HISTORY OF MEXICO. 325 



tezuma II. as we have already mentioned. Boturini, 

 who faw in Mexico the original paintings of thofe an- 

 nals, and of the regifter of the tributes which were con- 

 tained in the copies publiflied by Purchas and Thevenot, 

 laments the great defects of thofe editions. It is fuffi- 

 cient to compare the copies publiflied in Mexico, in 

 1770, by Lorenzana, with thofe publiflied in London 

 by Purchas, and in Paris by Thevenot, to perceive and 

 know the great difference there is between copy and 

 original. But we do not mean to maintain the perfec- 

 tion of the original, copied by Purchas ; we rather 

 doubt not that they have been imperfect-, as all the his- 

 torical paintings were, in which the painters contented 

 themfelvcs with outlines, regardlefs of the proportions 

 or colouring of objects, the light and {hade, or rules of 

 perfpective. Nor was it poflible they fliould obferve 

 thofe laws of the art, on account of their extraordinary 

 expedition in making pictures, as Cortes, Diaz, and 

 other eye-witnefles have attefted. But let us obferve 

 the conclufions M. de Paw deduces from thence. His 

 arguments are thefe : the Mexicans did not obferve the 

 laws of perfpective in their paintings ; they could not 

 therefore, by means of them, perpetuate the memory of 

 events : the Mexicans were wretched painters, there- 

 fore they could not be good hiftorians ; but at the fame 

 time that he makes ufe of this fpecies of logic, he 

 ought alfo to have faid, that all thofe who in writing do 

 not make good characters cannot be good hiftorians ; 

 for that which letters are to our hiftorians, were the 

 figures of the Mexican hiftorians ; and as good hiftories 

 may be written with a bad character, fo may facts be 

 well reprefented by coarfe pictures ; it is Sufficient that 

 either hiftorian make himfelf underftood. 



But 



