HISTORY OF DECIPHERMENT OF MAYA HIEROGLYPHIC WRITING. 29 
~ 
the Royal Academy of History at Madrid in 1863. In the winter of that 
year the eminent French antiquarian, Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, while 
on a scientific mission to Spain, found in the archives of that establishment a 
manuscript entitled Relacién de las cosas de Yucatan, sacada de la que escribié 
el padre Fray Diego de Landa de la orden de San Francisco, and bearing the 
date MpLxvI.'_ The author of this manuscript was no less a person than the 
Padre Diego de Landa, who later became the fourth bishop of the Diocese 
of Yucatan and Cozumel with seat at Merida, and who filled that see from 
1573 until the time of his death in 1579.2, He was one of the first Franciscans 
to enter Yucatan (1549) and one of the most zealous in converting the Indians 
from their idolatry. His zeal in this latter direction eventually brought him 
into difficulties with his ecclesiastical superior, Bishop Toral, who accused 
him of usurping higher functions than were his right; and he later returned 
to Spain and appeared before the Council of the Indies to answer the charges 
growing out of this controversy. He was tried before a body of ‘‘seven 
learned persons of the Kingdom of Toledo,” in 1565, and was finally exon- 
erated of all the charges against him in 1569. On the retirement of Bishop 
Toral, four years later, he was named to succeed to the vacant see, which he 
occupied until his death in 1579, as noted above.’ 
The especial value of Landa’s “relacion,” a veritable Maya Rosetta 
Stone indeed, lies in the fact that it was composed during the first generation 
after the Spanish Conquest, 1541-1566; and the information which it contains 
was obtained by him directly from natives who had reached mental maturity 
under their own social, political, and religious institutions before the shock of 
European conquest had forever shattered the native régime. Indeed, Landa 
actually states that one of his informants was Don Juan Cocom, a lineal 
descendant of the last ruler of Mayapan, and a man particularly well versed 
in the ancient learning of his people.t| And with such information as this 
1This valuable manuscript has been thrice published, as follows: (1) By the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg with a 
French translation, Paris, 1864. (2) By Juan de Dios de la Rada y Delgado, Madrid, 1881, as an Appendix to his 
Ensayo sobre la interpretacion de la escritura hieratica de la America Central, a translation into Spanish, of Leon de 
Rosny’s work of the same name. (3) By the Royal Academy of History, Madrid, in the Coleccién de Documentos 
Inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organizacion de las antiguas posesiones espanolas de ultramar, Segunda 
serie, tom. 13, Relaciones de Yucatan, II, Madrid, 1900. Of these, the first is by far the poorest; Brinton, in a 
critical comparison of the first two editions (1887), points out its shortcomings. Brasseur de Bourbourg omits, 
without a word of explanation, fully one-sixth of the original (the last part of the manuscript) and inserts a num- 
ber of chapter headings not found in the manuscript at all, in addition to making many errors of translation. 
The second edition is the only complete one of the three, 7. ¢., having all the text and drawings of the original manu- 
script. Unfortunately it was limited to 200 copies, all large folios, and 1s very rare. All references to Landa in 
the present work, however, are to this second and only complete edition. The third edition is not only comparatively 
rare but is also incomplete, lacking all the part describing the calendar and annual feasts, including the drawings 
of the glyphs, the katun-wheel, and Landa’s famous “alphabet.” There is an unpublished English translation by 
Bowditch in the Peabody Museum library. 
2Molina Solis (1897, pp. 13-78) reviews the evidence bearing upon the creation of the Diocese of Yucatan and 
Cozumel, which he concludes was established after 1547 and before 1553, Fray Juan de San Francisco being named __. 
the first bishop. The latter resigned before 1552, never having gone to Yucatan, in which year Fray Jig de La’ * : 
Puerta was named second bishop of the diocese. The latter died at Sevilla on the eve of his departure for,.Néw~ * 
Spain with twenty frailes, and it was not until 1562 that the third bishop, Fray Francisco de Toral, reached Merida. 
3Landa himself describes the affair at some length (1881, pp. 79, 80), and the whole controversy ha$ feen'made 
the subject of a special paper by Medina (1913, pp. 484-496). 
4 The successor of the Cocomes, named Don Juan Cocom, who has since become a Christian, was a man of 
great reputation, learned in their affairs, and of remarkable sagacity and intelligence in native matters. He was 
very intimate with the author of this book, Fray Diego de Landa, and told him many facts concerning the antiqui- 
ties.” (Landa, 1881, p. 76.) 
