Talk:Antonio Valeriano

Authorship of Nican Mopohua

Likelihood or otherwise of Valeriano's authorship

The cited source says this:-

"It is unlikely that the Guadalupe text is Valeriano's work . . Nonetheless, by the twentieth century Valeriano came to be accepted as the author of Nican mopohua"

In the circumstances, such a weight of scholarly opinion cannot be entirely disregarded although it is true that in recent years some historians in the USA have disputed that opinion. The article therefore needs some balance on the question of authorship. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Previous version of Authorship section, now substituted

The Nahuatl text known as Nican Mopohua has long been attributed to Valeriano, although it is unlikely that he actually wrote it. [reference to Karttunen (1995): pp. 117–118] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridiculus mus (talk • contribs) 18:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Traditions firm and otherwise

I cannot see any justification for deleting the epithet "firm" from my reference to the long and well-established tradition that Valeriano wrote the Nican Mopohua. Traditions come in all shapes and sizes, they ebb and flow, some are weak and thin, others strong. To call a tradition "firm" simply asserts that it is both long and continuous; it does not imply anything as to the reliability of the underlying issue of fact to which the tradition speaks. In the instant case, the issue of authorship (which is entirely secondary to the more vital question as to its date of composition in the 16th c. or 17th c.) remains open despite Stafford Poole's claims that it has been definitively resolved. I shall not revert, but I am hopeful that more positive contributions (from all sides) might be made in due course. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you don't consider my removal of the adjective firm a positive contribution. To me the inclusion of "firm" in this contest functioned as a peacock term with little actual descriptive value. The fact that it has been held long by a particular scholarly community is already otherwise established and firm in that case becomes redundant as a mere descriptor and takes on the value of a subjective, but unascribed judgment. Furthermore, I think that contrary to your interpretation "firm" as a simple description of duration in time, the word also implies a robustness to outside influence, and ability to shrug of impacts - and this characteristic has yet to be determined. I would also remind you that by ascribing the anti-Valeriano viewpoint solely to Poole you ignore the fact that this view is also held and promoted by eminent ethno-historians and Nahuatl scholars such as James Lockhart, Louise Burkhart and Lisa Sousa. When this is taken into account the firmness of the tradition becomes less obvious than if it were simply contradicted by a lone Jesuit rogue. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on what distinguishes a "firm" tradition from a non-firm one. In any case, my use of that term was with reference not to the scholarly debate conducted over the last few generations but to the line traced from Becerra Tanco in 1666, through Sigüenza y Gongora, to Boturini in the 18th century. Since my assessment is that the contemporary scholarly debate remains open, I cannot be taken simultaneously to be arguing that the Valerianist stance is [currently] "firm". You are perhaps reacting to something I have not written. As for the anti-Valeriano argument, I did not ascribe it solely to Poole, but he is certainly the most intrepid protagonist (cf. 1995, p.221). In the "Observations" annexed to the letter of 14 May 2000 written by Schulenburg et al. to Archbishop (as he then was) Bertone, Poole wrote that "contrary to popular belief [sic] Antonio Valeriano did not write [the Nican Mopohua]." [1] That is a high-handed way of dismissing the judgement of O'Gorman (1986) in which Léon-Portilla subsequently concurred (2001). Who else takes such a peremptory anti-Valerianist stance? Not Karttunen anyway – her "unlikely" is where I came in.

Since you cite Lockhart, Burkhart and Sousa as holding and promoting the anti-Valerianist viewpoint, let's look at them.

• Lockhart (who provisionally subscribed to the Valerianist position in 1992) joined forces with Sousa and Poole in 1998 to produce a work that favours Lasso's authorship without committing themselves to it (see more below).
• Burkhart (who, in 1993, dated the NY ms. of the Nican Mopohua to the late 16th or very early 17th c) has commented that Sousa et al. "build a compelling case for virtually sole authorship on the part of [LV]" (2001, p.2), which is rather over-stating "provisional results . . pointing on the one hand to [an extremely close link with Sánchez's Imagen] and on the other hand to a very strong role of [LV] himself in the composition of the [Huei tlamahuiçoltica] . ." (Sousa et al., p. 4).
• Sousa, Poole, Lockhart's argument that the Nican Mopohua is an adaptation of Sánchez's work (meaning that it does not have an origin prior to 1648) is deliberately modest:- "We consider our conclusions on the relationship of the Huei tlamahuiçoltica and the Imagen de la Virgen more as indicated than as definitively established." (p.18). They review their results and write:- ". . we have seen here several different reasons to believe that [LV] was strongly, directly involved in the writing." (p.44) and end up by saying:- "The evidence, then, is not conclusive. The texts are surely compatible with the hypothesis of two writers, one doubtless [LV] and the other an indigenous aide. (p.46 – note the "doubtless"); and "We are prepared to assert that by all indications [LV] took a large part in the composition of the Nahuatl texts in all sections of the work . . (p.47). The very serious objections to authorship by LV are not avoided (pp. 46f.), and Poole himself had previously conceded that it was "questionable" (1995, p.112).

So where does that leave us? I suggest again that the question of Valeriano's authorship remains open and that (unless you are thinking of materials other than those I have briefly indicated here) the anti-Valeriano camp is less militant than you take it to be. Ridiculus mus (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be reacting to something I didn't write - I agree that the question is open - which it wouldn't be if the Valerianist tradition was firmly established.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What I wrote in the article is that the current attribution [by respected scholars] of authorship to Valeriano is based upon a firm [viz. non-vague and well-circumstanced] tradition dating back to Becerra Tanco that there was in existence a manuscript of the Nican Mopohua in Valeriano's hand-writing. I did not appeal to the facticity of what that tradition asserts. The age of the NY ms. and the inherent unlikelihood of Lasso's having been the author are the more substantial props which permit scholars to accept that that tradition might be (or is) grounded in fact. I have already signalled in the relative talk pages that the articles Huei tlamahuiçoltica and Luis Laso de la Vega also require editing to remove the presumption that the authorship question is closed.

As for what you wrote in your first intervention, it is Fr. Poole who is (in a certain sense) a lone rogue Vincentian here. More to the point (since we are not, I am glad to find, in dispute over the state of the authorship question), perhaps you, I, or another, might take time out to quarry Karttunen's 1995 essay to fill out the biographical section here, and quarry the biography of Poole [2] to flesh out the article on him. Regards, Ridiculus mus (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antonio Valeriano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718094241/http://celia.cnrs.fr/FichExt/Am/A_19-20_08.htm to http://celia.cnrs.fr/FichExt/Am/A_19-20_08.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)