Читать книгу The Codex Mendoza: new insights онлайн

31 страница из 150

Based on the contents to which this passage refers—which include the genealogy and history of the lords of Mexico, painted and written by a monk, and which notably resemble those of the first part of the Codex Mendoza—it appears the passage offers a first reference to the manuscript by Thevet’s hand, even if indirect, to the Codex Mendoza. Nevertheless, the possibility that the manuscript had ended up in France by way of Queen Elizabeth of Valois leaves many questions unanswered. If one accepts that Thevet in fact acquired the manuscript in 1553, then it reached Thevet six years before the queen married Philip the II and even before he became king. If, on the contrary, one takes the passage from the Grande Insulaire as a reference to the Codex Mendoza based on accurate reminiscences, then the 1553 date becomes problematic. The solution to these problems might lie within Thevet’s own library.

Purchas was not the only geographer of the time who manipulated facts in order to prompt an emotional response on the part of his audience, or that handled his sources in a way that would help him compose an enticing narrative arc. Both during his lifetime and after, Thevet has been criticized for what at first glance could be deemed slapdash work as compiler and narrator.13 The date Thevet stamped on the manuscript is not necessarily the same date it came into his possession. Frank Lestringant has convincingly proven that Thevet’s memories, references, and even his biographical annotations should not be taken at face value. In his biography of Thevet, Lestringant has explored the visible imprecision and even the outright fabrication of facts that plague the Frenchman’s oeuvre. In fact, Lestringant (1991, 40–43) has identified a process he labeled “retroactive autobiographical fiction” by means of which Thevet manipulated both facts and dates such that his narratives would fit those of other published sources or commemorate events in his life that were relevant to any particular work. Thus, Thevet signed and dated a copy of Sebastián Münster’s Universal Cosmography on the title page as 1562, even when on the very same page we can read that it had been published in 1565. Later, on page 1337, Thevet once again dates the book, this time as 1558 (Lestringant 1991, 40).