Notes
Page 14 (5).—Description de l'Egypte (Paris, 1809)), Antiquités tom. i. cap. i. Veytia has traced the migrations of the Toltecs with sufficient industry, scarcely rewarded by the necessarily doubtful credit of the results.—Hist. Antig., lib. 1, cap. 21-33.
Page 14 (6).—Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 73.
Page 14 (7).—Veytia, Hist. Antig., lib. i, cap. 33.—Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 3.— Idem, Relaciones, MS., No. 4, 5.—Father Torquemada—perhaps misinterpreting the Tescucan hieroglyphics—has accounted for this mysterious disappearance of the Toltecs by such foe-few-fun stories of giants and demons, as show his appetite for the marvellous was fully equal to that of any of his calling.—See his Monarch. Ind., lib. 1, cap. 14.
Page 15 (1).—Tezcuco signifies "place of detention"; as several of the tribes who successively occupied Anahuac were said to have halted some time at the spot.—Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich. MS., cap. 10.
Page 15 (2).—The historian speaks, in one page, of the Chichimecs' burrowing in caves, or, at best, in cabins of straw;—and, in the next, talks gravely of their senoras, infantas, and caballeros!—Ibid., cap. 9, et seq.—Veytia, Hist. Antig., lib. 2, cap 1-10.—Camargo, Historia de Tlascala, MS.
Page 16 (1).—These were the Colhuans, not Acolhuans, with whom Humboldt, and most writers since, have confounded them.—See his Essai Politique, tom. i. p. 414; ii. p. 37.
Page 16 (2).—Clavigero gives good reasons for preferring the etymology of Mexico above noticed, to various others. (See his Stor. del. Messico, tom. i. p. 168, nota.) The name Tenochtitlan signifies tunal (a cactus) on a stone.—Esplicacion de la Col. de Mendoza, apud Antiq. of Mexico, vol. iv.
Page 16 (3).—"Datur hæc venia antiquitati," says Livy, "ut misecndo humana divinis primordia urbium augustiora faciat."—-(Hist. Præf.) See, for the above paragraph. Col. de Mendoza, plate I, apud Antiq. of Mexico, vol. i.—IxtlilxochitI, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 10.—Toribio, Historia de las Indias, MS., Parte 3, cap. 8.—Veytia, Hist. Antig., lib. 2, cap. 15. Clavigero, after a laborious examination, assigns the following dates to some of the prominent events noticed in the text. No two authorities agree on them; and this is not strange, considering that Clavigero—the most inquisitive of all—does not always agree with himself. (Compare his dates for the coming of the Acolhuans; tom. i. p. 147, and tom. iv. dissert. 2.)
| a.n. | |
| The Toltecs arrived in Anahuac | 648 |
| They abandoned the country | 1051 |
| The Chichimecs arrived | 1170 |
| The Acolhuans arrived about | 1200 |
| The Mexicans reached Tula | 1196 |
| They founded Mexico | 1325 |
See his Dissert. 2, Sec. 12. In the last date, the one of most importance, he is confirmed by the learned Veytia, who differs from him in all the others.—Hist. Antig., lib. 2. cap. 15.
Page 17 (1).—The loyal Tezcucan chronicler claims the supreme dignity for his own sovereign if not the greatest share of the spoil, by this imperial compact. (Hist. Chich., cap. 32.) Torquemada, on the other hand, claims one half of all the conquered lands for Mexico. (Monarch. Ibid 2, cap. 40.) All agree in assigning only one fifth to Tlacopan; and Veytia (Hist. Ag. Ibid 3, cap. 3) and Zurita (Rapport sur les Différentes Classes de Chefs de la Nouvelle Espagne, rad de Ternaux [Paris, 1840], p. 11), both very competent critics, acquiesce in an equal division between the two principal states in the confederacy. An ode, still extant, of Nezahualcoyotl,421
