The Devil and Views on the “Other” in Part One of Pedro Cieza de León’s "Crónica del Perú" (1553)

Many 16th century Spanish chroniclers and missionaries, arriving at what they interpreted as a New World, saw the Devil as a “hermeneutic wildcard” that allowed them to comprehend indigenous religions. Pedro Cieza de León, a soldier in the conquest of Peru, is a case in point. Cieza considers the Devil responsible for the most aberrant religious practices and customs of the Indians, although he views the natives in a positive light, as men susceptible to divine salvation. From a providentialist perspective of the history of the conquest, Cieza interprets that the evangelization and conversion of the Indians and the implantation of Christian civilization by the Spanish Crown, were able to defeat the Devil.

Diabolical Witches or Sinful Princes? “Political” Foundations of Demonological Skepticism in the Early Modern Period

Skepticism regarding witchcraft, characteristic (but not exclusive) of the Spanish lands, corresponds with a particular view of evil’s etiology. Whereas paradigmatic texts of radical demonology, as the Malleus Maleficarum, gave a conclusive step towards the demonization of natural evil (as they put the blame on the devil and the witches for calamities and plagues), texts of Castilian origin, as Alonso de Espina’s Fortalitium fidei, embraced the traditional position: they considered the devil as a promoter of moral evil in the world, meanwhile natural evil is seen as a result of the wrath of God for the sins of His people –particularly, the sin of Christian princes. I argue that the distinction between these two ways of thinking the causality of the world’s misfortunes can be read in political terms.