Thus numerous authors, whose means of information are _said_ to have been complete on this subject, are mentioned by Cabrera; yet he professes to know nothing beyond conjecture or hearsay of the contents of their works. We will notice one or two instances, to show what confidence can be placed upon his assertions and gratuitous inferences in relation to Votan, and as samples of the whole. After parading the titles of a great number of works, which may or may not exist, so far as his own knowledge of their contents is concerned, or perhaps that of any one else, he says: 'There is in the Jesuits' College of Tepozotlan,' (preserving the same particularity, as to titles, localities, dates, etc.,) 'a history of the voyages of the Aztecas to the country of Anahuac, written by a noble Mestee Mexican. The _title_ of this manuscript,' he continues, 'shows it to be one of importance, as it _very probably_ contains an account of the voyage of the Mexicans, who are the Aztecas, and of the primitive families of the _Culebras_, (snakes) who, _I shall demonstrate_, were from the old continent to the new, with an account of the first empire they founded in America, its duration, and their _expulsion_ from the first settlements of Anahuac!' Again, after enumerating a list of works, to which he would have the reader infer he has had access, he says: 'The fourth is some historical memoirs of the Tultecas, and other nations of Anahuac, all of which works _were_ preserved in the library of the college before-mentioned. _It is probable_, that the last production treats of their coming from the old to the new continent, of their _expulsion_ from the first settlement at the city of Palenque, in the kingdom of Amaguemecan, and the cause thereof,' etc. Thus there is, from beginning to end, the same ambiguity, the same want of personal inspection, and yet the same display of authority. How important such works would have been to him and to the world, had they existed, in satisfactorily settling this question! The author of Votan's account does not seem to have known a solitary fact himself, which bears upon the subject matter of his story, though he proposes to '_demonstrate_,' etc. The several representations, of a mysterious character, which he has so wofully distorted to an agreement with the said story, mean and represent, in fact, any thing else than the incidents of that story; indeed, this is the lamest part of the fabrication. Truly unfortunate is it for all the materials concerned in the case, 'that they were,' to use his own language, '_unfortunately_ lost;' 'did not appear, in consequence of his death,' etc., 'very probably,' so and so. Again he says: 'It is to be regretted, that the place is _unknown_ where these _precious documents_ of history were deposited, but still more that the _great treasure_ should have been _destroyed_!' And, in the next paragraph he says: '_It is possible_ that Votan's historical tract, _alluded_