[VI-2] In 1746, while Padre Antonio de Solis was temporarily residing at Santo Domingo, a part of his curacy, the ruins were accidentally found by his nephews; although Stephens, Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 294, gives a report without naming his authority—probably Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., p. v., or Juarros, Hist. Guat., p. 18., where the date is given as the middle of the century—which he does not credit, that they were found by a party of Spaniards in 1750. From one of the nephews, Ramon Ordoñez, then a schoolboy at San Cristóval, first heard of the ruins in which he took so deep an interest in later years. In 1773 Ordoñez sent his brother with one Gutierrez de la Torre and others to make explorations, and from their report wrote an account—probably the Memoria relativa à las ruinas de la Ciudad descubierta en las inmediaciones del pueblo de Palenque, a MS. in Brasseur's collection, (Bib. Mex. Guat., p. 113,) from which these facts were gathered—which was forwarded in 1784 to Estacheria, President of the Guatemalan Audiencia Real. President Estacheria, by an order dated Nov. 28, 1784,—Expediente sobre el descubrimiento de una gran ciudad, etc., MS., in the Archives of the Royal Hist. Acad. of Madrid,—instructed José Antonio Calderon, Lieut. Alcalde Mayor of Santo Domingo, to make further explorations. Calderon's report,—Informe de D. J. A. Calderon, etc., translated in substance in Brasseur, Palenqué, Introd., pp. 5-7,—is dated Dec. 15, 1764, so that the survey must have been very actively pushed, to bring to light as was claimed, over 200 ruined edifices in so short a time. Some drawings accompanied this report, but they have never been published. In Jan. 1785 Antonio Bernasconi, royal architect in Guatemala, was ordered to continue the survey, which he did between Feb. 25 and June 13, when he handed in his report, accompanied by drawings never published so far as I know. Bernasconi's report with all those preceding it was sent to Spain, and from the information thus given, J. B. Muñoz, Royal Historiographer, made a report on American antiquities by order of the king.
In accordance with a royal cedula of March 15, 1786, Antonio del Rio was ordered by Estacheria to complete the investigations. With the aid of seventy-nine natives Del Rio proceeded to fall the trees and to clear the site of the ancient city by a general conflagration. His examination lasted from May 18 to June 2, and his report with many drawings was sent to Spain. Copies were, however, retained in Guatemala and Mexico, and one of these copies was in Brasseur's collection under the title of Descripcion del terreno y poblacion antigua, etc. Another copy was found, part in Guatemala and the rest in Mexico, by a Dr M'Quy. It was taken to England, translated, and published by Henry Berthoud, together with a commentary by Paul Felix Cabrera, entitled Teatro Crítico Americano, all under the general title of Description of an Ancient City, etc., London, 1822. The work was illustrated with eighteen lithographic plates, by M. Fréd. Waldeck, ostensibly from Del Rio's drawings; but it is elsewhere stated, Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., p. vi., that Del Rio's drawings did not accompany the work at all. If this be true, the published plates must probably have been taken from the Latour-Allard copies of Castañeda's drawings, of which I shall speak presently, and indeed a comparison with Kingsborough's plates shows almost conclusively that such was in some cases at least their origin. Humboldt speaks of the Latour-Allard plate of the cross as differing entirely from that of Del Rio. This difference does not appear in my copies. It is possible that the plates in my copy of Del Rio's work, the only one I have ever seen, are not the ones which originally appeared with the book. A French translation by M. Warden was published by the Société de Géographie, with a part of the plates; and a German translation by J. H. von Minutoli, with an additional commentary by the translator, appeared in Berlin, 1832, as Beschreibung einer alten Stadt, etc. This contained the plates, together with many additional ones illustrating Mexican antiquities from various sources. The German editor says that the whole English edition, except two copies of proof-sheets, was destroyed; but this would seem an error, since the work is often referred to by different writers, and the price paid for the copy consulted by me does not indicate great rarity. Stephens, Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 296, speaks of this as 'the first notice in Europe of the discovery of these ruins,'—incorrectly, unless we understand printed notice, and even then it must be noticed that Juarros, Hist. Guat., 1808-18, pp. 18-19, gave a brief account of Palenque. Del Rio, in Brasseur's opinion, was neither artist nor architect, and his exploration was less complete than those of Calderon and Bernasconi, whose reports he probably saw, notwithstanding the greater force at his disposal. 'Sin embargo de sus distinguidas circunstancias, carecia de noticias historiales para lo que pedia la materia, y de actividad para lograr un perfecto descubrimiento.' Registro Yuc., tom. i., p. 320. The original Spanish of Del Rio's report, dated June 24, 1787 (?),—Informe dado par D. Antonio del Rio al brigadier D. José Estacheria, etc.—was published in 1855, in the Diccionario Univ. de Geog. etc., tom. viii., pp. 528-33. See also an extract from the same in Mosaico Mex., tom. ii., pp. 330-4. In Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. ii., p. 76, it is stated that Julio Garrido wrote a work on Palenque about 1805, which was not published. That is all I know of it.
From 1805 to 1808 Capt. Guillaume Dupaix, in company with Luciano Castañeda, draughtsman, and a company of Mexican soldiers, by order of Carlos IV., King of Spain, made three expeditions to explore the antiquities of southern Mexico. Dupaix's MS. report, and 145 drawings by Castañeda, were deposited in the Mexican archives to be sent to Spain; but the revolution breaking out soon after, they were for some years forgotten. Copies of most of the drawings were obtained by M. Latour-Allard of Paris, passed through the hands of Humboldt, who did not publish them, and later into English hands. They were engraved in London, 1823, without any accompanying explanation, and M. Warden reproduced a part of them in a memoire to the French Geographical Society. These are certainly the plates in my copy of Del Rio, and I have but little doubt that they are the only ones that ever accompanied his published work. Bullock, Six Months' Residence in Mex., p. 330, says he copied Castañeda's drawings in Mexico, 1823, but he published none of them. In 1831, copies of the Latour-Allard copies, made by the artist Aglio, were published by Lord Kingsborough, in vol. iv. of his Mexican Antiquities, together with the Spanish text of Dupaix's report, obtained from I know not what source, in vol. v., and a carelessly made English translation of the same in vol. vi. of the same work. In 1828, the original text and drawings were delivered by the Mexican authorities to M. Baradère—at least Sr Icaza, curator of the Mexican Museum, certified them to be the originals; but Sr Gondra, afterwards curator of the same institution, assured Brasseur that these also were only copies,—and were published—the text in Spanish and French—in 1843, in Antiquités Mexicaines. The faithfulness with which the descriptions and drawings of Dupaix and Castañeda were made, has never been called in question; but Castañeda was not a very skilful artist, as is admitted by M. Farcy in his introduction to Antiq. Mex., and many of his faults of perspective were corrected in the plates of that work. M. Farcy states that all previous copies of the plates were very faulty, including those of Kingsborough, although Humboldt, in a letter to M. Latour-Allard, testifies to the accuracy of the latter. A comparison of the two sets of plates shows much difference in the details of a few of them, and those of the official edition are doubtless superior. The French editors, while criticising Kingsborough's plates more severely, as it seems, than they deserve, say nothing whatever of his text; yet both in the Spanish and translation it varies widely from the other, showing numerous omissions and not a few evident blunders. Stephens, seconded by Brasseur, objects to the slighting tone with which Dupaix's editors speak of Del Rio's report; also to their claim that only by government aid can such explorations be carried on. M. Waldeck says, Palenqué, p. vii., that he tried to prevent the publication of the plates in Kingsborough's work on account of their inaccuracy, although how he could at that date pretend to be a judge in the matter does not appear. It is true that Castañeda's drawings are not equal to those of Waldeck and Stephens, but they nevertheless give an excellent idea of the general features of all ruins visited. Morelet says of Dupaix's report: 'Ce document est encore aujourd'hui le plus curieux et le plus intéressant que nous possédons sur les ruines de Palenque.' Voyage, tom. i., p. 268; Travels, p. 90. It was during the third expedition, begun in December, 1807, that Dupaix visited Palenque with a force of natives. His survey lasted several months. The results may be found as follows: Dupaix, 3ème expéd., in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., pp. 13-36, tom. iii., pl. xi.-xlvi., with an explanation by M. Lenoir, tom. ii., div. i., pp. 73-81; Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. v., pp. 294-339, vol. vi., pp. 473-83, vol. iv., pl. xii.-xlv. To economize space I shall refer to these works by the simple names of Dupaix, and Kingsborough, with the number of page or plate; and I shall, moreover, refer directly to Kingsborough only when differences may appear in text or plates.
Dr F. Corroy, a French physician of Tabasco, lived 20 years in the country and made several visits to Palenque, claiming to know more about the ruins than anyone else. An inscription on one of the entrances of the Palace, shown in Waldeck, pl. ix., reads 'François Corroy de tercer viage en estas ruinas los dias 25 de Agosto. Unico historiador de hellos. Con su Esposa y Ija.' He furnished some information from 1829 to 1832 to the French Geographical Society, and speaks of 14 drawings and a MS. history in his possession. Soc. Géog., Bulletin, tom. ix., No. 60, 1828, p. 198; Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. ii., p. 76. Col. Juan Galindo, at one time connected with the British Central American service, also Governor of Peten, and corresponding member of the London Geographical Society, sent much information, with maps, plans, and sketches to the French Société de Géographie. His letter dated April 27, 1831, describing the Palenque ruins, is printed in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. ii., pp. 67-72, also an English translation in the Literary Gazette, No. 769, London, 1831, which was reprinted in the Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour., vol. iii., pp. 60-2. Lafond, Voyages, tom. i., p. 142, states that Nebel visited Palenque, and Müller, Urreligionen, p. 459-60, also implies that this traveler explored the ruins; but this is probably erroneous.
On April 12, 1832, M. Fréderic de Waldeck, the most indefatigable and successful explorer of Palenque, arrived at the ruined city, illustrative plates of which he had engraved ten years before for Del Rio's work. This veteran artist—64 years of age at that time, according to Brasseur's statement, Palenqué, p. vi., but 67 if we may credit the current report in the newspapers that he celebrated his 109th birthday in Paris on Dec. 7, 1874, being still hale and hearty—built a cabin among the ruins and spent two whole years in their examination,—Brasseur, Palenqué, p. vi., incorrectly says three years. 'Deux ans de séjour sur les lieux,' Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., p. 68, translated 'in a sojourn of twelve years,' Bradford's Amer. Antiq., p. 86,—his expenses being paid by a subscription which was headed by the Mexican Government. More than 200 drawings in water and oil colors were the result of his labors, and these drawings, more fortunate than those made the next year in Yucatan—see [p. 145] of this volume—escaped confiscation, although Stephens erroneously states the contrary, and were brought to France. Waldeck, Voy. Pitt., p. vi. For various reasons Waldeck was unable to publish his proposed work, and over 30 years elapsed before the result of his labors was made public, except through communications dated Aug. 28, and Nov. 1, 1832, sent to the Geographical Society at Paris. Lafond, Voyages, tom. i., p. 142. I shall speak again of his work. Mr Friederichsthal visited Palenque in his Central American travels before 1841, but neither his text nor plates, so far as I know, have ever been published. Brasseur de Bourbourg, Palenqué, introd., p. 14. See [pp. 146]-[7] of this vol.
In 1840, Messrs Stephens and Catherwood, after their exploration of the antiquities of Honduras and Guatemala, reached Palenque on May 9, remaining until June 4. Such are the dates given by Brasseur,—the only antiquarian except myself who has ever had the hardihood to explore Stephens' writings for dates,—but the actual examination of the ruins lasted only from May 11 to June 1. The results are found in Stephens' Yuc., vol. ii., pp. 280-365, with 31 plates and cuts from Catherwood's drawings; and in Catherwood's Views of Anc. Mon., N. York, 1844, 25 colored lithographs, with text by Mr Stephens. A French translation of Stephens' description of Palenque is given in Brasseur de Bourbourg, Palenqué, pp. 14-27. Respecting the ability of these explorers, and the faithfulness of their text and drawings, there can be but one opinion. Their work in Chiapas is excelled only by that of the same gentlemen in Yucatan.—See [p. 146] of this vol.—Without aid from any government, they accomplished in 20 days, at the height of the rainy season, the most unfavorable for such work, more satisfactory results, as Stephens justly claims, Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 299, than any of their predecessors—except Waldeck, whose drawings had not then been published.
An anonymous account of the ruins appeared in 1845 in the Registro Yucateco, tom. i., pp. 318-22. M. Morelet, of whom I have already spoken, spent a fortnight here in 1846. Voyages, tom. i., pp. 264-84; Travels, pp. 64-111, with cuts from other sources. In 1858, M. Désiré Charnay, 'Chargé d'une mission par le ministre d'État, à l'effet d'explorer les ruines américaines,' visited Palenque; but his photographic efforts were less successful here than elsewhere, and of the four views published in his Atlas, only one, that of the tablet of the cross, is of great value in testing the accuracy of preceding artists. His description, however, is interesting and valuable as showing the effects of time on the ruins since Stephens' visit. Charnay, Ruines Amér., Paris, 1863, pp. 411-41, phot. 19-22; Remarks by M. Viollet-le-Duc, pp. 72-3.
In 1860, a commission appointed by the French government examined and reported upon Waldeck's collection, which was found to contain ninety-one drawings relating exclusively to Palenque, and ninety-seven representing objects from other localities. The Palenque drawings were reported to be far superior to any others in existence, a somewhat too decided penchant aux restaurations being the only defect;—a defect, however, which is to a greater or less extent observable in the works of all antiquarians, several of Catherwood's plates being confessedly restorations. In accordance with the report of the commission, the whole collection was purchased, and a sub-commission appointed to select a portion of the plates for publication. It was decided, however, to substitute for M. Waldeck's proposed text some introductory matter to be written by the Abbé Brasseur, a man eminently qualified for the task, although at the time he had never personally visited Palenque. He afterwards, however, passed a part of the month of January, 1871, among the ruins. The work finally appeared in 1866, under the general title Monuments Anciens du Mexique, in large folio, with complicated sub-titles. It is made up as follows:—I. Avant Propos, pp. i.-xxiii., containing a brief notice of some of the writers on American Antiquities, and a complete account of the circumstances which led to the publication of this work; II. Introduction aux Ruines de Palenqué, pp. 1-27, a historical sketch of explorations, with translations of different reports, including that of Stephens nearly in full; III. Recherches sur les Ruines, etc., pp. 29-83, being for the most part speculations on the origin of American civilization, with which I have nothing to do at present; IV. Description des Ruines, etc., by M. Waldeck, pp. i.-viii; V. Fifty-six large lithographic plates, of which Nos. i., v.-xlii., and l., relate to Palenque, including a fine map of Yucatan and Chiapas. I shall refer to the plates simply by the name Waldeck and the number of the plate. By the preceding list of contents it will be seen that this is by far the most important and complete work on the subject ever published. The publishers probably acted wisely in rejecting Waldeck's text as a whole, since his archæological speculations are always more or less absurd; but it would have been better to give his descriptive matter more in full; and fault may be justly found with the confused arrangement of the matter, the constant references to numbers not found in the plates, and with the absence of scales of measurement; the latter, although generally useless in the illustrations of an octavo volume, are always valuable in larger plates. In addition to the preceding standard authorities on Palenque, there are brief accounts, made up from one or more of those mentioned, and which I shall have little or no occasion to refer to in my description, as follows: Baldwin's Anc. Amer., pp. 104-11; Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 246-7; Conder's Mex. Guat., vol. ii., pp. 157-69; McCulloh's Researches in Amer., pp. 294-303; Klemm, Cultur-Geschichte, tom. v., pp. 160-3; Armin, Das Heutige Mex., pp. 73, 85-91; Wappäus, Geog. u. Stat., p. 148; Nott and Gliddon's Indig. Races, pp. 184-5; D'Orbigny, Voyage, pp. 354, 356, plate, restoration from Dupaix; Fossey, Mexique, pp. 373, 564-6; same account in Escalera and Llana, Mej. Hist. Descrip., pp. 332-6; Lafond, Voyages, tom. i., pp. 139-44; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 86-9; Democratic Review, vol. i., p. 38; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., pp. 82-94; Davis' Anc. Amer., pp. 4-8; Malte-Brun, Précis de la Géog., tom. vi., pp. 464-5; Frost's Pict. Hist., pp. 71-7; Willson's Amer. Hist., pp. 74-6; Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer., pp. 69-86, 127; Müller, Amerikanische Urreligionen, pp. 462, 498; Mosaico Mex., tom. ii., p. 330, cut, restoration from Dupaix; Mühlenpfordt, Mejico, tom. ii., p. 21; Revista Mex., tom. i., p. 498; Buschmann, Ortsnamen, pp. 117-20, 181; Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc., vol. ii., p. 180, cut, erroneously said to be a Yucatan altar; Littera, Taschenbuch der Deutschen, in Russland, pp. 54-5; Foreign Quar. Review, vol. xviii., pp. 250-51; Larenaudière, Mex. Guat., pp. 308-20, with plates from Stephens; Norman's Rambles in Yuc., pp. 284-92.
[VI-3] 'Une enceinte de bois et de pallisades.' Brasseur de Bourbourg, Palenqué, p. 32; see also the Spanish dictionaries. 'Tal vez es corrupcion de la palabra (aztec) palanqui, cosa podrida,' Orozco y Berra, Geografía, p. 84. 'Means lists for fighting.' Davis' Anc. Amer., p. 5. I remember also to have seen it stated somewhere that palenque is the name applied to the poles by which boatmen propel their boats on the waters of the tierra caliente.
[VI-4] Humboldt, in Nouvelles Annales des Voy., tom. xxxv., p. 327; Fossey, Mexique, p. 373; Malte-Brun, Précis de la Géog., tom. vi., p. 464; Juarros, Hist. Guat., p. 19; D'Orbigny, Voyage, p. 354; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 69. Brasseur, however, changed his mind about the name in later works. Palenqué, p. 32. Domenech, Deserts, vol. i., p. 18, calls the name Pachan, probably by a typographical error.