"I purposely omit the name of Herodotus, the fullest and the most instructive of the ancient historians, because, though Plutarch impugned both his good faith and his correctness, modern criticism and modern science tend to confirm, more and more, his narrative.

"Historical criticism, in spite of all that has been done to develop it, is, perhaps, the most difficult, as also the most backward, department of literature. We still find ourselves in peril of falling into an unreasoning credulity or into a skepticism that utterly negatives all science. A history may be absolutely true, and in a high degree instructive, though it contains statements the most absurd, provided it records faithfully the traditions, the beliefs, and the customs of the people about which it is concerned; on the other hand, it may be absolutely false, though it report events the most natural and the most probable, if the same are the inventions of the author, and rest on no historic basis.

"Mexican history, like the history of all other nations, has two objects in view, viz.: to describe the manners, customs, and beliefs that characterize the nation; secondly, to acquaint us with the public and private life of its great men, and to enable us to penetrate into the inner life of the people. As for the first point, I repeat what I said before, that none of the ancient writers, neither Aulus Gellius, nor Macrobius, nor Petronius, can adduce in confirmation of his narrative facts so authentic or so trustworthy as those handed down by our chroniclers, especially by Sahagun.

"As for biography and the record of events, I hold that the Roman and Grecian historians are of no greater authority than our own Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, Veytia, and others, who drank at fountains no less pure than those which refreshed Herodotus or Dionysius of Halicarnassus; nor do I believe the achievements of Alexander, as recorded by Quintus Curtius and Arrianus, to be more worthy of faith than are those of Netzahualcoyotl, or any other one of our kings, as recorded by their countrymen or their descendants."

In Mexico, the traditions were handed down, not only in hieroglyphic writings, but also in chants, which formed part of the obligatory instruction.

October 11th.-It passes belief what a number of structures, sub-structures, etc., we find in digging under the left esplanade of the palace. Here are sloping walls at right angles with others VOL. CXXXII.-NO. 290.

4

that rise by steps, and all coated with cement. Under these walls are others. What is their object? Did they sustain the pyramid? Are these compartments graves? I found a pearl, four pieces of human bones, and a pretty vase broken in two.

But I shall soon have to quit work in this palace. The long avenue on which it stands is lined with ruins of public buildings and palaces, forming continuous lines as in the streets of modern cities. The private apartments are in the rear; in front are reception halls, as I infer from their dimensions. Still, all these edifices and palaces were nothing compared with the vast substructures which strengthened their foundations.

October 12th.-We shall probably complete our excavations to-morrow. On reaching the last apartments of the left wing of the palace, we found another tombstone like the first, but broken in two. I will draw the ground-plan of the palace, as exposed by our excavations. From this it will be seen that Teotihuacan is a copy of Tula, on a larger and grander scale.

Mexico, October 16th.-My investigations at Teotihuacan are completed, but I return to the Toltecs, whom, the more I learn of them, the more I admire. Not only were they sculptors, architects, metallurgists, philosophers; further, they were born poets. Their language was polished and full of metaphor. A mild and simple religion was theirs; to the Supreme Being they offered only such victims as birds and flowers. If at any time, out of anger or panic, they offered human sacrifice, the victim was always some culprit who in any case was worthy of death. But they were not cannibals, even in their religious feasts.

Their pacific instincts survived in the kings of Texcoco, who were descended from their earliest kings; they are personified in the great Netzahualcoyotl, at once engineer and poet, who saved the city of Mexico by constructing a dike, and whose songs are sung to this day.

The Aztecs, who, in my opinion, were of quite different race, first caused this fair Toltec civilization to tend toward barbarism. They began human sacrifices in Anahuac, and they first practiced cannibalism there. The first recorded act of cannibalism on the part of the Aztecs dates from the time when they were still slaves of the Colhuas. Having accompanied their masters in a campaign against the people of Xochimilco, they set aside four prisoners whom they sacrificed to their god, Huitzilopochtli, plucking out the hearts of the victims and eating the remains.

The act so shocked the Colhuas that they compelled the Aztecs to go out from among them and to seek refuge where they might. It was in 1325 that they settled on an island in the lagoon; there, thirteen years later, they celebrated in honor of this god the sacrifice of which I have next to speak.

They sent an embassy to the king at Colhuacan, entreating him to grant them one of his daughters, whom they desired to constitute the mother of their deity. The king complied. But on the arrival of his daughter, the god commanded the Aztecs to sacrifice the maiden, to flay her so soon as she was dead, and to clothe one of their warriors in her spoils.

This bloody religion, this sacred cannibalism, spread among all the neighboring peoples. It led to the concluding of a treaty, the most curious of which history has any mention.

In 1454, the people had been suffering seven years from a terrible famine. The priests were consulted as to what was to be done, and their response was that "the gods were angered; to appease them many men must be sacrificed, and regularly." It was proposed to offer as victims captives taken in war, but the priests objected. "Wars are uncertain," they said, "and far apart; captives are few, and when they come they are lean. Sacrifices should be frequent, and the victims in good condition."

That settled the matter, and in consequence a treaty was concluded between the three heads of the Mexican empire, viz.: Mexico, Tezcoco, and Tlacopan on the one side, and Tlascala, Hucxotzinco, and Cholula on the other, to the effect that the two confederations should periodically make war on each other for the procurement of victims.

DÉSIRÉ CHARNAY.