Montezuma's time knew enough of astronomy to have a correct measure of the year. The Aztecs adopted the methods of astronomy and chronology which were used by their predecessors. They divided the year into eighteen months of twenty days each; but, as this gave the year only three hundred and sixty days, five supplementary days were added to each year, and a sixth day to every fourth year. The bissextile is known to have beenused by the Mayas, Tzendals, and Quichés, and it was probably common.

We can not reasonably refuse to give some attention to their chronology, even while doubting its value as a means of fixing dates and measuring historical periods. Its method was to count by equal periods of years, as we count by centuries, and their chronology presents a series of periods which carries back their history to a very remote time in the past. Brasseur de Bourbourg says: "In the histories written in the Nahuatl language, the oldest certain date is nine hundred and fifty-five years before Christ." This, he means, is the oldest date in the history of the Nahuas or Toltecs which has been accurately determined. The calculation by which it is found is quoted from the later portion of the "Codex Chimalpopoca" as follows: "Six times 400 years plus 113 years" previous to the year 1558 A.D. This is given as the date of a division of the land by the Nahuas. The division was made 2513 years previous to 1558 A.D., or in 955 B.C. If this date could be accepted as authentic, it would follow that the Nahuas or Toltecs left HuehueTlapalan more than a thousand years previous to the

Christian era, for they dwelt a long time in the country of Xibalba as peaceable settlers before they organized the civil war which raised them to power.

SOME CONFIRMATION OF THIS HISTORY.

That the ancient history of the country was something like what is reported in the old writings seems not improbable when we consider the condition in which the native population was found three hundred and fifty years ago. This shows that Mexico and Central America had been subjected to disrupting political changes caused by violent transfers of supreme influence from one people to another several times in the course of a long history. Such a history is indicated by the monuments, and its traces were noticeable in peculiarities of the native inhabitants of the various districts at the time of the Spanish Conquest. They are still manifest to travelers who study the existing representatives of the old race and the old dialects sufficiently to find them. There were several distinct families or groups of language, and, in many cases, the people represented by each family of dialects were in a state of separation or disruption. To a considerable extent they existed in fragmentary communities, sometimes widely separated.

The most important group of related dialects was that which included the speech of the Mayas, Quichés, and Tzendals, which, it is supposed, represented the language of the original civilizers, the Colhuas. Dialects of this family are found on both sides of the great forest. There were other dialects supposed to indicate Toltec commu

nities; and there were communities south of Mexico, in Nicaragua, and even farther south, which used the Aztec speech. Very likely all these differing groups of language came originally from the same source, and really represent a single race, but comparative philology has not yet reported on them. Mention is made of another people, called Waiknas or Caribs, and conjecture sees in them remains of the aboriginal barbarians termed Chichimecs. They dwelt chiefly in the " dense, dank forests" found growing on the low alluvion of the Atlantic coast. So far as is known, their speech had no affinity with that of any other native community. People of this race constitute a chief element in the mixed population of the "Mosquito Coast," known as Moscos.

In Yucatan the old inhabitants were Mayas, and people using dialects related to theirs were numerous in Tabasco, Chiapa, Guatemala, and the neighboring districts, while all around the country were scattered communities supposed to be of Toltec origin, as their speech could not be classed with these dialects nor with that of the Aztecs. The most reasonable explanation of this, condition of the people is that furnished by the old chronicles and traditions. The country must have been occupied, during successive periods, by different peoples, who are represented by these broken communities and unlike groups of language. When all the native writings still in existence shall have been translated, and especially when the multitude of inscriptions found in the ruins shall have been deciphered, we may be able to see in a clearer light the ruins, the people, and their history.

IX.

THE AZTEC CIVILIZATION.

If a clever gleaner of the curious and notable things in literature should write on the curiosities of historical speculation, he would be sure to take some account of "A New History of the Conquest of Mexico" published in Philadelphia in 1859. The special aim of this work is to deny utterly the civilization of the Aztecs. The author has ability, earnestness, and knowledge of what has been written on the subject; he writes with vigor, and with a charming extravagance of dogmatic assumption, which must be liked for its heartiness, while it fails to convince those who study it. This writer fully admits the significance of the old ruins, and maintains that a great civilization formerly existed in that part of the continent. This he ascribes to the Phoenicians, while he gives it an extreme antiquity, and thinks the present ruins have existed as ruins" for thousands of years," explaining these words to mean that their history "is separated by a cycle of thousands of years from the civilization of our day." In his view, the people who constructed the old cities were subjugated and destroyed, long ages since, " by inroads of northern savages," who were the only people in the country when the Spaniards arrived.

The chief business of this "New History" is to set forth these views. Under the treatment of its author, Montezuma becomes a rude Indian sachem, his kingdom a confederation of barbarous Indian tribes like that of the Iroquois, the city of Mexico a cluster of mud huts of wigwams in an everglade, its causeways rude Indian footpaths, its temples and palaces pure fictions of lying Spanish romance, and all previous histories of the Aztecs and their country extravagant inventions with a "Moorish coloring." He would have us believe that what he calls "the pretended civilization of Montezuma and his Aztecs" was a monstrous fable of the Spaniards, a “pure fabrication," encouraged by the civil authority in Spain, and supported by the censorship of the Inquisition. Therefore he undertakes to destroy "the fabric of lies," unveil those "Mexican savages" the Aztecs, and tell a "new" story of their actual character and condition.

vor.

Of course, views so preposterous do not find much faIf the Mexicans had been nothing more than this, -the experience of Cortez among them would have been like that of De Soto in his long and disastrous march through Florida, the Gulf regions, and the country on the lower Mississippi. Cortez and his men had a different fortune, because their march was among people who had towns, cities, settled communities, and the appliances and accumulations of civilized life. Doubtless some of the Spaniards exaggerated and romanced for effect in Spain, but they did not invent either the city of Mexico or the kingdom of Montezuma. We can see clearly