are charm. It was
largely with a view to bringing this old manuscript to the attention of
students that Mr. Bowditch and Dr. Tozzer asked me to work it up into a
study of the Itzas of Tayasal. At the same time we must not neglect to
notice here the translation, made by Mr. Bowditch and Sr. Rivera, of
another inedited work on the same subject. I refer to the account by
Fray Alonso Cano, which will be of great use to us later.

Though Avendano and Cano are, so to speak, the prime reasons for the
writing of this study, they have been supplemented in no inconsiderable
degree by two other early Spanish writers on the history of Yucatan and
its people, Diego Cogolludo and Juan de Villagutierre y Sotomayor. A
few comments on the works of these two authors will later prove useful
to the reader.

Though Villagutierre's Spanish style is far superior to that of such
writers as Fernando Montesinos and Antonio de la Calancha, it is,
nevertheless, atrocious. Although he wrote about 1700, Villagutierre's
style is excessively archaic; his grammatical construction can hardly
be called construction at all, so formless and ambiguous is it.
Villagutierre never hesitates to write several long sentences without a
single main verb between them, nor does he often refrain from going on
and on for a page or so without using a period. In the use of capitals
he is most whimsical; usually he has them when they are called for, but
he has many that are out of place as well.

The style of Cogolludo, on the other hand, is very good, and that, be
it noted, despite the fact that Cogolludo wrote prior to 1688. One
remarks with considerable surprise that in several cases Villagutierre
and Cogolludo use almost the same words. For example, in speaking of
the visit which Cortes made to the island of Tayasal, Cogolludo says:
"... _y aun la ida de Cortes se tuvo por ossadia, y demasiada
confianza...._" Villagutierre, in the same connection says: "... _que
lo tenian a grandissima temeridad, y ossadia, y por demasiada
confianza...._" This is an interesting point, and perhaps it is
significant that Cogolludo's book was published in 1688, whereas that
of Villagutierre was not brought out until 1701. It is to be noted that
Cogolludo, the earlier writer, uses only two epithets, and that
Villagutierre, the later writer, uses the same two, plus a new one of
his own. I know of two other cases where equally close and significant
similarity exists between the two. It i