36 THE GROUP OF THE CROSS. 



tinctly shown in Catherwood's and Waldeck's illustrations. In Del Rio's plate 

 this ornament is badly represented and placed much too high. The connection 

 of its parts is tolerably well shown in Fig. 8. 



I must observe that it was not easy to trace on Charnay's photograph of the 

 middle slab the outlines of the portions of ornaments along its edge, considering 

 that the photograph has a mottled appearance, which rendered it extremely diffi- 

 cult to distinguish the marginal sculptures. The artist, however, has endeavored 

 to draw them as faithfully as possible. 



Any one who examines the representation of the Smithsonian tablet will be 

 struck with the want of symmetry of its sculptures and its incorrect outline. 

 The upright rows of glyphs, it will be seen, are all leaning to the right, and the 

 tablet itself has the shape of an irregular rectangle. This asymmetrical appear- 

 ance of the slab is not at all owing to its restoration, as might be imagined at first 

 sight, but simply to a lack of precision on the part of the sculptor. Charnay's 

 photograph of the middle slab — certainly the truest of obtainable likenesses — 

 shows similar imperfections. Its two shorter sides converge toward the right, 

 and, as a consequence, the angles are not equal. Though the bas-relief 

 figures on it show a commendable finish, the total aspect of the sculpture is not 

 that of a well-executed work, at least not in our sense. The cross shows some 

 incongruities in the proportions of its parts, and the glyphic signs and ornaments 

 are not disposed in an absolutely harmonious order. The defects here mentioned 

 hardly can be noticed in the corresponding illustrations of M. Charnay's prede- 

 cessors, who doubtless were all more or less actuated by that tendency prevailing 

 among artists, to represent, perhaps unconsciously, the objects before them in a 

 more shapely form than their appearance justifies. 



The absence of accurateness in the execution of details observable at 

 Palenque did not escape Morelet's critical judgment. " The ruins of Palenque," 

 he says, " have been, perhaps, too much eulogized. They are magnificent cer- 

 tainly in their antique boldness and strength ; they are invested by the solitude 

 which surrounds them with an air of indescribable, but imposing, grandeur; 

 but I must say, without contesting their architectural merit, that they do 

 not justify, in their details, all the enthusiasm of archseologists. The orna- 

 mental lines are wanting in regularity, the drawings in symmetry, and the 

 sculpture in finish. I must, however, make an exception in favor of the symbol- 

 ical tablets, the sculpture of which struck me as remarkably accurate. As to 

 the faces, their rude execution proves them to be the early attempts of an art yet 

 in its infancy."* Having a piece of sculpture from Palenque before me, I cannot 

 altogether agree with M. Morelet in his estimate of the bas-relief work on the 

 tablets, and the reasons for my dissent have been set forth in the preceding 



* Morelet: Travels etc., p. 97. 



