318 



HISTORY OF MEXICO. 



He fays that the Mexicans did not ufe hieroglyphics ; 

 that their paintings were nothing but the coarfe drafts of 

 obje&s ; that, in order to reprefent a tree they painted a 

 tree ; that their paintings no where fhew any under- 

 ftanding of light and (hade, any idea of perfpe&ive, or 

 imitation of nature ; that they had made no progrefs in 

 that art, by means of which they attempted to perpetu- 

 ate the memory of events and things palfed ; that the 

 only copy of hiftorical paintings faved from the burning 

 which the firft millionaries made of them, is that which 

 the firft viceroy of Mexico fent to Charles V. which was 

 afterwards publiftied by Thevenot in France, and Pur- 

 chas in England ; that this painting is fo coarfe and ill 

 executed, that it is not to be difcerned whether it treats, 

 as the interpreter fays, of eight kings of Mexico, or eight 

 concubines of Montezuma, &c. 



M. de Paw {hews his ignorance throughout here, and 

 from thence proceeds his forwardnefs in writing. Shall 

 we give more faith to a Pruffian philofopher, who has 

 feen only the grofs copies by Purchas, than to thofe who 

 have feen and carefully ftudied many original paintings 

 of the Mexicans ? M. de Paw will not allow the Mexi- 

 cans to have made ufe of hieroglyphics, becaufe he would 

 not have it thought that he grants them any refemblance 

 to the ancient Egyptians. Kircher, that celebrated en- 

 quirer into, and praifer of Egyptian antiquities, in his 

 work entitled Oedipus Egyptiacus^ and Adrian Walton in 

 his preface to the Polyglott Bible, are of the fame opinion 

 with M. de Paw ; but their opinion has no other fupport 

 than the fame copy by Purchas : but Motolinia, Sahagun, 

 Valades, Torquemada, Arrigo, Martinez, Siguenza, and 

 Boturini, who knew the Mexican language, converfed 

 with the Indians, faw and diligently ftudied many ancient 



paintings, 



