mmatical forms until the year 1586, when Antonio Ricardo published a
kind of introduction to the Quichua, having sole reference to that
language, without anything more than an explanation in Spanish.[1] This
work, like that of his predecessor, was immediately remodelled and
re-published in a very much extended form in the same year. Ricardo's books
are amongst the first printed in that part of America.

Diego de Torres Rubio is the next writer of whom I am cognizant. He
published at Seville, in 1603, a grammar and vocabulary of the Quichua; the
subject still continuing to attract attention. Still, as was to be
expected, the Quichua language was of more consequence to the Spaniards of
Peru. No doubt, therefore, that Father Juan Martinez found a ready sale for
his vocabulary, published at Los Reyes in 1604. Indeed, the subject is now
attracting the attention of the eminent Diego Gonzalez Holguin, who
published first a new grammar (_Gramatica nuevu_) of the Quichua and Inca
dialect, in four books, at the press of Francisco del Canto, in Los Reyes,
1607; and second, a vocabulary of the language of the whole of Peru (_de
todo el Peru_), in the same year and at the same press.

It is worthy to remark, as confuting somewhat fully the assertion of
Prescott (_Conquest of Peru_, v. ii. p. 188.), that the Spanish name of
Ciudad de los Reyes ceased to be used in speaking of Lima "within the first
generation," that the books of Ricardo, Holguin, and Huerta (of whom
presently) are all stated to have been printed in the Ciudad de los Reyes,
though the latest of these appeared in 1616. In 1614, however, to confine
myself strictly to the bibliographical inquiry suggested by the heading of
my article, a method and vocabulary of the Quichua did appear from Canto's
press, dated Lima,--a corruption, as is well known, of the word _Rimac_.

That, however, the Castilian name should be employed later, is curious. At
any rate, it occurs for the last time on the title of a work printed by the
same printer, Canto, in 1616; and written by Don Alonso de Huerta, the old
title being adhered to, probably from some cause unknown to us, but
possibly in consequence of old aristocratic opinions and prejudices in
favour of the Spanish name. That the name of Lima had obtained considerably
even in the time of the Conquerors, Mr. Prescott has sufficiently proved;
but as an official and recognised name it evidently existed to a later
period than the historian h