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,
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
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