Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T03:51:57.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Native Icon to City Protectress to Royal Patroness: Ritual, Political Symbolism and the Virgin of Remedies1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Linda A. Curcio-Nagy
Linda A. Curcio-Nagy*
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Kind, gentle, humble, mother to all. This is the traditional Catholic image of the Virgin Mary. Beginning in the fifth century A.D., the popular devotion to the mother of Christ increased rapidly in Europe. Numerous apparitions and accompanying shrines during the late Medieval and early modern period demonstrated her new role in folk Catholicism. In Spain, as in other areas of Europe, the Virgin Mary became one of the major intercessional images, protecting believers from drought, floods, and sickness. Considering her role in the popular belief system of the Iberian peninsular, it was only logical that the sacred image of Mary would travel the Atlantic to New Spain and appear to Native American neophytes who years earlier had worshipped Tonantzin, mother earth, among other female deities. The image of the Virgin Mary could easily incorporate diverse groups under a single symbolic entity. Catholicism held that she was open to all, listened to all, aided all of pure heart. Mary was a force of integration; yet, depending upon the circumstances and the believers, such devotion could also fragment society This study analyzes the history of one such symbol; an integrating force that is best remembered as being one of the most divisive: the Virgin of Remedies of Mexico City.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , January 1996 , pp. 367 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This study was made possible by a University of Nevada-Reno Junior Faculty Research grant and a Fulbright Hayes Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Grant. I wish to thank Susan Deeds, Sonya Lipsett-Rivera, Linda Hall, Kenneth Mills, William Beezley, and, especially, Christopher von Nagy and Stafford Poole for comments and encouragement regarding this project. This essay is dedicated to OLMC. All translations are my own except for the Latin text for which I am indebted to Stafford Poole.

References

2 For a history and early devotion to the Mary, see Carroll, Michael P., The Cult of the Virgin Mary (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986),Google Scholar chapter 3. For a detailed analysis of changing institutional perception of the Virgin, see Warner, Marina, Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary (New York: Random House, 1976).Google Scholar

3 Christian, William A., Apparitions in Late Medieval and Renaissance Spain (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), p. 14;Google Scholar also see his work, Local Religion in Sixteenth-Century Spain (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), chapter 3. For further discussion of the popular religion and the devotion to the saints and to Mary in Spain, see Baroja, Julio Caro, Las formas complejas de la vida religiosa; Religión y sociedad y carácter en la España de los siglos XVI y XVII (Madrid: Akal, 1978)Google Scholar and María Stalhin, Carlos, Apariciones (Madrid: Razón y Fe, 1954).Google Scholar

4 Preston, James J., “Conclusion: New Prespectives on Mother Worship,” in Mother Worship. Themes and Variations (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982), p. 333.Google Scholar

5 very few recent religious histories of the apparition and miracles of the Virgin of Remedies exist. See, for example, Solís, Miguel Flores, Nuestra Señora de los Remedios (México: Jus, 1972).Google Scholar Ugarte, José Bravo, Historia de México (México: Jus, 1947), vol. 2 Google Scholar and Schlarman, Joseph H.L., México: Tierra de volcanes (México: Jus, 1951),Google Scholar both discuss the apparition history. A number of Remedies manifestations of Mary are located in Spain and include the one in the Mercedarian convent in Madrid and the one at Fuensanta, Albacete. Other images of Remedios, sometimes referred to as Our Lady of Protection, are also found in Mexico and are usually connected to hospitals. See Victor, and Turner, Edith, Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978), pp. 66–67.Google Scholar For the Remedies shrine at Cozumel, Yucatan, see Cuevas, Mariano, Historia de la iglesia en México (México: Editorial Patria, 1946), vol. I, p. 334.Google Scholar

6 de Mendoza, Lorenzo, Orígen de la milagrosa imagén, y Santuario de Nuestra Señora de los Remedios de México, sus venidas a la ciudad y maravillas que á obrado (México, 1685),Google Scholar f. 11v. Mendoza includes in his account the first work published on the Virgin of Remedies written by de Cisneros, Fray Lués, Historia de el principio y Orígen, progresos, venidas á México, y milagros de la Santa Imagén de nuestra Señora de los Remedios, estramuros de México… (México: Emprenta de Bachiller Juan Blanco de Alcázar, 1621).Google Scholar In addition, de Orozco, Federico Gómez reproduces a large segment of the Cisneros’ text, in “Las pinturas de Alonso de Villasana en el Santuario de los Remedios,” Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas (UNAM) no. 15 (1946): 65–80.Google Scholar Florencia, Francisco de reproduces the work of Cisneros and Mendoza in his La milagrosa invención de un thesoro escondido en el campo, que hallo un venturoso cazique, y escondio en su casa, para gozarlo a sus solas: patente ya en el santuario de los Remedios en su admirable imagen de Nuestra Señora; señalada en milagros, invocada por patrona de las lluvias, y temporales; defensora de los españoles, avogada de los indios … noticias de sus origin, y venidas a México … (Sevilla: Siete Revueltas, 1745).Google Scholar Other apparition histories include de Grijalva, Juan, Crónica de la orden de NPS Agustín en la provincia de la Nueva España: en cuatro edades desde el año de 1533 hasta el de 1592 (México: Imprenta Victoria, 1926), p. 2,Google Scholar chapters 14 and 15; and, Capitán de Betancur, D. Angel, “Historia de la milagrosa imagén de Nuestra Señora de Remedios cuyo Santuario está extramuros de México cuya conquista se toca,” located in the Archivo General de la Nación (henceforth AGN), Ramo Historia, vol. 1, exp. 17, f. 236–247.Google Scholar Also see García, Genaro, Historia incidental de Nuestra Señora de Remedios (México: Jus, 1909)Google Scholar which provides a synthesis of Florencia and Cisneros. Also see Echeverría, Mariano Fernández de y Veytia, , “Baluartes de México (1775–1779),” in Testimonios históricos guadalupanos (México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1982), pp. 565–77.Google Scholar

7 Mendoza, Orígen, A2, A2v. Saint James, the Moorslayer also appeared and aided the Spanish. Although it is unclear whether the Spaniards had the image of the Virgin with them at this point, Betancur claims that they did and that they dressed the statue in black as they mourned their defeat. He also states that Cortés ordered that his comrades hide the image. See AGN, Ramo Historia, vol. 1, exp. 17, f. 239v, p. 242.

8 For the basic description of these events, see Mendoza, Orígen, A2–3. Juan’s indigenous name was Ce Quauhtli or One Eagle. Mendoza claims that Tobar avoided the hill where the apparitions took place because he believed that the Virgin was too beautiful to look at. The friars, at one point, supposedly told Tovar “. . . .que era poca persona para que la Madre de Dios se le apareciesse, y hablasse.”

9 Grijalva, Crónica, p. 2, chapter 14.

10 Mendoza, Orígen, 3v. After the miraculous cure, the friars apparently believed Tobar, but no action was taken to investigate the appearances of Remedies on the hill. The apparition histories do not name the diety of the pre-Hispanic temple. For the reference to Ehecatl, see Betancur, AGN, Ramo Historia, vol. 1, exp. 17, f. 242. Mendoza and Cisneros date the actual apparition to 1540 or 1542. The provenience of the Remedios statue is unknown; how it arrived in New Spain is also a mystery. The accounts speculate that a soldier named Juan Rodríguez Villafuerte carried the statue in a tin box across the Atlantic. It supposedly had been given to him by his brother who had fought in Flanders. See Mendoza, Orígen, 9v; Florencia, , La milagrosa, pp. 17,Google Scholar 18. The statue is approximately one foot high and is sometimes referred to as a saddle image as it was small enough to be carried into battle as a protectress. See Turner and Turner, , Image, p. 63.Google Scholar

11 The santocalli was a household shrine, usually located in the patio of a traditional house compound. The structure in the pre-Hispanic period housed pottery representations of Native deities, and, during the colonial era, served as a house for the statues of Catholic saints.

12 See Mendoza, , Orígen, pp. 4,Google Scholar 6–6v; Florencia, La milagrosa, pp. 8, 9; and, Betancur in AGN, Ramo Historia, vol. 1, exp. 17, f. 244. Florencia claims that the first sanctuary was built after consulting unnamed individuals in Mexico City This first structure was called the Shrine at Apparition Hill (la Hermita del Monte de la Aparición). See La milagrosa, pp. 10, 33. Bentacur claims that the first sanctuary was built by Cortés (f. 244v).

13 City councilmen García de Albornoz visited the shrine and spurred the Cabildo to take action. See Mendoza, Orígen, f. 18v–19.

14 For a description of these events, see Mendoza, , Orígen, f. 17 Google Scholar–17v. Cuauhtemoc surrendered to Cortés on August 13, 1521 which happened to be the feast day of Saint Hippolytus, a Roman priest martyred circa 235 AD. From that moment forward, the feast day of the saint celebrated the conquest.

15 See the examples of the apparitions of Santa Gadea in Burgos (1399) and Jaén (1430) in Christian, , Apparitions, p. 55.Google Scholar

16 Ibid., p. 19.

17 It is called the shepherd’s cycle because it refers to the journey of shepherds during the Nativity. They arrived at the manger, guided by angels and other supernatural phenomena, and found Mary and the Christ child. In Europe, these apparitions proliferated beginning in the ninth century. In almost all cases, the emphasis is on the Virgin Mary and not on the Christ child held by the statue. For further discussion of the shepherd’s cycle, see Turner, and Turner, , Image, p. 42;Google Scholar Christian, , Apparitions, pp. 34, 15, 186–87Google Scholar; la Fuente, Vicente de, Vida de la Virgen María con la historia de su culto en España (Barcelona, 1879), vol. 2;Google Scholar and, Sharbrough, Steven, “El ciclo de los Pastores,” History of Religions at UCLA Newsletter 3 (1975): 7–11.Google Scholar

18 For an interesting analysis of the relationship of ancient fertility goddesses and the Virgin Mary in Europe, see Berger, Pamela, The Goddess Obscured. Transformation of the Grain Protectress from Goddess to Saint (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985),Google Scholar especially chapter 6.

19 For native devotion to the saints during this period, see Lockhart, James, The Nahuas after the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), pp. 236–237,Google Scholar 243. As previously stated, it was a frequent feature of the cycle that the “shepherd” found a statue. It is also conceivable (and probably unprovable) that Juan de Tovar purchased an image from a Spaniard or from indigenous craftsmen who by the late sixteenth century had established quite a business in carving and selling incense burners in the form of saints to their fellow Natives. For this trade, see Ibid., p. 237.

20 Turner, and Turner, , Image, p. 26.Google Scholar

21 Christian, , Local Religion, p. 152.Google Scholar For the city of Madrid and its appropriation of rural devotions, see Quintana, Jerónimo, Historia de Madrid (Madrid: Artes Gráficas, 1954), pp. 148–49,Google Scholar 158, 173–74, 890, 911, 927, 995. For further discussion of the rural/urban relationship through religious shrines, see Brown, Peter, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), pp. 42–46.Google Scholar

22 Archivo Histórico del Antiguo Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de México (hereafter AHA), vol. 339A, f. 177–79; Actas del Cabildo de la ciudad de México (henceforth Actas) (México: Aguilar e Hijos, 1889–1911), Libro 12, pp. 385–86. In addition to the appearance of the angels building the second church on the feast day of Saint Hippolytus, the city council, in the 1597 procession, brought the Virgin to the church of the conquest saint for a visit. See Actas, Libro 13, p. 45.

23 “ Gregory, XIII, Dum praecelsa meritorium, 20 octubre 1576,” in American Pontificia Primi Saeculi Evangelizationis, 1493–1592 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1991), vol. II, no. 340.Google Scholar

24 The city council paid 1000 pesos to fund the publication of Cisneros’ history. See Actas, , Libro 22, pp. 115–116.Google Scholar Cisneros interviewed the daughter of Juan de Tovar, the steward of the church of San Juan, and the steward of the 1553 shrine, as well as researching among the Cabildo documents. All three informants had to have been in their eighties or nineties. Subsequent apparition histories not only reproduced Cisneros’ account but commented on his sources and their own. Although many volumes of documentation regarding the confraternity and the shrine exist in the Archivo Histórico del Antiguo Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de México, the fire of 1692 destroyed almost all of the Remedios sixteenth-century records. No sixteenth century apparition histories exist, a fact accepted by later apparition historians like Mendoza. He explains this omission by stating that the miracles were too profound and that the conquerors were too busy conquering to write down the details. See Mendoza, Orígen, Av. Yet, none can explain the apparent silence of Franciscan and Augustinian missionaries in regards to the miraculous events that occurred to Juan de Tovar.

25 Orozco, Gómez de, “Las pinturas,” p. 66.Google Scholar In 1629, the church was renovated and enlarged. The interior was gilded and, in the process, the poems and emblems that accompanied the murals were removed. See Florencia, , La milagrosa, pp. 42–43.Google Scholar

26 The murals are described in Ibid., pp. 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 78. In 1603, Remedies aided Lope de Ulloa and his crew who were also shipwrecked by a storm. In both cases, the ships were coming from the Philippines and were bound for Acapulco. The captains and sailors vowed to do a pilgrimage to the shrine of the Virgin if she would aid and save their lives. The cripple was Gabriel de Aguilar. Blas García de Palacios was also saved from a runaway horse episode by the Virgin. In 1612, Juan, a Native from Azcapotzalco who had been crippled for five years, was miraculously cured during the indigenous celebration at the shrine. See Florencia, , La milagrosa, pp. 100–101,Google Scholar 103, 105–107. The poet, Betancur, was moved to pen his Remedios history in verse because his wife, afflicted with a dehabilitating leg injury, was cured by the Virgin. In addition, he sponsored and participated in a procession of flagellants to her. See his poem in AGN, Ramo Historia, vol. 1, exp. 17, f. 246v.

27 As quoted in Orozco, Gómez de, “Las pinturas,” p. 65.Google Scholar

28 Ibid., p. 79. “Pax vobis. Iam non estis hospites, aduenae sed ciues sanctorum domestici Dei.” This passage comes from Saint Paul in Ephesians, chapter 2, verse 19.

29 See, for example, y Saavedra, Juan de Narvaez, Sermón en la solemnidad que se consagró a Christo Señor Nuestro Sacramentado y a su Santíssima Madre en su Milagrosa Imagen de los Remedios por el feliz sucesso de la Flota en el viage de buelta a España (México: Herederos de la Viuda de Francisco Rodríguez Lupercio, 1699), pp. 7,Google Scholar 8 and Florencia, , La milagrosa, p. 92.Google Scholar For Mary as stars, see de Orozco, Gómez, “Las pinturas,” p. 70;Google Scholar as the moon (representing silence), and as sun, moon, and stars, see Ibid., p. 73.

30 Ibid., pp. 69, 71, 78, 79.

31 Mendoza, , Orígen, 29 Google Scholarv.

32 Burkhart, Louise M., The Slippery Earth: Nahua-Christian Moral Dialogue in Sixteenth-Century Mexico (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1989), pp. 83–85.Google Scholar

33 de Orozco, Gómez, “Las pinturas,” pp. 76,Google Scholar 77.

34 Future research may show what the actual status of the building was at this time. The city council may have judged the structure in ruins because it was not an appropriate church in their eyes, but rather a small rural chapel. They did make constant reference to the fact that no priest was attached to the shrine.

35 Actas, Libro 9, p. 143.

36 Mendoza, , Orígen, pp. 19 Google Scholarv, 28, 28v, 29.

37 Actas, Libro 16, 422 and Libro 17, p. 30.

38 For a similar pattern in Spain and Italy, see Christian, , Local Religion, p. 64 Google Scholar and Trexler, Richard, “Florentine Religious Experience: The Sacred Image,” Studies in the Renaissance 19 (1972), 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Flooding, however, created a gap in the supplication system. In this instance, the powers of Remedies appeared to have been in doubt. In 1607, city officials considered bringing her to the capital due to flood and cancelled the procession, choosing instead to entreat aid from Saint Gregory the Wonder Worker (Actas, Libro 17, pp. 91–92). In 1611, the shrine itself was in danger of severe damage due to flooding (Actas, Libro 18, p. 224). The 1629 flood has often been cited as the first battle of the Virgins i.e. Remedios and Guadalupe. Although the flooding continued for four years, Guadalupe has been credited with the miracle. See, for example, Lafaye, Jacque, Quetzalcoatl and Guadalupe: The Formation of Mexican National Consciousness, 1531–1813 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), p. 254;Google Scholar and, the sonnet located in AGN, Ramo Historia, vol. 1, exp. 18, f. 247v. However, in actuality, the city evoked Remedios, Guadalupe, and Saint Gregory without any real amelioration. Part of the legend claims that a nun had a vision of Mary who then interceded. See Poole, Stafford, Our Lady of Guadalupe: The Origins and Sources of a Mexican National Symbol, 1531–1797 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1995), pp. 97–98.Google Scholar The true challenge to Remedios concerned her power over plagues and drought and it would come in the eighteenth century.

39 The years and reasons for which Our Lady of the Remedies was brought to Mexico City were as follows: 1577: epidemic (Actas, Libro 3, p. 44); 1597: drought ( de Vetancurt, Agustín, Teatro mexicano. Descripción breve de los sucesos ejemplares de la Nueva España en el Nuevo Mundo Occidental de las Indias (Madrid: Porrúa Turanzas, 1960–61), vol. 3, p. 358);Google Scholar 1616: drought (Actas, Libro 21, 5, 13, 342–44); 1618: drought (Actas, Libro 22, 137); 1638: drought and sickness (Actas, Libro 31, 347–48); 1639: drought and sickness (in conjunction with the Corpus Christi, Actas, Libro 31, 346); 1641: drought ( Vetancurt, , Teatro, vol. 3, p. 359 Google Scholar and Actas, Libro 32, p. 226); 1642: epidemic ( Vetancurt, , Teatro, vol. 3, p. 359 Google Scholar and Actas, Libro 32, 303); 1653: drought ( Vetancurt, , Teatro, vol. 3, 359 Google Scholar and de Guijo, Gregorio M., Diario 1648–1664 (México: Porrúa, 1952–53), vol. 1, pp. 208, 215)Google Scholar; 1656: preserve the fleet against English pirates in the Caribbean ( Vetancurt, , Teatro, vol. 3, p. 359)Google Scholar; 1661: drought (Ibid.); 1663: drought (Ibid., p. 360); 1667: drought and disease ( Robles, Antonio de, Diario de sucesos notables 1665–1703 [México: Editorial Porrúa, 1946], vol. 1, pp. 36, 40)Google Scholar; 1668: drought and epidemic (Ibid., 67–68); 1678: drought ( Vetancurt, , Teatro, vol. 3, p. 360 Google Scholar and Robles, , Diario, vol. 1, 241–42);Google Scholar 1685: drought ( Vetancurt, , Teatro, vol. 3, p. 360);Google Scholar 1692: drought then rebellion ( Vetancurt, , Teatro, vol. 3, p. 360 Google Scholar and Robles, , Diario, vol. 3, p. 13);Google Scholar 1696: fleet ( Vetancurt, , Teatro, vol. 3, 361 Google Scholar and Robles, , Diario, vol. 3, 49);Google Scholar and, 1699: epidemic and fleet ( Narvaez, , Sermón en la solemnidad, 55, 2).Google Scholar See de Medina, Fray Balthasser, Chrónica de la santa provincia de San Diego de México, de religiosos descalzos de NSPS Francisco en la Nueva España (México: Juan de Ribera, 1682), 31,Google Scholar section 102–103, for a list of venidas from 1577 to 1678. Cisneros, Mendoza, and Florencia also list the processions up to their respective dates of publication.

40 Christian, , Local Religion, p. 46.Google Scholar A similar number of processions took place in Nueva Castilla and Sevilla (Ibid., p. 47).

41 José de Noriega, O.M., Sermón panegyrico en la Santa Cathedral en rogativa por agua, hecho a la milagrossima Imagen de Nuestra Señora de los Remedios (México: Viuda de Bernardo Calderón, 1685), pp. 3,Google Scholar 5.

42 Vargas, Alonso Ramírez de, Descripción de la venida, y buelta de la milagrosa imagen de Nuestra Señora de los Remedios de esta ciudad de México en año 1668, por causa de la gran sequedad y epidemia de viruelas (Cádiz, 1668), 5 Google Scholarv.

43 Florencia, , La milagrosa, pp. 100–101.Google Scholar

44 Mendoza, , Orígen, 35 Google Scholarv and Florencia, , La milagrosa, p. 78.Google Scholar

45 Vargas, Ramírez de, Descripción, A2v, A4.Google Scholar

46 Robles, , Diario, vol. 1, 67–68.Google Scholar

47 Vargas, Ramirez de, Descripción, A4.Google Scholar

48 Noriega, , Sermón panegyrico, 4 Google Scholarv. See, for example, Isaiah, chapter 24, verses 4–7. Many clergymen did not approve of the popular custom of touching the Virgin as she passed by in procession because the faithful dishonored Mary with their stain of sin. See, for example, Medina, , Crónica, p. 32.Google Scholar

49 Christian, , Local Religion, p. 185.Google Scholar

50 Narvaez, , Sermón en la solemnidad, 5).Google Scholar For example, in 1597, the Cabildo brought the Virgin to the capital “… para que sea yntercessora de nuestor Señor …” See Actas, Libro 13, p. 44. Eric Wolf comments that Latin Christianity eventually reached a stage in which God retreated into heaven and only special appeals could reach him. These supplications were most often successful when presented by a “super-saint” such as the Mary, Virgin. See his work, “Society and Symbols in Latin Europe and in the Islamic near East: Some Comparisions,” Anthropological Quarterly 42:3 (1969), 296.Google Scholar

51 For a discussion of the concept of sin, Marian intercession, and the unique space of processions, see Turner, and Turner, , Image, p. 15 Google Scholar and Christian, , Local Religion, p. 97.Google Scholar

52 Burkhart, , The Slippery Earth, pp. 111,Google Scholar 120.

53 Berdan, Frances, The Aztec of Central Mexico. An Imperial Society (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1982), p. 136.Google Scholar

54 Cisneros described the 1577, 1597, and 1616 venida. Mendoza and Florencia describe subsequent ones and claimed that the 1616 procession was considered the standard for later venidas in the seventeenth century. See Mendoza, Orígen, 34v. Also see Medina, , Crónica, 32,Google Scholar Section 107. For a description of a standard procession at mid-eighteenth century, see Ceremonial de la Nobilísima Ciudad de Mexico por lo acaecido en el año 1755 (México, 1976), pp. 37–42.

55 Florencia, , La milagrosa, p. 71.Google Scholar

56 AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 8, f.s.n.

57 For details of procession, see Florencia, , La milagrosa, pp. 72–73.Google Scholar Natives did not erect the thatched arbor nor did they participate in the penitential procession in 1577 because of the severity of the epidemic in indigenous communities. See Mendoza, , Orígen, 30v.Google Scholar

58 AHA, vol. 3712, exp. 6, f. 1; vol. 1066, exp. 3, April 28, 1809. During the eighteenth century, laws were promulgated to ban such profane aspects of the procession.

59 Medina, , Crónica, p. 32.Google Scholar

60 See Actas, Libro 31, p. 346 and Guijo, , Diario, vol. 1, pp. 208,Google Scholar 215.

61 The meal for dignitaries could cost 190–200 pesos. See Actas, , Libro 20, p. 344,Google Scholar Libro 21, p. 5. Candles at the shrine alone could cost 63 pesos. See Actas, , Libro 21, p. 13.Google Scholar

62 For cost and preparations details, see the following years: 1597 (Actas, Libro 13, 45); 1616 (cost came to 1082 pesos; Mendoza, f. 34v, Actas, Libro 20, 342); 1639 (Actas, Libro 31, 347-48); 1716 (INAH, Fondo Lira, f. 4, 7); 1717 (Actas, Libro 48-50, tomo 2, 43); 1738 (cost came to 2030 pesos; AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 8, accounts of aprii 26, 1738); 1793 (cost came to 280 pesos; AHA, vol. 3901, exp. 37, account of July 15, 1793). Expenditures were higher in the 17th century, a reflection of the strong devotion of the city council at that time. For instance, in 1640, the viceroy decided to visit the shrine, an event that cost the Cabildo 1314 pesos. See Actas, Libro 32, p. 18.

63 Donations in 1616 came to 1430 pesos ( Florencia, , La milagrosa, p. 76).Google Scholar High ranking officials and wealthy citizens donated jewels, gold crosses, gold figurines of Mary and Jesus, clothing for the image, and poets composed special verses which were left at the shrine. See Ibid., p. 77. In 1736, 1346 pesos were collected from the faithful (AHA, vol. 3895, exp. 2, confraternity accounts for 1736–37). A year later, 2900 pesos were donated (AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 8, aprii 26, 1738, cuentas del novenario). In 1793, the confraternity collected 2569 pesos (AHA, vol. 3901, exp. 37, cuenta del novenario de July 15).

64 Actas, , Libro 31, p. 347.Google Scholar

65 In 1694, the proceeds of such sales came to 5743 pesos. See AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 8, f.s.n. Thirty-seven years later (1731), the councilmen ordered 1700 “estampas finas y ordinarias” to sell to pilgrims at the shrine. See AHA, vol. 3989, exp. 8. For an 1812 list of items for sale, see AHA, vol. 3895, exp. 2, records of the August festival.

66 As quoted in Lockhart, , The Nahuas, p. 244.Google Scholar

67 This was already an established practice before 1589, see Actas Libro 9, p. 143; also see, Libro 17, p. 259 and Libro 14, p. 191.

68 Burkhart, in Slippery Earth, pp. 150–159 Google Scholar states that missionaries of the sixteenth century translated the term virgin (as in Mary) as ichpochtli in Nahuatl, meaning post-pubescent girl who had not taken on the status of adult, irregardless of her sexual condition. To express virginity, qualifiers were added that amounted to saying “still really a girl.” This status of girl and the diminutive size of the statue of Remedies may account for the constant reference to her as La Niña.

69 In 1675, the festival cost 582 pesos (AHA, vol. 3895, exp. 5. f.s.n.). From 1679 to 1683, expenditures for the Native fiesta (all taken from AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 7) was as follows: 1683 = 1016 pesos (f. 62, 63, 64); 1680 = 462 pesos (f. 64, 65); 1681 =422 pesos (f. 65, 66); 1682 = 277 pesos (f. 67,68); 1679 = 291 pesos (f. 122, 123). Similar figures for 1688 to 1691 (all from AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 8, f.s.n.) include: 1688 = 376 pesos; 1689 = 300 pesos; 1690 = 330 pesos; and, 1691=269 pesos. In 1790, the confraternity paid 336 pesos for the indigenous celebration. See AHA, vol. 3901, document dated June 30, 1791. In 1675, Native contributed 589 pesos (AHA, vol. 3895, exp. 5. f.s.n.). From 1679 to 1683, the confraternity collected 1931 pesos total (AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 7, f. 57). For eighteenth century donations, see 1737 (148 pesos) and 1738 (74 pesos), both in AHA, vol. 3895, exp. 2, accounts of 1736-37; and, 1790 (429 pesos) in AHA, vol. 3901, document dated June 30, 1791.

70 In 1675, the dinner cost 90 pesos (AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 7, Cuenta del mayordomo de la cofradía). During the four year period from 16.79 to 1683, the meal averaged 80 pesos annually (Ibid.). For the 1688-93 period, the shrine collected 16,336 pesos from all over the viceroyalty. See AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 8, f.s.n., listed under “gastos del santuario.”

71 Betancur, in AGN, Ramo Historia, vol. 1, exp. 17, f. 247.Google Scholar

72 For vows and donations, see Florencia, , La milagrosa, pp. 100–10,Google Scholar 108–109. The Cabildo provided oil for the lamp on a constinuous basis. See Actas, Libro 25, 114–15. The confraternity/Cabildo tried to stop the tradition of touching the image in the early eighteenth century. See AHA, vol. 58A, July 4, 1732.

73 The issue of popular devotion and a new shrine was raised in 1621 ( Actas, , Libro 24, 32);Google Scholar the new building was completed in 1629. The aldermen would grant indulgences and pardons to those who participated in the romería. They charged fray Pedro de Zamudio, an Augustinian, with the task of investigating the possibility in Rome. Apparently, nothing came of it as no formal romería was hosted by the city council/confraternity. See Actas, Libro 23, p. 229.

74 For the description of this second image, see Florencia, , La milagrosa, pp. 119,Google Scholar 123. It is quite possible that worshippers did not know that the Peregrina was a duplicate image of the original. Duplicate or pilgrim images of Guadalupe and Fatima travel today, attesting to the importance of such a traditional practice. I thank Stafford Poole for bringing this contemporary phenomena to my attention. For the case of Native farmers and their petition to the Cabildo in 1624, see Actas, Libro 25, p. 145.

75 The dispute first surfaced in the records in 1606 (Actas, Libro 16, 365) and was still ongoing in 1614 (Actas, Libro 19, 250). For 1731, see AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 12, f. 13. In 1735, it still was an issue. See AHA, vol. 60A, August 29, 1735.

76 For the issue of the statue, see AHA, vol. 86A, f. 35. Later documents from 1812 show that the confraternity did purchase another image and new clothing. See AHA, vol. 3895, exp. 2, 1812 accounts. For city council diplomacy, see AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 8, f.s.n., letter dated August 23, 1775 from Luís de Monero y Guerrero y Luiando.

77 See AHA, vol. 60A, August 29, 1735 and AHA, vol. 3900, exp. 22, f.s.n.

78 Robles, , Diario, vol. 2, 265.Google Scholar

79 AHA, vol. 35, June 22, 1692.

80 Robles, , Diario, vol. 3, 13,Google Scholar 49, 71.

81 Narvaez, , Sermón de la solemnidad, 1v, 2,Google Scholar 9v. They first did a novena to Christ and then brought the Virgin to the city. However, she solely was held responsible for the miracle.

82 This was the case in 1717 when the procession occurred for the the Duke of Linares who was fatally ill. See Actas, Libro 48–50, tomo 2, 39.

83 The venidas are as follows: 1702: fleet and drought (AHA, vol. 372A, June 2, 1702); 1704: drought (AHA, vol. 372A, April 18, 1704, possibly at the ermita); 1705: drought (AHA, vol. 372A, May 8, 1705, possibly at the ermita); 1706: for the monarchy (Actas, Libro 43–47, 55–56); 1708: birth of an heir to the throne (Adas, Libro 43–47, 103); 1710: unclear why brought to the cathedral (Actas, Libro 43–47, 34); 1711: drought and sickness (Actas, Libro 43–47, 86); 1712: birth of heir to the throne (Actas, Libro 43–47, 181–83); 1713: drought (Actas, Libro 43–47, 196); 1716: fleet (Actas, Libro 48–50, tomo 2, 162); 1717: drought and ex-viceroy’s health (Actas, Libro 48–50, tomo 2, 39); 1719: the monarchy (Actas, Libro 48–50, tomo 2, 188); 1732: fleet (AHA, vol. 59A, tomo 1, f. 31–38); 1734: fleet (AHA, vol. 59A, tomo 1, f.sn.); 1735: drought (AHA, vol. 60A, f. 43-44); 1761: fleet and drought (AHA, vol. 82A, May and June, 1761); 1762: wars in Europe (AHA, vol. 83A, July 22, 1762); 1766: fleet (AHA, vol. 86A, f. 68); 1784: epidemic ( Valdes, Manuel Antonio, Gazetas de México, Compendio de noticies de Nueva España, (México: Zúñiga y Ontiveros, 1784–1809), vol. 1, 150;Google Scholar henceforth Gazetas); 1785: drought (Gazetas, vol. I, 308); 1786: epidemic (Gazetas, vol. II, 106); 1790: drought (Gazetas, vol. IV, 122); 1793: wars against France (Gazetas, vol. V, 380–81); 1794 (twice): drought and war with France (Gazetas, vol. VI, 323, 707 respectively); 1797: drought (Gazetas, vol. VIII, 279); 1789: drought (Gazetas, vol. IX, 37); 1799: drought and sickness (AHA, vol. 3895, exp. 2, f.s.n.); 1800: drought and general happiness (Ibid ); 1802 (twice): health of Monarch, Charles IV and drought (Gazetas, vol. XI, 5, 85 respectively); 1804 (twice): epidemic and drought (Gazetas, vol. XII, 59, 111 respectively); 1808: epidemic and drought (Gazetas, vol. XV, 416); and, 1810: drought and general happiness (AHA, vol. 3895, exp. 2, f.s.n.).

84 For the sermon, see Pulgar, Blas de, Sermón que en acción de gracias ofrecido a Dios … en su imagen de los Remedios . . . por el parto de la Reyna… (México: Viuda de Miguel de Rivera Calderón, 1708), 1–3.Google Scholar The Virgin had been asked in a formal petition to protect the queen, see de Valdeosera, Miguel González, Gentheliaco elogio, prognóstico felice, and la expectación del Real Agosto parto … que venera esta Nueva España con la advocación de los Remedios (México: Juan Joseph G. Carrascoso, 1707).Google Scholar The floats are described in Actas, Libro 43–47, 103.

85 AHA, vol. 3895, exp. 2, f.s.n.; vol. 372A, September 13, 1700; Actas, Libro 48-50, 12, 176.

86 Actas, Libro 48–50, pp. 188, 220.

87 Actas, Libro 48–50, tomo 2,118; AHA, vol. 376A, January 25, 1724; and, vol. 3898, exp. 8, f.s.n.

88 The 1720 incidence was particularly troublesome. The Virgin had been brought to the cathedral for the health of the monarchy rather than for the drought plaguing the region. In addition, the Jesuits petitioned to have Remedies attend their patron holiday, thus extending her time in Mexico City even more (Actas, Libro 51–53, 53). Although the city council apologized to the governor for their duplicity, they instituted an investigation to determine who had leaked the information regarding the letter (Ibid., p. 83). In 1733, the Native festival was once again cancelled because the viceroy would not allow the image to return to the shrine. See AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 8, f.s.n. For the 1750 royal decree, see AHA, vol. 3900, exp. 21, f.s.n.

89 For the case of 1754, see AHA, vol. 386, exp. 21, f. 1. The city claimed that it was busy dealing with damage caused by an earthquake. They furthered stated that they were doing their real job and did not have time to attend festivals. This marked a striking contrast to their sentiments of 100 years earlier. For 1789, see AHA, vol. 3895, exp. 2, f.s.n.

90 AHA, vol. 3898, exp. 8, f.s.n.

91 Taylor, William B., “The Virgin of Guadalupe in New Spain: An Inquiry into the Social History of a Marian Devotion,” American Ethnologist 14:1 (February 1987), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar According to Stafford Poole, it was a criollo devotion encouraged and spread by diocesan, Jesuit, and Franciscan clergy. See his Our Lady, p. 217.

92 Clamor que un indio hizo a nuestra Señora de los Remedios en su santuario la mañana del 11 de agosto de 1810 (México, 1810), 1.

93 Montaña, Luís José, Rasgo épico. Peregrinación de la sagrada Imagen de la Santísima Virgen María, Nuestra Señora de advocación de los Remedios (México: Arizpe, 1810), pp. 9,Google Scholar 13, 14.

94 Desengaño a los indios haciendoles ver lo mucho que deben a los Españoles. Conversación que tuvieron en el campamento de esta ciudad un Dragón con una Tortillera y su marido Pasqual, y la precención A.V. (México, 1810), p. 11.

95 AHA, vol. 3903, exp. 65, f. 1,2.

96 Poole, Our Lady, p. 3.

97 de San Salvador, Agustín Pomposo Fernández, Acción de gracias a nuestra Generala María SS. de los Remedios, Disipiadora de las nubes fulminantes de la ira de Dios … (México, 1810), pp. 2–3,Google Scholar 5.

98 México a su Generala María Santísima de los Remedios en la procesión solemne del día 24 de febrero con que concluyó el novenario de acción de gracias por la prosperidad de las armas del Rey contra los rebeldes (México: Arizpe, 1811), pp. 285, 283.

99 For a discussion of sacred images and their relationship to change, see Turner, and Turner, , Image, p. 29;Google Scholar Christian, , Apparitions, p. 15 and Local Religion, p. 93.Google Scholar

100 Officials first invoked the Virgin of Loreto, Remedios, Guadalupe, and then other images. The epidemic apparently ceased after the Cabildo became the official patrons of Guadalupe; and, therefore, she is credited with the miracle. See Poole, , Our Lady, pp. 175–76, 181.Google Scholar