The Conquest of Mexico/Volume 1/Note
NOTE
IT is always a difficult question to decide how far, if at all, the actual text of a standard work should be emended by an editor. In the case of Prescott, the question is the more important since it arises in the main from his spelling of native names, which, in many cases, is incorrect, when judged by the knowledge of to-day, and certainly inconsistent. There is little doubt that the name of the Aztec ruler should be written, not Montezuma, but Montecuzoma, the "u" being but the faintest breathing between the "c" and the "z." (An even more correct form would be Montec'zoma.) Yet it must be admitted that the spelling of Prescott in this case has the sanction of tradition in all but strictly scientific works. But when Prescott writes Guatemozin for the name of Montezuma's successor, he is neither correct nor consistent. To be, even approximately, correct, he should have written Guatemotzin, but this spelling would not remove the inconsistency, since the termination tzin is an honorific suffix to the name commonly spelt Guatemoc. If Prescott used the honorific form of the name of this ruler, he should have written Montecuzomatzin for Montezuma, and Ahuitzotzin for Ahuitzotl. But even the form Guatemoc, which is that most familiar to the general reader of history, is not strictly correct. The name itself is derived from the Aztec word for eagle, the accepted spelling of which is Quauhtli, and thus should be written Quauhtemoc. The names, therefore, have been left as Prescott wrote them, and the reasons are threefold. First, the consideration that any alteration would have to be radical, and would introduce many forms unfamiliar to the general reader. Second, the knowledge that no system of orthography would meet with universal acceptance even from the comparatively small circle of scientific readers. Third, the natural reluctance on the part of any editor to interfere with the written word of a great historian.
T. A. J.