Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 10.djvu/299

 MEXICO

257

MEXICO

lost (third destruction). Herndn Cortfe, in order to talce the City of Mexico, had to demolish almost the whole of it, including the leocallis; many writings must have been destroyed then (fourth destruction).

All this was previous to the coming of the first missionaries. No evidence Ls to be found in any of the writers of the period that either the missionaries or Bishop Zumdrraga burnt anything in Mexico, Texcoco, or Atzcapotzalco, that might even remotely be called a literary monument. On the contrary. Fray Jeronimo de Mendieta, one of the first Franciscans, in the prologue of the second volume of his " HLstoria Eclesi- dstica Indiana" states that far from the first friars destroying Indian manuscripts, their superior, Fray Marttn de Valencia, and the president of the Second Audiencia, D. Sebastian Ramirez de Fuen Leal, com- missioned Fray Andres del Olmo, in 1333, to write a book on Indian antiquities. This he did having seen "all the pictures representmg ancient rites and cus- toms, owned by the caciques and other person^ of im portance in these provinces ", and h i\ - ing received ready answers and expla nations from all the oldest inhabitants whom he questioned Moreover, in 1533 or 1534, the paint ing to which the name of Codex Zu marraga has been given was being studied and ex plained, notwith standing the horror it must have inspiretl from being staine 1 with human blootl As Bishop Zum u raga did not reach Mexico until 152S he cannot he blamed or held rcspon.silile for what hail happen I previous to this. In the years 1529 and

1530 he had more B vttles or Cr i

than enough to do m After an Aztec draning in

opposing tlie excesses of the First Audiencia, and any- one who is familiar with the history of this period will know that he had other matters than the burning of manuscripts — to say nothing of entire archives, as some writers assert — to occupy him. At the close of the year 1531 he was recalled to Spain, and did not re- turn until late in the year 1534. At this time no hiero- glyphic records were destroyed, but, as we liave already stated, they were being collected and inter- preted. This being the case, let us now examine the texts which are quoted against the missionaries and Bishop Zumdrraga.

J. B. Pomar, who, like Ixtlilxochitl, was a descend- ant of the kings of Texcoco, may be set aside at once. He states that in Texcoco the Indians themselves burnt the paintings that had earlier escaped the incen- diarism of the Tlaxcaltecs, for fear Bishop Zumarraga might attribute to them idolatrous worship, because at that time D. Carlos Ometochtzin, son of Netzahual- pilli, was accused of idolatry. It was not, therefore, a question of an act of Bishop Zumdrrage, but of a fear, well or ill-founded, on the part, of the Indians. The Texcocanos, seeing that their lord was indicted for idolatry, and fearing that the investigations might in- criminate others, not altogether faultless, hastened to shield themselves by burning some paintings, the char- acter of which is not known. They may in reality have been representations of idolatrous and superstitious X.— 17

rites, and not annals of historic value. As regards other authors who were almost contemporary witn the conquest, it must be noted that within a few years they began investigations concerning Indian antiqui- ties and naturally turned to the hieroglyphics that had been preserved, seeking explanations from the Indians who were most versed in deciphering these. But they had already lost in great part the knowledge of the meaning of these figures, which had been trans- mitted by tradition only. Ixtlilxochitl asserts that out of a gathering of the principal Indians of New Spain, who had a reputation for knowing their history, he found only tw'O who had full knowledge and under- standing of the paintings and signs. Urged by the interpreters to explain certain points which they did not understand, they felt great repugnance in con- fessing their ignorance, and in order to dissimulate it had recourse to the convenient alternative of laying the blame on the scarcity of pictures. Their desire to shield their ancestor^ for their failure to record some facts of importance induced them to ex- aggerate the part taken by Bishop Zumarraga and the missionaries.

Fray Duran, the cautious Fray Saha- giin, and Ixtlilxo- chitl do not accuse Bishop Zumdrraga, but attribute every- thing to the mis- sionaries. Fray Tor- ipiemada blames the missionaries and Bishop Zumarraga, piiinting to the ar- rliives of Atzcapot- zalco as destroj'ed by him. This, how- ever, appears utterlj' unlikely as no former writer ever men- tioned the archives of Atzcapotzalco, and it is quite pos- iTts IN Mexico sible no such archives

the Lienzo de Tlazcala ever existed. More-

over, had there been any truth in this accusation, Ixtlilxochitl, who was in search of these proofs, would have related it in his works ; as it is, he does not even mention it. Finally, it must be borne in mind that Torquemada only gathered together the writings of the early missionaries, and interwove his works with fragments of these writings. He could not find such a charge against Bishop Zumdrraga because it was not there. As regards the first missionaries, we have already mentioned the value they placed upon the pictures and the use they made of the hiero- glyphics. Two documents of the time of the Conquest may be cited in this connexion: the ''Libro de Oro" (Golden Book) and the letter of Bishop Zumdrraga to the Chapter of Tolosa. In the " Libro de Oro", which is the work of the first Franciscans, and which has been very badly edited, some phrases being almost unintelligible, we find the following words: "As we have destroyed and burnt the books and all that per- tains to ceremonial or is suspect, and threatened them if they do not reveal them, now when we ask for books, if any have them they tell us they are burnt, and ask why we want them. There are books among them that are not prohibited, such as give the computation of the years, months, and days, and annals, although there is always something that is suspect. Besides, there are others which are prohibited, treating of idolatry and dreams." The only thing that can be