Agustin Rivera was born at Lagos (Jalisco) on February 28, 1824. For a time he studied at the famous Colegio de San Nicolas, at Morelia, and, later, at the Seminario in Guadalajara. In 1848 he was licensed to practice law and in the same year took holy orders. He taught for some time at Guadalajara, and was, for nine years, the attorney of the Ecclesiastical Curia. He finally removed to Lagos, the city of his birth, where he still lives, and where his writings have been published. In 1867, he made a journey to Europe, visiting England, France, Italy, and Russia. His writings have been many, varied, and extensive; the complete list of his books and pamphlets, includes ninety-four titles. Among the best known and most widely mentioned are his Compendio de la Historia antigua de Mexico (Compend of the Ancient History of Mexico), Principios criticos sobre el vireinato de la Nueva EspaÑa (Critical Observations upon the Vice-Royalty of New Spain), and La FilosofÍa en Nueva EspaÑa (Philosophy in New Spain). Two pamphlets, Viaje Á las Ruinas de Chicomoztoc (Journey to the Ruins of Chicomoztoc) and Viaje Á las Ruinas del Fuerte del Sombrero (Journey to the Ruins of the Fort of Sombrero), have been widely read and are often mentioned.

Our author is vigorous and clear in thought and expression. Extremely liberal in his views, much of his writing has been polemic. In argument he is shrewd and incisive; in criticism, candid but unsparing. His Principios criticos is a scathing arraignment of the government of New Spain under the viceroys. His FilosofÍa is a part of the same discussion. It forms a large octavo volume. It begins with presenting two Latin documents of the eighteenth century, programs of public actos, given at the Seminario and the Colegio de Santo TomÁs in Guadalajara. These serve as the basis for a severe criticism of the philosophical thought and teaching in Spain and New Spain during the vice-regal period. Testimonies are cited from many authors and Rivera’s comments upon and inferences from these are strong and original. In the course of the book he summarizes the scientific work really done—and there was some—in Mexico during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He sums up his argument in eleven corollaries. Our selections are taken from the FilosofÍa en Nueva EspaÑa and from a curious dialogue regarding the teaching of Indian languages.

On February 28, 1902, after many years of absence, Agustin Rivera was in Guadalajara; his completion of seventy-eight years of life was there celebrated by a large circle of his friends, old students, admirers, and readers, most brilliantly. In October, 1901, a proposition, that the national government should pension the faithful and fearless old man, was unanimously carried by the one hundred and twenty-five votes in the House of Deputies in the City of Mexico. It is pleasant to see these acts of public recognition of the value of a long life usefully spent.

BACKWARDNESS OF MEXICO IN VICEROYAL TIMES.

My lack of pecuniary resources does not allow me to give greater bulk to this book by translating Document I. from Latin into Spanish; but those who know the Latin language and philosophy will observe that in the Department of Physics in the College of Santo TomÁs in Guadalajara were taught the first cause, the properties of secondary causes, supernatural operations, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, eternity—everything, in fact, save physics. Neither the word heat, nor the word light, is met with once in the program. The program cited, further accentuates ignorance of modern logic and modern metaphysics. Such was the teaching of philosophy by the Jesuits in the schools of New Spain, until the end of their instruction and existence in this country, since the public acto, in the College of Santo TomÁs, took place in 1764, and three years later they were expelled (June 25, 1767). History proves that the Jesuits were at the front in teaching in the colleges of New Spain, and if they taught such things, what could those teach who were in the rear?

Lucas Alaman, Adolfo Llanos, Niceto de Zamacois, Ignacio Aguilar y Marocho, and other writers, open partisans of the colonial government (few indeed in this nineteenth century) to such documents as form the matter of this Dissertation reply: “It was the logic, the metaphysics and the physics of that epoch.” The statement is false and one might say that the writers mentioned were ignorant of history, or that, knowing it, they made sport of the credulity and good faith of their readers, were it not that the intelligence and honesty of the four writers—and of others—is well established, and did not logic teach us that there are other sources of error in judgment besides ignorance and bad faith; that a great source of errors is preoccupation, as that of Alaman and Aguilar Marocho—for all that concerns the monarchy and viceroyalty; and a great source of errors is passion, vehement and uncontrolled, as the love of country which sways Zamacois, Llanos, and other Spanish writers.... The statement is false, I repeat, and, in consequence, the conclusion is nul: nulla solutio. I shall prove it.

The discovery of the New World, the origin of the Americans and their magnificent ruins and antiquities, scattered over the whole country; the Aztec civilization, grand in a material way; their human sacrifices, which in fundamental meaning involved a great genesiac thought and in application were a horrible fanaticism; the Conquest of Mexico, in which present themselves:—Hernan Cortes, the first warrior of modern times, though with indelible stains; Pedro de Alvarado, Gonzalo de Sandoval, Cristobal de Olid, and Diego de Ordaz, with their feats of heroism and their crimes; Cuauhtemotzin, Xicotencatl, Cacamotzin, and the other Indian warriors with their immortal patriotism; the interesting figure of Marina; BartolomÉ de Olmedo, Pedro de Gante, BartolomÉ de las Casas, Juan de ZumÁrraga, Toribio de Motolinia, Bernardino de Sahagun, and the other missionaries surrounded by an aureole of light which brings posterity to its knees; all the conjunct of the Conquest, as the finest subject for an epic poem; “the Laws of the Indies,” the encomiendas, the Inquisition; Antonio Mendoza, the venerable Palafox, Fray Payo Enriquez de Rivera, the Duke of Linares, Revilla Gigedo the second, and other excellent viceroys; the fecund events of 1808; the Revolution of the Independence, the first and second empires, and many other events in the history of Mexico during its five epochs, have already been treated and ventilated in many books, pamphlets and journals—some sufficiently, others overmuch. Poetry in New Spain has been magnificently treated by my respected friend, the learned Francisco Pimentel, in Volume I. of his Historia de la Literatura y de las Ciencias en Mexico. But Philosophy in New Spain is a subject that has not been specifically treated by only one. This work has, perhaps, no other merit than novelty, which would be worth nothing without truth, supported by good testimonies. As regards Spain I shall take my testimonies from no foreign authors—lest the bourbonist writers might reject them as disaffected and prejudiced, and so shield themselves—but from Spanish writers; with the exception of one and another Mexican, accepted by all Spaniards as trustworthy, such as Alzate and Beristain.... And among Spaniards I will refrain from citing Emilio Castelar and others of the extreme left.

DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICES IN NEW SPAIN.

With regard to the public offices in New Spain, of consequence for the honor connected with them, or because of the fat salary, SeÑor Zamacois says:

“It has been said, in regard to official positions, that the Mexicans filled only the less important; in this, another error has been committed. The monarchs of Castille considered those born in the American colonies as Spaniards, and made no distinction between them and Peninsulars; all had equal rights and, therefore, in making an appointment, there was no question whether the person named came from the provinces of America or those of the Peninsula.... The offices and appointments were conferred in equal numbers on the sons of America and Peninsulars.”

By way of digression, I may present a few penstrokes, but they will be sufficient for any intelligent man. Padre Mariana, high authority in history, states this maxim: History takes no sides until shown a clean record. SeÑor Zamacois shows no clean record for his assertions. I will present mine. There were sixty-two Viceroys of Mexico, and of these fifty-nine were Spaniards of the Peninsula and three were creoles—Luiz de Velasco, native of the City of Mexico, Juan de AcuÑa, native of Lima, and Revilla Gigedo the second, native of Havana; in consequence, only one was Mexican. There were thirty-three Bishops of Guadalajara and of these twenty-six were Spanish Peninsulars and seven were creoles; these were ...; that is to say, only five were Mexicans. I confess my ignorance; I do not understand SeÑor Zamacois’s arithmetic—the equality between 26 and 7. There were thirty-four Bishops of Michoacan, and of these there were thirty Spanish Peninsulars and four creoles; these were ...; that is to say, only two were Mexicans. Thirty equals four? Please, SeÑor Zamacois. There were thirty-one Archbishops of Mexico, of whom twenty-nine were Spanish Peninsulars and two creoles; these were ...; that is to say, only one was Mexican. Twenty-nine Spaniards and two creoles are equal.

* * * *

Adolfo Llanos, in treating this matter, goes (as is his custom farther than Zamacois, saying that the ecclesiastical offices of importance were obtained by the creoles, not equally with the Spaniards, but preponderantly over them.) He says:

“Americans were preferred by the Spanish Kings over Europeans, in the assignment of high ecclesiastical dignities.”

Let us leave Llanos and the other blind defenders of the vice-regal government.

SCIENCE VERSUS SCHOLASTICISM.

Modern philosophers, notable in European lands (outside of Spain) were numbered by hundreds, and the young Gamarra did nought but glean in so abundant a field. Galileo and Harvey! What brilliant and suitable examples men of great talent furnish! Harvey, in his study, with a frog in his hand. As parallels and comparisons are most useful in understanding a subject, as a recognized rule of law says that placing two opposing views face to face both are more clearly known, I venture to add—after Gamarra’s fashion—a parallel between Harvey and Domingo Soto. A frog! here I have a thing apparently vile and despicable; the Epistles of Saint Paul, here I have a thing infinitely sublime. A film to which the intestines of a frog are attached; what thing meaner? The science of theology; what thing so grand? To soil one’s hands with the blood and secretions of an animal; occupation, to all appearance, vile; to take the pen for explaining the Holy Scriptures; occupation, sacred and sublime. And yet, Domingo Soto with his scholastic commentaries on the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans was of no use to humanity; and Harvey, presenting himself in the great theater of the scientific world, with a frog in his hand, discovering the circulation of the blood, rendered an immense service to mankind. Domingo Soto was a Catholic, and one of the Fathers of the Council of Trent, and Harvey was a Protestant—and yet, without doubt, the Catholic Church does not esteem the commentaries of its son Soto, and, in the Vatican’s council, has sounded the praises of the discovery of the Protestant Harvey.

PHILOSOPHY IN NEW SPAIN.
COROLLARIES.

1. Studies never flourished under the Colonial regime.

2. Spain in the seventeenth century and in the first and second thirds of the eighteenth century was poor and backward in philosophy, and New Spain during the same period was in the same predicament.

3. That New Spain was backward in philosophy at that time because such was the philosophy of the epoch, is false.

4. The ideas and impulse in the modern philosophical sciences, which New Spain received during the last years of the eighteenth and the early years of the nineteenth century, did not come mainly from Spain, but from the other principal nations of Europe.

5. It follows, from Spain and New Spain having been backward in philosophy, that they were also backward in theology, jurisprudence, medicine, and in all the sciences, because philosophy is the basis of all.

6. The expression, “Spain taught us what she herself knew,” is not a good excuse or exoneration.

7. The scholastic philosophy is useful; the pseudo-scholastic is prejudicial.

8. The history of the viceroyal government is most useful.

9. This dissertation is a new book.

10. “Not as a spider, nor as an ant, but as a bee.”

11. The union between Spaniards and Mexicans is very useful; but history cannot be silenced by the claim that it is a social union.

DIALOGUE BETWEEN AGUSTIN RIVERA AND FLORENCITO LEVILON.

“How are you, sir?”

“How are you, Florencito? When did you arrive?”

“Yesterday.”

“I am greatly pleased that you have called to see me. What have you studied this year?”

“The Aztec language; here is the invitation to my public examination. The program was as fine as usual, since my teacher, SeÑor Don Agustin de la Rosa, spoke splendidly, as every year, of the philosophy and richness of the Aztec tongue.”

“Thank you. And how many students were there in the subject?”

“This year we were so many, last year there were so many, the year before so many, and the same, more or less, so I have heard, in years gone by.”

“What a pity! They are few, almost nothing in comparison with the necessity that exists in our Republic for men who study the native tongues. But these few, at least, attend the exercises every school day?”

“No, sir; far from it! Some attend, and others not, just as they please.”

“And, the days they do attend, they study the Aztec grammar and hear it explained?”

“No, sir; by no means. Many days the teacher and we occupy ourselves in the Levilon.”

“And what is that?”

“Levilon, levilon, ton, ton.”

“I understand you, even less.”

“It is a sort of a marsellaise against cleanness and neatness of person and dress; that is to say, against politeness.”[2]

“But, man, in a college for the instruction of youth—however, let us return to our subject. In the three years you have studied Aztec, have you learned to speak it?”

“No, sir; by no means.”

“Then, what have you learned?”

“The philosophy and richness of the Aztec tongue.”

“But you must have studied the four divisions of Aztec grammar—analogy, syntax, prosody, and orthography—and by this complete study arrived at an understanding of the philosophy and richness of the language.”

“No, sir.”

“But have you not had a public examination?”

“Yes, sir; but those who were publicly examined in past years, have as little, made a complete study of the grammar, but have also learned the philosophy and richness of the Mexican tongue.”

“Come! let us see. How many years has the chair of the Aztec language been established in the Seminario at Guadalajara?”

“About thirty.”

“And during about thirty years has some priest gone forth from the institution to preach to the Indians in their native language?”

“Why, no sir! During the thirty years what has been, and is, learned is the philosophy and richness of the Aztec language. You must have seen the precious little work, by my professor, upon the beauty and richness of the Aztec language, elegantly bound, which was sent to the Paris Exposition.”

“But man—Florencito,” (rising, pacing, and puffing at my cigar) “really, all this and nothing are much the same. These programs, in which one speaks eloquently of the beauty and richness of the Aztec language are no more than pretty theories. This book upon the richness and beauty of the Aztec language, with all its elegant binding, is but a pretty theory. The practical! The practical! Let me give you my opinion in the matter briefly, and in four propositions: First, the ecclesiastical government and the civil government have the obligation and the mission of civilizing the Indians; second, for this, in each bishopric and in each State there ought to be chairs of the Indian languages spoken in the territory—for example, in the Seminary and in one of the State Colleges of Mexico, there ought to be a chair of the Aztec language; in the Seminary and State College of Queretaro, there ought to be a chair of Otomi; in the Seminary and in the State College of Morelia, there ought to be chairs of Tarascan and Matlazinca; in the Seminary and in the State College of Guadalajara, there ought to be a chair of the Cora language; in the Seminary and State College of San Luis Potosi, there ought to be a chair of the Huastec; in the Seminary and the State College of Puebla, there ought to be a chair of Aztec; in the Seminary and the State College of Jalapa there ought to be a chair of Totonaco; in the Seminary and in the State College of Oaxaca there ought to be chairs of the different indigenous languages spoken in the territory—chiefly the Mixtec and Zapotec, etc.; third, it ought to be, that from the seminaries there shall go forth priests to be curas in the Indian towns of the bishopric, who shall preach to the Indians and catechize them in their own language; fourth, it ought to be, that from the State Colleges, primary teachers shall go forth to teach the elementary branches to the Indians of the State, in their own idiom—and shall go forth jefes politicos, who shall be able to treat with the Indians, talking to them in their own languages.”

“Sir, these things appear to me impossible.”

“Yes, I know that there can be given but two answers to my proposition and my arguments. The first is the ‘non possumus,’ ‘we cannot.’[3] One can preach in cathedrals and other magnificent temples, to an elegant gathering, afterward print the sermon and distribute copies liberally to select society; but to subject one’s self to the task of learning an indigenous tongue, and to go to preach to the Indians—that, one cannot do. One can be a jefe politico in a city, where comforts abound, and draw a fat salary; but the abnegation and patriotism of exercising the administrative power in an Indian town—a despicable thing! Sad reply. Unhappy Mexican nation during the colonial epoch! and, unhappy Mexican nation, still, in 1891, because you yet preserve many—even very many—remnants of the colonial education, and this is the principal hindrance to your progress and well-being. We Mexicans, because of the education which we received from the Spanish, are much given to scholastic disputes, to beautiful discourses, pretty poems, enthusiastic toasts, quixotic proclamations, projects, laws, decrees, programs of scientific education, plans of public amelioration, in Andalusian style and well-rounded periods; but, as for the practical—the Spanish sloth, the Spanish fanaticism for the statu quo, the Indian idleness and cowardice, do but little. In theories we have the boldness of Don Quixote, and in practice we have the pusillanimity, the inability to conquer obstacles, and the phlegm of Sancho Panza.”

“My teacher, Don Agustin,” said Florencito, “has told us that Padre Sahagun and many other missionaries of the sixteenth century dedicated themselves to the study of the native tongues because they found them highly philosophical and adapted to express even metaphysical ideas.”

“That is true,” I replied, “but the Padre Sahagun and the other missionary philologists of the sixteenth century dedicated themselves to the study of the Indian languages of the country, not to detain themselves ... (in) the philosophy and richness of the Aztec language, without moving a peg to go and teach some Indian; but in order that they might use them as means for the practical—to wit, to preach, to catechize, and to teach the Indians the civilizing truths of Christianity.”