Andres I Prieto is a associate professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder where he teaches Spanish and Portuguese advanced composition. He received his Phd in 2006 from the University of Connecticut. His recent works include include “Confessing to be an Indian: Penance and the Creation of a Native Self in José de Acosta’s Missiology,” and “From the Devil’s Herb to Saint Thomas’ Gift: The Christianization of Guarani Sacred Plants in the Jesuit Reductions in Paraguay.” His 2011 work, Missionary Scientists: Jesuit Science in Spanish South America, 1570-1810, discusses the rise of the Society of Jesus in colonial South America. In particular, Prieto’s work concerns the unique mix between religion, missionary work, science, and colonial culture. An insightful work, Prieto has produced a substantially well-researched piece of scholarship that is much welcomed by history of science and colonial Latin America scholars.
Prieto’s work is surrounds examinations of case studies, these being the natural history publications produced by Jesuits during or immediately after their missionary work in Spanish South America. The book has eight chapters organized into three parts. These case studies proceed chronologically, beginning with the highly influential publication by Jose de Acosta shortly after the Jesuits arrived in Peru in 1568, and concluding with two Jesuit writers (Ovalle and Rosale) who wrote natural histories of Chile toward the end of the 17th century. In between, Prieto chronicles the change in Jesuit methodology, missionary practices, pedagogical focus, and indigenous-missionary relationships. For those readers more interested in the religious climate and influences that surrounded the Jesuits knowledge production, chapters 4,5, and 6 offer an incredibly detailed into the cosmology and pedagogical foundations of Jesuit practices in the New World. For those who are more interested in the production of colonial natural history in the early modern period, chapters 1,2,3 and 8 are where one can find discussions of the scientific enterprise more in-line with current historiography about the scientific revolution. The audience for this work is most likely those already familiar with colonial structure or the history of science in general, as the book does not go into great detail about scientific practice outside of the Jesuits religious methodology.
Chapter one explores the early tensions between the Jesuits and colonial governments in the second half of the 16th century. The Jesuits, preferring to fulfill a pedagogical rather than pastoral role in South America, had a contentious relationship with colonial administration, who preferred that the Jesuits take up spiritual curatorial duties in the doctrinas (read encomiendas). This push toward missionary responsibility was meet with initial refusal on the part of the Jesuits, who preferred to teach at their colleges in urban centers, until Jose de Acosta convinced the order that their mission would be better served if they took up the evangelization of indigenous peoples. The result of this was a Spanish empire spanning correspondence and collaboration network which aided the Jesuits in their research of the natural world, which in turn would bring greater glory to god.
In chapter two Pietro discusses the natural history research conducted by the Jesuits and how their scientific inquiries aided in their evangelization efforts. Many of the natural histories written by Jesuits during this time read like herbals, focusing on specific flora that had a medical or economic benefit to the reynos of South America. A more pragmatic reason for the Jesuits concern with indigenous medicine was their competition with native shaman (machi) for influence over indigenous tribes, and to a greater extent, to police the religious practices of the indigenous communities that they oversaw. The Jesuits were exceedingly overbearing in their efforts to discredit the cosmology and healing practices of indigenous peoples, not only because serving as physicians gave the Jesuits a formidable position of power within indigenous society, but also because the lack of theorizing behind indigenous medicine made the Jesuits see indigenous healing practices as demonic.
Chapter three concerns this “demonic” healing practiced by indigenous peoples, and how the Jesuits deconstructed indigenous healing practices and pharmacopeia into a European framework, subsequently claiming the flora of South America for Christian purposes instead of indigenous purposes. The root of their disbelief and discrediting of indigenous healing lay in the cosmological origins of indigenous medical beliefs. By reframing indigenous knowledge (read extracting) into European medical theory, Jesuits could legitimize the use of indigenous flora and medicine and introduce indigenous pharmacopeia into European and Christian philosophical and theological frameworks.
Chapter four concerns the developing methodology of Jesuits in the New World. This chapter follows the Jesuit missionary Bernabe Cobo as he spends his life traveling around South America and Mexico compiling his natural history, Historia del Nuevo Mundo. Prieto uses the case of Cobo to argue that by the early decades of the 17th century the Jesuit presence in South America and Mexico had evolved into a collaborative enterprise, with figures such as Cobo conducting research in Jesuit archives and in the field as they evangelized the native population. The structure of the Jesuits in South America offered a uniquely collaborative opportunity for researches such as Cobo, who used the litany of archives, fellow Jesuits, and time spent in different locales to produce a truly collaborative natural history. The international dynamic of the Society of Jesus also allowed for collaboration not only with Jesuits of the new world, but also with the old, turning the scientific enterprise of New World Jesuits into a transoceanic endeavor.
Chapter five discusses the engagement New World Jesuits had in the knowledge production on the international and local levels. Following an Italian missionary (Nicolo Mascardi) as he evangelizes and corresponds with his superiors in Europe, Prieto shows that Jesuit natural history research not only informed local knowledge, but also informed European knowledge, as the Italian Jesuit conducted extensive astronomical observations at the behest of renowned Jesuit Scholars in Europe such as Kircher and Nieremberg.
In chapter six, Prieto takes a deep dive in the theological and philosophical underpinnings of Jose de Acosta’s Historia Natural y Moral de las Indias. This chapter touches upon the devlopment of Jesuit and Christian cosmology at the time when Acosta was writing his work, in particular discussing how the Jesuits methodology was influenced by Scholasticism, Aristotelian Philosophy, and natural magic. Acosta’s methodology was informed by the Aristotelian ‘why’, which manifested itself in Acosta’s work with a focus on scientia and god as the final cause for the difference and uniqueness of the natural world. To quote Prieto, “the Aristotelian manner of inquiry about nature, with its implicit link between the questioning mind and the answering world, was consistent with the Jesuit anthropocentric view of the world, (162). For Acosta, the study of nature revealed the majesty of god by showing the limitations of human rationality, hence the underlying cause for nature and the occult forces so discussed in contemporary scientific circles being attributed to god in Acosta’s work. Natural history, then, to 16th century Jesuits was about displaying the majesty of god, while moral history (human history) concerned the movement toward salvation. To Acosta, the description of the New world fulfilled both of these purposes.
Chapter seven contrasts Acosta’s work with Cobo’s. In particular, this chapter concerns the devloping methodology of Jesuit natural historians since Acosta’s time on the continent. While Acosta wished to compare the New and Old worlds, Cobo endeavored to show the uniqueness of the New world by playing close attention to indigenous nomenclature, taxonomy, and ecology contamination brought about by colonization. While Acosta thought that in-depth knowledge about nature was sinful, Cobo believed that examining nature could lead to a greater understanding of god’ majesty. Here we can see a slight break from the scholastic tradition of Acosta to the slight humanistic approach of Cobo.
Chapter eight touches again on methodology. In this chapter Pietro discusses how natural history of the New World, particularly Chile, served a proto-nationalistic function as the New World came under attack by European scholars. The two methodologies in this chapter, Ovalle’s and Rosale’s, vary in their attribution and description of the wonders of the new world, with Rosale focusing more on the flora indigenous peoples rather than the examples of wonders and miracles supposedly present in the New World that Ovalle touches upon, but both serve to highlight the uniqueness of the flora and people of South America.
Missionary Scientists does an extraordinary job of focusing the contributions of Jesuits to early modern science. Prieto makes incredible use of Jesuit publications and correspondence to present his case studies, in the process firmly placing the Jesuits in the scientific enterprise of the early modern period. In addition, this book is a much-welcomed entry into HIST 635 examination of natural history in the early modern period. It is refreshing to see that contemporaries of Sloane paid more attention to indigenous peoples, even if these actors were trying to disrupt their mode of living.
This work goes into more detail about the religious motivations of the examined scientists than perhaps any book we have read so far in this class. In particular, the examination of the influence of scholasticism and Aristotelian philosophy was much welcomed. Though many of the figures we have examined so far have come from protestant nations, Prieto’s discussion of the influence of Aquinas and Augustus on science in the 15th and 16th centuries (albeit in this instance in catholic circumstances) provides a great amount of insight into the theological undertones that permeated scientific inquiry in the early modern period.
There is a lot to say about the treatment of indigenous peoples in this work. Certainly, it is my personal belief that any history dealing with the colonization of indigenous peoples in such close proximity to its inquiry needs to attach at least some discussion of postcolonial theory. This was not present in any meaningful fashion in Prieto’s work beyond cursory acknowledgments of the uniqueness of indigenous cultures and cosmologies. Prieto can be forgiven for this omission, however, since his work provides a great amount of insight into the exploitation and evangelization of indigenous peoples, even if it is not touched upon in his work. A great deal of discussion could be had, and is occurring in the current discourse, about the indigenous medical practices and indigenous knowledge production and whether these native endeavors should be recognized as science, but since this is a work concerning a unique institution operating within the colonial framework, an in-depth discussion about indigenous knowledge production would likely have deterred from the authors goal of situating Jesuit scholars in the center of early modern scientific inquiry.
It is surprising, however, that for a work that is ostensibly about early modern science, how little science is actually discussed or examined. Though it is clear Prieto thoroughly examined these Jesuit’s writings, apparently doing most of the translations himself, no descriptions of flora by these Jesuits make it into the work. Personally, this seems a glaring omission, especially considering some of the other texts we have examined that go into excruciating detail about scientific practice.
Personally, I enjoyed this book very much. As someone who studies Latin America, Missionary Scientists gave me much insight into the evangelizing process, and the cultural function the Society of Jesus played in the Spanish colonial venture.
