OCR Text |
Show ~3Z DISSERT, II. I "' • H I s T 0 Jl y 0 F M E K I C 0. S E C 'T. II. . . Coftcerni'ng the Correjponclence of tbe Mexican rea~s with ours, and tbe Epocb qf the Foundati~n if Mextco. ALL the Mexican as well as Spanifu ~riters, who have made m~nti~ n of the Mexican chrqnology,are agreed refpeCl:ing the m.ethod.whtch thofe nations had of computing their centuries and their years, ex~ plained by us in book VI. of our hiftory, and in the latter part of th¥ .. end of vol. II. Whenever, therefore, we find the correfpondence of any one Mexictn y~ar with ·any one Chriftia!l year, the correfpondencc of all the reft will eafily be known. If, fo~·~ c;xample, we kno~ tha~ the year I]So was the q Tecpatl, as it really was, we are certat~ that the year 178I was the III Calli; the year I]82, was IV Tochth, &c. All the difficulty confifts in finding a Mexican year the correfpondence of whkh with a Chriftian year is abfolutely certain and indubitable ; but we find this difficulty furmounted, by being affured not lefs from the ancient piCtures of the Indians than by the teftimony of Acofta, To: .. quemada, Siguenza, Betancourt, and Boturini, that the year I 5 I 9• m which the Spaniards entered into Mexico, was I Acatl, and of confe.-:quence that the year I 518 was XIII Tochtli, the year I 5 I] XII Cal11, &c. fo that there is no room for doubt of the exaCtnefs of our table. put at the end of volume II. refpeeting the correfpondence of Mexican with Chriftian years. Thofe authors who difagree with it, hav; erred in their calculation, and contradicted themfelves. Betancourt, in order to make us comprehend the manner which the Mexicans had of computing years, prefents us wi~h a table of Mexican years, ~ontrall:e.d with Chriftian years, from the year x663 unto I688, but th1s taple 1s erroneous from beginning to end; for the author fuppofes the year I 66 3 to have been the year I Tochtli, which is demonftrated to be falfe by the continuation of our table to that year. He affirms that I 5 I 9 was a fecular year; by the admiffion of this error, his chronology cannot but be falfe throughout. If the year I 5 I 9 was· I Acatl, as he fuppofes, with other writers, we !hall find, by going backwards in our Jable, lhat 1507 was not a fecular year, but I so6 was. Iq order to confir~ , his fl· I S T .0 · ~ Y 0 F M E X I C 0. his c1 ronology, he adduc~s the teftimony o( l1is friend and felJowq: m~trymai~ Sigucnza, wlw, he fays, fou1~d that the year I 684 had been, IX Acati. If this was tl~e cafe, his calculation would ccrtain~y be Fight; but althqpgh we do not doubt ~is ':'eracity in the citation of Siguen,za, we h~ve reafon to believe that this learneq '¥qic.:~n correCted his chrono~ogy; not: coulp ,he do othe1;wifc, w4en , he kn~ . ~hat the year r s,r 9 had been ·1. Acatl, a .c~rtain foundation and beginning on which all the Mexican ch1:onologY. ought to re£1:, and from w.h~c;h it is clearly deducible that the year I 684 had not been IX Acatl, but ~ Tccpatl. Torquemada, i.n his thi~d book, ~rc,atini? o the Totonacas, fays 6f a noble of that nation, tf1at he was born in the year II Acatl, and that the year before I 5 I 9, in which the Spaniards arrived in that c.ountry, was, among the Mexicans, the year I Acatl. When Torquemada wrote this he was either dreaming, or abfent in mind; for he knew well that 'the rear amon,g the 1\tiexicans whiclt comes after I Aca~J, is ·not II Acatl, but II T~cpatl, anq fuch was the year I 520, of whicl111e ftJeaks. · Su ppofing then that the yeat' I 5 r 9 was I Acatl, and• that the correfpondence of the Mcxi?an with the Chriftian years .is known,.'it>iS not very difficult to trace• back the epoch of the t(jund~tton>ofMexlco. •A•M ·ltifi:orians who have co1ifulted thc t_:paintings of th'e l'Jfhicahs, or· .w,tro have been informed by ·them ·by words, agree in faying, tha~ that cele.~o bra ted city was founded! by the hzetcas, in the I 4th century; but they differ a little a,s to the year. . The interpreter of Mendoza's colleCtion pxes the_foundation odt in Vie-yeai-' I 324. Gemelli, following SigueQza, mak~s it in I3f5• Siguepza,_cited ~y Betancourt and an :ano~ymotlS Mexican, cited by ~otu1:ini, in 13 2 7. Torquemada, according to ~he · calculation made by BetancQurt, from his account, in I 341 ; and Arrigp · Martinez, in"13 S7. ,T-he Mexicans make the foundation in the year II Calli, as :\ppett.rs from the fli·ft painting of the collection of Men\. doza and ot1wrs, citeq py Siguenza. ·It being certain, ther fore, that that city was' founded i:1' tire i·4~h ce~tury, ·and in the year II Call~, that cannot have bee'n in I324, nor in the year 1~27, or IJ41, or 1 3 57, beca4f~1 none of thofc years was II Callil .If we go back fro.m the yea.n 1519 to the 14th century, we fh~ll find in . it two years Il Calli : ~hat , is I 12.5·) 1 ;lnd 1 377. ~q.~ the found::y:io '0\il.ld n9..t Jl<We h~J.pjile~cd in this1 laft year; for .then it ~vvpuld be pe VoL. II. H h cdhry 233 DISSERT. II. '--v--1 , |