Writers of the Nineteenth Century.
All general works, archæological, historical, and geographical, are left out. I even omit, as abundantly known, Kingsborough, Bancroft, Baldwin, Short, the "Antiquites Méxicaines," the "Cités et Ruines Méxicaines" of Waldeck,—Brasseur de Bourbourg, &c., &c.—Reference to these sources is self-understood.
Domingo Juarrez. "Compendio de la Historia de Guatemala." 1808-1818, Guatemala. (Relies too much on Fuentes.) English translation by Bailey. London, 1823. "A statistical and Commercial History of the Kingdom of Guatemala, in Spanish America."—A second Spanish edition appeared in 1857.
Francisco de Paula Garcia Pelaez. (See Chiapas.).
"Memorias para la Historia del Antiguo Reyno de Guatemala." 1852.
Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg. "Popol Vuh. Le livre Sacré et les Mythes de l'Antiquité Américaine, avec les livres Héroiques et Historiques des Quichés." Paris, 1861.
Hardly any work of this century has created such a "mixed" sensation of a serious nature, as this book.—It could be seen at a glance, that no mystification was possible,—but there was a wide field open for discussion on the point of origin, as far as the document itself, the "Popol Vuh," was concerned.—Still the "sensation" has not resulted in much active critical examination, and I think (If I may be permitted to commit such a breach of modesty,) myself the only person attempting a criticism of the "Popol Vuh" on the basis of documentary evidence. Unfortunately, I was unable to prepare my annotations in time for the publication of the 27th Volume of Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1878.— Thus only the text of "Sources for aboriginal history of Spanish America," appeared without any documentary evidence attached.
One thing is evident, that the "Popol Vuh" was written. Now it is a fact very easily proven, that the aborigines of Guatemala had no phonetic alphabet whatever, consequently that they did not write.—Therefore the "Popol Vuh" must have been composed, as an instrument in writing, since the conquest; or after 1524.—This is developed utterly independent of the fact that the document hints at two data (p. 343,) indicating the time of its composition to have been after 1550, and prior to 1600.—Therefore it was written in our letters, or perhaps with the aid of the "five characters" invented by Fray Francisco de la Parra, previous to 1560, to indicate sounds for which our alphabet had no signs.—At all events, it was written in the native Quiché idiom, and was only met with incidentally by Fray Francisco Ximenez at the town of Chichicastenango, towards the close of the 17th century.—This Dominican monk translated it into the Spanish language and incorporated both text and translation in the first volume of his "Historia de la provincia de predicadores, &c."—according to Brasseur de Bourbourg's really silly and irritatingly confused bibliography—(p. XIII., "Notice Bibliographique.") Dr. Scherzer certainly deserves credit for having published a Spanish text rendering approximatively the "Popol Vuh," in 1857, and there is no doubt but that it is as correct a rendering of the original Quiché as the French translation of Brasseur de Bourbourg.
The filiation of the text being thus established as far back as 1550 to 1600, it remains to investigate the question: how much of it was originally Indian;—if all of it or not? There is no doubt but that the greater part of it is Indian songs, preserved for centuries, and Indian myths and tales—historical traditions—which were recorded by the compiler in the form now before us. But this compiler, or rather—recorder—has given to these tales a chronological sequence,—at least in the first part,—which may hereafter prove conjectural.—Actions are made to succeed to each other, which may yet prove to be without any connection at all.—I do not insist upon this point—since a new translation of the "Popol Vuh" should precede its investigation—but I particularly insist upon a careful and critical study of its first so-called "Chapters."
These first chapters give us cosmological Ideas and Notions, purporting to be originally Indian, which, at their very inception, show a singular admixture of foreign elements. The first sentences appear to be transcriptions from the book of Genesis. They are not aboriginally American.—We are therefore led to investigate whether, prior to 1550, European influences could have been brought to bear upon the recollection and the imagination of the natives.—There is very positive evidence to that effect.—The monks, at the earliest stages of conversion, used paintings of their own, to impress upon the natives the notions of a creation of the world, of the deluge and salvation of a single pair therefrom, &c., &c.—The Dominican Father Gonzalo Lucero travelled about with painted charts representing such striking events, which he displayed in confirmation of his teachings. Fray Jacobo Testera (he died Aug. 8, 1543) used similar means. Fray Pedro de Angulo, who went with Las Casas to Guatemala and was made Provincial of Chiapas in 1561, wrote three dissertations in the Zutuhil language, one on the Creation of the World, one on Adam's Fall, and one on the Expulsion of our first fathers from Paradise.—Fray Luis Cancer wrote similar pages in the language of Oajaca, previous to 1546.—Fray Domingo Vico, who was killed by the Indians of Lacandon, in 1555, wrote his "Teologia para los Indios," in the Quiché language, also a dissertation on the "Eternal Paradise," in the language of Vera-Paz.—But there is also indisputable proof that songs were composed on the subject of the creation of the world and other parts of the Hebrew Genesis, in the Quiché language, which songs were used as the means of conversion of the natives of Vera-Paz in 1537. (Remesal. Lib. III., Cap. XI., p. 124.) They had been composed by Las Casas, Fray Rodrigo de Ladrada, Fray Pedro de Angulo, and probably Fray Luis Cancer. Many other similar ones were composed afterwards.