ENfol. 05v
Facsimile
monānacān in huēyi cōmitl īntlān catê
yehhuāntin yacahto tequitizquê
Auh niman oncān ōquincuepilî
in intōcā in aztēcâ ōquimilhuì. « In āx-
cān aocmo amotōcā in amaztēcâ
ye amēxìcâ. Oncān ōquinnacaz-
potōnìquê in ic ōquicuiquê in intō-
cā yn mēxìcâ īhuān oncān ōquim-
acac in mītl īhuān tlahuītōlli īhuān
chitàtli, in tlein àcoyāuh huel, qui-
mīna. Ōmpa quīzacô in
cuextēcatl īchōcayān īhuān in cō-
huātl īcamac īpan in ōme callli
xihuitl
Notes and Questions
Please sign in to write a note for this page
Why is it "intlan," plural?
I find a possible explanation. Intlan is being used in combination with "tequiti"--to pay tribute to them. But there's confusion because it should also be working with "xi-quim-on-ana-can" The verb has to refer to the "demons," and so the only way the pot can come is through a relational word "itlan"--in other words, I think itlan is being used doubly, which makes this confusing because it is both singular and plural.
I could be wrong or this could be a mistake in the MS
In reference to quizacoh-
This verb is ambiguous in terms of direction. Lahmman translate as they arrived at. On the notes he also inserts the alternate reading “they came from/out of” which seems to relate more to the verb. The latter seems to make more sense both from the definition of the word, but also from the picture on the following folio, where the steps move away from the place glyph
the they in the subject refers to the people under the pot.