Cabeza De Vaca Analysis

Siddharth Srinivasan
Dr. Judith Jones
Textual Analysis and Argumentation
29 September, 2017

Differences in Writing Styles in the Early Literature of American Exploration Perception is the unique filter that every person develops through their personality and their actions. Perception can alter how people view different objects, works, ideas, and even other people. In describing the customs of the indigenous people met in their relative areas, Sahagun and Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca differ on the purpose and the standpoint from which they describe them. We can view these differences in purpose and writing style by means of the concept of perception. Sahagun writes about his findings with help and direct insight by the people themselves,
which strengthens his research greatly, and also shows that he perceives the primary source to be an integral part of any opinion.
Cabeza de Vaca, on the other hand, asserts this “retelling” or opinion that he gives on the natives that he encountered as his duty to relay, so that others who seek to join his cause in expedition can learn or even draw their own conclusions. This difference in “perception”, so to speak, is what makes up the core difference in values that both of these writers display and what effect it has on their works. Sahagun’s research style of using a survey-type system to “interview” all roles of society in Aztec life shows his priorities are skewed towards primary sources instead of personal opinion. Sahagun also allows the reader to draw their own conclusions on what responses should be valued highly compared to other responses from different sects of society. To contrast the writing styles of Sahagun and Cabeza de Vaca, we can clearly see that while Cabeza de Vaca morphs his encounters into a “story” that is much more oriented towards specific reader (the king), Sahagun presents facts in a clear manner that not only includes input from the Natives themselves, but allows the reader to make their own conclusions on the subject. This brings us to the crux of the
difference between the two: the concepts of pity, sympathy, and empathy. Sahagun, on one side, rather than joining the natives in their practices and then criticizing them, he takes an unbiased view towards the matter in the form of this interview, and even goes as far as to tailor it to their understanding. Cabeza de Vaca, on the other hand, does somewhat practice the culture of the natives, and then goes on to morph the set of events into a story that includes his opinions and suggestions for opinions that he thinks the reader should draw also. He does this in the form of his description of himself in the native “costume”. One example of this is when we see him describe his role as a medicine man: “The Islanders wanted to make physicians of us without examination or a review of diplomas” (Cabeza de Vaca 92-93). This portrayal of himself as a sort of “god” to the Native Americans shows how he integrates his self-esteem and opinions in his text. However, Sahagun does nothing of the sort. Instead, he provides information in a clean factual system that just lists out observations and facts, without drawing conclusions from them. In this way, we can see how the two perspectives on similar concepts lead to drastic differences in writing purpose and style, and how they impact the reader.
Cabeza de Vaca and Sahagun both do the favor of informing the reader on the life and the customs of the respective natives they encounter.
These contrasting methodologies highlight why it is so important to include primary source documents and facts such that to not to, again, put a perception “filter” over the bare research. This is shown by example when Sahagun writes, “Here are told the inherent qualities, the nature, of those related by lineage.” (Sahagun 2). This prefaces his work by introducing the aspect of a fact-based set of listings. This is radically different than Cabeza de Vaca, who brings himself into the picture. However, there are some inconsistencies in Cabeza de Vaca’s writing. When he describes himself as a healer, he talks as if he is a supreme power to them, almost to the extent of using the Natives for his benefit. One example of this aspect of his mentality is when Cabeza de Vaca says, “We scoffed at their cures and at the idea that we knew how to heal…Our method, however, was to bless the sick, breathe upon them, and pray earnestly to God our Lord for their recovery.” (Cabeza de Vaca 95, 107-108). This shows how, by using words like “scoffed”, Cabeza de Vaca portrays himself as superior. Yet, in other situations, he seems sincere about helping the natives, such as when he tries to heal them with his blessings. This fault or rift between his two mindsets of draconian criticism along with self-deification, and his sincerity in being able to help is
telling just from how he injects himself into his writing. On the other hand, there is not much to draw about Sahagun from his works, as he does a good job of mostly keeping opinions out of the work. This highlights the importance of audience, as how we write is greatly affected by who we write to. Furthermore, the use of primary sources by Sahagun not only validates his research, but gives deeper insight into the customs of the people he encountered. In this way, Sahagun demonstrates the importance of involving the natives when writing an account of them, as contrasted to Cabeza de Vaca.