tations of it. Many documents referring to the slaughter have also come to light since Prescott's work was published. These papers set the transaction in a new light, and illustrate how important to the composition of a correct historical account of an event is a previous study of its details and the local conditions.
Most incorrect and exaggerated ideas prevail concerning the condition of Cholula at the beginning of the sixteenth century, even in works admired for their apparent thoroughness; and of this Prescott is an example and proof. "The Cholulan capital," he says, "was the great commercial emporium of the plateau. . . . Not a rood of land but was under cultivation." From the top of the artificial hill (falsely called a pyramid) the spectator saw "the sacred city of Cholula, with its bright towers and pinnacles sparkling in the sun, reposing amidst gardens and verdant groves, which then thickly studded the cultivated environs of the capital." On the summit of what was called the pyramid "stood a sumptuous temple."
These passages are examples of the conceptions that are current, and specimens, as well, of inaccuracy and exaggeration. Concerning the pyramid so often mentioned, I appeal to the testimony of the authors whom Prescott is accustomed to cite. They agree that at the time of the arrival of the Spaniards this great artificial hill had long been in ruins and was overgrown with bushes. The top of the hill was then convex, and crowned with a "little ancient temple" dedicated to the god Nahui Quiahuitl, or nine rains. There was no trace of a large building,
