“After the heavens had been raised, in the second year after the flood, which was acatl, Tezcatlipocâ pronounced his name, and there appeared the dumb Mixcoatl, ‘Serpent of the Clouds.’ And they paint him as a serpent. And they drew fire from fire-sticks, which they called heart of the fire. In the seventh year after the flood was born Cinteotl, the first son of the first man, who was a god, and his wife a goddess, and he was made of the hairs of the mother goddess, and it was said that he was not able to die. And in the eighth year after the flood the gods created the maceguales, like those that were before. When the first three years of this group of years had passed, in the first of the next group all the four gods came together, and said that because the earth had no light, and was dark, and that because there was no fire, they would make a sun which would give light to the earth, and which would eat hearts and drink blood. In order to do this they made war, by which they were able to procure hearts and blood. In this time Tezcatlipocâ made four hundred men and a hundred women, and on these the sun lived. In the tenth year, Suchicar, the first wife of Piltzintecutli, the son of the first man, was killed in the war, and was the first so to die.” If we search for a common factor among these conflicting ideas, we will, indeed, find the task one of difficulty. The nature of the sources from which we obtain them does not permit us to arrange them chronologically, and all that we can found upon in this respect is their subject-matter, which cannot enlighten us much. As has been said, we are probably on safe ground if we accept the version of the several ages hypothetically contained in the so-called Calendar Stone of Mexico. The circumstance, too, that the sun and moon myth, as related by Olmos, agrees for the most part with the version of Sahagun, permits us to regard it as a well-recognized belief. Nor can the variant myth regarding the creation of mankind, which is briefly described in an annotation, shake our confidence in the credibility of Olmos, as it obviously differs more in the names of the actors in the drama of creation than in the circumstances, which are almost identical. But if it is impossible to verify strictly the place of origin of the Olmos myth, although Texcuco was claimed as its home, it is permissible to indicate the universal character of that portion of it which deals with the creation of the heavenly bodies, from its similarity to the analogous passage in Sahagun’s rendering, which proves that that part of it at least must have been more or less widely disseminated throughout Mexico. We know that after the collection of data in any district it was his custom to submit them to experts in other and distant parts of the country for comparison and verification. We may thus be justified in classing the Calendar-stone version of the world’s ages and the Sahagun portion of the creation myth of the luminaries of