Talk:Luis Lasso de la Vega

message: I realize the article is short, but there is really no other information available on the man.  According to Wikipedia, "a short article on a topic which has a very narrow scope may not be a stub."  Would anyone consider this a reason to remove the stub tag?  Rockero 19:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub tag 

message: The statements in the lede and in the section "Writings" do not reflect the state of the question.  It is by no means generally accepted that Lasso wrote the Nican Mopohua, and the rival assessment - that the author of that part of the Huei tlamahuiçoltica was Antonio Valeriano - is by no means a fringe view confined to Mexican "ecclesiastical writers" (as some would have it).  Edmundo O'Gorman (1986) and Miguel Léon-Portilla (2001), for example,  subscribed to the Valeriano authorship (as did James Lockhart in 1992).  
Nor are the conclusions arrived at by Sousa, Poole and Lockhart (1998) cast in concrete.  Indeed, they characterize the results of their investigations as "provisional" (p.4).  Their major conclusion is that the HT is a unitary work, and they took it for granted (as opposed to demonstrating) that Lasso was the author:- "We have seen here several different reasons to believe that Laso was strongly, directly involved in the writing" (p.44); and "The texts are surely compatible with the hypothesis of two writers, one doubtless Laso de la Vega and the other an indigenous aide" (p.46).  
The subsidiary questions they examined (without coming to any hard and fast conclusions) were:- 
(1) whether HT was a translation/ adaptation of Sánchez's Imagen or independent of it:- "Direct dependence cannot be strictly proved, but one can at least examine the two texts to see if such a relationship was possible, and how it could have worked" (p.8); and "It seems to us that the hypothesis that Laso de la Vega took the core of his book's material from Sánchez . . is the most likely of the possible explanations of its genesis"(p.17); and "We consider our conclusions on the relationship of the Huei tlamahuiçoltica and the Imagen more as indicated than as definitively established", p.18), and 
(2) whether Lasso had any indigenous aides (probably, pp. 46f.).  
Professor Brading (p. 360) has seriously over-interpreted their conclusions.Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship 

message: In his preface de La Vega calls himself "bachiller"; as does the censor, Padre Balthasar González, in his opinion included in the front matter of Huei tlamahuiçoltica. Bartolache (Manifiesto satisfactorio, 1790, pp. 3-8) in discussing the authorship of Huei tlamahuiçoltica, twice dignifies him as "B[achille]r" (pp. 3, 7) and, incidentally invariably writes "Laso".
Brading (p. 81) accords him the title "Lic[enciado]." (perhaps following Doctor Don Pedro de Barrientos in his permission to publish, also included in the front matter of Huei tlamahuiçoltica) ; gives 1647 as the year when he was appointed vicar of the ermita at Tepeyac ; and states  that he registered for a course in Canon Law at the University of Mexico in 1623. He adds that it was "his merits" that brought him promotion to the cathedral chapter in 1657.  Brading offers no sources for any of these details, but quotes a portion of Florencia's eulogy (Estrella del Norte, p.91).  From my own reading I can see that Florencia (cap. 16 §200) calls him "el Licenciado Luis Lazo [sic] de la Vega".  Brading also observes in a footnote (n. 17) that Mateo de la Cruz also praised Luis in a work dated 1660 (incl. in Testimonios Historicos, 1982, pp. 268f.)
Poole (1995) says (p. 110) only that Laso [sic] was vicar of the eremita in 1648 and that he was appointed medio racionero at the cathedral chapter in 1657.  In a footnote (35) Poole mentions that Ascensión León-Portilla says he studied at the University (presumably the source of Brading's own remark) and that he was fluent in Nahuatl in which he preached; but, Poole adds, AL-P gave no source for those statements which he (Poole) says he has not been able to corroborate.
Miranda Godínez Miranda (Dos Cultos Fundantes, 2001) writes "Laso" in the main text (p. 234) and "Lasso" in a footnote (p. 233, n.3).  He calls him "bachiller" and attributes his appointment as vicar at Tepeyac to 1649 (p. 234).  
Although it is true that in the front matter to Huei tlamahuiçoltica all three writers (including de la Vega himself) write "Lasso", all three also use the archaic form "Luys" for his Christian name.  Modern writers in English do not follow them : Brading and Poole invariably write "Laso" in their works, as does Louise Burkhart (Before Guadalupe, 2001). The modern Mexican practice seems other (e.g., Francisco de la Maza, El guadalupanismo mexicano and Escalada Enciclopedia Guadalupana, vol. 3, to name no more).
On balance, it seems the preferred spelling for an English readership is "Laso" not "Lasso" ; and on the grounds of Luis's own self-description in his preface, "bachiller" must be recognised as his proper title.  The date for the start of the incumbency of Tepeyac is, on this evidence, anyone's guess within the limits 1647 - January 1649.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridiculus mus (talk • contribs) 11:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status as licenciado, and other data