Talk:Codex Escalada

The alleged tests and reliable sources

Bellarmino (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC) It's hard to satisfy you when you appear to be happy with open sarcasm from Brading, and refuse any factual characterisation of his comment. It is a claimed, published, fact that the Codex is authentic, and the sole "evidence" against it is that people who are already committed to a theory incompatible with it make fun of it. I am finding it difficult to see how anybody would think that Brading's comment is anything but an embarrassment to himself and his school of thought.

I've raised the issue of the reliablility of the Texas Catholic Herald, which is the official publication of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, at WP:RSN[2]. At the moment, all we have is what is basically a 'house organ' and we need to be able to verify this. In particular, we need to know who did the tests, what the tests are, and what the exact results were. Also, this is a WP:REDFLAG issue. Our policy (note, not just a guideline) says:

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I recently made some suggestions relative to the Codex in Talk under the article Juan Diego; see especially my para [4]. Since I have now undertaken to re-write that article, it looks as if it might be sensible for me to re-write this article too? Ridiculus mus (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Charles Dibble

Let's try to make a few things clearer about the role of Charles Dibble in the investigation of this document.

Contrary to the statement appearing in a prior, just-reverted version of this article, Dibble did not in any way "coordinate" the investigations. He was not part of the "team" assembled by Escalada SJ. Instead, he was only brought into the picture after one of those, Mario Rojas Sanchez, interpreted one of the signatures as possibly Sahagun's. Given Dibble's expertise on Sahagun, it was arranged to request his opinion and a photostat copy of the signature was sent to him for examination. After reviewing (the copy, note, not the original), Dibble wrote back in June 1996 with his assessment:

'I have received a copy of codice 1548. I have studied the signature, and I believe it to be the signature of Fray Bernardino de Sahagún. I base my conclusions on the indications of three crosses; the form of the "Fray", the "d"and the "b". In my opinion the signature is not the same as, that is not contemporaneous with the 1548 date of the codice. I would assign the signature to the 50's or the 60's. [full text of letter as reproduced in appendix to Enciclopedia Guadalupe]

Thus, based (only) on the copy he studied, he believed the signature matched Sahagun's, but at the same time noted it did not match with the purported 1548 date written on the codex, attributing it instead to a decade or two afterwards. So not at all a ringing endorsement of the codex's authenticity, despite the inference made in that Vatican article.

That's the full extent of his involvement, and to the best of my knowledge Dibble has never issued any statement or opinion about the authenticity of the codex itself, which as noted he never examined directly and was not called upon to do. Any statement to the effect that Dibble "authenticated" the codex would be quite incorrect. It would also be misleading and unsubstantiated to imply he supported any finding of authenticity for the codex such as the one Escalada wrote up, in the absence of any available, documented opinion expressed by him on that score. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reluctant to get into an unnecessary spat over what can fairly be deduced from the presentation in the L'Osservatore Romano article, I must however object that it offers no basis for your saying it implied Dibble had given a "ringing endorsement of the codex's authenticity". All the article said was that the results of all the tests were "favourable", and so they were. The error a previous edit made as to Dibble's role was understandable, for the English translation of the L'Osservatore article reads "the Codex has been studied by about 20 specialists in various subjects, coordinated by the Physics Institute of the UNAM and also by Dr Ch. E. Dibble". A comma after "UNAM" was required. Once again, I must point out that Dibble did not suggest his opinion was vitiated in any way by the lack of direct access to the codex. Dibble must be given credit for precisely what he did say, no more and no less. I am resisting any move on the part of wikipedia editors to devalue or down-grade Dibble's opinion on the basis of an objection he did not make. He noted that he had studied a copy of the signature, and nevertheless gave an unqualified opinion - yes, an opinion (not a guarantee) but an unqualified one. Ridiculus mus (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If there was any translation mishap then the fault would lie with L'Osservatore, since the english-language edition is issued by them (along with versions in half-a-dozen other languages). Unless there's been some transcription error made in the transfer to the online version of the article that circulates at a couple of sites...always a possibility, the version over at EWTN site seems to be missing some sentences and is very oddly formatted (scare quotes all over the place), makes one doubt it's an exact reproduction. In any case, it may better to use sources such as Fidel González and Eduardo Chavez directly to represent the pro-Guadalupan view, more so than this L'Osservatore article (which takes most of its content from these two anyway).

Understandable or not, saying the investigations were "coordinated by the Physics Institute of the UNAM" is still not correct. They were directed by Escalada and his inner circle, not the physicists at UNAM.

Likewise, I am keen that we represent Dibble's contribution and opinion accurately for what it was, 'no more and no less'. This also includes explicit mentioning of his qualifying opinion that the signature is not contemporary with the 1548 date, but is from some later period. I feel it is also pertinent to mention the study was from a copy -- this does not in any way devalue Dibble's scholarship, but rather makes clear the natural limits around what Dibble could physically examine, and what conclusions he could draw. As Rafael Tena comments on this point:

:"En este punto, conviene advertir que es indispensable comparar las firmas en documentos originales y no en simples copias o reproducciones, pues lo importante para dictaminar sobre la autenticidad de una firma no es el dibujo, que puede simplemente copiarse, sino comparar la velocidad y la presión con que fueron trazadas las firmas: la que consta ser auténtica y la que se quiere dictaminar."

Hopefully this way we can avoid the pitfalls of some other published commentaries on this codex, and not misleadingly attribute 'codex authentication' to Dibble when his remit and opinion did not actually go half as far. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I was not planning to defend L'Osservatore Romano at all costs, but in the context of "suspicion" that engulfs this topic, I wanted to put down a marker that terms like "misrepresent" should be used with caution. Since we are agreed that it was never appropriate to rely on that article as a source for the "authentication" tests and analyses, we can leave it there. Your point about Tena's qualification of Dibble's "authentification" of the signature is open to the same objection I made elsewhere (and which you do not contest). The only authority here is Dibble. Tena may well say Dibble should not have given his opinion on the basis of a copy (that is precisely what Tena is saying), but I see no reason to accept Tena's criticism of Dibble's method. It may help if I set out under this head my treatment of "Authentication" so you can assess the level of balance directly. I respond in more detail to your suggestion about Tena's basic stance below (under "Projected article re-write"), but I will just say here that my initial reference to him is in the lede where space and argument must be limited, and on reviewing his comments I will, for now, stick by my assessment - but see what I say below. Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to accepts Tena's criticism - but we need to report it.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not in the lede, where I consider that the burden of his stance is correctly and adequately reported. Your point belongs under "Authentication" below where I have mentioned the fact that Dibble had only a copy to go on. I remain wary of all and any attempt to undermine Dibble's expert opinion, and I see no reason to undermine it in any way except on the basis of contrary conclusions arrived at by those with expertise equivalent to Dibble's. If Dibble's authority is to be attacked it must be done openly and by reference to those who are in a position to do so. I don't yet know what Poole or Brading have to say about Dibble (not that they have expertise comparable to Dibble's in Sahagún studies), but Peralta at least (although it is you, not I who credit him) says it is not possible to reject Dibble's opinion:- "De acuerdo con el dictamen de Charles Dibble, debemos aceptar que la firma es auténtica", and "En resumen, puede decirse que la firma de Sahagún, aunque genuina, es sospechosa", and "Es preciso decir que a la luz de los peritajes no es posible objetar la firma del cronista" Ridiculus mus (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

further material from projected article re-write follows:-

"Authentication

The parchment was consigned by Escalada to a team of 18 experts of various disciplines assembled under the coordination of Professor Victor Manuel Castaño Meneses at the Centro de Física Aplicada y Tecnología Avanzada UNAM (Querétaro campus) who subjected it to a range of non-invasive tests to determine the age, authenticity and integrity of the materials. In their report issued in 1997 they concluded that the parchment and inks were consistent with an origin in the 16th and that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the document itself was of 16th century origin. A copy of Sahagún's signature as it appears on the parchment was sent to Dr. Charles E. Dibble a former distinguished professor of anthropology of the University of Utah and one of the leading scholars in Sahagún studies, who opined in a letter of 12 June 1996 that the signature was Sahagún's, datable to the decade 1550-1560. In his report of 18 September 1996, Don Alfonso M. Santillana Rentería, head of the Office of Documentoscopy and Photography of the Bank of Mexico in Mexico City, verified Sahagún's signature, which Professor Meneses' team identified (as also they did with the date "1548") as having been written in a different ink from that used on the rest of the parchment. The results of all these analyses and investigations were published by Escalada in July 1997 as an 80 page fifth volume or appendix to his Enciclopedia Guadalupana complete with photographs and technical data. <Escalada; Meneses; Moreno; Betancourt; Poole (2006) pp. 132f.>

Some have alleged that even if Sahagún's signature is authentic, its presence on a document such as this constitutes a serious internal inconsistency arising from his known hostility to the cult.<e.g., Peralta, quoting from Book 11 of Sahagún's Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva España> While Sahagún did indeed express reservations as to the cult in his historical works, that comparatively late criticism was based on what he considered to be a syncretistic application to the Virgin Mary of the Nahuatl epithet "Tonantzin" ("our dear mother") which he himself had freely used with the same application in his own sermons as late as the 1560's. <Burkhart, p.11>"

passage ends. Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Some initial comments:-

• recommend "Investigation" rather than "Authentication" as the section heading
• The CFATA director publishes under his paternal surname I believe, and would be referred to / cited as Prof. Castaño, not Meneses. And was he at CFATA at the time? The PIXE tests were apparently carried out at Instituto de Física in Mexico City Universitaria campus, or so I read at a later column by Castaño.
• Given that Castaño has provided additional clarification re the (lower) degree of confidence his lab is able to attach to their findings, as documented in Poole 2006, and also the constraints they operated under, I think it would be appropriate to have these qualifications incorporated.
• ...datable to the decade 1550-1560'... this is not quite the range Dibble put forward. First, he is sufficently motivated to state his belief that the signature is "not contemporaneous with the 1548 date" of the codice, and second that he would "assign the signature to the 50's or the 60's." There is nothing to indicate he intended or favoured the first half of this two-decade range, so I see no justification to recast in this way. I realise that in El encuentro.. Gonzalez Fernandez et. al. attempt (speciously, IMO) a chain of their own deduction to conclude Dibble really meant something closer to around 1550 ("posterior a 1547 y anterior a 1563"), but this is second-guessing and not what he actually wrote. I think we can do no better than to quote Dibble directly here instead of paraphrase.

Rgds --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for carelessly and incorrectly reporting Dibble and I willingly adopt your suggestion of quoting him. That said, I think there is some justification for infering a preference (even if only marginal) for the first of two chronological time-frames offered in the alternative: if I say something happened in the 1990's or in the 1980's that contains a different implication from my saying it happened in the 1980's or in the 1990's; the trajectory is from a more or less secure starting point, and from there it is backwards or forwards but with diminishing (not accelerating) confidence. Nevertheless, as I say, I accept without qualification your criticism and your suggestion.

I take your points about the heading and the name Castaño publishes under, but I didn't intend to assert that he was at CFATA in 1997 ( I find his CV quite impenetrable); all I intended to assert was that the team was assembled at CFATA and he was the team coordinator. Subject to what follows, I will ensure there is no ambiguity in my re-write.

As for Poole (2006), I do not have access to that, but I can see from googlebooks that he deals with the technical report at pp.132-134 and at p. 277 we find (with reference to a date I cannot identify) "As of that date, Castano was the director of the Department [sic] of Applied Physics and Advanced Technology of the Instituto (etc.)". I also see that Poole mentions (p. 134) the donation of the codex in 2002 and adds that on the same day (in April, as I believe) Castano did, said or wrote something. Perhaps you can elucidate if - as I assume from what you wrote - you have access to Poole (2006).

I have had no success in pursuing Castaño's subsequent defence (or otherwise) or clarification of the 1997 Report, but I know from his CV that he has put elements of it in the public domain in various ways (at lectures/seminars, for example) in 2002, 2005, 2008 and 2010. A 10 January 2010 newspaper report of a then impending conference to be led by Castaño at the Centro Académico Cultural on the Querétaro campus certainly implies (for what it is worth) that he had not resiled from the Report: see [3] What do you know of his clarifications, and can you direct me to the "later column by Castaño" which you refer to? Kind regards, Ridiculus mus (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In light of contributions in Talk, I have added a new section to the re-write entitled "Doubts and suspicions" to which I have moved the final paragraph which currently appears under "Authentication" (now renamed "Investigations as to authenticity") and which dealt with an alleged internal inconsistency. I hope this new section will fully address valid concerns raised by Maunus and cjllw. Ridiculus mus (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the matter in the Osservatore Romano article, if someone has an alternate source for the material which recounts the facts more accurately, please provide it and edit the articles accordingly. Blanking or omitting the matter altogether lacks balance and smells of POV pushing. Even these matters as recounted by Poole in his 2006 The Guadalupan controversies in Mexico, at pp. 132-133, would be preferable to omitting them. He admits that Dibble found the signature to be authentic (as did the Bank of Mexico experts) and executed in the 16th century and that the UNAM study concurred in this dating. Mamalujo (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no dispute about that. I am in course of loading here my projected re-write of this article. As explained above (under "Authentication") the full report of all the tests and investigations (with photos and technical data) is set out in an 80 page fifth volume of Escalada's "Enciclopedia Guadalupana" (1997). If you scroll down you will find one more section from my projected re-write: "Doubts and suspicions". Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have also added below (in a new Talk section) a re-write of the projected section "Authentication" (the first version of which is set out above), taking account of remarks by cjllw. Discussion will be easier to follow if conducted under the relevant sections below rather than as an extended discussion under this "Dibble" section. Regards to all who are following this (mutely or not). Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Projected article re-write: The lede

As I noted in Talk under Our Lady of Guadalupe (cross-heading "Specialists"), I have been working on replacing the current article with something more substantial, but hesitate simply to replace the existing article without giving room for comments and contributions beforehand. I therefore add here the lede to my re-write, and invite others to review it (references are left embedded in the text, for now). If the feedback is generally positive, I will add another few paragraphs for the same process to repeat. My projected headings are: description; iconography; circumstances of publication, ownership and location; provenance; authentication. Lede follows:-

"Codex Escalada, formerly known as Codex 1548, is not a codex as the term is generally understood, but a single sheet (approximately 13.3 by 20 cms or 5¼ x 8 inches) of parchment roughly prepared from what is probably deerskin on which there have been drawn, in ink in the European style, images (with supporting text) depicting a Marian apparition, namely that of Our Lady of Guadalupe to Juan Diego which is said to have occurred on four separate occasions in December 1531 on the hill of Tepeyac 6 kms north of the main plaza of Mexico City. If authentic, and if correctly dated to the mid-16th century, the document supplies a gap in the documentary record as to the antiquity of the tradition regarding those apparitions and the image of the Virgin venerated at the Basilica of Guadalupe which is associated with the fourth apparition. The fortuitous convergence of data on the parchment is still regarded with suspicion in some quarters.<Brading; Poole (2002); Peralta> Other scholars have reserved judgement pending a yet more extensive codicological examination.<e.g., Tena>" Ridiculus mus (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I can only commend and appreciate the sensible and consultative approach you are taking here RM, all kudos to you. This is the good way forward that should avoid most of the conflicts and endless to-an-fro that all too often may arise, IMO at least.

My available time for editing and commenting on wikipedia has been rather limited of late and will likely continue to be so; however when and where I can I shall do my best to assist in the endeavour. Please bear with me, I may take another day or so to comment on the above passage (others may be more free and are readily invited to do so, of course).

Just one thing at the moment springs to mind -- perhaps Tena's position might be expressed a little stronger than reserving judgement--the way I read it, while he's not coming to any definitive conclusions until more and better data are in, he appears inclined more towards a sceptical viewpoint. Would you agree? --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to read that your editing time is constrained, since your contributions are a great help and encouragement. Forgive me if I do not expatiate on your qualities, but your own generous compliments to me MOST unfortunately preclude any such response. To business, then. I wrote that Tena reserved judgement pending more extensive codicological examination (I have seen only his comments of September 1999 included as an appendix by Olimon in his "La Búsqueda de Juan Diego). It is true that in his conclusion he says it is more probable that the document is of relatively recent confection, but he is careful not to prejudge the outcome of the codicological examination which he was calling for. In the introduction he wrote ". . Los resultados parciales de las diferentes disciplinas permitirán elaborar un dictamen global final . .", and in the conclusion:- ". . entretanto, aunque parece más probable que se trata de una pieza relativamente reciente, y por lo tanto apócrifa, resulta prematuro querer pronunciarse definitivamente en un sentido o en otro." It is sufficiently flagged in my projected lede that there are out-and-out sceptics; Tena's position is more constructive and that's an important distinction, I think. You will notice that in the lede I do not assert the authentication of the document, or even refer to the tests, so throwing Tena into the sceptic camp would distort the over-view. But anyway, see what I am projecting for "Authentication" (under "Dibble" above) and maybe it addresses your substantive concerns. Ridiculus mus (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Tena, fine to leave it to the body of the article to note his inclinations in more detail. A couple other minor observations / comments on the proposed opening para:

• ..formerly known as Codex 1548..I'm not sure this name has been replaced already, it still appears in recent publs. both eng. and spanish. Suggest leaving as alternative name, "Codex E. or codex 1548.."
• ..not a codex as the term..while formally true perhaps, such detail might best be left to somewhere later on in a "Description" section. I think this clause can be left out of the opening sentence, which may benefit stylistically from being broken up into two.
• Some other backing particulars, eg distance of Tepeyac and the # of apparitions, could also be retired to some appropriate later section to improve the flow.
• I think it would also be relevant to include a sentence indicating the codex's existence was only brought to public light in 1995.
• --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have kept for now the wording re the name of the codex because of what appears under "provenance" (the former owners renamed it in 2002 in honour of Escalada). The events of 2002 are not widely known, which may account for the codex being burdened with 2 names. I am not wedded to my formula, however.

I take your point about the material better included under "description".

I have added the reference to when the codex came to light.

I have partially adopted your suggestion about removing other backing material, keeping the "four apparitions" because of the later mention of the "fourth apparition".

Text of lede as now revised:-

"Codex Escalada, formerly known as Codex 1548, is a single sheet of parchment on which there have been drawn, in ink in the European style, images (with supporting text) depicting a Marian apparition, namely that of Our Lady of Guadalupe to Juan Diego, said to have occurred on four separate occasions in December 1531 on the hill of Tepeyac north of central Mexico City. If authentic, and if correctly dated to the mid-16th century, the document supplies a gap in the documentary record as to the antiquity of the tradition regarding those apparitions and the image of the Virgin venerated at the Basilica of Guadalupe which is associated with the fourth apparition. Puzzling aspects of the codex and the fortuitous convergence of data on the parchment, which came to light in 1995, are regarded with suspicion in some quarters.<Brading; Poole (2002); Peralta> Other scholars have reserved judgement pending a yet more extensive codicological examination than has already taken place.<e.g., Tena>Ridiculus mus (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The lede looks good and balanced. I had a couple concerns though. This section: "The fortuitous convergence of data on the parchment is still regarded with suspicion in some quarters. Other scholars have reserved judgement pending a yet more extensive codicological examination." It fails to account for a third position - those scholars who consider it authentic. Another section: "if correctly dated to the mid-16th century, the document supplies a gap in the documentary record as to the antiquity of the tradition". What about the copper plaque of Coosawattee the copper plaque of Coosawattee and the stone of Tlatelolco? Aren't the purportedly made in the 16th century? Mamalujo (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I think it is implicit ("some quarters", "other scholars") that there is the third response you have drawn attention to. Authenticity is also addressed under "Doubts and suspicions" below where the section begins "The parchment and Sahagún's signature were subjected to technical and critical analysis the results of which were all favourable to the document's authenticity (see below under "Investigation as to authenticity")". But it is a fair criticism to point out, as you do, that the lede gives no hint as to the results of the tests, so I suggest this addition:- "If correctly dated to the mid-16th century (as tests so far conducted indicate) . . ". The Coosawatte plaque is a lot more doubtful than Codex Escalada since (leaving aside the question of its date) it is mere speculation that it refers to the Guadalupe event. In any case, surely discussion of the archaeological findings belongs in the article Juan Diego rather than here (the lede carefully speaks of "the documentary record")? This is not the place for a general discussion of the evidence regarding the historicity of Juan Diego.Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Text of lede now reads:-

"Codex Escalada, formerly known as Codex 1548, is a single sheet of parchment on which there have been drawn, in ink in the European style, images (with supporting Nahuatl text) depicting a Marian apparition, namely that of Our Lady of Guadalupe to Juan Diego, said to have occurred on four separate occasions in December 1531 on the hill of Tepeyac north of central Mexico City. If authentic, and if correctly dated to the mid-16th century (as tests so far conducted indicate), the document supplies a gap in the documentary record as to the antiquity of the tradition regarding those apparitions and of the image of the Virgin associated with the fourth apparition venerated at the Basilica of Guadalupe. Puzzling aspects of the codex and the fortuitous convergence of data on the parchment, which came to light in 1995, are regarded with suspicion in some quarters.<Brading; Poole (2002); Peralta> Other scholars have reserved judgement pending a yet more extensive codicological examination than has already taken place.<e.g., Tena> Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Description of the parchment and iconography

Continuing with the proposed re-write, here are my proposed paragraphs describing the parchment and discussing aspects of the iconography:-

Description

The document is not a codex as the term is generally understood, but a single sheet (approximately 13.3 by 20 cms or 5¼ x 8 inches) of parchment roughly prepared from what is probably deerskin. It bears several significant creases both lengthwise and laterally, and the edges are abraded which, together with a yellowish patina, impedes a clear reading of it; however, certain features can be distinguished. The principal image comprises a rocky landscape dotted with sparse scrub flanked on the left by an Indian kneeling at the foot of a mountain and facing in three-quarter profile across the plain towards the Virgin who, in turn, flanks the landscape on the right; facing the Indian, she is contained within a cloud mandorla, and is possibly standing on a moon in its first quarter. This depicts the apparition which is said to have occurred on 12 December 1531 on the hill of Tepeyac 6 kms north of the main plaza of Mexico City. The sun is rising over the hills behind the Virgin. Above the central landscape is the date "154-8" beneath which are four lines of text in Nahuatl which can be translated as: "In this year of 15[0]31 there appeared to Cuauhtlactoatzin our dearly beloved mother Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico". Below the landscape and a little off-centre to the right is the signature of Fray Bernadino Sahagún (ca. 1499-1590), the renowned Franciscan missionary, historian and pioneering ethnologist. High in the cliffs above the kneeling Indian is a depiction of him on the hill; directly beneath him is more Nahuatl text, the first part of which can be translated as: "Cuauhtlactoatzin died a worthy death"; and the second as: "in 1548 Cuauhtlactoatzin died." From other indirect sources, this is known to be the native name of Juan Diego, although the normal orthography for such a date is "Quauhtlahtoatzin".<Betancourt; Peralta; Tena> It is these last details which have led the parchment to be regarded as a type of "death certificate" of Juan Diego.<Brading, p.345>

The right margin of the parchment constitutes a distinct register of images: the top half is a continuation of the landscape; below that is an indistinct rectilinear image; below that is left-facing picture in the indigenous style of a man holding out before him an upright staff while seated on a ceremonial chair. Above this image is a glyph depicting the head of a bird from which waters flow and beneath it and to the left are the words "juez anton vareliano [sic]" taken to be a reference to Antonio Valeriano who was juez-gobernador (or judge-governor) of his home town of Azcapotzalco from 1565 to 1573, and of San Juan Tenochtítlan thereafter, and who had been a pupil and later associate of Sahagún in the compilation of an encyclopedic account of Nahua life and culture before the Spanish conquest assembled between approximately 1540 and 1585 and known most famously through the Florentine Codex.<Karttunen>

The pictogram of Valeriano is very close to one of him on the Aubin Codex in the British Museum which probably dates from 1576, hence its alternative name of "manuscrito de 1576". The purpose and function of Sahagún's signature and of the Valeriano pictogram remain uncertain.

Iconography

The disposition of Juan Diego and the Virgin on the parchment and their physical attributes are paralleled to some extent by an engraving by Antonio Castro which ornaments the second (and posthumous) edition of a work by Luis Becerra Tanco first published in Mexico in 1666 as "Origen milagroso del santuario de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe" and republished in Spain in 1675 as "Felicidad de México".<Brading, p.344> The iconography of the Virgin on the parchment is notable for the absence of three features which have been an enduring part of the image: the rays framing her, the crown on her head, and the angel at her feet (the first and last of which are still currently visible in the image preserved in the Basilica of Guadalupe on what is said to be Juan Diego's tilma or mantle). All three features can be seen in the first known representation of the tilma, painted in oil on panel dated 1606 and signed Baltasar de Echave Orio.<discussion and illustration in José Guadalupe Victoria's "Un Pintor en su Tiempo: Baltasar de Echave Orio", UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, 1994, pp.137ff.; and see Brading, illustration 10 at p. 105> A sequence of marks on the fringe of the Virgin's mantle falling down over her left shoulder have been interpreted as stars but (as with the possible moon) are too vestigial to permit a secure identification. Following an infrared and ocular study of the tilma in 1979, Philip Callahan concluded that the angel, crown, rays and stars were later additions to the original image made probably in that order beginning at an indeterminate time in the 16th century and perhaps continuing into the early 17th century.<Callahan, pp.6-13, esp. conclusions at pp. 9, 10, 13; summary conclusions 2 and 3 at p.18; and speculations at p.19>

revised version ends. Ridiculus mus (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Circumstances of its publication, ownership and location

The parchment first came to public notice in August 1995 when Father Xavier Escalada – a Spanish Jesuit and long-time resident of Mexico who was at that time preparing for the press his Enciclopedia Guadalupana – announced that the owners of the parchment had brought it to his attention while at the same time requesting that their identity remain confidential.<Peralta> The original announcement came almost mid-way between the beatification and the canonization of Juan Diego in 1990 and 2002 respectively, and the parchment helped to allay doubts in some quarters about the historicity both of Juan Diego himself, and of the antiquity of the tradition as to the apparitions. Before the discovery of the parchment, the earliest documented reference to Juan Diego which has survived had been Miguel Sanchez's "Imagen de la Virgen Maria", published in Mexico in 1648.<Poole (2002)> Although Echave Orio's painting of 1606 is itself a document referring to the apparition, Juan Diego is neither shown nor named on it. Nevertheless, the parchment contributes no previously unknown facts relative to Juan Diego or the apparitions, for his native name and the year of his death were already known from other sources, as was the role of Valeriano in promoting the cult of Our Lady of Guadalupe (if, indeed, the Nican Mopohua is to be attributed to him, as it traditionally has been, recent challenges notwithstanding).<Poole (2002); Peralta; Traslosheros>

Version ends. Ridiculus mus (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Provenance

One José Antonio Vera Olvera found the parchment, by chance, enclosed in a manila envelope and lodged between the pages of a 19th century devotional work on sale in a second-hand book market, and from him it passed to the Guerra Vera family of Querétaro who revealed its existence to Fr. Escalada in 1995. On the occasion of the formal donation of the parchment to the Archbishop of México on 14 April 2002, the former owners requested that it be known as the Codex Escalada in honour of Fr. Escalada's life-work researching the apparitions. <Betancourt; articles in El Observador (2005) [4] and El Méxicano (April 15, 2002) [5]> Fr. Escalada died in October 2006.[6]

Version ends Ridiculus mus (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Doubts and suspicions

As with all sections of my projected re-write, references are mostly attenuated, but for this section 3 somewhat long footnotes have been included:-

The parchment and Sahagún's signature were subjected to technical and critical analysis the results of which were all favourable to the document's authenticity (see below under "Investigation as to authenticity"). Nevertheless, the owners' stipulation for anonymity added an air of mystery to what was already a highly fortuitous discovery both as to its timing and as to the nature and number of the historical data to which it attests, although it was not the only such discovery in this period which aided the case for the historicity of Juan Diego. Baltasar de Echave Orio's painting of 1606 has already been mentioned in this regard. To this can be added the discovery by Chávez Sánchez in July 2001 of a copy (dated 14 April 1666) of the original translation of the Informaciones Jurídicas de 1666, formerly known only from a copy dated 1737 first published by Hipólito Vera Fortino in 1889. In April 2002, on the eve of the canonization of Juan Diego, the owners waived their right to anonymity and, in a public ceremony, donated the parchment to the Archbishop of Mexico, since when it has been kept in the Historical Archives of the Basilica of Guadalupe. <http://www.virgendeguadalupe.org.mx/academicos/Archi_Historico/a_historico.htm>

Some scholars found the mode and timing of the discovery suspicious and the convergence of data on it little short of miraculous. The puzzling features which require elucidation and explanation were conveniently gathered by Rafael Tena under six headings as follows:- provenance (his comments predated the release of new information in 2002 as to which see under "Provenance" below); materials analysis (where Tena urged destructive investigatory techniques); art-historical criticism (including orthography); graphology (where Tena expressed the view that access to the original is indispensable for a conclusive attribution of Sahagún's signature); historiography (where Tena made one error in assuming that Valeriano was not a judge-governor before 1573,<Karttunen> and another in contending that Sahagún's signature on the codex is irreconcilable with his known opposition to the cult – as to which, see below); and finally linguistic analysis (Nahuatl is Tena's main area of expertise). While many of the puzzling features have still not been fully explained or accounted for (including alleged anachronisms which presume that the date 1548 is the date of composition as opposed to the date of record), and while further tests can be devised, no critics have impugned (i) the integrity and expertise of those who have subjected the document to investigation, or (ii) (subject to the query over Dibble's non-access to the original) the reliability and coherence of such tests as were actually performed, or (iii) the conclusions drawn from the results of those tests.

Tena, among others, contended that even if Sahagún's signature is authentic, its presence on a document such as this constitutes a serious internal inconsistency arising from Sahagún's known hostility to the cult.<e.g., Peralta, quoting from Book 11 of Sahagün's Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva España> While Sahagún did indeed express reservations as to the cult in his historical works, that comparatively late criticism was based on what he considered to be a syncretistic application to the Virgin Mary of the Nahuatl epithet "Tonantzin" ("our dear mother") which, however, he himself had freely used with the same application in his own sermons as late as the 1560's. <Burkhart, p.11>

Version ends Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

<footnote 1> Located by the historian Manuel Ortiz, it was brought to public attention in November 1987 as part of the exhibition "Imágenes guadalupanas /Cuatro siglos", held at the Centro Cultural Arte Contemporáneo, Mexico City; see Ortiz Vaquero, M.: Pintura guadalupana: Tres ejemplos in the exhibition catalogue. Cf. Juárez, José ed. : José Juárez: recursos y discursos del arte de pintar, El Colegio de Michoacán A.C., (2002) p. 212; and Patricia Barrea Azcon: "La Iconografía de la Virgen de Guadalupe de México en España", Archivo Español de Arte LXXX, 318, April-June 2007, 177-206 at p. 189. <footnote 2> Chávez Sánchez, Eduardo, La Virgen de Guadalupe y Juan Diego en las Informaciones Jurídicas de 1666, (con facsímil del original), Edición del Instituto de Estudios Teológicos e Históricos Guadalupanos, 2002. <footnote 3> Tena; Brading, p.344; Peralta; cf. Poole (2000) for a brief list of his objections, (2002) where, en passant, he conjectures it to be "most probably a crude nineteenth century forgery", and (2006) pp.132f.

footnotes end Ridiculus mus (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Investigations as to authenticity

Materials and inks

The parchment was consigned by Escalada to a team of 18 experts of various disciplines assembled at the Centro de Física Aplicada y Tecnología Avanzada UNAM and coordinated by Professor Victor Manuel Castaño, who subjected it to a range of non-destructive tests to determine the age, authenticity and integrity of the materials. In their report issued on 30 January 1997 they concluded that the parchment and inks were consistent with an origin in the 16th and that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the document itself was of 16th century origin.

Sahagún's signature

A copy of the signature as it appears on the parchment was sent to Dr. Charles E. Dibble a former distinguished professor of anthropology of the University of Utah and one of the leading scholars in Sahagún studies. In a letter in a letter of 12 June 1996 he wrote:- "l have received a copy of codice 1548. I have studied the signature, and I believe it to be the signature of Fray Bernardino de Sahagún. I base my conclusions on the indications of three crosses; the form of the 'Fray', the 'd'and the 'b'. In my opinion the signature is not the same as, that is not contemporaneous with the 1548 date of the codice. I would assign the signature to the 50's or the 60's' ". In his report of 18 September 1996, Don Alfonso M. Santillana Rentería, head of the Office of Documentoscopy and Photography of the Bank of Mexico in Mexico City, verified Sahagún's signature in these terms: " . . la firma cuestionada, atribuida a Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, que aparece en el Códice 1548, fue hecha por su puño y letra; por lo tanto es auténtica." (the signature in question, attributed to Fray Bernadino de Sahagún, which appears on codex 1548, was made by his own hand; therefore it is authentic)<Escalada; Moreno> Professor Castaño's' team identified the ink used for Sahagún's signature (as also they did with the ink used for the date "15-48") as not identical with that used on the rest of the parchment.

Publication of the results

The results of all these analyses and investigations were published by Escalada in July 1997 as an 80 page fifth volume or appendix to his Enciclopedia Guadalupana complete with photographs and technical data. <Escalada; Castaño; Moreno; Betancourt; Poole (2006) pp. 132f.>

Version ends. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 version archived

Here follows the text of the article as it currently stands:-

The Codex Escalada, also called the Codex 1548, is a Nahuatl-language document which pictographically relates the story of the 1531 apparition of the Virgin of Guadalupe on the Mexican hill of Tepeyac, an apparition which is credited with converting the indigenous peoples of Mexico to Roman Catholicism. The manuscript's authenticity has been disputed by a number of researchers.[1]

The document, which is painted on deerskin, depicts the Virgin of Guadalupe and mentions the death of Juan Diego, the Aztec man credited with witnessing the apparition. It also mentions Antonio Valeriano, the 16th-century governor of San Juan Tenochtitlan[2]. Finally, it is signed by Bernardino de Sahagún, a Franciscan historian who once complained that Guadalupan devotees were syncretically venerating the indigenous goddess Tonantzin.

In 1995, Xavier Escalada, a Spanish Jesuit who was editing an encyclopedia about the Guadalupan apparition, claimed to have discovered the codex. The discovery came at a moment when the Catholic hierarchy was deliberating the canonization of Juan Diego, and the codex allayed many doubts about the historicity of the apparition. These doubts had arisen due to arguments that there was very little documentation of the apparition between 1531 and the 1640s, when the Nican mopohua and Miguel Sanchez's Imagen de la Virgen Maria were published. However, some scholars, such as the priest-historian Stafford Poole and University of Cambridge professor Emeritus D. A. Brading, found the timing of the discovery suspicious. Brading commented on the convergence of Guadalupan personalities in the codex:

"Within the context of the Christian tradition, it was rather like finding a picture of St. Paul's vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, drawn by St. Luke and signed by St. Peter". —D. A. Brading, Mexican Phoenix[2]

In an article published in L'Osservatore Romano in 2002, it was reported that that the "Codex has been studied by about 20 specialists in various subjects, coordinated by the Physics Institute of the UNAM and also by Dr Ch. E. Dibble Charles E. Dibble of the University of Utah, USA, and by experts in graphology of the Bank of Mexico. The results, all favourable, can be found in the Appendix to the Enciclopedia Guadalupana."[3]

Notes 1. ^ See Brading (2001), Peralta (2003), Poole (2005). 2. ^ a b Brading (2001). 3. ^ L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 23 January 2002, page 8.

Archived version ends. Ridiculus mus (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Codex Escalada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710183932/http://www.elobservadorenlinea.com/archivo/2005/544.html to http://www.elobservadorenlinea.com/archivo/2005/544.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222054959/http://virgendeguadalupe.org.mx/academicos/Archi_Historico/a_historico.htm to http://www.virgendeguadalupe.org.mx/academicos/Archi_Historico/a_historico.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)