[320] The explanation given by Cabrera is as follows: “Let us suppose then, with Calmet and other authors whom he quotes, that some of the Hivites who were descendants from Heth, son of Canaan, were settled on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and known from the most remote parts under the name of Hivim or Givim, from which region they were expelled, some years before the departure of the Hebrews from Egypt, by the Caphtorims or Philistines, who, according to some writers, were colonists from Cappadocia, others considering them to be from Cyprus, and more probably, according to a third opinion, from Crete, now Candia; that to strengthen their native country Egypt, and to protect themselves from all assault, they built five large cities, viz.: Accaron, Azotus, Ascalon, and Gaza [fifth wanting in account], from whence they made frequent sallies upon the Canaanite towns and all their surrounding neighbors (except the Egyptians, whom they always respected), and carried on many wars in the posterior ages against the Hebrews. The Scriptures (Deuteronomy, chap. ii, verse 23, and Joshua, chap. xiii, verse 4) inform us of the expulsion of the Hivites (Givim) by the Caphtorims, from which it appears that the latter drove out the former, who inhabited the countries from Azzah to Gaza. Many others were settled in the vicinity of the mountains of Eval and Azzah, among whom were reckoned the Sichemites and the Gabaonites; the latter by stratagem made alliance with Joshua, or submitted to him. Lastly, others had their dwellings about the skirts of Mount Hermon, beyond Jordan to the eastward of Canaan (Joshua, chap. ii, verse 3). Of these last were Cadmus and his wife Hermione or Hermonia, both memorable in sacred as well as profane history, as their exploits occasioned their being exalted to the rank of deities, while in regard to their metamorphosis into snakes (Culebras) mentioned by Ovid, Metam., lib. 3, their being Hivites may have given rise to this fabulous transmutation, the name in the Phœnician language implying a snake, which the ancient Hebrew writers suppose to have been given from this people being accustomed to live in caves under ground like snakes.”—Cabrera, Teatro Critico, pp. 47–8. On p. 95 he reaches the conclusion that the Votanites were Carthaginians.
[321] Bancroft’s Native Races, vol. v, p. 163.
[322] Cartas, p. 12.
[323] The description of its contents drawn by Brasseur de Bourbourg from the part in his possession is briefly as follows: The second volume of Ordoñez comprised the history of the ancestors of Votan, a descendant of Shem by the Hivo-Phœnician line; of their emigration from the Eastern Continent to the Occident; of their voyage with their first legislator by the Usumasinta River and its affluents to the Plain Palenque; the foundation of the great monarchy of the Quichés as well as that of Nachan, which was the capital; of the founding of the three royal cities of Mayapan, Tulha, and Chiquimula. The Abbé finds allusion to this work in Torquemada, Juarros, Cogolludo, Lizana, and particularly in Sahugun, book iii of his Hist. Gen., where it is claimed to treat of the original inhabitants of Palenque. He then states that the work was written in Guatemala at the close of the eighteenth century, and was sent to Spain or taken thither by its author for publication. In 1803 it was found in the hands of Sr. Gil Lemos of Madrid, where it had been left for publication. Its contents becoming known to the Council of the Indias, it was suppressed like many others on the early history of America. Ordoñez, who for ten years afterwards was canon of the Cathedral at Ciudad Real, died without seeing his work published. See Brasseur de Bourbourg, Cartas, p. 12 et seq.
[324] These are as follows: Chontal, Quiché, Zutugil, Kachiquel, Mam, Pokoman, Pokonchi, Caichi Coxoh, Ixil, Tzendal, Tozotzil, Chol, Huaxteco, and Totonaco; besides those of the islands of Cuba and Hayti, Borquia and Jamaica.—Geografia de los Linguas, p. 98. Mexico, 1864, 4to.
[325] Ibid., p. 128.
[326] “Il y a plus d’un trait de ressemblance entre le personnage mysterieux qui parut à Carthage et le Votan des Tzendales. Les chemins souterraines où celui-ci fut admis, lesquels traversent le terre pour arriver à la racine du ciel, indiquent une suite d’épreuves qui rappellent les initiations Égyptiennes et dont on trouve des traces jusqu’à l’époque même de la conquête dans les épreuves de la chevalerie Mexicaine.”—Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh, p. cviii.
[327] Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico, tom. ii, p. 124. Mexico, 1865, 8vo.
[328] MS. Quiché de Chichicastenango in Brasseur de Bourbourg’s Hist. Nat. Civ., vol. i, pp. 105–6. See also Bancroft’s Native Races, vol. v, p. 21.
[329] The Popol Vuh was first published by Dr. Scherzer in Vienna, in 1857, under the title of Las Historias del Origen de los Indios de esta Provincia de Guatemala, traducidas de la Lengua Quiché al Castellano para mas Comodidad de los Ministros del S. Evangelio, por el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenez, cura doctrinero por el real patronato del Pueblo de S. Thomas, Chuila,—Exactamente segun el texto español del manuscrito original que se halla en la biblioteca de la Universidad de Guatemala, publicado por la primera vez, y aumentado con una introduccion y anotaciones por el Dr. C. Scherzer. Father Ximenez, a Dominican and curate of Chichicastenango of Guatemala, wrote about 1720, and subsequently. His work, because of its condemnation of the oppression of the Indians, was suppressed, but was finally discovered in June, 1854, in the library of the University of San Carlos, in Guatemala, by Dr. Scherzer. Father Ximinez describes the work as a literal copy of an original Quiché book, made in Roman letters by Quiché copyists, after the introduction of Christianity into Guatemala. The copy is stated ambiguously to have been made to replace the original Popol Vuh—national book—which was lost. How a book which had been lost could be copied literally, the Father fails to tell us. Internal evidence, however, sustains the claim that it was written by native Quichés. In 1860, Brasseur de Bourbourg undertook a new translation of the Popol Vuh, from the Ximinez document (containing the Quiché and Spanish). This he did among the Quichés and with the aid of the natives, and as a result it is believed that a much more literal translation than that made by Ximenez was obtained. In our examination of Quiché history we have compared both translations and shall draw from them directly, but shall also take advantage of the excellent condensations and renderings which Mr. Hubert H. Bancroft has made. See Native Races, vol. iii, p. 42, note, for the leading facts as we have stated them.