XXVI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas

- 97 --
There are other writers who say that tbe year began with the feast
of Tlacaxipehualiztli, and these are: Gomara in chapter CLXXXXI of
his "Crónica"; and P . Diego Valadés in his "Rhetórica Christiana".
Ixtlilxochitl affirms that the cal'endar ot Texcoco began 'with tlhe feas t
of Tlacaxipehualiztli, on March 20th. The historian Clavigero on page
285, at the end of volume 1 of his "Historia Antigua de México", mentions
that the author. of the work entitled "Cartas Americanas" had the
opinion that the Mexicans began their new year at the spring equinox.
This affirms what the natives in Oaxaca and Acolman, according to
those old MSS. in the Archives of the Indies in Seville, declared before
King Phillip's Magistrates, viz.: "THE MEXICAN iYEAR BEGAN
IN MARCH WITH THE FEAST OF 'TLACAXIPEHUALIZTLI".
The different writers, asOrozco y Berra (II), Seler (12), etc., caH
otlr attention to the fact that : "Sahagún, a fter many discl1ssions witb
the natives of Tlatelolco, decided that the Mexican year began with the
first day of the feast of Atlaca./1ual!co, on February 2nd". However,
Sahagún bas left among his MSS. a very different date for the beginning
of the Mexican year; as well as other important data on this ques~
tion, the true significance of which, he himseH never understood.
In the year 1906, the Mexican archaeologist Pasa y Troncoso published
in Madrid the fa.csimile edition of Fr. Bemardino de Sahagún's
"Historia de las Cosas de Nueva España", written in the Nahuatl language.
Tbis work is the "Códice Matritense del Real Palacio". On
page 41 of volume VII of this great work, there is the facsimile copy of
the letter which Pedro González and Pedro de S. Buenaventura (who
were undoubtedly either natíves, or half-breeds, of superior intelligence),
wrote in answer to -Sahagún's questions regarding the Mexican year,
its feasts, when the year began, the "Nemontemi" days, their meaning,
etc. I \
This lett-:r tvvas imerted in the original MS., and in Folio 53. The
right edge of this ·letter is ragged and tom and some words are miss.ing.
But, it is very evident that those two meo endeavoured to make it clear
that in every ordinary year there were 18 feasts of 20 days each and
five days left over. They erroneously ca lled those five days:
"Nemontemi days. They explained that "nemontemi" means uncounted
("Acampouhqui"); but they themselves sho\'l clearly that those five days
¡eft over each year, were not "nemcntemi", because they were actually
cou/f¡,fed: "After these, then ten, th en fifteen; ancl ' when the twenty
days were complete, there was the feast "Quauitl eua". ("Tia matlactli /
tIa caxtolli itlamia in quauitl eua (MS. is tom here) cayotia iniqua-::
( Il). Orozco y Berra, "Hist. Antigua de Méx_", V ol. n, p. 65­
(r2) E. SeJer, "Die mexikanischen Bilclerschriften A'exander van Humboldt's~
(SGA, Vol. I, P. r8r).