the Virgin of Guadalupe according to the tradition Cortés brought from Spain.
Although the Estremadura statue was not in the same pose, this pose was still one of European tradition.
The most often cited example of Mary in this exact pose is the painting A Lady of Mercy, attributed to Bonanat Saurtiga and on display at the National Art Museum of Catalunya, painted in the 1430s.
Marcos followed more than a century of European tradition.
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding.
Together, get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
There was a pragmatic element to Montufar's introduction of this painting and allowing it to be worshipped.
Before the conquistadors, Tepeyac was home to an Aztec temple, built to honor the Aztecs' own virgin goddess, Tonantzin.
So rather than replacing the Aztec goddess, Montufar's plan was simply to introduce Mary by giving Tonantzin a name and a face.
Science vs. Religious Myth 00:07:18
Recall that Marcos had painted the Virgin with dark skin.
This process of using an existing belief system to graft on a new one has been called syncretism.
Understandably, this exploitation of a pagan idol caused discomfort among some of the Franciscan priests, while many of the Dominicans welcomed the way it helped baptize 8 million Aztecs.
The primary corroborating documentation of Marcos' painting is a report from the church in 1556, when this growing disagreement between the Franciscans and the Dominicans prompted an investigation into the origins of the Tilma.
Two of the Franciscans submitted sworn statements in which they expressed their concern that worshipping the tilma was leading the Aztecs to return to their traditional pagan ways.
One described the image as a painting that the Indian painter Marcos had done, while another said it was painted yesteryear by an Indian.
Appearing on the side of the Dominicans, who favored allowing the Aztecs to worship the image, was Bishop Montufar himself.
As a result, the construction of a much larger church was authorized at Tepeyac, in which the tilma was mounted and displayed.
Significantly, the 1556 report is the most extensive documentation concerning the Virgin Tilma of its century, and it makes no mention whatsoever of Juan Diego, the miraculous appearance of the image, or any other element from the legend.
If the miracle story did exist at that time, it seems inconceivable that it could have been omitted from this report.
This strongly supports the suggestion that the Juan Diego legend had not yet been conceived.
It also supports that Valerian's Nikon Mapahua was written later.
The legend did get its first boost of testable evidence in 1995, which, in a case of suspiciously fortuitous timing, was after Juan Diego's betification in 1990, while there was still debate over whether he should be canonized.
He ultimately was in 2002.
A Spanish Jesuit named Javier Escalada produced a deer skin which pictorially depicted the Juan Diego legend and has become known as the Codex Escalada.
The Codex also mentioned several historical people and even bore the signature of a Franciscan historian, Bernardino de Sajagún, dated 1548.
Basically, it was the perfect storm of tailor-made evidence proving that the Juan Diego legend was the accepted history at the time.
A little too tailor-made, though.
No serious historians have supported its authenticity.
The best analysis I've found is by Alberto Peralta of the Proyecto-Guadalupe project.
Based on its dubious unveiling, numerous inconsistencies, and other factors, Peralta concludes that it's impossible for the document to be authentic.
If the Virgin Tilma is indeed a painting, and not a miraculously produced image, then it should be a simple matter to determine that scientifically.
There are obvious signs that are hard to argue with, notably that the paint is flaking along a vertical seam in the fabric.
But a truly scientific examination involving sampling of the material has not been permitted.
The most notable examination was a three-hour infrared photographic session by Philip Callahan in 1981, who did note multiple layers of paint covering changes to the hands and crown, but came away with more questions than answers.
Callahan found, for example, that most of the entire painting seemed to have been done with a single brushstroke.
He recommended a series of more tests, but the only one allowed by the church was a spectrophotometric examination done by Donald Lin from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The only result released of this examination was that, quote, nothing unusual was found.
Much has been made of the claim that figures can be seen reflected in Mary's eyes, with some even identifying these figures as Sumaraga or Juan Diego or other characters from the legend.
The church even went so far in 1956 as to have two ophthalmologists examine the eyes under 2500 power magnification.
They reported a whole group of figures, including both Aztecs and Franciscans.
Why ophthalmologists should be better qualified to identify Aztecs and Franciscans in random blobs of pigment has not been convincingly argued.
Photos taken by another ophthalmologist in 1979 have been released, and it's quite obvious that it's simply random noise.
I see a dozen or so speckles.
If you want to make them into Aztecs, Franciscans, bananas, or Bozo the Clown, then you'll probably also be great at spotting dozens of Bigfoots hiding in any given photograph of a forest.
The Virgin of Guadalupe is yet one more mythical story whose believers are missing out on true facts that are actually more respectful and confer more credit upon them than the myth.
The image on the Virgin Tilma was painted by a native Aztec artist, and the painting had not only an important role in Mexico's early history as a nation, but also a staggering impact upon its culture ever since.
Mexicans with Aztec heritage should take pride in the fact that their original culture, specifically the goddess Tonancin, was a key ingredient in the spread of modern Catholicism.
The Juan Diego myth takes that away and whitewashes part of Mexican history clean of any Aztec influence.
That's a disservice to one of humanity's greatest ancient civilizations, and it's a disservice to history.
When we see the Virgin of Guadalupe today, most people react in one of two ways.
They worship it as a miraculous apparition, or they dismiss it as someone else's religious icon.
Both reactions miss the much richer true history.
The Virgin of Guadalupe stands not only as an invaluable work of ancient art, possibly the most popular piece of art ever created, but also as a reminder of how the conquest of Mexico was truly accomplished.
Not only its military conquest, but one of history's great religious conversions as well.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from skeptoid.com.
Hello everyone, this is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
Support Skeptoid Premium 00:00:38
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile non-profit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the teacher's toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection