This article offers a reassessment of the Bibliotheca Mexicana controversy (ca. 1745–1755), a key moment in the development of “creole patriotism” as most famously articulated by David A. Brading in The First America: The Spanish Monarchy, Creole Patriots, and the Liberal State 1492–1867 (1991). Through a rereading of the original sources and a reconstruction of the historiographical origins of creole patriotism in German existentialism, the article argues that the identity of the New World protagonists in the controversy had little to do with either creolism or protonationalist patriotism. These creole and peninsular “Mexicans” (Mexicani) certainly felt pride in their flourishing urban center of Mexico City and its dependent territories. However, this patria was analogous to early modern city-states, like the Duchy of Milan, rather than to modern nation-states, like Mexico. This local identity was also entirely compatible with a strong loyalty to the Hispanic Monarchy, a larger pan-Hispanic caste identity, and a sense of membership in the Catholic Republic of Letters. I n 1718, Manuel Martı́ (1663–1737), the dean of Alicante and Spain’s leading late humanist scholar, wrote a letter to a young Spaniard named Antonio Carrillo, who was considering crossing the Atlantic. Martı́, who saw in the young man some talent for study, was horrified by this idea and displayed his disdain in a letter that would become infamous: To whom among the Indians will you turn in such a vast desert of letters? I won’t ask to which teacher will you go, from whom you might learn something, but will you find anyone at all to listen to you? I won’t ask whether you will find anyone who knows anything, but anyone who wants to know anything at all, or, put simply, anyone who does not despise letters. Indeed, which books will you leafthrough and which libraries will you peruse . . . ? So ponder this: What does it matter if you are in Rome or Mexico City, if you just want to haunt the avenues and street corners, to I want to acknowledge and extend my gratitude to the following individuals, who offered careful feedback at various stages of the research and writing of this article: David Armitage, Ann Blair, James Hankins, Emilio Kourı́, Valeria López Fadul, Mauricio Tenorio-Trillo, and the members of the Mexican Studies Seminar at the Katz Center for Mexican Studies, University of Chicago. Hispanic American Historical Review 98:1 doi 10.1215/00182168-4294444 2018 by Duke University Press Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-pdf/98/1/1/519221/1mcmanus.pdf by guest on 04 June 2019 gaze at the magnificence of the buildings, to be idle, and to waste away while you schmooze with all and sundry like a slimy politician?1 When this letter came to the attention of scholars in Mexico City several years later, it unleashed a response that would echo for several decades. At the inauguration of the academic year at the Royal and Pontifical University in 1745, Juan Gregorio de Campos y Martı́nez (b. 1719) delivered an acerbic Ciceronian oration in which he accused Martı́ of libel under Roman and Spanish law. The leading light at the university, Juan José de Eguiara y Eguren (1696–1763), also quickly set about compiling the ultimate repudiation, a Latin biobibliographical encyclopedia that detailed the rich intellectual traditions of “Mexican America” (America Mexicana), the first volume of which appeared in 1755 under the title Bibliotheca Mexicana. This elegant folio volume included outlines of the life and works ofevery scholar of note from the conquest to his own day. The tome also opened with a series of detailed prefatory essays (anteloquia) in which Eguiara y Eguren defended the learning of the ancient Mexica and the contemporary “American Spaniards” (hispani americani), attacking the view of the famous baroque savant Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680) that Mexica pictographs were inferior to Egyptian logographic hieroglyphs. Beyond its important place in the history of scholarship in the Iberian Atlantic, the fame ofthe Bibliotheca Mexicana controversy is due in large part to the prominent place assigned to it in the development of “creole patriotism.” Creole patriotism was a specifically New World identity that developed among the inhabitants of pure Spanish descent born in the Viceroyalties of New Spain and Peru. The seeds of this increasing alienation of native-born Spaniards, referred to in modern scholarship as “creoles” (criollos), from European Spaniards dubbed “peninsular Spaniards” ( peninsulares) and the local patriotism that this engendered were planted with the bitter complaints ofthe dispossessed sons ofconquistadores against newer immigrants and germinated as the result of increasing competition between Europeanand American-born Spaniards for secular and ecclesiastical offices. These hardy saplings, nurtured by the creoles’ increasingly ambivalent attitude to the conquest and their growing appreciation ofthe American landscape, pre-Columbian antiquity, and the cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe, then came into full flower when faced with Enlightenment theories regarding the physical inferiority ofthose born in the Americas. Finally, this escalating pride, resentment, and sense of difference served as the intellectual kindling for the independence movements of the nineteenth century, when patriotism turned political. 1. Martı́, Epistolarum, 2:38–39. 2 HAHR / February / McManus Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-pdf/98/1/1/519221/1mcmanus.pdf by guest on 04 June 2019 According to Benjamin Keen, the Bibliotheca Mexicana controversy was the first large-scale articulation of a uniquely creole identity replete with its patriotic, indigenist, and Guadalupan elements, anticipating in many ways Francisco Javier Clavijero’s Storia antica del Messico (1780–1781).2 For Walter Mignolo, it was the moment when the literary weapons of Renaissance humanism were finally turned against the European invaders.3 For Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra, it marked the birth of a “patriotic epistemology,” since Eguiara y Eguren, he argued, relied exclusively on creole, native, and foreign authors with creole guides to build his argument, spurning European armchair philosophers; as the “heirs” to pre-Columbian civilization, the creoles were the only trustworthy interpreters of American culture.4 Other historians have also been attracted to the overt use of the term “Mexican” (Mexicanus), which Eguiara y Eguren used to designate a territory larger than just Mexico City, while the engraving of Our Lady of Guadalupe that graced the first page of Eguiara y Eguren’s monumental encyclopedic work led Jacques Lafaye to claim an important role for the controversy in the development of this apparently uniquely American devotion (figure 1).5 It was, however, in David A. Brading’s magisterial study The First America: The Spanish Monarchy, Creole Patriots, and the Liberal State 1492–1867 (1991) that the Bibliotheca Mexicana found its most explicit treatment as an expression of creole patriotism. In Brading’s account, the identity of Eguiara y Eguren and the other creoles stood in opposition to an “imperial tradition,” the heir to the chauvinist views of the Spanish humanist and theologian Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (1494–1573) during the Valladolid debate on the nature of the Indians (1550–1551). This dark undercurrent in Renaissance humanism logically stressed loyalty to a benign Hispanic Monarchy, the providential nature of the conquest, cultural pan-Hispanism, and American reliance on Europe for all aspects of the Christian religion, although Brading only provided a rough sketch of this competing tradition.6 In this clash of worldviews, Brading concluded, the Bibliotheca Mexicana represented nothing less than the “culmination of an entire cycle of creole culture.”7 This article offers a reassessment of the Bibliotheca Mexicana controversy, which, in being cast as a key moment in the development of creole patriotism, has been shoehorned into a tight teleology. A close reading of the original 2. Keen, Aztec Image, 223–25. 3. Mignolo, Darker Side, 63, 163–65. 4. Cañizares-Esguerra, How to Write, 201–13. 5. Lafaye, Quetzalcóatl et Guadalupe, 535. 6. Brading, First America, 1–6. 7. Ibid., 389. The Bibliotheca Mexicana Controversy 3 Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-pdf/98/1/1/519221/1mcmanus.pdf by guest on 04 June 2019 sources in Latin reveals a much more complicated picture. The identity of Eguiara y Eguren and his collaborators included a Russian doll of local and translocal affiliations ranging from a sense of membership in the Republic of Letters to a caste-based pan-Hispanism, pan-Catholicism, a staunch loyalty to the Hispanic Monarchy, and a foralismo (localism) centered on the city and the “kingdom” (reino) of New Spain. This they combined with an antiquarian, if not necessarily patriotic, interest in pre-Columbian antiquity modeled on ancient Egypt rather than Greece and Rome and an ethnocentric, although not exclusive, devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe, who as patroness of the conquest had first brought Spain and Spanishness to the Americas. Furthermore, the controversy hinged not on a defense of Mexico or Mexicans per se but on a vindication of New Spain’s branch of what contemporaries called the Republic of Letters. This branch of that larger learned community was centered in Mexico City and populated by local scholars who may have been born on either side of the Atlantic but who were in different ways rooted in Mexican America. As such, their epistemology could not be narrowly patriotic. Indeed, in the context of Eguiara y Eguren’s response, the idea of a separate imperial tradition appears as something of a straw man that serves to emphasize only the elements of Novohispanic thought that pave the historiographical road to the age of revolutions and nineteenth-century liberalism. In this way, this article contributes

中文翻译：

---

现代墨西哥早期的墨西哥图书馆争议和克里奥尔人的爱国主义

本文重新评估了墨西哥图书馆的争议（约1745年至1755年），这是“克里奥尔人爱国主义”发展的关键时刻，这一点在David A. Brading在《第一美国：西班牙君主立宪制》中最为著名。以及1492年至1867年的自由党（1991）。通过重新阅读原始资料并重建德国存在主义中克里奥尔人爱国主义的史学渊源，文章认为，争议中的新世界主角的身份与克里奥尔主义或原民族主义爱国主义无关。这些克里奥尔人和半岛上的“墨西哥人”（墨西哥人）对他们繁华的墨西哥城及其附属领地的城市中心感到自豪。但是，这个族裔类似于早期的现代城市国家，例如米兰公国，而不是像墨西哥这样的现代民族国家。这种本地身份也完全符合对西班牙君主立宪制的忠诚，更大的泛西班牙种姓身份，以及信奉天主教共和国的归属感。1718年，阿利坎特（Alicante）院长，西班牙著名晚期人文主义学者马努埃尔·马丁（ManuelMartı）（1663–1737）向年轻的西班牙人安东尼奥·卡里略（Antonio Carrillo）写了一封信，他正考虑穿越大西洋。马尔蒂（Martı）在年轻人中看到了一些求学才华，对此想法感到震惊，并在一封声名狼藉的信件中表现出了他的不屑：您会向印度人当中如此巨大的信件沙漠中的哪个对象投降？我不会问你去哪一位老师，你可以从谁那里学到一些东西，但是您会找到任何人听你说话吗？我不会问您是否会找到一个不懂任何事的人，而是一个想完全了解任何事的人，或者简单地说，是一个不鄙视字母的人。确实，您会翻阅哪些书，并且会细读哪些图书馆。。。？因此，请仔细考虑：如果您是在罗马或墨西哥城，或者只是想在大街小巷和街角徘徊，那有什么关系呢？我想向以下人员表示感谢，并感谢他们在不同阶段提供了认真的反馈意见本文的研究和写作：David Armitage，Ann Blair，James Hankins，Emilio Kourı́，ValeriaLópezFadul，Mauricio Tenorio-Trillo，以及芝加哥大学卡兹墨西哥研究中心墨西哥研究研讨会的成员。西班牙裔美国人历史评论98：1 doi 10。杜克大学出版社（Duke University Press）的1215 / 00182168-4294444 2018（2019年6月4日，宾客从https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-pdf/98/1/1/519221/1mcmanus.pdf下载）凝视着建筑物像闲荡的政客一样闲散无聊而浪费，而当你像个黏糊糊的政治家一样杂乱无章时？1几年后，这封信引起墨西哥城的学者们的注意时，它发出了数十年回声。1745年，皇家和宗座大学的学年就职典礼上，胡安·格雷戈里奥·德·坎波斯和马丁内斯（生于1719年）发表了一个塞西隆式的致辞，他根据罗马和西班牙的法律指控马丁内尔为诽谤。大学的领军人物JuanJoséde Eguiara y Eguren（1696–1763）也迅速着手编写最终的否定书，拉丁美洲的生物书目百科全书，详细介绍了“墨西哥美洲”（美洲墨西哥）的丰富知识传统，该书的第一卷于1755年出版，标题为墨西哥图书馆。这本精美的作品集涵盖了从征服到自己生活的每一位著名学者的生活和作品的轮廓。本书的开头还发表了一系列详尽的预言文章（anteloquia），其中Eguiara y Eguren捍卫了对古代墨西哥和当代“美国西班牙人”（hispani americani）的学习，攻击了著名的巴洛克贤人Athanasius Kircher（1602年）的观点。 –1680年），墨西哥象形文字不及埃及对数象形文字。除了在伊比利亚大西洋学术史上的重要地位之外，墨西哥图书馆争议的名声在很大程度上是由于在“克里奥尔人爱国主义”的发展中赋予它的突出地位。克里奥尔人的爱国主义是新世界特有的一种身份，在新西班牙和秘鲁总督出生的纯正西班牙血统的居民中发展起来。这种日益疏远的本土出生的西班牙人从欧洲西班牙人称为“半岛西班牙人”（peninsulares）的现代学术中称为“克里奥尔人”（criollos）的种子，以及由此产生的当地爱国主义，埋下了对这些人的强烈抱怨。被剥夺的征服者之子反对新移民，由于欧洲和美国出生的西班牙人在世俗和教会职位上竞争的加剧而发芽。这些强壮的树苗，克里奥尔人对征服的态度越来越矛盾，对美国景观，哥伦布时期前的古代文化以及瓜达卢佩圣母的崇拜也日益受到熏陶，然后在面对关于出生于此地的人的身体卑劣的启蒙理论时，花开了美洲。最终，这种不断升级的自豪感，怨恨和差异感成为十九世纪爱国主义变成政治独立运动时的知识分子点燃。1.马丁，书信，2：38–39。2 HAHR /二月/麦克马纳斯（MahManus）从https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-pdf/98/1/1/1/519221/1mcmanus.pdf于2019年6月4日由宾客下载本着墨西哥备受争议的本杰明·基恩（Benjamin Keen）的说法是第一个大规模传播具有独特爱国主义特征的克里奥尔人身份的活动，土著主义者和瓜达卢潘分子，从许多方面预见了弗朗西斯科·哈维尔·克拉维耶罗（Francisco Javier Clavijero）的梅西科·安提卡·德尔·梅西科（Storia antica del Messico）（1780–1781）。2对于沃尔特·米格诺洛（Walter Mignolo）来说，那是文艺复兴时期人文主义文学武器最终转向欧洲侵略者的时刻。3卡涅扎雷斯·埃斯圭拉（Cañizares-Esguerra）标志着“爱国主义认识论”的诞生，因为他认为埃吉亚拉·伊格伦（Eguiara y Eguren）完全依靠克里奥尔人，本地人和外国作者，并以克里奥尔语为指导来建立自己的论点，从而European弃了欧洲扶手椅哲学家。作为哥伦布时期前文明的“继承人”，克里奥尔人是美国文化中唯一可信赖的解释者。4其他历史学家也被“墨西哥”（Mexicanus）一词的公开使用所吸引，这是Eguiara y Eguren用来指代的。不仅仅是墨西哥城的领土，瓜达卢佩圣母像的雕刻充实了Eguiara y Eguren具纪念意义的百科全书的第一页，导致雅克·拉法耶（Jacques Lafaye）主张在这场显然独特的美国奉献精神的发展中发挥重要作用（图1）。5然而，确实如此。 ，在戴维·A·布雷丁（David A. Brading）的权威研究《第一美洲：西班牙君主制，克里奥尔语爱国者和1492–1867（1991）的自由国家》中，《墨西哥图书馆》找到了最明确的对待，作为克里奥尔人爱国主义的一种表达。在布雷丁的论述中，埃吉亚拉·伊古兰（Eguiara y Eguren）和其他克里奥尔人的身份与“帝国传统”相对立，西班牙人文主义者和神学家胡安·吉涅斯·德·塞普尔韦达（1494–1573）的沙文主义观点的继承人印第安人的天性（1550–1551）。文艺复兴时期人文主义的这种黑暗暗流在逻辑上强调了对良性西班牙君主制的忠诚，征服的天性，文化泛西班牙主义以及美国人对基督教宗教各方面的依赖，尽管布拉丁只是粗略地描述了这种竞争传统。6在这种世界观的冲突中，布拉丁总结说，墨西哥书目代表的是“整个克里奥尔文化循环的高潮。” 7本文对墨西哥书目的争议进行了重新评估，该争议被视为一种争议。克里奥尔人爱国主义发展的关键时刻，已被塞进紧缩的目的论中。仔细阅读原始的2。敏锐，阿兹台克人的图像，223-25。3. Mignolo，《黑暗的一面》，63，163–65。4.Cañizares-Esguerra，《如何写作》 201-13。5.拉斐耶 Quetzalcóatlet Guadalupe，535。6. Brading，第一美洲，1-6。7.同上，389.墨西哥图书馆争议3由来宾于2019年6月4日从https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-pdf/98/1/1/519221/1mcmanus.pdf下载揭示了更为复杂的画面。Eguiara y Eguren和他的合作者的身份包括俄罗斯洋娃娃，这些洋娃娃具有地方和跨地区的隶属关系，范围从字母共和国的归属感到基于种姓的泛西班牙主义，泛天主教，对西班牙君主制的坚定忠诚，还有一个以城市和新西班牙的“王国”（reino）为中心的论坛（地方主义）。他们结合了对古罗马前古代（而非古希腊而不是希腊和罗马）以及以民族为中心（尽管并非唯一）的哥伦布时期前古代的兴趣，甚至不一定是爱国主义。奉献给瓜达卢佩圣母，他作为征服的先把西班牙和西班牙人带到了美洲。此外，这场争论不在于捍卫墨西哥或墨西哥人本身，而在于对新西班牙同时代所谓的字母共和国的分支的辩护。这个更大的学术社区的分支机构以墨西哥城为中心，并由当地学者组成，这些学者可能出生于大西洋的两岸，但以不同的方式扎根于墨西哥美国。因此，他们的认识论不可能狭地爱国。确实，在Eguiara y Eguren的回应中，分开的帝国传统的观念似乎是个稻草人，只强调新西伯利亚思想的要素，这些要素为革命和19世纪自由主义铺平了史学道路。这样，本文有助于