Whether we turn to the extreme eastern kingdoms of Asia, or to the region watered by the Euphrates and the Nile, all inhabited since the remotest historic past by races of acknowledged culture, everywhere we find vast differences and strong peculiarities in the respective cultures, developed by environment. Some of the characteristics are of a high order, others descend to a grade of actual barbarism; some are in course of development, others stationary, or even retrograding. The Nahua culture partakes of the same traits, fashioned by its peculiar environment. For purposes of his own, Mr Morgan arbitrarily describes limits to what is called civilization in order if possible to prevent the Nahuas from entering its precincts. In this effort he ignores many distinctively higher traits which the most superficial observer must discover among the southern races; he chooses to disregard or slight the very distinct evidences of not merely settled life, but of settled communities under a high form of government, with advanced institutions and arts.

I will present briefly some facts and characteristics on which, according to my conception of the term, the Nahuas and Mayas may justly lay claim to be called civilized. I will give beforehand the proof that these traits did actually exist among the peoples of the Mexican and Central American table-lands at the time of their conquest by the Spaniards, laying before the reader the principal authorities in their true character as fully as I am able to discover it, with all their merits and demerits, their veracity and mendacity; making as close and critical an analysis of their writings as the most skeptical could desire. I am not aware of any special desire to prove the presence or absence of a civilization in this instance. my historical writings display any one marked peculiarity, it is that of a critical incredulity in respect of both Indian and Spanish tales. I have avoided, so

If

far as possible, placing myself in a position where I should be tempted to exaggerate. I have no theory to advocate. My narrations are based on the reports of eye-witnesses whose characters have been studied, whose education, idiosyncrasies, positions, conditions, temper, and temptations have all been carefully considered in weighing their evidence, and the results are so given that the reader can easily form conclusions of his own if mine do not satisfy him.

It is well not to lose sight of the fact, either in the present investigation or in using the writings of the chroniclers as historical evidence or for any other purpose, that the men of the period were deceived in regard to many things, but that it is not difficult for us to perceive in what things and to what extent they were laboring under misapprehension. All men and all things are to a certain extent deceiving, even to our wiser discrimination of to-day. Classes and creeds are given to misrepresentation; either intentionally or unintentionally, the false colors placed before the mind of man in the beginning, through which alone the universe and whatever it contains must of necessity be viewed, were quite different in different times and from various standpoints. The priest, however, is not likely wilfully to misrepresent in matters wherefrom there will arise no benefit either to him or to his church or order. And so with the soldier and adventurer, each perhaps jealous of the other, and ever ready to contradict any false statement which will lessen his own importance or add to the wealth or happiness of one he hates.

In regard to aboriginal testimony, aside from that displayed by the still existing material remains, I never have placed great reliance, although on no better evidence than that of native Aztec writers, and aboriginal traditions in existence long before the appearance in the country of Europeans, christianity, mahometanism, and all religions pin their faith. There are some able scholars and investigators of the present

ABORIGINAL WRITINGS.

13

day who are confident that in the hieroglyphics of the Nahuas and Mayas will yet be found the key to many mysteries, among others to unknown languages, to kinship with the Egyptians, Chaldeans, or other peoples, and to the routes and purposes of the great migrations of the earth; but there has as yet appeared no evidence whatever to base any such expectations upon. Towards deciphering the picture writings of the aboriginal peoples of the Mexican and Central American table-lands, little or no advance has been made. Nevertheless, there were among the native nations inhabiting this region prior to the conquest wise and able men, who, after the Spaniards had come, and they had learned the language of the conquerors, transcribed much of their aboriginal history from the original hieroglyphics into Spanish, and there is no reason why we may not as well believe the more evident truths contained in these writings, particularly such portions as we have at hand collateral evidence to sustain, as credit anything found in any ancient writings, sacred or profane. Even though the statements recorded in these aboriginal books are all thrown into the category of mythology, there is still evidence of a well-advanced culture in the bare ability to originate, entertain,-and record such ideas. The measure of their civilization, which is the prominent point at issue in the present instance, is to a certain extent determined by the character and quality of their writings, whether true or false. Let every word of the Iliad be untrue, Homer would not therefore be termed a savage. It seems superfluous to attempt to prove the validity of the early chroniclers. Mr Morgan's singular position would not be worthy of notice but that his statements have proved misleading to others. Imagine the history of the conquest written from the Morgan standpoint. The story might be told based on the authority of the chroniclers-it can never otherwise be written; but all that they report in any way conflicting with the preconceived idea must be thrown

out or explained away. Imagine my account of the aborigines announced as A Description of the Native Races of North America, founded on such parts of existing Spanish Testimony, and on such Material Relics as seem to agree with the researches of Lewis II. Morgan among the Iroquois of New York! If, after the evidence in the present instance is fully given, the reader prefers denominating the peoples referred to as savages or satyrs, I have not the slightest objection.

With the first expedition to Mexico went two men by the name of Diaz, one a priest and the other a soldier. Both wrote accounts of what they saw, thus giving us at the outset narratives from ecclesiastical and secular standpoints. It was a voyage along the coast; they did not penetrate the interior. Observation being general, the descriptions are general. There was nothing remarkable about the priest; he was not particularly intelligent or honest. I see no reason to doubt the commonplace incidents of the voyage as given in the Itinerario de Grijalva. The towns, with their white stone buildings and temple-towers glistening in the foliage, remind him of Seville; when he mentions a miracle which happens at one of them, we know he is not telling the truth. Indeed, an experienced judge can almost always arrive at the truth even if the evidence comes only from the mouths of lying witnesses, provided he can examine them apart. Where the evidence is abundant, the judge soon knows more of the facts of the case than any one witness, and can easily discern the true statements from the false. But on the whole, the priest Juan Diaz was quite moderate in his descriptions of what we know from other sources to have been there.

The same evidence is offered in the Historia Verdadera of Bernal Diaz, who attended not only on this voyage, but on the first and succeeding expeditions; all is plain, unvarnished, and devoid of coloring. If hyperbole was ever to be employed it should be in

connection with the revelation of these first startling evidences of a new art and a strange race. But the enthusiasm of the author becomes marked only as he ascends later with Cortés to the table-land and there beholds the varied extent of the new culture. What stronger proof can there be of its superior grade when he passes by with comparative indifference the Yucatec specimen, known to us to be of rare beauty, and expresses marked wonder only on reaching Mexico?

Bernal Diaz wrote rather late in life, after many accounts had already been given. He prided himself on giving a true history, was quite as ready to fight with his pen as with his sword, and having had many quarrels, and still harboring many jealousies, was very apt to criticise what others said; and he did so criticise and refute. The truth is, there were here many and opposing elements in the evidence to winnow it from falsehood, far more than are usually found in early materials for history.

The memorials of the relatives of Velazquez to the king are not worth considering, being little more than masses of misstatements and exaggerations.

The personage, known as the Anonymous Conqueror, probably Francisco de Terrazas, mayordomo of Cortés, gave a clear description of Mexico, the country, people, towns, and institutions, and particularly the capital city, arranged in paragraphs with proper headings, with drawings of the great temple and of the city. His method and language denote intelligence and inspire confidence. No reason is known why he should exaggerate, many being apparent why he should render a true account. If his testimony can be ruled out on the ground that it does not fit a theory, then can that of any man who furnishes material for history, and our histories may as well be written with the theories as authorities, and have done with it. Dealing wholly with native institutions, the writer seems to have no desire, as is the case with some, to magnify native strength and resources for the