Supposing that Gama made no mistake in his calculations, the idea at once suggests itself, that the person who compiled or copied the Le Tellier Codex, some few years after the Spanish Conquest of Mexico, inserted under the date of 1476 (long before the time of the Spaniards) an eclipse which could not have been recorded there had the document been a genuine Aztec Calendar; as, though visible in Europe, it was not visible in Mexico.  The supposition of the compiler having merely inserted this date from a European table of eclipses is strengthened by the fact that the great eclipse of 1477, which was visible in Mexico, but not in Europe, is not to be found there.  These two facts tend to prove that the Codex, though undoubtedly in great part a copy or compilation from genuine native materials, has been deliberately sophisticated with a view of giving it a greater appearance of historical accuracy, by some person who was not quite clever enough to do his work properly.  It may, however, be urged as a proof that the mistake is merely the result of carelessness, that we find in the MS. no notice of the eclipse of 25th May, 1481, which was visible both in Mexico and in Europe, and so ought to have been in the record.  This supposition would be consistent with the Codex being really a document in which the part relating to the events before the Spanish Conquest in 1521 is of genuine ancient and native origin, though the whole is compiled in a very grossly careless manner.  It would be very desirable to verify the years of all the four eclipses with reference to their being visible in Mexico, as this might probably clear up the difficulty.

III.  TABLE OK AZTEC ROOTS COMPARED WITH SANSCRIT, ETC.

Several lists of Aztec words compared with those of various Indo-European languages have been given by philologists.  The present is larger than any I have met with; several words in it are taken from Buschmann’s work on the Mexican languages.  It is desirable in a philological point of view that comparative lists of words of this kind should be made, even when, as in the present instance, they are not of sufficient extent to found any theory upon.

As the Aztec alphabet does not contain nearly all the Sanscrit consonants, many of them must be compared with the nearest Aztec sounds, as: 

SANSCRIT, t, th, d, dh, &c. ...  AZTEC, t. 
SANSCRIT, k, kh, g, gh, &c. ...  AZTEC c.q. 
SANSCRIT, l, r. ...  AZTEC, l. 
SANSCRIT, b, bh, v. ...  AZTEC, v. or u.

The Aztec c is soft (as s) before e and i, hard (as k) before a, o, u.  The Aztec ch as in cheese.  I have followed Molina’s orthography in writing such words as uel or vel (English, well) instead of the more modern, but I think less correct way, huel.

 1. a-, negative prefix (as qualli, good; aqualli, bad).  SANS.,
    a-; GREEK, a-, &c.