¹ This report was first published in 1630. Within a few years it had been translated into French, Dutch, Latin and German. For a discussion of the works of Benavides, see Hodge, Fred W., “Bibliography of Fray Alonso de Benavides,” Museum of the American Indian, Indian Notes and Monographs, vol. III, no. 1 (New York, 1919).Google Scholar In 1634 Benavides revised this Memorial and sent it to Pope Urban VIII. This latter work, which is somewhat more valuable for the historian, remained hidden for centuries in the Archive of the Propaganda Fide in Rome, where it was recently disacovered by Monsignor Peter Guilday, of The Catholic University of America. For a comparison of these two memorials, see O’Hara, John F., C.S.C., “The Benavides Memorials,” in the Catholic Historical Review, III (1917), 76-78.Google Scholar Both of these memorials have been translated into English: The Memorial of Fray Alonso de Benavides, 1630, translated by Mrs. Edward E. Ayer, with notes by F. W. Hodge and C. F. Lummis (Chicago, 1916), and The Benavides Memorial of 1634, translated with notes by F. W. Hodge, G. P. Hammond and Agapito Rey (Albuquerque, 1945).

For both the king and the pope Benavides wrote glowing accounts of the missions. He wished to have the good will of both, for the missions depended on the king for material assistance and protection, and on the pope for spiritual privileges.

² In addition to the memorials of Benavides, there are other sources which deal in some detail with these miraculous journeys. First there is Ximénez Samaniego, Fray Joseph O.F.M., Relación de la Vida de la Ven. Madre Sor María de Jesús (Madrid, 1775), pp. 109–129.Google Scholar There is also Agustín de Vetancurt, Menologio Franciscano de los Varones más Señalados (Mexico, 1871), p. 302. Another work of Benavides, a letter which he wrote from Spain to the missionaries in New Mexico, also carries important information. It was published under the title Tanto que se saco que el R. Padre Fr. Alonso de Benavides, Custodio que fue del Nuevo Mexico, embio a los Religiosos de la Santa Custodia de la Conversion de San Pablo de dicho Reyno, desde Madrid, el año de 1631. Among other places it can be found in Palóu, Francisco, Evangelista del Mar Pacífico, edited by Aguilar, M. (Madrid, 1944), Appendix, pp. 308–317.Google Scholar Within this letter of Benavides, there is contained a letter of Sor María de Jesús entitled “Traslado de las Razones que la bendita Madre María de Jesús escribe a los dichos Padres del Nuevo México.” All of the above materials are translated in Hackett, Charles W., Pichardo’s Treatise on the Limits of Louisiana and Texas (Austin, 1934), vol. II, chaps. XXII, XXVIGoogle Scholar.

³ Shea, John Gilmary, History of the Catholic Church in Colonial Days (New York, 1886), p. 195.Google Scholar

⁴ Hodge et al., op. cit., p. 93.

⁵ In regard to this occurrence Samaniego says: “The religious wondered at this occurrence, never before experienced, and asked the Indians the cause of it” (Hackett, op. cit., p. 488). This is a contradiction of Benavides’ statement.

⁶ Hodge et al, op. cit., p. 92.

⁷ Cedula of November 15, 1627 (cited in Shea, op. cit., p. 195).

⁸ Hodge et al., op. cit., p. 93.

⁹ Samaniego enters into a discussion as to whether these visits were made in the body or in some spiritual manner. The confessor of Sor María concluded that she had been transported bodily to New Mexico.

¹⁰ The accounts which we have of this episode are not clear on just how much Manso y Zúñiga and the missionaries under Perea knew of the claims of Mary of Agreda. Contrary to the general opinion, it seems that the essentials of the miraculous journeys of Sor María de- Jesús were in all probability sent to the archbishop and communicated by him to the missionaries, who may very well have heard of the happenings before they left Spain. This conclusion is based on the fact that Benavides in his Memorial of 1634 states explicitly that when these missionaries came to New Mexico, they related the claims of María de Jesús. Furthermore, Samaniego, in his biography of María de Jesús, says that the news of the nun’s being transported bodily to the Indies became common knowledge among the religious of both sexes. If this is true, we might well expect that a large group of Franciscans heading for the mission field where Sor María had reputedly made miraculous journeys would have come to know of this phenomenon experienced by one of their own Order. Hence, if the confessor, Marcilla, had not sent an account of the claims of Mary of Agreda to the archbishop, the missionaries themselves could have given him this information when they went to Mexico. And in any case, we may accept Benavides’ statement that the missionaries related the claims of the nun when they reached New Mexico. Samaniego, on the other hand, relates the story as though the missionaries in New Mexico were prompted on their own to investigate the visits of the Indians who requested the missionaries. He makes no mention of the arrival of a group of missionaries from Mexico with a commission from the archbishop to investigate any unaccountable knowledge of the Faith among the Indians. He says that Benavides left New Mexico in an attempt to discover the person who was miraculously instructing the Indians in the Faith. All writers since have followed the seemingly inaccurate lead of Samaniego. Thus, Shea, op. cit., p. 197, says: “When he subsequently returned to Spain, Father Benavides heard of Sister Maria de Agreda, and at her convent learned that she had in ecstasy visited New Mexico and instructed the Indians there.” Castañeda, Carlos E., in Our Catholic Heritage in Texas (Austin, 1936), I, 197 Google Scholar, writes that Benavides did not discover who the nun was until two years later in Spain. Hackett, op. cit., pp. 492-493, has the same idea.

¹¹ Hackett, op. cit., p. 469.

¹² Ibid., p. 470.

¹³ Ayer, op. cit., p. 188.

¹⁴ Hodge et al., op. cit., p. 94.

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 94. Neither Vetancurt nor Samaniego makes mention of the repeated visits of the Jumanos prior to the arrival of the very large delegation. In the Memorial of 1634 Benavides is explicit on the matter of the repeated visits. Vetancurt’s and Samaniego’s accounts would give the impression that the priests were amazed that these unknown Indians should come seeking missionaries to baptize them. Benavides, on the other hand, speaks as though it were no uncommon thing for Indians to ask for Baptism, and as though the missionaries took all the visits of the Jumanos as perfectly natural occurrences, and gave no thought to a supernatural intervention until this was suggested by the commission of Manso y Zúñiga. The accounts of Samaniego and Vetancurt would seem to be a simplification of the facts presented by Benavides.

¹⁶ The reference is to Mother Luisa de Carrion, a nun who lived in Mexico, and who was noted for her saintliness.

¹⁷ Hodge et al., op. cit., p. 94.

¹⁸ For a full realization of this impossibility, see Hallenbeck and Williams, Legends of the Spanish Southwest (Glendale, California, 1938), pp. 300-302.

¹⁹ Samaniego, op. cit., p. 118.

²⁰ Hackett, op. cit., p. 327.

²¹ Samaniego, op. cit., p. 119.

²² Hodge et al., op. cit., p. 94.

²³ Most of the details of this expedition of the Franciscans to the Jumanos are found only in the two memorials of Benavides. Vetancurt briefly treats of the matter.

²⁴ Hodge et al., op. cit., p. 94.

²⁵ Ibid., p. 94; Hackett, op. cit., p. 327.

²⁶ A list of the tribes which applied to the missionaries is given by Vetancurt; see Hackett, op. cit., pp. 327-328.

²⁷ Hodge et al., op. cit., p. 95. Contrary to this, Samaniego relates that the chief of the tribe was baptized and that the whole village followed his example. As in all these details concerning what happened in America, the words of Benavides are to be preferred to those of Samaniego.

²⁸ Castañeda, op. cit., p. 203. Vetancurt indicates that the Jumanos had an added motive of fear of the Apaches in going with the missionaries.

²⁹ The sources for this trip of Benavides to Mexico and to Spain are two: 1. the letter which he wrote back to the missionaries, entitled “Tanto que se…” (cf. note 2), and 2. Samaniego, op. cit.

³⁰ Hackett, op. cit., p. 478.

³¹ Samaniego, op. cit., pp. 120-121.

³² Hackett, op. cit., p. 479.

³³ Ibid., p. 479. It is well here to note the significance of the blue cloak which was the outer garment of María de Jesús and the other nuns of her convent. Because of this blue cloak, the nun became known among the Indians as the “Woman in Blue.” And it is by this name that she is familiarly known throughout the Southwest. It is about the “Woman in Blue” that legends are found among the Indians.

³⁴ Samaniego, op. cit., p. 123.

³⁵ Samaniego, op. cit., p. Ill, and Hackett, op. cit., p. 486. This part of Mary of Agreda’s story which deals with her desires for the salvation of souls is taken from Samaniego. Benavides, in his letter “Tanto que se saco…,” is very brief on this point, wishing to relate only what directly pertains to New Mexico, and holding the details until such a time as he can speak to his confreres in person: “No me detengo en decir las asperezas de esta Venerable Madre y su convento, por decir sólo lo que toca al Nuevo México, que yo, cuando merezca ver a VV. PP., que tengo de eso gran deseo y esperanza, entonces diré cosas maravillosas que Nuestro Señor obra allá” (Palóu, op. cit., p. 310).

³⁶ Samaniego, op. cit., p. 112.

³⁷ Benavides says: “Y la primera vez que ha ido fué el año de 1620, y a continuado siempre, hasta el año de 1631” (Palóu, op. cit., pp. 310-311). Mary of Agreda like wise states that her visits began in 1620 and that they continued to the “present year of 1631.” Most authors (e. g., Hackett and Castañeda) have taken these dates as the termini of the visits. It does not seem that either Benavides or Sor María intended to mark the termination of the miraculous visits by the date “1631,” but rather they wished to indicate that the visits had continued “up to the present,” that is, to 1631, the time of their conversation at Agreda. This opinion is substantiated by the fact that Benavides in his letter told his confreres that he had requested Sor Maria to pray to our Lord that she might appear visibly to them as well as to the Indians. She promised to pray for this favor, so apparently her visitations were still going on at the time of this conversation. If this is true, neither could have stated at that time the date on which the visits terminated. However, there is no other indication as to when these visits actually ceased.

³⁸ Samaniego, op. cit., p. 114.

³⁹ Hackett, op. cit., p. 480.

⁴⁰ Samaniego, op. cit., pp. 114-115.

⁴¹ Palóu, op. cit., p. 311.

⁴² Hodge et al., op. cit., p. 95.

⁴³ Samaniego, op. cit., p. 124.

⁴⁴ Hackett, op. cit., p. 481. The mention of this fact is interesting in view of an occurrence of almost a hundred years later which is recorded by Captain Juan Mateo Mange in his Luz de Tierra Incógnita (cf. Bolton, H. E., Rim of Christendom [New York, 1936], pp. 417-418 Google Scholar). Being in the company of the Jesuit missionary, Eusebio Francisco Kino, Mange tells of having met some very old Indians whose parents as children had been visited by a woman answering the description of Mary of Agreda. These Indians said that she was pierced with arrows and left for dead several times, but that each time she returned to them. This incident will be discussed later in the paper.

⁴⁵ Hackett, op. cit., p. 482. The letter of Mary of Agreda has been entitled “Traslado de las Razones que la Bendita M. María de Jesús escribe a los dichos Padres del Nuevo México…. De esta casa de la Concepción Purísima de Agreda, 15 de Mayo de 1631.”

⁴⁶ Cf. Van Den Gheyn, J., “Agreda (d’) Marie,” Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique (Paris, 1903), volume I, A, coll. 627–631.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ This work has been translated into English by Fiscar Marison under the title, The Mystical City of God (4 vols., Chicago, 1916).

⁴⁸ Ibid., p. xiv.

⁴⁹ The basic biography of this woman is Samaniego’s. Summaries of her life can be found in Castañeda, op. cit., pp. 198-200; Van Den Gheyn’s article, “Agreda (d’) Marie,” in the D. T. C, volume I, A, coll. 627-631; in Shea, op. cit., volume I, p. 198; in Benavides, Memorial of 1630 (Ayer translation), a statement by F. W. Hodge, pp. 275-278.

⁵⁰ Mary of Agreda, The Mystical City of God, (Marison’s translation), bk. I, pp. 19-20. In the introduction to this book, p. xiv, Marison states that she was chosen abbess in 1625 and that she entered the convent in 1617.

⁵¹ A. Poulain, The Graces of Interior Prayer (London, 1910), pp. 335-337. Among other things, Poulain writes: “Amort, who has criticised her a great deal, begins by saying that, without doubt, ‘her virtues were heroic.’ This stands out clearly,’ he says, ‘from her process of beatification which I read in Rome.’ He adds: ‘I unhesitatingly admit that she received wonderful lights from God; it is not likely that in her frequent raptures so virtuous a person, whose death was without any features that could shock us, should have been constantly deceived by the Devil.’”

⁵² Marison, op. cit., p. xxi.

⁵³ For a most interesting treatment of the legends of the “Lady in Blue,” see Hallenback and Williams, op. cit., pp. 295-314. This work presents something of the historical foundations as well as the legends themselves. These legends which still exist among the Indians concerning the “Lady in Blue” are evidence of her miraculous visitations preserved by word of mouth among the Indians.

⁵⁴ Castañeda, op. cit., pp. 341-342.

⁵⁵ Quoted in Hallenbeck and Williams, op. cit., p. 297.

⁵⁶ Hackett, op. cit., p. 498. The entire letter of Massanet was translated in the Texas State Historical Quarterly, II, 253-312, by Lilia M. Casis. Also see Castañeda, op. cit., p. 196.

⁵⁷ Quoted in Hallenbeck and Williams, op. cit., p. 298.

⁵⁸ Hackett, op. cit., pp. 471-472; cf. Bolton, op. cit., pp. 417-418.

⁵⁹ Samaniego, op. cit., p. 127.

⁶⁰ Shea, op. cit., p. 197.

⁶¹ Palóu, op. cit., p. 25.

⁶² Ibid., p. 138. Also see Zephyrin Engelhardt, O.F.M., The Missions and Missionaries of California (San Francisco, 1912), p. 101.