This work is an English translation, with some revisions, of the author’s La filosofía Náhuatl: estudiada en sus fuentes, published in 1956 (second edition, slightly revised, 1959). It constituted the first attempt to analyze in detail the bulk of the existing data relevant to what the author held was the genuinely philosophical ideology of the late pre-Hispanic Nahua-speaking communities of central Mexico. León-Portilla, together with Garibay, is a leader of what almost amounts to a “school” of students (now revolving around the Seminario de Cultura Náhuatl of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) who have published a number of recent studies concerned with the ideological aspects of what they call “Náhuatl culture”—principally derived from detailed analyses of 16th-century Náhuatl texts. Although León-Portilla has now made a large number of contributions to this subject, this book, his first concerned with the theme, contains most of his fundamental ideas.
He begins by asking: “Did the Nahuas concern themselves with the traditional problems of philosophy?” In answering in the affirmative, he sees this philosophical stage as having developed, by a process of “progressive conceptualization” stemming from doubts concerning the accuracy of the “answers provided by religious and traditional thought,” out of an earlier (and surviving) magico-religious stage. He even suggests that “professional wise men or philosophers,” the the tlamatinime, functioned as a group separate from the priesthood, although he also affirms that “as among the Greeks, it was the lyric poets who first became aware of and enunciated the great problems of human existence.”
His evidence consists almost entirely of Náhuatl texts from a variety of sources (listed and briefly discussed in an appendix). His method of demonstration is to present passages from these sources in English translation (the original Náhuatl, given in appendices in the Mexican editions, is omitted), accompanied by detailed analyses. Besides the history of the study of the subject (in an appendix), a number of related themes are dealt with: cosmogony; cosmology; the supreme hermaphroditic divine power (Ometeotl); man’s origin, nature, free will, and destiny; the concept of the afterlife; education; ethics; law; and the concepts of history and art. His principal conclusions, aside from the fundamental one of the existence of a high level philosophical system, emerge during his textual analyses: e.g., the Mexica possessed a “mystico-militaristic” vision of themselves as a chosen “people of the Sun” whose mission was to sustain the universe by supplying the Sun with its sustenance, human hearts and blood; the tlamatinime developed a quasi-pantheistic “omeyotization” of the universe, wherein the sexually dualistic creative principle overrode the crowded pantheon of deities of the “popular religion”; “the only truth on earth” was believed to be that found in intuitive poetry; and the core of the philosophical system was an aesthetic conception of the universe where “beauty was the only reality.”
How valid is León-Portilla’s essential thesis? On the basis of his own evidence it would seem that he has often overstated his case. That speculations approximating “philosophy” in Western culture were not uncommonly indulged in by the more profound and sensitive members of the priesthood and the priest-educated aristocracy seems virtually certain. Lyric poetry appears to have provided the chief outlet for these musings, which were characteristically in a melancholy, pessimistic vein. On the other hand, the existence of a truly professional group of full-time “thinkers” devoted to an essentially rational inquiry into the origin, fundamental nature, and ultimate fate of man and the universe can be legitimately questioned. Certainly there were tlamatinime, individuals distinguished by their erudition, experience, and sound judgment—but their sharp separation from the priesthood and the older, more experienced members of the ruling group is doubtful (it is significant that Sahagún also applies this label to sorcerers and diviners). Poets and chanters, some of whom may have been maintained and sponsored by the rulers, probably contributed a good share of the more poetic passages quoted by Léon-Portilla. The tlamatinime were probably principally concerned with the preservation and inculcation of the great body of traditional knowledge, permeated with religious ideology. Space prevents further discussion, but the reviewer is convinced that this view of the role of the tlamatinime is more consonant with what is known of late pre-Hispanic central Mexican culture in general.
The entire validity of the term “Náhuatl culture” can also perhaps be questioned—because an essentially similar culture was carried by speakers of other languages in central Mexico (Otomí, Matlatzinca, Mazahua, Popoloca, etc.), while some Nahua-speakers outside the area (Colima-Jalisco-Nayarit-Zacatecas, Oaxaca coast, Guatemala-Salvador-Nicaragua, etc.) were culturally somewhat distinct. However, it is admittedly difficult to think of a brief term clearly more satisfactory. Disconcerting at times to this reviewer was the writer’s habit of repeating translations of the texts with slightly differing phraseology. In general, the discussion is quite reiterative.
Very much on the plus side is the reliance placed on native language texts, the best possible primary source. The linguistic analyses of these are often very valuable. Since these texts are typically highly metaphoric and thus often ambiguous, some difference of opinion concerning their precise interpretation is probably inevitable. In spite of what this reviewer believes to be an overstatement of his case, Léon-Portilla has drawn useful attention to an aspect of ancient Mexican studies too often neglected and has made an important contribution toward a deeper understanding of late pre-Hispanic central Mexican culture. The book deserves to be read by anyone seriously interested in the native civilizations of Nuclear America.
