Chapter XXXIX: Appendix: I (12)

Gallatin has followed out the series of migrations in the _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, i. 162. Dawson, _Fossil Men_ (ch. 3), gives his comprehensive views of the main directions of these early migrations. Brasseur follows the Nahuas (_Popul Vuh_, introd., sect. ix.). Winchell (_Pre-Adamites_) thinks the general tendency was from north to south. Morgan finds the origin of the Mexican tribes in New Mexico and in the San Juan Valley (_Peabody Mus. Rept._, xii. 553. Cf. his article in the _North Am. Rev._, Oct., 1869). Humboldt (_Views of Nature_, 207) touches the Aztec wanderings.

There are two well-known Aztec migration maps, first published in F. G. Carreri’s _Giro del Mondo_; in English as “Voyage round the world,” in Churchill’s _Voyages_, vol. iv., concerning which see Bancroft, ii. 543; iii. 68, 69; Short, 262, 431, 433; Prescott, iii. 364, 382. Orozco y Berra (_Hist. Antiq. de Mexico_, iii. 61) says that these maps follow one another, and are not different records of the same progress. Humboldt (_Vues_, etc., ii. 176) gives an interpretation of them in accordance with Sigüenza’s views, which is the one usually followed, and Bancroft (v. 324) epitomizes it. Ramirez says that the copies reproduced in Humboldt, Clavigero, and Kingsborough are not so correct as the engraving given in Garcia y Cubas’s _Atlas geogrâfico, estadistico e histórico de la Republica Mejicana_ (April, 1858). Bancroft (ii. 544) gives it as reproduced by Ramirez. It is also in the Mexican edition of Prescott, and in Schoolcraft’s _Indian Tribes_. Cf. Delafield’s _Inquiry_ (N. Y., 1839) and Léon de Rosny’s _Les doc. écrits de l’antiq. Amér._ (Paris, 1882). The original is preserved in the Museo Nacional of Mexico. A palm-tree on the map, near Aztlan, has pointed some of the arguments in favor of a southern position for that place, but Ramirez says it is but a part of a hieroglyphic name, and has no reference to the climate of Aztlan (Short, p. 266). F. Von Hellwald printed a paper on “American migrations,” with notes by Professor Henry, in the _Smithsonian Report_, 1866, pp. 328-345. Short defines as “altogether the most enlightened treatment of the subject” the paper of John H. Becker, “Migrations des Nahuas,” in the _Compte rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_ (Luxembourg, 1877), i. 325. This paper finds an identification of the Tulan Zuiva of the Quichés, the Huehue-Tlapallan of the Toltecs, the Amaquemecan of the Chichimecs, and the Oztotlan (Aztlan) of the Aztecs in The valleys of the Rio Grande del Norte and Rio Colorado, as was Morgan’s view. Short (p. 249) summarizes his paper. Bancroft (v. 289) shows the diversity of views respecting Amaquemecan.

[821] _Native Races_, v. 167, recapitulates the proofs against the northern theory. J. R. Bartlett, _Personal Narrative_, ii. 283, finds no evidence for it. The successive sites of their sojourns as they passed on their journeys are given as Tlapallan, Tlacutzin, Tlapallanco, Jalisco, Atenco, Iztachnexuca, Tollatzinco, Tollan or Tula,—the last, says Bancroft, apparently in Chiapas. If there was not such confusion respecting the old geography, these names might decide the question.

[822] Writers usually place the beginnings of credible history at about this period. Brasseur and the class of writers who are easily lifted on their imagination talk about traces of a settled government being discernible at periods which they place a thousand years before Christ.

[823] References in Bancroft, v. 247, with Brasseur for the main dependence, in his use of the _Codex Chimalpòpoca_ and the _Memorial de Colhuacan_.

[824] Charnay (Eng. trans., ch. 8 and 9) calls it a rival city of Tula or Tollan, rebuilt by the Chichimecs on the ruins of a Toltec city.

[825] If one wants the details of all this, he can read it in Veytia, Brasseur (_Nat. Civilisées_ and _Palenqué_, ch. viii.), and Bancroft, the latter giving references (v. 285).

[826] It is frequently stated that there was a segregated migration to Central America. Bancroft (v. 168, 285), who collates the authorities, finds nothing of the kind implied. He thinks the mass remained in Anáhuac. The old view as expressed by Prescott (i. 14) was that “much the greater number probably spread over the region of Central America and the neighboring isles, and the traveller now speculates on the majestic ruins of Mitla and Palenqué as possibly the work of this extraordinary people.” Kirk, as Prescott’s editor, refers to the labors of Orozco y Berra (_Geografía de las Lenguas de México_, 122), followed by Tylor, (_Anahuac_, 189) as establishing the more recent view that this southern architecture, “though of a far higher grade, was long anterior to the Toltec dominion.”

[827] _Amer. Ethno. Soc. Trans._, i.

[828] Bancroft (v. 287) says: “It is probable that the name Toltec, a title of distinction rather than a national name, was never applied at all to the common people.”

[829] Brinton’s main statement is in his _Were the Toltecs an historic nationality? Read before the American Philosophical Society, Sept. 2, 1887_ (Phila., 1887); published also in their _Proceedings_, 1887, p. 229. Cf. also Brinton’s _Amer. Hero. Myths_ (Phil., 1882), p. 86, where he throws discredit on the existence of the alleged Toltec king Quetzalcoatl (whom Sahagún keeps distinct from the mythical demi-god); and earlier, in his _Myths of the New World_ (p. 29), he had suggested that the name Toltec might have “a merely mythical signification.” Charnay, who makes the Toltecs a Nahuan tribe, had defended their historical status in a paper on “La Civilisation Tolteque,” in the _Revue d’Ethnographie_ (iv., 1885); and again, two years later, in the same periodical, he reviewed adversely Brinton’s arguments. (Cf. _Saturday Review_, lxiii. 843.) Otto Stoll, in his _Guatemala, Reisen und Schilderungen_ (Leipzig, 1886), is another who rejects the old theory.

[830] _Archæol. Tour_, 253.

[831] _Archæol. Tour_, 7. Sahagún identifies the Toltecs with the “giants,” and if these were the degraded descendants of the followers of Votan, Sahagún thus earlier established the same identity.

[832] _Archæol. Tour_, 191. The fact that the names which we associate with the Toltecs are Nahua, only means that Nahua writers have transmitted them, as Bandelier thinks. Cf. also Bandelier’s citation in the _Peabody Mus. Reports_, vol. ii. 388, where he speaks of our information regarding the Toltecs as “limited and obscure.” He thinks it beyond question that they were Nahuas; and the fact that their division of time corresponds with the system found in Yucatan, Guatemala, etc., with other evidences of myths and legends, leads him to believe that the aborigines of more southern regions were, if not descendants, at least of the same stock with the Toltecs, and that we are justified in studying them to learn what the Toltecs were. He finds that Veytia, in his account of the Toltecs, beside depending on Sahagún and Torquemada, finds a chief source in Ixtlilxochitl, and locates Huehue-Tlapallan in the north; and Veytia’s statements reappear in Clavigero.

The best narratives of the Toltec history are those in Veytia, _Historia Antigua de Méjico_ (Mexico, 1806); Brasseur’s _Hist. Nations Civilisées_ (vol. i.), and his introduction to his _Popul Vuh_; and Bancroft (v. ch. 3 and 4): but we must look to Ixtlilxochitl, Torquemada, Sahagún, and the others, if we wish to study the sources. In such a study we shall encounter vexatious problems enough. It is practically impossible to arrange chronologically what Ixtlilxochitl says that he got from the picture-writings which he interpreted. Bancroft (v. 209) does the best he can to give it a forced perspicuity. Wilson (_Prehisoric Man_, i. 245) not inaptly says: “The history of the Toltecs and their ruined edifices stands on the border line of romance and fable, like that of the ruined builders of Carnac and Avebury.”

[833] Short (page 255) points out that Bancroft unadvisedly looks upon these Chichimecs as of Nahua stock, according to the common belief. Short thinks that Pimentel (_Lenguas indigenas de México_, published in 1862) has conclusively shown that the Chichimecs did not originally speak the Nahua tongue, but subsequently adopted it. Short (page 256) thinks, after collating the evidence, that it is impossible to determine whence or how they came to Anáhuac.

[834] Bancroft, v. 292, gives the different views. Cf. Kirk in Prescott, i. 16.

[835] These events are usually one thing or another, according to the original source which you accept, as Bancroft shows (v. 303). The story of the text is as good as any, and is in the main borne out by the other narratives.

[836] Bancroft, v. 308. Cf., on the arrival of the Mexicans in the valley, Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 398) and his references.

[837] Prescott, i., introduction ch. 6, tells the story of their golden age.

[838] Cf. the map in Lucien Biart’s _Les Aztèques_ (Paris, 1885). Prescott says the maps in Clavigero, Lopez, and Robertson defy “equally topography and history.” Cf. note on plans of the city and valley in Vol. II. pp. 364, 369, 374, to which may be added, as showing diversified views, those in Stevens’s _Herrera_ (London, 1740), vol. ii.; Bordone’s _Libro_ (1528); Icazbalceta’s _Coll. de docs._, i. 390; and the Eng. translation of Cortes’ despatches, 333.

[839] This is placed A.D. 1325. Cf. references in Bancroft (v. 346).

[840] On the conquest of the Tecpanecas by the Mexicans, see the references in Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 412).

[841] For details of the period of the Chichimec ascendency, see Bancroft (v. ch. 5-7), Brasseur (_Nat. Civil._ ii.), and the authorities plentifully cited in Bancroft.

[842] On the nature of the Mexican confederacy see Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 416). He enumerates the authorities upon the point that no one of the allied tribes exercised any powers over the others beyond the exclusive military direction of the Mexicans proper (_Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 559). Orozco y Berra (_Geografía_, etc.) claims that there was a tendency to assimilate the conquered people to the Mexican conditions. Bandelier claims that “no attempt, either direct or implied, was made to assimilate or incorporate them.” He urges that nowhere on the march to Mexico did Cortés fall in with Mexican rulers of subjected tribes. It does not seem to be clear in all cases whether it was before or after the confederation was formed, or whether it was by the Mexicans or Tezcucans that Tecpaneca, Xochimilca, Cuitlahuac, Chalco, Acolhuacan, and Quauhnahuac, were conquered. Cf. Bandelier in _Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 691. As to the tributaries, see _Ibid._ 695.

[843] Cf. Brasseur’s _Nations Civ._ ii. 457, on Tezcuco in its palmy days.

[844] Sometimes written Mochtheuzema, Moktezema. The Aztec Montezuma must not, as is contended, be confounded with the hero-god of the New Mexicans. Cf. Bancroft, iii. 77, 171; Brinton’s _Myths_, 190; Schoolcraft’s _Ind. Tribes_, iv. 73; Tylor’s _Prim. Culture_, ii. 384; Short, 333.

[845] This has induced some historians to call these wars “holy wars.” Bandelier discredits wholly the common view, that wars were undertaken to secure victims for the sacrificial stone (_Archæol. Tour_, 24). But in another place (_Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 128) he says: “War was required for the purpose of obtaining human victims, their religion demanding human sacrifices at least eighteen times every year.”

[846] As to these carvings, which have not yet wholly disappeared, see _Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 677, 678. There is a series of alleged portraits of the Mexican kings in Carbajal-Espinosa’s _Hist. de Mexico_ (Mexico, 1862). See pictures of Montezuma II. in Vol. II. 361, 363, and that in Ranking, p. 313.

[847] Bancroft (v. 466) enumerates the great variety of such proofs of disaster, and gives references (p. 469). Cf. Prescott, i. p. 309.

[848] Tezozomoc (cap. 106) gives the description of the first bringing of the news to Montezuma of the arrival of the Spaniards on the coast.

[849] Brinton’s _Amer. Hero Myths_, 139, etc. See, on the prevalence of the idea of the return at some time of the hero-god, Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, p. 160. “We must remember,” he says, “that a fiction built on an idea is infinitely more tenacious of life than a story founded on fact.” Brinton (_Myths_, 188) gathers from Gomara, Cogolludo, Villagutierre, and others, instances to show how prevalent in America was the presentiment of the arrival and domination of a white race,—a belief still prevailing among their descendants of the middle regions of America who watch for the coming of Montezuma (_Ibid._ p. 190). Brinton does not seem to recognize the view held by many that the Montezuma of the Aztecs was quite a different being from the demi-god of the Pueblas of New Mexico.

[850] It is not easy to reconcile the conflicting statements of the native historians respecting the course of events during the Aztec supremacy, such is the mutual jealousy of the Mexican and Tezcucan writers. Brasseur has satisfied himself of the authenticity of a certain sequence and character of events (_Nations Civilisées_), and Bancroft simply follows him (v. 401). Veytia is occupied more with the Tezcucans than with the Aztecs. The condensed sketch here given follows the main lines of the collated records. We find good pictures of the later history of Mexico and Tlascala, before the Spaniards came, in Prescott (i. book 2d, ch. vi., and book 3d, ch. ii.). Bancroft (v. ch. 10) with his narrative and references helps us out with the somewhat monotonous details of all the districts of Mexico which were outside the dominance of the Mexican valley, as of Cholula, Tlascala, Michoacan, and Oajaca, with the Miztecs and Zapotecs, inhabiting this last province.

[851] Bancroft (v. 543-553).

[852] It is so held by Stephens, Waldeck, Mayer, Prichard, Ternaux-Compans, not to name others.

[853] Vol. v. 617.

[854] The Maya calendar and astronomical system, as the basis of the Maya chronology, is explained in the version which Perez gave into Spanish of a Maya manuscript (translated into English by Stephens in his _Yucatan_), and which Valentini has used in his “Katunes of Maya History,” in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct. 1879. On the difficulties of the subject see Brasseur’s _Nations Civilisées_ (ii. ch. 1). Cf. also his _Landa_, section xxxix., and page 366, from the “Cronologia antigua de Yucatan.” Cf. further, Cyrus Thomas’s _MS. Troano_, ch. 2, and Powell’s _Third Report Bur. of Ethn._, pp. xxx and 3; Ancona’s _Yucatan_, ch. xi.; Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, ii. ch. 24, with references; Short, ch. 9; Brinton’s _Maya Chronicles_, introduction, p. 50.

[855] Bancroft (v. 624) epitomizes the Perez manuscript given by Stephens, the sole source of this Totul Xiu legendary.

[856] Brasseur’s _Nations Civilisées_ (i., ii.), with the Perez manuscript, and Landa’s _Relacion_, are the sufficient source of the Yucatan history. Bancroft’s last chapter of his fifth volume summarizes it.

[857] See Vol. II. p. 402.

[858] See Vol. II. p. 397.

[859] _Central America_, ii. 452.

[860] See Vol. II. p. 414.

[861] See Vol. II. p. 343.

[862] See Vol. II. p. 412.

[863] See Vol. II. p. 417. Cf. Prescott’s _Mexico_, i. 50; Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, ii. ch. 14) epitomizes the information on the laws and courts of the Nahua; Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._, ii. 446), referring to Zurita’s Report, which he characterizes as marked for perspicacity, deep knowledge, and honest judgment, speaks of it as embodying the experience of nearly twenty years,—eleven of which were passed in Mexico,—and in which the author gave answers to inquiries put by the king. “If we could obtain,” says Bandelier, “all the answers given to these questions from all parts of Spanish America, and all as elaborate and truthful as those of Zurita, Palacio, and Ondegardo, our knowledge of the aboriginal history and ethnology of Spanish America would be much advanced.” Zurita’s Report in a French translation is in Ternaux-Compans’ _Collection_; the original is in Pacheco’s _Docs. inéditos_, but in a mutilated text.

[864] See Vol. II. p. 346.

[865] It is much we owe to the twelve Franciscan friars who on May 13, 1524, landed in Mexico to convert and defend the natives. It is from their writings that we must draw a large part of our knowledge respecting the Indian character, condition, and history. These Christian apostles were Martin de Valencia, Francisco de Soto, Martin de Coruña, Juan Xuares, Antonio de Ciudad Rodrigo, Toribio de Benavente, Garcia de Cisneros, Luis de Fuensalida, Juan de Ribas, Francisco Ximenez, Andrés de Cordoba, Juan de Palos.

From the _Historia_ of Las Casas, particularly from that part of it called _Apologética historia_, we can also derive some help. (Cf. Vol. II. p. 340.)

[866] Brasseur, _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 147; Leclerc, p. 168.

[867] Herrera is furthermore the source of much that we read in later works concerning the native religion and habits of life. See Vol. II. p. 67.

[868] Cf. Vol. II. p. 418.

[869] _Anales del Museo Nacional_, iii. 4, 120; Brinton’s _Am. Hero Myths_, 78. Bandelier, in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, November, 1879, used a portion of the MS. as printed by Sir Thomas Phillipps (_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, i. 115) under the title of _Historia de los Yndios Mexicanos, por Juan de Tovar; Cura et impensis Dni Thomæ Phillipps, Bart._ (privately printed at Middle Hill, 1860. See _Squier Catalogue_, no. 1417). The document is translated by Henry Phillipps, Jr., in the _Proc. Amer. Philosophical Soc._ (Philad.), xxi. 616.

[870] Vol. II. p. 419. Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, p. 59. He used a MS. copy in the Force collection.

[871] This is true of Acosta and Davila Padilla. The bibliography of Acosta has been given elsewhere (Vol. II. p. 420). His books v., vi., and vii. cover the ancient history of the country. He used the MSS. of Duran (Brasseur, _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, p. 2), and his correspondence with Tobar, preserved in the Lenox library, has been edited by Icazbalceta in his _Don Fray Zumárraga_ (Mexico, 1881). Of the _Provincia de Santiago_ and the _Varia historia_ of Davila Padilla, the bibliography has been told in another place. (Cf. Vol. II. pp. 399-400[; Sabin, v. 18780-1; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, p. 53; _Del Monte Library_, no. 126.) Ternaux was not wrong in ascribing great value to the books.]

[872] Peter of Ghent. Cf. Vol. II. p. 417.

[873] _Chronica Compendiosissima ab exordio mundi per Amandum Zierixcensem, adjectæ sunt epistolæ ex nova maris Oceani Hispania ad nos transmissæ_ (Antwerp, 1534). The subjoined letters here mentioned are, beside that referred to, two others written in Mexico (1531), by Martin of Valencia and Bishop Zumárraga (Sabin, i. no. 994; Quaritch, 362, no. 28583, £7 10). Icazbalceta (_Bib. Mex. del Siglo xvi._, i. p. 33) gives a long account of Gante. There is a French version of the letter in Ternaux’s _Collection_.

[874] See Vol. II. p. 397. Cf. Prescott, ii. 95. The first part of the _Historia_ is on the religious rites of the natives; the second on their conversion to Christianity; the third on their chronology, etc.

[875] Cf. Icazbalceta’s _Bibl. Mexicana_, p. 220, with references; Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_, no. 2600, etc.

[876] Pilling, no. 2817, etc.

[877] Properly, Bernardino Ribeira; named from his birthplace, Sahagún, in Spain. Chavero’s _Sahagún_ (Mexico, 1877).

[878] A few data can be added to the account of Sahagún given in Vol. II. p. 415. J. F. Ramirez completes the bibliography of Sahagún in the _Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia de Madrid_, vi. 85 (1885). Icazbalceta, having told the story of Sahagún’s life in his edition of Mendieta’s _Hist. Eclesiastica Indiana_ (México, 1870), has given an extended critical and bibliographical account in his _Bibliografía Mexicana_ (México, 1886), vol. i. 247-308. Other bibliographical detail can be gleaned from Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_, p. 677, etc.; Icazbalceta’s _Apuntes_; Beristain’s _Biblioteca_; the _Bibliotheca Mexicana_ of Ramirez. The list in Adolfo Llanos’s _Sahagún y su historia de México_ (_Museo Nac. de Méx. Anales_, iii., pt. 3, p. 71) is based chiefly on Alfredo Chavero’s _Sahagún_ (México, 1877). Brasseur de Bourbourg, in his _Palenqué_ (ch. 5), has explained the importance of what Brevoort calls Sahagún’s “great encyclopædia of the Mexican Empire.” Rosny (_Les documents écrits de l’Antiquité Américaine_, p. 69) speaks of seeing a copy of the _Historia_ in Madrid, accompanied by remarkable Aztec pictures. Bancroft, referring to the defective texts of Sahagún in Kingsborough and Bustamante, says: “Fortunately what is missing in one I have always found in the other.” He further speaks of the work of Sahagún as “the most complete and comprehensive, so far as aboriginal history is concerned, furnishing an immense mass of material, drawn from native sources, very badly arranged and written.” Eleven books of Sahagún are given to the social institutions of the natives, and but one to the conquest. Jourdanet’s edition is mentioned elsewhere (Vol. II.).

[879] See Vol. II. p. 421.

[880] Those who used him most, like Clavigero and Brasseur de Bourbourg, complain of this. Torquemada, says Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._ ii. 119), “notwithstanding his unquestionable credulity, is extremely important on all questions of Mexican antiquities.”

[881] _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. 105.

[882] Cf. Vol. II. 417; Prescott, i. 13, 163, 193, 196; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v. 147; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, i. 325. It must be confessed that with no more authority than the old Mexican paintings, interpreted through the understanding of old men and their traditions, Ixtlilxochitl has not the firmest ground to walk on. Aubin thinks that Ixtlilxochitl’s confusion and contradictions arise from his want of patience in studying his documents; and some part of it may doubtless have arisen from his habit, as Brasseur says (_Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne_, May, 1855, p. 329), of altering his authorities to magnify the glories of his genealogic line. Max Müller (_Chips from a German Workshop_, i. 322) says of his works: “Though we must not expect to find in them what we are accustomed to call history, they are nevertheless of great historical interest, as supplying the vague outlines of a distant past, filled with migrations, wars, dynasties and revolutions, such as were cherished in the memory of the Greeks in the time of Solon.” In addition to his _Historia Chichimeca_ and his _Relaciones_, (both of which are given by Kingsborough, while Ternaux has translated portions,)—the MS. of the _Relaciones_ being in the Mexican archives,—Ixtlilxochitl left a large mass of his manuscript studies of the antiquities, often repetitionary in substance. Some are found in the compilation made in Mexico by Figueroa in 1792, by order of the Spanish government (Prescott, i. 193). Some were in the Ramirez collection. Quaritch (_MS. Collections_, Jan., 1888, no. 136) held one from that collection, dated about 1680, at £16, called _Sumaria Relacion_, which concerned the ancient Chichimecs. Those which are best known are a _Historia de la Nueva España_, or _Historia del Reyno de Tezcuco_, and a _Historia de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe_, if this last is by him.

[883] _Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne_, May, 1855, p. 326.

[884] In his _Quatre Lettres_, p. 24, he calls it the sacred book of the Toltecs. “C’est le Livre divin lui-même, c’est le Teoamoxtli.”

[885] Brasseur’s _Lettres à M. le due de Valmy, Lettre seconde_.

[886] _Catálogo_, pp. 17, 18.

[887] Brasseur, _Bibl. Mex. Guat._, p. 47; _Pinart-Brasseur Catal._, no. 237.

[888] It has been announced that Bandelier is engaged in a new translation of _The Annals of Quauhtitlan_ for Brinton’s _Aboriginal Literature series_. Cf. Bancroft, iii. 57, 63, and in vol. v., where he endeavors to patch together Brasseur’s fragments of it. Short, p. 241.

[889] Humboldt says that Sigüenza inherited Ixtlilxochitl’s collection; and that it was preserved in the College of San Pedro till 1759.

[890] _Giro del mondo_, 1699, vol. vi. Cf. Kingsborough, vol. iv. Robertson attacked Carreri’s character for honesty, and claimed it was a received opinion that he had never been out of Italy. Clavigero defended Carreri. Humboldt thinks Carreri’s local coloring shows he must have been in Mexico.

[891] Cf. the bibliog., in Vol. II., p. 425, of his _Storia Antica del Messico_.

[892] We owe to him descriptions at this time of the collections of Mendoza, of that in the Vatican, and of that at Vienna. Robertson made an enumeration of such manuscripts; but his knowledge was defective, and he did not know even of those at Oxford.

[893] Robertson was inclined to disparage Clavigero’s work, asserting that he could find little in him beyond what he took from Acosta and Herrera “except the improbable narratives and fanciful conjectures of Torquemada and Boturini.” Clavigero criticised Robertson, and the English historian in his later editions replied. Prescott points out (i. 70) that Clavigero only knew Sahagún through the medium of Torquemada and later writers. Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, v. 149; _Mexico_, i. 700) thinks that Clavigero “owes his reputation much more to his systematic arrangement and clear narration of traditions that had before been greatly confused, and to the omission of the most perplexing and contradictory points, than to deep research or new discoveries.”

[894] See Vol. II. p. 418. Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. des Nations Civilisées_, p. xxxii. Clavigero had described it.

[895] He had collected nearly 500 Mexican paintings in all. Aubin (_Notices_, etc., p. 21) says that Boturini nearly exhausted the field in his searches, and with the collection of Sigüenza he secured all those cited by Ixtlilxochitl and the most of those concealed by the Indians,—of which mention is made by Torquemada, Sahagún, Valadés, Zurita, and others; and that the researches of Bustamante, Cubas, Gondra, and others, up to 1851, had not been able to add much of importance to what Boturini possessed.

[896] This portion of his collection has not been traced. The fact is indeed denied.

[897] _Idea de una nueva historia general de la America septentrional_ (Madrid, 1746); Carter-Brown, iii. 817; Brasseur’s _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, p. 26; Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 159; Pinart, _Catalogue_, no. 134; Prescott, i. 160.

[898] Brasseur, _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, p. 152.

[899] Prescott, i. 24. Harrisse, _Bib. Am. Vet._, calls Veytia’s the best history of the ancient period yet (1866) written.

[900] A second ed. (Mexico, 1832) was augmented with notes and a life of the author, by Carlos Maria de Bustamante; Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 909; Brasseur’s _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, p. 68.

[901] Prescott, i. 133. Gama and others collected another class of hieroglyphics, of less importance, but still interesting as illustrating legal and administrative processes used in later times, in the relations of the Spaniards with the natives; and still others embracing Christian prayers, catechisms, etc., employed by the missionaries in the religious instruction (Aubin, _Notice_, etc., 21). Humboldt (vol. xiii., pl. p. 141) gives “a lawsuit in hieroglyphics.”

There was published (100 copies) at Madrid, in 1878, _Pintura del Gobernador, Alcaldes y Regidores de México, Codice en geroglíficos Méxicanos y en lengua Castellana y Azteca, Existente en la Biblioteca del Excmo Señor Duque de Osuna_,—a legal record of the later Spanish courts affecting the natives.

[902] Humboldt describes these collections which he knew at the beginning of the century, speaking of José Antonio Pichardo’s as the finest.

[903] _Notice sur une collection d’antiquités Mexicaines, being an extract from a Mémoire sur la peinture didactique et l’Écriture figurative des Anciens Mexicains_ (Paris, 1851; again, 1859-1861). Cf. papers in _Revue Américaine et Orientale_, 1st ser., iii., iv., and v. Aubin says that Humboldt found that part of the Boturini collection which had been given over to the Mexican archivists diminished by seven eighths. He also shows how Ternaux-Compans (_Crauatés Horribles_, p. 275-289), Rafael Isidro Gondra (in Veytia, _Hist. Ant. de Mex._, 1836, i. 49), and Bustamante have related the long contentions over the disposition of these relics, and how the Academy of History at Madrid had even secured the suppression of a similar academy among the antiquaries in Mexico, which had been formed to develop the study of their antiquities. It was as a sort of peace-offering that the Spanish king now caused Veytia to be empowered to proceed with the work which Boturini had begun. This allayed the irritation for a while, but on Veytia’s death (1769) it broke out again, when Gama was given possession of the collection, which he further increased. It was at Gama’s death sold at auction, when Humboldt bought the specimens which are now in Berlin, and Waldeck secured others which he took to Europe. It was from Waldeck that Aubin acquired the Boturini part of his collection. The rest of the collection remained in Mexico, and in the main makes a part at present of the Museo Nacional. But Aubin is a doubtful witness.

Aubin says that he now proposed to refashion the Boturini collection by copies where he could not procure the originals; to add others, embracing whatever he could still find in the hands of the native population, and what had been collected by Veytia, Gama, and Pichardo. In 1851, when he wrote, Aubin had given twenty years to this task, and with what results the list of his MSS., which he appends to the account we have quoted, will show.

These include in the native tongue:—

_a._ History of Mexico from A.D. 1064 to 1521, in fragments, from Tezozomoc and from Alonso Franco, annotated by Domingo Chimalpain (a copy).

_b._ Annals of Mexico, written apparently in 1528 by one who had taken part in the defence of Mexico (an original).

_c._ Several historical narratives on European paper, by Domingo Chimalpain, coming down to A.D. 1591, which have in great part been translated by Aubin, who considers them the most important documents which we possess.

_d._ A history of Colhuacan and Mexico, lacking the first leaf. This is described as being in the handwriting of Ixtlilxochitl, and Aubin gives the dates of its composition as 1563 and 1570. It is what has later been known as the _Codex Chimalpopoca_.

_e._ Zapata’s history of Tlaxcalla.

_f._ A copy by Loaysa of an original, from which Torquemada has copied several chapters.

[904] The chief of the Boturini acquisition he enumerates as follows:—

_a._ Toltec annals on fifty leaves of European paper, cited by Gama in his _Descripcion histórica_. Cf. Brasseur, _Nations Civilisées_, p. lxxvi.

_b._ Chichimec annals, on Indian paper, six leaves, of which ten pages consist of pictures, the original so-called _Codex Chimalpopoca_, of which Gama made a copy, also in the Aubin collection, as well as Ixtlilxochitl’s explanation of it. Aubin says that he has used this account of Ixtlilxochitl to rectify that historian’s blunders.

_c._ Codex on Indian paper, having a picture of the Emperor Xolotl.

_d._ A painting on prepared skin, giving the genealogy of the Chichimecan chiefs, accompanied by the copies made by Pichardo and Boturini. Cf. _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, 2d ser., i. 283.

_e._ A synchronical history of Tepechpan and of Mexico, on Indian paper, accompanied by a copy made by Pichardo and an outline sketch of that in the Museo Nacional.

Without specifying others which Aubin enumerates, he gives as other acquisitions the following in particular:—

_a._ Pichardo’s copy of a Codex Mexicanus, giving the history of the Mexicans from their leaving Aztlan to 1590.

_b._ An original Mexican history from the departure from Aztlan to 1569.

_c._ Fragments which had belonged to Sigüenza.

[905] _Notice sur une Collection, etc._, p. 12.

[906] _Hist. des Nations Civilisées_ (i. pp. xxxi, lxxvi, etc.; cf. Müller’s _Chips_, i. 317, 320, 323). Brasseur in the same place describes his own collection; and it may be further followed in his _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, and in the _Pinart Catalogue_. Dr. Brinton says that we owe much for the preservation during late years of Maya MSS. to Don Juan Pio Perez, and that the best existing collection of them is that of Canon Crescencio Carrillo y Ancona. José F. Ramirez (see Vol. II. p. 398) is another recent Mexican collector, and his MSS. have been in one place and another in the market of late years. Quaritch’s recent catalogues reveal a number of them, including his own MS. _Catálogo de Colecciones_ (Jan., 1888, no. 171), and some of his unpublished notes on Prescott, not included in those “notas y ecclarecimientos” appended to Navarro’s translation of the _Conquest of Mexico_ (_Catal._, 1885, no. 28,502). The several publications of Léon de Rosny point us to scattered specimens. In his _Doc. écrits de l’Antiquité Amér._ he gives the fac-simile of a colored Aztec map. A MS. in the collection of the Corps Legislatif, in Paris, and that of the Codex Indiæ Meridionalis are figured in his _Essai sur le déchiffrement, etc._ (pl. ix, x). In the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France, n. s._, vol. i., etc., we find plates of the Mappe Tlotzin, and a paper of Madier de Montjau, “sur quelques manuscrits figuratifs de l’Ancien Méxique.” Cf. also _Anales del Museo_, viii.

Cf. for further mention of collections the _Revue Orientale et Américaine_; Cyrus Thomas in the _Am. Antiquarian_, May, 1884 (vol. vi.); and the more comprehensive enumeration in the introduction to Domenech’s _Manuscrit pictographique_. Orozco y Berra, in the introduction to his _Geografia de las Lenguas y Carta Etnográfica_ (Mexico, 1864), speaks of the assistance he obtained from the collections of Ramirez and of Icazbalceta.

[907] See Vol. II. p. 418.

[908] See Vol. II. p. 418. Bandelier calls this French version “utterly unreliable.”

[909] This is Beristain’s title. Torquemada, Vetancurt, and Sigüenza cite it as _Memorias históricas_; Brasseur, _Bib. Mexico-Guat._, p. 122.

[910] Cf. “Les Annales Méxicaines,” by Rémi Siméon in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., vol. ii.

[911] It is cited by Chavero as _Codex Zumárraga_.

[912] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, ii. 577.

[913] _Aboriginal Amer. Authors_, p. 29. Cf. Bandelier’s _Bibliography of Yucatan_ in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., vol. i. p. 82. Cf. the references in Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, and in Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v.

[914] Cf. _Mem. of Berendt_, by Brinton (Worcester, 1884).

[915] Cf. Brinton on the MSS. in the languages of Cent. America, in _Amer. Jour. of Science_, xcvii. 222; and his _Books of Chilan Balam, the prophetic and historical records of the Mayas of Yucatan_ (Philad., 1882), reprinted from the _Penn Monthly_, March, 1882. Cf. also the _Transactions of the Philad. Numismatic and Antiquarian Soc._

[916] This is in the alphabet adopted by the early missionaries. The volume contains the “Books of Chilan Balam,” written “not later than 1595,” and also the “Chac Xulub Chen,” written by a Maya chief, Nakuk Pech, in 1562, to recount the story of the Spanish conquest of Yucatan.

[917] This was in 1843, when Stephens made his English translation from Pio Perez’s Spanish version, _Antigua Chronologia Yucateca_; and from Stephens’s text, Brasseur gave it a French rendering in his edition of Landa. (Cf. also his _Nat. Civilisées_, ii. p. 2.) Perez, who in Stephens’s opinion (_Yucatan_, ii. 117) was the best Maya scholar in that country, made notes, which Valentini published in his “Katunes of Maya History,” in the _Pro. of the Amer. Antiq. Soc._, Oct., 1879 (Worcester, 1880), but they had earlier been printed in Carrillo’s _Hist. y Geog. de Yucatan_ (Merida, 1881). Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, v. 624) reprints Stephens’s text with notes from Brasseur.

The books of Chilan Balam were used both by Cogolludo and Lizana; and Brasseur printed some of them in the _Mission Scientifique au Méxique_. They are described in Carrillo’s _Disertacion sobre la historia de lengua Maya ó Yucateca_ (Merida, 1870).

[918] Brasseur, _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 30. See Vol. II. p. 429. The Spanish title is _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_.

[919] From the _Proc. of the Amer. Philos. Soc._, xxiv.

[920] Cf. Bandelier in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., vol. i. p. 88.

[921] The second edition was called _Los tres Siglos de la Dominacion Española en Yucatan_ (Campeche and Merida, 2 vols., 1842, 1845). It was edited unsatisfactorily by Justo Sierra. Cf. Vol. II. p. 429; Brasseur, _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 47.

This, like Juan de Villagutierre Soto-Mayor’s _Historia de la Conquista de la Provincia de el Itza, reduccion, y progressos de la de el Lacandon, y otras naciones de Indios Barbaros, de la mediacion de el Reyno de Gautimala, a las Provincias de Yucatan, en la America Septentrional_ (Madrid, 1701), (which, says Bandelier, is of importance for that part of Yucatan which has remained unexplored), has mostly to do with the Indians under the Spanish rule, but the books are not devoid of usefulness in the study of the early tribes.

Of the modern comments on the Yucatan ancient history, those of Brasseur in his _Nations Civilisées_ are more to be trusted than his introduction to his edition of Landa, which needs to be taken with due recognition of his later vagaries; and Brinton has studied their history at some length in the introduction to his _Maya Chronicles_. The first volume of Eligio Ancona’s _Hist. de Yucatan_ covers the early period. See Vol. II. p. 429. Brinton calls it “disappointingly superficial.” There is much that is popularly retrospective in the various and not always stable contributions of Dr. Le Plongeon and his wife. The last of Mrs. Le Plongeon’s papers is one on “The Mayas, their customs, laws, religion,” in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Aug., 1887. Bancroft’s second volume groups the necessary references to every phase of Maya history. Cf. Charnay, English translation, ch. 15; and Geronimo Castillo’s _Diccionario Histórico, biográfico y monumental de Yucatan_ (Mérida, 1866). Of Crescencio Carrillo and his _Historia Antigua de Yucatan_ (Mérida, 1881), Brinton says: “I know of no other Yucatecan who has equal enthusiasm or so just an estimate of the antiquarian riches of his native land” (_Amer. Hero Myths_, 147). Bastian summarizes the history of Yucatan and Guatemala in the second volume of his _Culturländer des alten Amerika_.

[922] _Yucatan_, ii. 79.

[923] See C. H. Berendt on the hist. docs. of Guatemala in _Smithsonian Report_, 1876. There is a partial bibliography of Guatemala in W. T. Brigham’s _Guatemala the land of the Quetzal_ (N. Y., 1887), and another by Bandelier in the _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., vol. i. p. 101. The references in Brasseur’s _Hist. Nations Civilisées_, and in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v., will be a ready means for collating the early sources.

[924] Scherzer and Brasseur are somewhat at variance here.

[925] “There are some coincidences between the Old Testament and the Quiché MS. which are certainly startling.” Müller’s _Chips_, i. 328.

[926] _Wanderungen durch die mittel-Amerikanischen Freistaaten_ (Braunschweig, 1857—an English translation, London, 1857).

[927] Leclerc, no. 1305.

[928] H. H. Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, ii. 115; iii., ch. 2, and v. 170, 547, gives a convenient condensation of the book, and says that Müller misconceives in some parts of his summary, and that Baldwin in his _Ancient America_, p. 191, follows Müller. Helps, _Spanish Conquest_, iv. App., gives a brief synopsis,—the first one done in English.

[929] Max Müller dissents from this. _Chips_, i. 326. Müller reminds us, if we are suspicious of the disjointed manner of what has come down to us as the _Popul Vuh_, that “consecutive history is altogether a modern idea, of which few only of the ancient nations had any conception. If we had the exact words of the _Popul Vuh_, we should probably find no more history there than we find in the Quiché MS. as it now stands.”

[930] Cf. _Aborig. Amer. Authors_, p. 33.

[931] _The names of the gods in the Kiché Myths of Central America_ (Philad., 1881), from the _Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc._ He gives his reasons (p. 4) for the spelling _Kiché_.

[932] Cf. _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., vol. i. 109; and his paper, “On the Sources of the Aboriginal Hist. of Spanish America,” in the _Am. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._, xxvii. 328 (Aug., 1878). In the _Peabody Mus. Eleventh Report_, p. 391, he says of it that “it appears to be for the first chapters an evident fabrication, or at least accommodation of Indian mythology to Christian notions,—a pious fraud; but the bulk is an equally evident collection of original traditions of the Indians of Guatemala, and as such the most valuable work for the aboriginal history and ethnology of Central America.”

[933] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, i. 47. _S’il existe des sources de l’histoire primitive du Méxique dans les monuments égyptiens et de l’histoire primitive de l’ancien monde dans les monuments Américains?_ (1864), which is an extract from his _Landa’s Relation_. Cf. Bollaert, in the _Royal Soc. of Lit. Trans._, 1863. Brasseur (_Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 45; Pinart, no. 231) also speaks of another Quiché document, of which his MS. copy is entitled _Titulo de los Señores de Totonicapan, escrito en lengua Quiché, el año de 1554, y traducido al Castellano el año de 1834, por el Padre Dionisio José Chonay, indígena_, which tells the story of the Quiché race somewhat differently from the _Popul Vuh_.

[934] See Vol. II. p. 419.

[935] It stands in Brasseur’s _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 13, as _Memorial de Tecpan-Atitlan_ (_Solola_), _histoire des deux familles royales du royaume des Cakchiquels d’Iximché ou Guatémala, rédigé en langue Cakchiquèle par le prince Don Francisco Ernantez Arana-Xahila, des rois Ahpozotziles_, where Brasseur speaks of it as analogous to the _Popul Vuh_, but with numerous and remarkable variations. The MS. remained in the keeping of Xahila till 1562, when Francisco Gebuta Queh received it and continued it (_Pinart Catalogue_, no. 35).

[936] See Vol. II. 419; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v. 564; Bandelier in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, i. 105. Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._, ii. 391) says that it is now acknowledged that the _Recordacion florida_ of Fuentes y Guzman is “full of exaggerations and misstatements.” Brasseur (_Bib. Mex.-Guat._, pp. 65, 87), in speaking of Fuentes’ _Noticia histórica de los indios de Guatemala_ (of which manuscript he had a copy), says that he had access to a great number of native documents, but profited little by them, either because he could not read them, or his translators deceived him. Brasseur adds that Fuentes’ account of the Quiché rulers is “un mauvais roman qui n’a pas le sens commun.” This last is a manuscript used by Domingo Juarros in his _Compendio de la historia de la ciudad de Guatemala_ (Guatemala, 1808-1818, in two vols.—become rare), but reprinted in the _Museo Guatemalteco_, 1857. The English translation, by John Baily, a merchant living in Guatemala, was published as a _Statistical and Commercial History of Guatemala_ (Lond., 1823). Cf. Vol. II. p. 419. Francisco Vazquez depended largely on native writers in his _Crónica de la Provincia de Guatemala_ (Guatemala, 1714-16). (See Vol. II. p. 419.)

[937] See note in Bancroft, iii. 451.

[938] Vol. II. 419. Helps (iii. 300), speaking of Remesal, says: “He had access to the archives of Guatemala early in the seventeenth century, and he is one of those excellent writers so dear to the students of history, who is not prone to declamation, or rhetoric, or picturesque writing, but indulges us largely by the introduction everywhere of most important historical documents, copied boldly into the text.”

[939] Vol. II. 419.

[940] Vol. II. 417.

[941] E. G. Squier printed in 1860 (see Vol. II. p. vii.) Diego Garcia de Palacio’s _Carta dirigida al Rey de España, año 1576_, under the English title of _Description of the ancient Provinces of Guazacupan, Izalco, Cuscatlan, and Chiquimula in Guatemala_, which is also included in Pacheco’s _Coleccion_, vol. vi. Bandelier refers to Estevan Aviles’ _Historia de Guatemala desde los tiempos de los Indios_ (Guatemala, 1663). A good reputation belongs to a modern work, Francisco de Paula Garcia Pelaez’s _Memorias para la Historia del antiguo reyno de Guatemala_ (Guatemala, 1851-53, in three vols.).

[942] For details follow the references in Brasseur’s _Nat. Civil._; Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_; Stephens’s _Nicaragua_, ii. 305, etc. See the introd. of Brinton’s _Güegüence_ (Philad., 1883), for the Nahuas and Mangues of Nicaragua.

[943] Leclerc, no. 1070. Bancroft summarized the history of these ancient peoples in his vol. ii. ch. 2, and goes into detail in his vol. v.

[944] He condenses the early Mexican history in his _Mexico_, i. ch. 7. There are recent condensed narratives, in which avail has been had of the latest developments, in Baldwin’s _Ancient America_, ch. 4, and Short’s _North Americans of Antiquity_.

[945] Mrs. Alice D. Le Plongeon has printed various summarized popular papers, like the “Conquest of the Mayas,” in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, April and June, 1888.

[946] A list of Squier’s published writings was appended to the _Catalogue of Squier’s Library_, prepared by Joseph Sabin (N. Y., 1876), as sold at that time. By this it appears that his earliest study of these subjects was a review of Buxton’s _Migrations of the Ancient Mexicans_, read before the London Ethnolog. Soc., and printed in 1848 in the _Edinb. New Philosoph. Mag._, vol. xlvi. His first considerable contribution was his _Travels in Cent. America, particularly in Nicaragua, with a description of its aboriginal monuments_ (London and N. Y., 1852-53). He supplemented this by some popular papers in _Harper’s Mag._, 1854, 1855. (Cf. _Hist. Mag._, iv. 65; _Putnam’s Mag._, xii. 549.) A year or two later he communicated papers on “Les Indiens Guatusos du Nicaragua,” and “Les indiens Xicaques du Honduras,” to the _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_ (1856, 1858), and “A Visit to the Guajiquero Indians” to _Harper’s Mag._, 1859. In 1860, Squier projected the publication of a _Collection_ of documents, but only a letter (1576) of Palacio was printed (Icazbalceta, _Bibl. Mex._, i. p. 326). He had intended to make the series more correct and with fewer omissions than Ternaux had allowed himself. His material, then the result of ten years’ gathering, had been largely secured through the instrumentality of Buckingham Smith. (See Vol. II. p. vii.)

[947] “Art of war and mode of warfare of the Ancient Mexicans” (_Peabody Mus. Rept._, no. x.).

“Distribution and tenure of lands, and the customs with respect to inheritance among the ancient Mexicans” (_Ibid._ no. xi.).

“Special organizations and mode of government of the ancient Mexicans” (_Ibid._ no. xii.).

These papers reveal much thorough study of the earlier writers on the general condition of the ancient people of Mexico, and the student finds much help in their full references. It was this manifestation of his learning that led to his appointment by the Archæological Institute,—the fruit of his labor in their behalf appearing in his _Report of an Archæological Tour in Mexico, 1881_, which constitutes the second volume (1884) of the _Papers_ of that body. In his third section he enlarges upon the condition of Mexico at the time of the Conquest. His explorations covered the region from Tampico to Mexico city.

[948] _Library of Aboriginal American Literature_, (Philadelphia.)

[949] James H. McCulloh, an officer of the U. S. army, published _Researches on America_ (Balt., 1816), expanded later into _Researches, philosophical and antiquarian, concerning the original History of America_ (Baltimore, 1829). His fifth and sixth parts concern the “Institutions of the Mexican Empire,” and “The nations inhabiting Guatemala” (Field, no. 987).

G. F. Lyon’s _Journal of a residence and tour in the Republic of Mexico_ (Lond., 1826, 1828).

Brantz Mayer’s _Mexico as it was and as it is_, and his more comprehensive _Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican_ (Hartford, 1853), which includes an essay on the ancient civilization. Mayer had good opportunities while attached to the United States legation in Mexico, but of course he wrote earlier than the later developments (Field, no. 1038).

The distinguished English anthropologist, E. B. Tylor’s _Anahuac; or, Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern_ (London, 1861), is a readable rendering of the outlines of the ancient history, and he describes such of the archæological remains as fell in his way.

H. C. R. Becher’s _Trip to Mexico_ (London, 1880) has an appendix on the ancient races.

F. A. Ober’s _Travels in Mexico_ (1884).

[950] The important papers are:—Tome I. Brasseur de Bourbourg. _Esquisses d’histoire, d’archéologie, d’ethnographie et de linguistique._ Gros. _Renseignements sur les monuments anciens situés dans les environs de Mexico._—Tome II. Br. de Bourbourg. _Rapport sur les ruines de Mayapan et d’Uxmal au Yucatan._ Hay. _Renseignements sur Texcoco._ Dolfus, Montserrat et Pavie. _Mémoires et notes géologiques._—Tome III. Doutrelaine. _Rapports sur les ruines de Mitla, sur la pierre de Tlalnepantla, sur un mss. mexicain (avec fac-simile)._ Guillemin Tarayre. _Rapport sur l’exploration minéralogique des régions mexicaines._ Siméon. _Note sur la numération des anciens Mexicains._

[951] He says the work is very rare. A copy given by him is in Harvard College library. _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 26.

[952] His _Palenqué_, at a later day, was published by the French government (_Quatre Lettres, avant-propos_).

[953] Introduction of his _Hist. Nations Civilisées_.

[954] Tome I. xcii. et 440 pp. _Les temps héroïques et l’histoire de l’empire des Toltèques._—Tome II. 616 pp. _L’histoire du Yucatan et du Guatémala, avec celle de l’Anahuac durant le moyen âge aztèque, jusqu’à la fondation de la royauté à Mexico._—Tome III. 692 pp. _L’histoire des Etats du Michoacan et d’Oaxaca et de l’empire de l’Anahuac jusqu’à l’arrivée des Espagnols. Astronomie, religion, sciences et arts des Aztèques, etc._—Tome IV. vi. et 851 pp. _Conquête du Mexique, du Michoacan et du Guatémala, etc. Etablissement des Espagnols et fondation de l’Eglise catholique. Ruine de l’idolâtrie, déclin et abaissement de la race indigène, jusqu’à la fin du xvi^e siècle._

In his introduction (p. lxxiv) Brasseur gives a list of the manuscript and printed books on which he has mainly depended, the chief of which are: Burgoa, Cogolludo, Torquemada, Sahagún, Remesal, Gomara (in Barcia), Lorenzana’s _Cortes_, Bernal Diaz, Vetancurt’s _Teatro Mexicano_ (1698), Valades’ _Rhetorica Christiana_ (1579), Juarros, Pelaez, Leon y Gama, etc.

[955] Kirk’s _Prescott_, i. 10. There are lists of Brasseur’s works in his own _Bibliothèque Mex.-Guatémalienne_, p. 25; in the _Pinart Catalogue_, no. 141, etc.; Field, p. 43; Sabin, ii. 7420. Cf. notices of his labors by Haven in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1870, p. 47; by Brinton in _Lippincott’s Mag._, i. 79. There is a _Sommaire des voyages scientifiques et des travaux de géographie, d’histoire, d’archéologie et de Philologie américaines, publiés par l’abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg_ (St. Cloud, 1862).

[956] _Abor. Amer. Authors_, 57.

[957] Cf. Bandelier, _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. 93; Field, no. 176; H. H. Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, ii. 116, 780; v. 126, 153, 236, 241,—who says of Brasseur that “he rejects nothing, and transforms everything into historic fact;” but Bancroft looks to Brasseur for the main drift of his chapter on pre-Toltec history. Cf. Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, p. 41.

[958] Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v. 176; Baldwin, _Anc. America_.

[959] Reference may be made to H. T. Moke’s _Histoire des peuples Américains_ (Bruxelles, 1847); Michel Chevalier’s “Du Mexique avant et pendant la Conquête,” in the _Revue des deux Mondes_, 1845, and his _Le Méxique ancien et moderne_ (Paris, 1863); and some parts of the Marquis de Nadaillac’s _L’Amérique préhistorique_ (Paris, 1883). A recent popular summary, without references, of the condition and history of ancient Mexico, is Lucien Biart’s _Les Aztèques, histoire, mœurs, coutumes_ (Paris, 1885), of which there is an English translation, _The Aztecs, their history_, etc., translated by J. L. Garnier (Chicago, 1887).

[960] Leclerc, no. 1147; Field, no. 620; Squier, no. 427; Sabin, vii. 28,255; Bandelier in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. 116. It has never yet been reprinted. The early date, as well as its rarity, have contributed to give it, perhaps, undue reputation. It is worth from £3 to £4.

[961] Leclerc, no. 1119. See Vol. II. p. 415.

[962] Leclerc, no. 2079; Brasseur, _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 113.

[963] For the _Historia de Mexico_ of Carbajal Espinosa, see Vol. II. p. 428. Cf. Alfred Chavero’s _México á través de los Siglos_.

[964] Discrediting Gomara’s statement that De Ayllon found tribes near Cape Hatteras who had tame deer and made cheese from their milk, Dr. Brinton says: “Throughout the continent there is not a single authentic instance of a pastoral tribe, not one of an animal raised for its milk, nor for the transportation of persons, and very few for their flesh. It was essentially a hunting race.” (_Myths of the New World_, 21.) He adds: “The one mollifying element was agriculture, substituting a sedentary for a wandering life, supplying a fixed dependence for an uncertain contingency.”

[965] See Vol. II. p. 98.

[966] It was two years earlier, in 1517, that Hernandez de Cordova had first noticed the ruins of the Yucatan coast, though Columbus, in 1502, near Yucatan had met a Maya vessel, which with its navigators had astonished him.

[967] “No writer,” says Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._ ii. 674), “has been more prolific in pictures of pomp, regal wealth and magnificence, than Bernal Diaz. Most of the later writers have placed undue reliance on his statements, assuming that the truthfulness of his own individual feelings was the result of cool observation. Any one who has read attentively his _Mémoirs_ will become convinced that he is in fact one of the most unreliable eye-witnesses, so far as general principles are concerned.... Cortes had personal and political motives to magnify and embellish the picture. If his statements fall far below those of his troopers in thrilling and highly-colored details, there is every reason to believe that they are the more trustworthy.... In the descriptions by Cortes we find, on the whole, nothing but a barbarous display common to other Indian celebrations of a similar character.”

Bandelier’s further comment is (_Ibid._ ii. 397) “A feudal empire at Tezcuco was an invention of the chroniclers, who had a direct interest, or thought to have one, in advancing the claims of the Tezcucan tribe to an original supremacy.”

Bandelier again (_Ibid._ ii. 385) points out the early statements of the conquerors, and of their annalists, which have prompted the inference of a feudal condition of society; but he refers to Ixtlilxochitl as “the chief originator of the feudal view;” and from him Torquemada draws his inspiration. Wilson (_Prehist. Man_, i. 242) holds much the same views.

[968] _Peabody Mus. Tenth Rept._ vol. ii. 114.