that could be developed more as well as occasional overreaches. His discussion of the weakness or even non-existence of the Inquisition in Michoacán is fascinating. More sustained comparisons with the work of Solange Alberro and Serge Gruzinski (Mexico), Irene Silverblatt and Ana Schaposnik (Peru), and Laura de Mello e Souza and Luiz Mott (Brazil) could help us gain a sense for how this institution worked and didn’t work in colonial Latin America. One could also imagine comparisons with Goa in India as well as the Iberian heartland in Spain and Portugal. Nesvig’s criticism of William Taylor’s concept of ‘Magistrates of the Sacred’ seems to elide sixteenth-century chaos with the more ordered seventeenthand eighteenth-century contexts exhaustively researched by Taylor (51–52). My own early efforts to deconstruct the history and legend of Vasco de Quiroga were far less celebratory than Nesvig implies (53, esp. 205 n.13), though I am thrilled with the mass of archival evidence he has provided to demonstrate the (frequently vicious) centrality of politics in local evangelization efforts. Nesvig’s pithy and occasionally coarse translations perhaps accurately reflect the sixteenthcentury context he is analyzing. I found his serious analysis of the ‘grammar of violence’ and the ‘semiotics of power’ to be brilliant (129), the shock value of certain words to be less so, both in translations and when they crept into Nesvig’s own prose. These are minor quibbles. On matters of substance Nesvig has provided us with a very fine book indeed, one that I will be certain to add to my seminar on ‘Religion, power and politics in Latin America.’ On a final note, the community of scholars in the United States interested in the social history of Catholicism in Mexico is small. I am sure our mutual friend Paul Vanderwood would have been pleased with this innovative, honest, contentious and productive book.

中文翻译：

---

El botón de seda negra：traducción religiosa y cultura material en las Indias

这可以发展得更多，偶尔也会超出范围。他对米却肯州宗教裁判所的弱点甚至不存在的讨论令人着迷。与 Solange Alberro 和 Serge Gruzinski（墨西哥）、Irene Silverblatt 和 Ana Schaposnik（秘鲁）以及 Laura de Mello e Souza 和 Luiz Mott（巴西）的工作进行更持续的比较，可以帮助我们了解该机构如何运作和没有在殖民地拉丁美洲行不通。人们还可以想象将其与印度的果阿以及西班牙和葡萄牙的伊比利亚腹地进行比较。内斯维格对威廉泰勒的“神圣裁判官”概念的批评似乎通过泰勒 (51-52) 详尽研究的更有序的 17 世纪和 18 世纪背景来消除 16 世纪的混乱。我自己早期解构 Vasco de Quiroga 的历史和传说的努力远没有 Nesvig 所暗示的那么庆祝（53，特别是 205 n.13），尽管我对他提供的大量档案证据感到兴奋（经常恶性）政治在地方传福音工作中的中心地位。内斯维格精辟而偶尔粗略的翻译或许准确地反映了他正在分析的 16 世纪背景。我发现他对“暴力的语法”和“权力的符号学”的认真分析非常精彩（129），某些词的震撼价值不那么重要，无论是在翻译中还是在它们悄悄进入内斯维格自己的散文时。这些都是小问题。在实质问题上，内斯维格确实为我们提供了一本非常好的书，我肯定会在我的“宗教”研讨会中加入这本书。拉丁美洲的权力和政治。最后一点，美国对墨西哥天主教社会历史感兴趣的学者群体很小。我相信我们共同的朋友 Paul Vanderwood 会对这本创新、诚实、有争议且富有成效的书感到满意。