THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.--CONTINUED.
Migration of the Aztecs -- Nations of Anáhuac at Beginning of
the Thirteenth Century -- The Aztecs submit to the Tepanecs
-- Reign of the Emperor Tlotzin -- Quinantzin, King of
Tezcuco and Chichimec Emperor -- Transfer of the Capital --
Tenancacaltzin usurps the Imperial Throne at Tenayocan -- The
Usurper defeated by Tepanecs and Mexicans -- Acolnahuacatl
proclaimed Emperor -- Quinantzin's Victories -- Battle at
Poyauhtlan -- Quinantzin again Emperor -- Toltec Institutions
at Tezcuco -- Events at Culhuacan -- Mexicans driven from
Chapultepec -- Alliance between Mexicans and Culhuas --
Religious Strife -- Foundation of Mexico -- Reign of the
Emperor Techotl -- Political Changes -- Ruin of the Culhua
Power -- Tezozomoc, King of Azcapuzalco -- Separation of
Mexicans and Tlatelulcas -- Acamapichtli II., King of Mexico
-- Quaquauhpitzahuac, King of Tlatelulco.
The last of the so-called foreign tribes that came into notice in
Anáhuac, from out the confusion that followed the downfall of the
Toltecs, was the Aztec, or Mexican, which settled at Chapultepec
in the last years of the twelfth century.[VI-1] According to their
traditions they set out on their migration from Aztlan together
with the Nahuatlaca tribes, whose arrival has already been noticed;
but were left behind by those tribes at Chicomoztoc, one of their
first stopping-places. The migration of the Aztecs from Chicomoztoc
is described much more fully than that of the tribes that preceded
them; but in the details of this journey, so far as dates, names, and
events are concerned, the traditions are inextricably confused. I have
already expressed my opinion that some of these traditions may refer
very vaguely to the pre-Toltec events in Nahua history, but that they
chiefly refer to the movements of the Nahua, or Chichimec, tribes which
occupied the Toltec provinces during the continuance of the empire,
and which after a long struggle became powerful in and about the
Valley of Mexico. We have no means of determining in a manner at all
satisfactory whether Aztlan and Chicomoztoc were in Central America or
in the region of Zacatecas and Jalisco; nor indeed of proving that they
were not in Alaska, New Mexico, or on the Mississippi, although there
is absolutely no evidence in favor of the latter locations; but we
know at least that all the halting-places of the migrating tribes after
Chicomoztoc were in the immediate vicinity of Anáhuac. The record as a
whole is exactly what might be expected, were the traditions of half
a dozen kindred bands respecting their wanderings about the central
plateau, and efforts to establish themselves in permanent homes, united
in one consecutive narrative; and I have little doubt that such was
substantially the process by which the Spanish version of the Aztec
migration was formed. Whatever the cause of the confusion that reigns
in that version, it is utterly useless to attempt its clearing-up;
and I dispose of the whole matter by simply presenting in a note the
dates and successive halting-places attributed to this migration by the
principal authorities; the opinions of these authorities respecting the
location of Aztlan and Chicomoztoc have been previously given.[VI-2]
[Sidenote: THE AZTEC MIGRATION.]
Some of the events and circumstances connected with the migration,
however, must be noticed, although there is little agreement as to the
place or date of their occurrence. At Aztlan the Aztecs are said to
have crossed each year a great river or channel to Teo-Culhuacan, to
make sacrifices in honor of the god Tetzauh. Prompted by the cry of a
bird, as has already been related, they left their home under command
of Huitziton, or Huitzilopochtli, probably identical with Mecitl, or
Mexi, whence was derived their name of Mexicas, or Mexicans. They seem
to have left Aztlan about 1090, and to have settled in Chicomoztoc,
after several halts, in 1116.[VI-3] Chicomoztoc, to which Brasseur adds
the name Quinehuayan, was also on the bank of a river, and the Aztecs
continued the profession of boatmen which they had practiced at Aztlan,
being subject to a tyrannical monarch to whom the name of Montezuma
is applied by some of the traditions. After the other Nahuatlaca
tribes had separated themselves from the Aztecs by divine command, the
leader, or high-priest, or god,--Huitzilopochtli--for the exact epoch
of his death and deification it is impossible to determine--informed
the latter that he had selected them as his peculiar people, for whom
he destined a glorious future. He ordered them to abandon the name
of Aztecs and adopt that of Mexicas, and to wear upon their forehead
and ears a patch of gum and feathers, as a distinguishing mark,
presenting them at the same time with arrows and a net as insignia.[VI-4]
This separation at Chicomoztoc, or the Seven Caves, presents strong
analogies to that which took place in Tulan Zuiva; it is not impossible
that the events related are identical, the earlier portions of this
tradition referring vaguely back to the primitive epochs of Nahua
history, while the later portions relate the events which followed the
Toltec destruction. After the separation, and while the Aztecs were yet
at Chicomoztoc,[VI-5] an event occurred to which is traditionally referred
the origin of the differences that in later years divided this people
into two rival parties, the Mexicans and Tlatelulcas. Two small bundles
mysteriously appeared among them one day when all were assembled; the
first opened contained an emerald of extraordinary size and beauty,
for the possession of which a quarrel ensued. The second bundle proved
to contain nothing more attractive than a few common sticks, and the
party into whose possession it fell deemed themselves most unfortunate,
until Huitziton made known to them a novel process of producing fire
by rubbing two sticks together.[VI-6] According to Brasseur's authorities
one of the princes of Chicomoztoc, named Chalchiuh Tlatonac, was
induced to depart with the Aztecs, assuming a rank second only to that
of the high-priest Huitziton. It is also claimed that certain Toltec
nobles with their followers, who had been driven from Chapultepec by
the Chichimecs, joined their fortunes with those of the Aztecs at an
early period of their migration, perhaps, however, before they left
Aztlan.[VI-7]
[Sidenote: DEATH OF HUITZITON.]
After leaving Chicomoztoc, and while in Michoacan according to most
authorities, although by some of them Huitzilopochtli is spoken of as
a god long before, the aged high-priest Huitziton died or disappeared
suddenly during the night. It is hinted that he was foully disposed of
by the priesthood, through jealousy of his popularity and power; but
whether responsible or not for his death, the priests resolved to take
advantage of it to advance their own interests. Consequently the next
morning a report was circulated that Huitziton had been called to take
his place among the gods with the great Tetzauh, or Tezcatlipoca, who
on his arrival had addressed to him the following craftily prepared
speech: "Welcome brave warrior, and thanks for having so well served
me and governed my people. It is time that thou take thy rest among
the gods; return, then, to thy sons the priests and tell them not to be
afflicted at thy absence; for although they may no longer behold thee,
thou wilt not cease to be in their midst to guide and rule them from
on high. For I will cause thy flesh to be consumed, that thy skull and
bones may remain to thy sons as a consolation, that they may consult
thee respecting the routes they have to follow and in all the affairs
of government, and that thou mayest direct them and show unto them
the land which I have chosen for them, where they will have a long and
prosperous empire." Brasseur adds to the speech, "where they shall find
a nopal growing alone on a rock in the midst of the waters, and on this
nopal an eagle holding a serpent in his claws, there they are to halt,
there will be the seat of their empire, there will my temple be built,"
although this is not given by Veytia or Torquemada, the authorities
referred to by the abbé. The god also gave directions that the bones
of Huitzilopochtli should be carried in an urn by the priests on
their migration, or according to some authorities that an idol should
be made and carried in an ark on the shoulders of four priests. The
four priests were of course designated for the important position of
_teomama_, or 'god-bearers,' who were to constitute the medium through
which the idol should make known his commands to the people. The people
dared make no opposition to the will of their god, and the plans of the
crafty priests were most successfully carried out.
But an episode that is related of this period, indicates that the plots
of the priests were perfectly comprehended by at least one person.
This was Malinalxochitl, the sister, friend, or mistress of Huitziton,
a brave princess who rendered great aid to the high-priest against
the machinations of his foes. She was charged, however, probably by
the hostile priests, with the possession of the black art. She could
kill with a glance, turn the course of rivers, and transform herself
into any form at will. After the death of Huitziton the priests, whose
tricks she very likely tried to expose, resorted to their new divinity
to rid themselves of Malinalxochitl. The idol from its ark was made to
issue an order that the sorceress should be abandoned while asleep.
With her followers she went to Mt Texcaltepec, where she afterwards
founded the town of Malinalco, and bore a son named Copil, or Cohuitl,
to whom she entrusted her revenge on the Mexicans.[VI-8]
While they were yet in Michoacan, on the banks of Lake Patzcuaro, a
trouble is said to have occurred which resulted in the separation of
the Tarascos from the Aztecs, and their settlement in this region. The
tale, to which very little importance is to be attached, from the fact
that the Tarascan language was different from the Aztec, is as follows:
A number of men and women were bathing together, when the rest, at
the instigation of the priests, took their clothing and departed. The
bathers were obliged to improvise a dress, which pleased them so much
that they retained it ever after in preference to the maxtli; but they
never forgave the Aztecs, resolved to remain where they were, and even
changed their language that they might have nothing in common with
that people. Camargo's version is that in crossing a river a part of
the travelers used their maxtlis to fasten together their rafts, and
were forced to borrow the women's huipiles to cover their nakedness;
and Veytia adds that so imperfectly did these garments perform their
office that the rest of the tribe, shocked at the appearance of their
companions, abandoned them in disgust, calling them Tarascos from a
circumstance that has been already given.[VI-9]
[Sidenote: AZTECS AT TOLLAN AND ZUMPANGO.]
Quauhtlequetzqui seems to have been the priest who of the four assumed
the highest rank after the death of Huitziton; and coming under his
command or that of their idol through him expressed, to Coatepec in the
vicinity of Tollan, the Mexicans, at the order of their god, stopped
the current of the river so as to form a kind of lake surrounding the
mountain. Their stay in this place was one of great prosperity and
increase in population and wealth; here they placed the sacred ark in a
grand temple; and here they were taught to make balls of india-rubber
and initiated by the gods into the mysteries of the _tlachtli_, or
game of ball, which afterward became their national diversion.[VI-10]
But the will of Huitzilopochtli was made known that this fair land
must be abandoned, and their wanderings recommenced. The people
murmured and showed signs of revolt, but the god appeared before them
in so frightful an aspect as to fill them with terror; some of the
malcontents were found dead near the temple with their hearts cut out;
the dam was broken, thus destroying the great charm of their new home;
and finally the will of the leader was obeyed, though not apparently
until several revolting chiefs with their followers had separated
themselves from the main body.[VI-11]
At Tzompanco, now Zumpango on the northern lake, the Mexicans--not
perhaps the main body, judging from the names given to the
leaders--were most kindly received, possibly as allies in the wars
waged by Tochpanecatl, the lord of that city. This lord's son Ilhuicatl
married Tlacapantzin, a Mexican girl, and, as Brasseur states, the
same lord gave his daughter Tlaquilxochitl as a wife to Tozcuecuex, the
Aztec leader, at the same time giving to the Mexicans through her the
possession of Tizayocan their next halting-place. From one of these
marriages sprung Huitzilihuitl, who afterwards became, according to
many authors, the first king, or ruler, of the Mexicans.[VI-12]
Several other intermarriages with tribes in Anáhuac are reported,
and also some hostilities during the subsequent frequent changes of
residence, but no important events are definitely reported before
the arrival and settlement at Chapultepec in 1194 as already stated,
although there is but little agreement in the dates, many traditions
assigning the arrival to a much later period. As has been before
stated, these traditions refer to different bands, and the disagreement
in dates would be natural even if the chronology of the records
had been correctly interpreted by the Spanish writers, which is not
probable. There can be little doubt of the comparative accuracy of
Brasseur's dates.
[Sidenote: THE AZTECS AT CHAPULTEPEC.]
At this period Nopaltzin was still on the throne of Tenayocan, but was
succeeded in 1211 by Tlotzin Pochotl.[VI-13] Acolnahuacatl, called by the
Spanish writers Acolhua II., reigned over the Tepanecs at Azcapuzalco;
Culhuacan was governed successively after Achitometl by Icxochitlanex,
Quahuitonal, Mazatzin, Cuetzal, Chalchiuh Tlatonac II., Tziuhtecatl,
Xihuiltemoc, and Coxcoxtli, down to about the end of the thirteenth
century; the Teo-Chichimecs, one of the invading bands that have so
vaguely appeared in preceding annals together with the Nahuatlaca
tribes, were settled at Poyauhtlan in the vicinity of Tezcuco, a
source of great uneasiness to all the nations, although nominally
friends of the emperor Tlotzin; and Quinantzin, the son of Tlotzin, was
chief lord at Tezcuco and heir to the imperial throne.[VI-14] The Aztecs
meantime fortified their naturally strong position at Chapultepec,
and in 2 Acatl, 1195, celebrated the completion of their cycle.[VI-15]
Huitzilihuitl, in spite of the sacerdotal opposition was made chief,
or as some say, king; the scattered Mexican bands, and even the main
body of the Mexicans under the high priest Quauhtlequetzqui, or his
successor of the same name, came to join those of Chapultepec; and the
colony began to assume some importance in the eyes of the surrounding
monarchs. The king of Azcapuzalco sought to make the Mexicans his
vassals, desiring their aid as warriors, but Huitzilihuitl proudly
refused to pay tribute. Their first war, something over thirty years
after their arrival, was with Xaltocan, against which province they
had aided the lord of Zumpango when first they entered the valley. The
armies of Xaltocan, under Huixton, attacked and defeated the Aztecs
near Chapultepec, forcing them to retreat within their fortifications,
acting probably by the encouragement of the Tepanecs.[VI-16] According
to Brasseur's authorities, the Tepanecs again proposed an alliance,
and on refusal, marched with their own army, and soldiers from other
nations, against Chapultepec, and at last forced Huitzilihuitl to
submit to the payment of tribute.[VI-17] Before yielding, however, the
Mexican chief sent ambassadors to Quinantzin at Tezcuco, offering him
the allegiance of his people and asking aid; but the Tezcucan lord was
not in condition to help them, and advised them to submit temporarily
to Acolnahuacatl,[VI-18] which they did about 1240.
[Sidenote: REIGN OF THE EMPEROR QUINANTZIN.]
The reign of Tlotzin, the Chichimec emperor, was, for the most part,
one of great prosperity, although his enemies were constantly on the
watch for an opportunity to overthrow his power. He seems to have
used his influence against a tendency exhibited by the Chichimecs
to a rudeness of manners, and independence of all control, which
threatened, in his opinion, a relapse into comparative barbarism.
He favored rather the elegance of Toltec manners, and the strictness
of Toltec discipline. In his efforts for reform he was seconded, or
even excelled, by his son, Quinantzin, lord of Tezcuco. Ixtlilxochitl
tells us that Tlotzin, soon after his ascension, made a long tour of
inspection through his territory, correcting abuses and enforcing the
laws, but exciting thereby the enmity of some vassal lords. Tenayocan
was properly the Chichimec capital, but the emperor spent much of
his time at Tezcuco, which had become one of the finest cities in
Anáhuac. For the embellishment of this city, many Toltecs are said to
have been called in from various towns, by the orders of Quinantzin.
Some of the officers placed in charge of the parks and public works
of Tezcuco, particularly Icuex and Ocotox, abused their trust, were
banished, headed revolts, and were defeated by Quinantzin. About this
time Tlotzin formed a new monarchy at Tezcuco, abdicating his own
rights there and giving the crown to his son, Quinantzin. Another son,
Tlacateotzin, was given the province of Tlazalan, subject to the crown
of Tezcuco, and still other sons, Tochintecuhtli and Xiuhquetzaltzin,
were made by Tlotzin, rulers of Huexotzinco and Tlascala, indicating
that the eastern plateau was at this time a part of the empire, though
it is not probable that a very strict allegiance was enforced. As
monarch, Quinantzin, from his royal palace of Oztoticpac, labored more
earnestly and successfully than before for a return to the old Toltec
civilization, thus exciting the opposition of many Chichimec nobles,
and preparing the way for future disasters. Tlotzin became, at last,
so fond of his son's beautiful home, that he practically abandoned
Tenayocan, appointing Tenancacaltzin, probably his brother, to rule in
his stead. The newly appointed lieutenant had no fondness for Toltec
reform, became secretly the chief of the opposition to the emperor,
and only awaited an opportunity to declare his independence. Tlotzin
Pochotl, at last, after an illness whose chief feature is said to have
been a profound melancholy, was carried, at his request, to Tenayocan,
where he died in 1246, after appointing Quinantzin as his heir. His
funeral was accompanied with great pomp and display; all the kings
of Anáhuac, both friends and foes, assisting in the ceremonies, and
eulogizing his character.[VI-19]
Taking the title of Chichimecatl Tecuhtli, or Emperor of the
Chichimecs, Quinantzin transferred the capital to Tezcuco,
re-appointing, it would seem, Tenancacaltzin as ruler of Tenayocan.
He immediately annexed the powers of Huexotla and Coatlichan to his
dominion, forcing the princes of those cities, Tochintecuhtli, or
Ihuimatzal, and Huetzin II., to reside in his capital, and forming
from the three kingdoms that of Acolhuacan. As emperor, he gave freer
vent than ever to his old inclinations to pomp and ceremony. Whenever
he appeared in public he caused himself to be borne in a magnificent
royal palanquin on the shoulders of four Chichimec nobles. The ill-will
which Quinantzin's strict discipline and Toltec inclinations had
previously excited; the fears aroused by his annexation of Huexotla
and Coatlichan, and other decided political measures; displeasure of
those of Tenayocan at the change of capital; and the humiliation of
the Chichimec nobles, in being obliged to bear the royal palanquin,
soon resulted in a revolution. By the support of the Tepanec king
at Azcapulzalco, Tenancacaltzin was proclaimed emperor at Tenayocan,
and all Anáhuac, save Culhuacan, Coatlichan, Xaltocan, and Huexotla,
were arrayed against the Tezcucan monarch, many of his own relatives
joining in the movement against him, and his brother, Tlacateotzin,
being driven from the dominion of Tlazalan. In so unequal a struggle
Quinantzin seems to have made no effort to overthrow the usurper,
but rather to have employed all the force that could be furnished by
his remaining vassals in fortifying his position at Tezcuco, where he
patiently awaited future opportunities for revenge and recovery of his
imperial throne.[VI-20]
[Sidenote: TENANCACALTZIN USURPS THE THRONE.]
Acolnahuacatl, the Tepanec king, seems to have supported the usurpation
of Tenancacaltzin not from any feelings of friendship, but from
ambitious motives for his own interests. He took no steps to accomplish
the conquest of Tezcuco, but on the contrary soon began to plot against
the usurping emperor. He made use of the Mexicans, who had suffered
much from the people of Tenayocan and were eager for vengeance, to
accomplish his purpose. Reinforced by some Tepanec troops in Aztec
dress, they made several raids for plunder against Tenayocan and the
adjoining towns. Thus provoked, Tenancacaltzin marched with an army to
punish the robbers, but was met at Tepeyacac, where now the church of
Guadalupe stands, by the Mexicans and Tepanecs combined, and utterly
defeated. The conquered emperor fled to Xaltocan, expecting aid from
the enemies of the Mexicans, but the princes of Xaltocan were also
friends of Quinantzin, to whom they delivered Tenancacaltzin, but
who refused to revenge his wrongs upon his uncle, and permitted him
to leave the country. The Tepanec king took possession of Tenayocan
and had himself declared emperor of the Chichimecs, Quinantzin
apparently making at first no opposition, but awaiting a more favorable
opportunity to regain his power.[VI-21]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: QUINANTZIN CHICHIMEC EMPEROR.]
I now come to the chain of events by which Quinantzin regained the
imperial throne and a power surpassing that of any preceding monarch.
The northern provinces of Meztitlan, Tulancingo, and Totoltepec,
excited by the rebels Icuex and Ocotox, formerly banished by
Quinantzin, raised the standard of revolt and marched to attack the
capital. They were even joined by the four eldest sons of the king,
according to Brasseur and Ixtlilxochitl, although other authorities
make this rebellion a distinct and later affair, and disagree somewhat
as to the time of the northern rebellion. Dividing his available
force into four divisions, Quinantzin took command of one division,
entrusting the others to his brothers Tochintzin, or Tochintecuhtli,
and Nopaltzin, and to Huetzin II. of Coatlichan, while his son
Techotl remained in command at Tezcuco. All the divisions were equally
successful and the rebels were driven back with great loss. Nopaltzin
killed Ocotox in personal combat but was himself killed later in the
battle. The king's rebel sons had not actually taken part in the fight,
and on offering their submission were, at the intercession of their
mother, pardoned, on condition of leaving Anáhuac and joining the
Teo-Chichimecs on the eastern plateau. This success in the north was
not without its effect in the valley. Many cities that had declared
their independence, or had become subjects of Acolnahuacatl, now
offered anew their allegiance to the monarch of Acolhuacan at Tezcuco.
Congratulations flowed in from Culhuacan and other friendly powers,
with various plausible excuses for not having aided Quinantzin in his
time of trouble. Prisoners taken during the war were released, and
some of the lords of the northern provinces were even restored to
their former positions on promise of future loyalty. Thus the wise
king laid the foundations of future success. The pardoned sons of
Quinantzin, before proceeding to Tlascala and Huexotzinco, joined the
Teo-Chichimecs at Poyauhtlan. This people, by their encroachments, had
made enemies of all the nations of Anáhuac; it is even said that they
had instigated the northern revolt in the hope that the formation of a
league against themselves might be prevented. But this hope was vain,
and soon after Quinantzin's victory, they were attacked before their
city by the united forces of the Tepanecs, Culhuas, Xochimilcas, and
Mexicans. A battle ensued described as the most terrible ever fought in
the valley, in which the Teo-Chichimecs held their ground, but which so
exhausted the forces on both sides that it was long before any nation
concerned was in condition to renew hostilities. The king of Acolhuacan
seems not to have taken part in this struggle, perhaps because of the
presence of his sons at Poyauhtlan and the fact that his relatives
were ruling the Teo-Chichimecs in Tlascala. The state of affairs was
now altogether favorable to Quinantzin, and after, as some authors
state, another campaign against the northern provinces, he began to
turn his attention toward his lost dominions about the lakes. The
emperor Acolnahuacatl, at Tenayocan, seems to have clearly perceived
that fortune favored his rival, and that in his exhausted condition
since the battle at Poyauhtlan, he could not possibly defend either the
imperial crown or even that of Azcapuzalco, and craftily resolved to
voluntarily abandon his claims to the former in the hope of retaining
the latter. His plans, as usual, were successful; Quinantzin accepted
his proposition without any manifestation of ill-will, and was crowned
emperor with the most imposing ceremonies in 1272, forming a friendly
alliance with the kings of Culhuacan and Azcapuzalco, and becoming
practically the master of Anáhuac. The Teo-Chichimecs soon after, by
the advice of their god, and with the consent of the emperor, migrated
eastward to Tlascala.[VI-22]
In his efforts to embellish his capital, and to restore his empire to
the glory and his subjects to the culture of the ancient times, it
has been stated that Quinantzin called in the aid of many Toltecs,
showing them great favor. A few years after his accession, two of
the Toltec tribes that had left the valley at the fall of the empire
and settled on the coast of the Pacific in Oajaca, the Tailotlacs and
Chimalpanecs, are said to have returned and to have been received by
the emperor and granted lands in Tezcuco, after having stayed some
time in Chalco. The new chiefs were even allowed to become allied by
marriage to the royal family. The new-comers seem to have belonged
to the partisans of Tezcatlipoca. Additional bands of Huitznahuacs,
Tepanecs, Culhuas, and Mexicans, from distant lands, are also vaguely
alluded to as having settled in Tezcuco, Azcapuzalco, and Mexico.[VI-23]
About the same time the northern province of Tepepulco revolted,
according to Torquemada,[VI-24] and was conquered by Quinantzin, spoken
of as Tlaltecatzin by this and several other writers. The province was
joined to the dominions of Tezcuco under a royal governor, its lord
having been put to death. Another source of prosperity for Tezcuco
seems to have been a fresh out-burst in Culhuacan of the old religious
dissensions between the partisans of Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca,
causing many of the inhabitants to make their homes in the Acolhua
capital where they were gladly received; although Ixtlilxochitl tells
us that Quinantzin erected no temples in his capital, and permitted
the erection of none, being content, and obliging all the citizens to
be so, with the simple religious rites of his Chichimec ancestors.[VI-25]
Xihuiltemoc, a descendant of Acxitl, the last king of Tollan, was on
the throne of Culhuacan at this time, and seems to have formed some
kind of an alliance with the Mexicans at Chapultepec, and to have
admitted to his city the worship of Huitzilopochtli--a fact that leads
Brasseur to think that the Culhua king was a partisan of Tezcatlipoca,
almost identical with Huitzilopochtli so far as the bloody rites in
his honor are concerned.[VI-26] In the last years of the thirteenth
century, about 1281, Xihuiltemoc was succeeded by Coxcoxtli whose
mother is said to have been a Mexican, but who was a devoted partisan
of Quetzalcoatl.[VI-27]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: THE AZTECS LEAVE CHAPULTEPEC.]
The Aztecs had, in the meantime, gained much in power, and although
few in numbers, compared with the other nations, had, by their skill
as warriors and the ferocity of their character, made themselves hated
by all, becoming, indeed, the pests of Anáhuac, although nominally
the allies of the Culhuas and Tepanecs. The story of their overthrow
at Chapultepec is a brief one, as told by the Spanish writers. Copil,
son of Huitziton's sister, the sorceress Malinalxochitl, had, as has
been already related,[VI-28] been sworn by his mother to vengeance on the
Mexicans. He now came to the lake region and used all his influence to
excite the surrounding nations against his enemies, denouncing them as
everything that is bad, and urging their extermination. Hearing of his
plots, the priest Quauhtlequetzqui went with a party to Tepetzingo,
where Copil was, killed him, tore out his heart and threw it into
the lake. The place was known as Tlalcocomocco, and here afterwards
sprang up the tunal which guided the Aztecs in founding their city;
here was also a hot spring, called Acopilco. Immediately after this
the Aztecs were attacked by many nations, chiefly the Culhuas and
Chalcas, driven to Acoculco, amid the reeds of the lake, and many of
their number carried captives to Culhuacan, among whom was their chief,
Huitzilihuitl, who was sacrificed. Afterwards they were given, by the
Culhuas, the district of Tizaapan, which abounded in snakes, lizards,
etc., on which chiefly they lived, paying heavy tribute to the king of
Culhuacan, and leading a very hard life for many years.[VI-29]
Brasseur throws much light upon the events of this period. It seems
that the Aztecs provoked Copil's efforts for their destruction by two
raids against Malinalco, which belonged to Culhuacan, and that the
Mexicans treacherously drew the son of Malinalxochitl into their power
by offering him the position of high-priest, according to a pretended
revelation of Huitzilopochtli's will. His daughter, Azcaxochitl, was
forced to become the mistress of Quauhtlequetzqui; all his nobles were
taken prisoners, and a band of Culhuas who came to Tlalcocomocco soon
after, were massacred. All the rulers of the valley, save, perhaps,
Quinantzin, were soon leagued together for the destruction of these
marauders and butchers. Huitzilihuitl made a valiant and long-continued
defence, defeating the Tepanecs in a fierce battle, but exciting
renewed horror by murdering and cutting in pieces Acolnahuacatl, king
of Azcapuzalco, and formerly emperor. They were at last conquered
through their rash bravery, since, while their army was fighting
the Culhuas whom they had been challenged to meet, another body of
the enemy took and burned Chapultepec, carrying off the surviving
inhabitants as prisoners. The Mexican army was then defeated, nearly
exterminated, and the remnants scattered in the lake marshes, while
Huitzilihuitl was taken, and, with his daughter and sister, put to
death in revenge for the murder of Copil and the Tepanec king. These
events occurred about 1297. For two years the scattered Mexican
remnants were subjected to every indignity, but in 1299, perhaps
through the influence of Acamapichtli, his son and heir, Coxcoxtli
was induced to grant this unfortunate people the small, barren, and
serpent-infested isle of Tizaapan.[VI-30]
[Sidenote: WAR WITH THE XOCHIMILCAS.]
The Spanish writers do not imply that Acolnahuacatl, king of the
Tepanecs, was killed by the Aztecs, or that he even fell in battle.
His son, Tezozomoc, was heir to the throne, but as he was very young,
his mother seems to have ruled as regent during his minority, and as
she was the wife of Coxcoxtli, the power was practically in the hands
of the Culhua monarch.[VI-31] Coxcoxtli thus saw his power in Anáhuac
largely increased, but he was continually annoyed with petitions
from the Mexicans for larger territory and permission to settle at
various points in his dominions, and at the same time harassed by the
encroachments of the Xochimilcas, particularly in the lake fisheries.
He at last proposed to grant the requests of the Aztecs on condition
that they would aid him in chastising the insolent and powerful
Xochimilcas. The services of the followers of Huitzilopochtli were
always in demand when there was fighting to be done. The secret plan of
the king was to place the new allies in the front to receive the force
of the attack; the heavier their loss the better, for his troops would
have an easy victory, and a dead Aztec was a much less troublesome
neighbor or subject than a live one. No arms were supplied to the
allies, but their priests taught them to make shields of reeds, and arm
themselves with clubs and obsidian knives. By a strange freak of fancy
they resolved to retain no captives, though a reward was offered for
them, but to disarm and release all they captured after having marked
them by cutting off the right ear of each. The fury of their attack
and their novel method of warfare struck terror into the hearts of the
enemy, who were defeated and driven back to their capital in confusion,
the Mexicans obtaining much plunder, and the Culhuas an extraordinary
number of prisoners. Returning to Culhuacan, the Culhua braves proudly
displayed their captives, ridiculing their allies, until the latter
pointed out the lack of ears among the victims of Culhua valor, and
calmly produced the missing features from their sacks; the effect was
complete, and they carried off the honors of the day. Coxcoxtli was
proud of such allies, their petitions were granted, and the two nations
were also connected by intermarriage.[VI-32]
[Sidenote: THE MOTHER OF THE GODS.]
The history of the Mexicans and Culhuas, during the early part of the
fourteenth century, down to the founding of the city of Tenochtitlan
in 1325, presents a confusion unequaled, perhaps, in any other period
of the aboriginal annals. A civil war on the eastern plateau at
Cholula, in which king Coxcoxtli was involved to a certain extent,
will be mentioned elsewhere, as it only slightly concerns the general
history of Anáhuac. Torquemada, Clavigero, and others, relate that
after the battle with the Xochimilcas, the Aztecs had secreted four
captives destined for sacrifice, and had, besides, asked the Culhua
king to provide them with a suitable offering and to be present at
the ceremonies. They were sent a dead body and a mass of filth which
the Mexicans, restraining their anger at the insult, placed upon the
altar and said nothing. When Coxcoxtli and his suite appeared, the
priests, after a religious dance, brought out the four captives and
performed the bloody rites of sacrifice before the guests. The Culhuas
left the place in disgust, and orders were immediately given that
the Mexicans should be driven from the territories of Culhuacan.[VI-33]
As Acosta and Duran tell the story, the Aztecs sent from Tizaapan,
where it seems many of them were still living, to the Culhua king,
requesting him to give them his daughter to rule over them and be
the mother of their god. The request was cheerfully granted and the
young princess conducted with great pomp to the town of her future
subjects. A great festival was prepared, the princess was privately
sacrificed to Huitzilopochtli, who, it seems, had signified his
intention of adopting her as his mother; her body was flayed, and
her skin placed as a garment on a youth, or an idol, which was set up
in the temple to receive the offerings of visitors. Among those who
came to make such offerings, as a compliment to their allies, were
Coxcoxtli and his nobles. Their rage at the sight that met their eyes
may be imagined. The bloody followers of Huitzilopochtli were driven
from their homes, and the allies their bravery had gained were lost
to them.[VI-34] Ixtlilxochitl, without mentioning their return to Culhua
favor by the Xochimilco war, says that the Aztecs escaped from their
bondage at Culhuacan on hearing that king Calquiyauhtzin intended to
massacre them, and resided, for a time, at Iztacalco, whence they made
inroads upon Culhua territory, but finally retreated to the island
where Tenochtitlan was founded.[VI-35] I append in a note an abstract
of Veytia's version of Nahua history during this and the immediately
preceding period, since this version agrees with others at but few
points.[VI-36]
Hardly more can be gathered from the preceding records than that the
Mexicans, after living for a time in Culhuacan, were forced, on account
of their bloody religious rites and of their turbulent disposition,
to leave that city, and to wander for several years about the lake
before settling where the city of Mexico afterwards stood. Coxcoxtli
is said to have been a devoted follower of Quetzalcoatl, and a zealous
persecutor of all other sects, so much so, that many families were
forced to abandon Culhuacan, and were gladly received at Tezcuco, as
has been stated. It seems to have been an ineradicable Toltec tendency
to indulge in religious controversy to the prejudice of their national
prosperity. Brasseur[VI-37] finds in his documents many additional
details of some importance respecting the period in question. The
religious strife in Culhuacan broke out into open war between the
sects of Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca, the former headed by the king
and his son Achitometl, the latter under another son, Acamapichtli,
and seconded by the Mexicans, who had been driven by persecution from
the city. This is the alliance alluded to by Veytia, when he states
that Acamapichtli, of Culhuacan, was chosen king of the Mexicans.
The rebellious son, at the head of the Mexicans, was victorious, and
compelled his father to flee from his capital, but did not at once
assume the title of king, and was, not long after, in his turn defeated
and driven from the city. This was the final departure of the Mexicans,
most of whom gathered at Iztacalco, where a band of their nation had
been for some years residing, under the chief Tenuch. Many, however,
settled at other points near at hand on the lake shores and islands,
and to this period is attributed also their invention of the Chinampas,
or floating gardens.
[Sidenote: FOUNDATION OF MEXICO.]
The localities thus occupied at this period, simultaneously or
successively, besides Iztacalco, were Mexicaltzinco, Acatzintitlan,
Mixiuhtlan, and Temazcaltitlan. At last the priests selected what they
deemed a suitable place for permanent settlement, the same spot where
Copil had been sacrificed, an island, or raised tract in the lake
marshes, and pretended to find there the nopal, eagle, and serpent
which had been promised by their god as a token that the proper
location had been found. The nopal grew on a rock in the midst of a
beautiful pool, into which one of the two discoverers was instantly
drawn, and admitted to an interview with the Tlalocs, who confirmed
the belief that here was to be their permanent home. According to
some authorities, a title to this site was obtained from the king of
Azcapuzalco. The first task was to erect a rude temple of rushes for
the ark of the idol Huitzilopochtli, which was located exactly over the
stone which bore the famous nopal; the huts of the people were built
around this as a centre, divided by divine command into four wards, or
districts. Then all set industriously to work, the men leveling and
filling in the site of their town, or fishing and killing wild ducks
on the lakes, the products being mostly bartered by the women in the
cities of the main land, for stone and wood for building material.
The first victim sacrificed to the god in his new temple was a Culhua
noble, of hostile sect, opportunely captured.[VI-38] Thus was founded,
in 1325,[VI-39] the city named--probably from Mexi, the original name
of Huitziton, and Tenuch, their chief leader at the time the city was
formed--Mexico Tenochtitlan.[VI-40]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: DEATH OF QUINANTZIN.]
Quinantzin continued in his glorious career at Tezcuco, allowing
the surrounding kings to weaken their power by their intrigues and
contentions one with another, while he devoted all his energies as a
diplomatist, and all the strength of his armies to the strengthening of
his imperial power, the enlargement and embellishment of his capital,
where refugees from all directions were kindly welcomed, the quelling
of rebellion in various provinces, and the conquest of new lands.
Not only did he promptly put down every attempt at revolt in his own
dominions, but insisted that the kings of Culhuacan and Azcapuzalco
should check the attempts of their revolting vassals. Huehuetlan,
Mizquic, Cuitlahuac, Zayollan, Temimiltepec, and Totolapan, are named
as the rebellious provinces thus subdued during the last years of this
emperor's reign. No monarch in Anáhuac could have resisted Quinantzin's
power, but he seems to have had no disposition to encroach on what he
deemed the legitimate domains of his brother sovereigns. In spite of
the opposition of the Chichimec nobles to his reforms, his tendency
to Toltec usages, and his fondness for display, the emperor after
his power had become firmly established enjoyed the love and respect
of all his subjects. His surname, Tlaltecatzin, 'he who lords the
earth,' is said to have been given him in consideration of his success
in subduing so many provinces. He died in 8 Calli, 1305,[VI-41] at an
advanced age, and his funeral ceremonies were conducted with all the
pomp that had been characteristic of him in life. Seventy rulers of
provinces are said to have assisted. His body, embalmed, was seated
in full royal apparel on the throne, an eagle at the feet, a tiger at
the back, and the bow and arrows in his hands. All the people crowded
to the palace to take a last look upon their emperor, and after eighty
days, according to Torquemada, his body was burned, and the ashes, in
an emerald urn with a golden cover, placed in a cave near Tezcuco; or,
as Veytia and Ixtlilxochitl say, buried in a temple of the Sun in the
Tezcocingo forest.[VI-42]
[Sidenote: LIMITS OF THE CHICHIMEC EMPIRE.]
Quinantzin's elder sons having proved rebellious during their father's
reign, and having, therefore, been banished, his youngest son, Techotl,
Techotlalatzin, or Techotlala, was chosen as his successor. Techotl
reigned from 1305 to 1357, a period during which the dominions attached
to the crown of Tezcuco were almost entirely undisturbed by civil
or foreign wars. Only one war is recorded, by which the province of
Xaltocan, peopled chiefly by Otomís, with the aid of the chiefs of
Otompan, Quahuacan, and Tecomic, attempted to regain her independence
of Chichimec imperial authority. The revolt was, however, promptly
repressed by the emperor and his allies after a campaign of two months.
Tezozomoc had now succeeded to the throne of Azcapuzalco, and with
his Tepanec forces, took a very prominent part in this war against
Xaltocan and the northern provinces. The Mexicans also sent an army
to this war, and received some territory as a result, the rest of the
provinces being joined to the domains of Tezcuco and Azcapuzalco.[VI-43]
Techotl's tastes and ambitions were similar to those of his father,
and his fifty-two years of peaceful and prosperous reign enabled him
to successfully carry out his projects. To him, as emperor, belonged
the allegiance of the kings of Culhuacan, Azcapuzalco, and Mexico
in the latter part of his rule, when the latter power had risen to
some prominence; but no tribute was paid by these kings, and their
allegiance was probably only nominal.[VI-44] Over the provinces that
belonged to Tezcuco, or rather the kingdom of Acolhuacan, Techotl ruled
in precisely the same manner as the other kings over their respective
territories. The lord of each province acknowledged his allegiance to
his king, paid tribute according to the wealth of his people, and was
bound to aid his sovereign, if so requested, in time of war; in other
respects he was perfectly independent, and governed his dominion with
almost absolute sway. The long list of vassal provinces and lords given
by the records[VI-45] show that the authority of the Chichimec emperor
extended far beyond Anáhuac, but do not enable us to fix definitely
its limits; it probably was but little less extensive than that of the
emperor at Culhuacan, in Toltec times, and was very similar to the
Toltec rule in its nature.[VI-46] Techotl's efforts seem to have been
directed to the complete re-establishment of Toltec culture; to the
building-up and embellishment of his capital; to the enacting of just
laws and their strict enforcement by the appointment of the necessary
courts and officials; to the work of attracting new settlers into
his kingdom and capital, by kind treatment of all new-comers, and a
toleration of all their religious beliefs and rites; and above all, to
the centralization of his imperial power, and the gradual lessening
of the prerogatives of his vassal lords. The refugees from different
nations were given separate wards of Tezcuco for a residence, and
were permitted to erect temples, and to perform all their various
rites. Human sacrifice and religious strife were alone prohibited.
The different creeds and ceremonials of Toltec times became almost
universal in his kingdom,[VI-47] although the emperor himself is said
to have ridiculed all these creeds and sacrifices, contenting himself
with the worship of one god, of whom he deemed the sun a symbol. He is
credited with having entertained sentiments on religious topics several
centuries in advance of his time.
In his efforts for the centralization of the Chichimec power, he
first summoned the chief lords of his provinces, some twenty-six in
number, to Tezcuco, and practically compelled them to live there,
although heaping upon them honors and titles which made it impossible
for them to refuse obedience to his wishes. All together constituted
a royal council, consulted on matters of national import; and from
them were selected sub-councils, to whose management were entrusted
the superintendence of various branches, such as the administration
of justice, military regulations, art and science, agriculture, etc.
Five of the leading lords were entrusted with the most important
and honorable positions, and placed at the head of the chief
councils.[VI-48] As an offset to the favors granted these lords at the
capital and in the general government, their prerogatives at home
were greatly diminished. The twenty-six provinces were subdivided
into sixty-five departments; the lords retained their original titles
and the absolute command of twenty-six of the departments, but over
the other thirty-nine governors were placed who were supposed to
be wholly devoted to the interests of the emperor. Techotl is even
said to have gone so far as to transfer the inhabitants belonging to
different tribes from one province to another, so that the subjects of
each chief, although the same in number as before, were of different
tribes, and, as the emperor craftily imagined, much less easily incited
to revolt in the interests of ambitious chieftains, who were ever
ready to take advantage of favorable circumstances to declare their
independence. If the Chichimec nobles objected to these extraordinary
measures, their opposition is not recorded.
[Sidenote: REIGN OF TECHOTL.]
At one of the grand assemblies of kings and lords, held at Tezcuco,
to deliberate on the general interests of the empire, in 1342,
Techotl announced his intention to leave his crown to his eldest son,
Ixtlilxochitl, and caused that prince to be formally acknowledged
as heir apparent to the imperial throne. It does not appear that any
opposition to his succession was made at the time,[VI-49] although as we
shall see, his right was not undisputed at the death of his father. At
one of these assemblies, as all the authorities agree, it was ordered
that the Nahua language should be employed exclusively at court, in
the tribunals, and in the transaction of all public affairs. It has
been inferred from this, by many writers, that the language of the
Chichimec nations was different from that of the Toltecs;[VI-50] but
such a supposition would be inconsistent with the whole tenor of the
aboriginal annals, and cannot be admitted. Among the new tribes that
occupied Anáhuac after the Toltecs, there were doubtless some that
spoke another tongue; the enforced use of the Nahua at court was
aimed at the chiefs of such tribes, and was a part of the emperor's
general policy. Of course it is just possible that one of the tribes
of foreign tongue had become powerful and constituted a large part of
the population of Tezcuco, but such a state of affairs is not probable,
and the statement of some writers that the many learned Culhuas and
Mexicans gathered at the Chichimec capital during this period, came
as teachers of the Nahua language at the court of Techotl, cannot
be accepted. Brasseur's idea, as implied throughout this period of
aboriginal history, that the Chichimecs were barbarians, gradually
civilized by the few Toltecs that remained in the country, and forced
by their kings to adopt Nahua language and institutions, I regard
as wholly imaginary. The struggles of Quinantzin and his successors
were directed, not to the introduction of Toltec usages, but to the
preservation of their culture, threatened by the spirit of anarchy and
independence that followed the downfall of the Toltec empire.
[Sidenote: DEATH OF TECHOTL.]
Feeling, at last, that his end was drawing near, and that the work to
which he had devoted his energies must be committed to other hands, the
aged monarch is reported to have held a long interview with his son and
heir, Ixtlilxochitl. Most earnestly he instructed his son concerning
his future duties, and warned him against dangers whose occurrence he
already foresaw. He feared, above all, the projects of Tezozomoc, the
Tepanec king, who had already, although nominally loyal to Techotl,
shown tokens of far-reaching ambition and the possession of great
executive ability, and who evidently remembered that Acolnahuacatl,
his predecessor, had once been emperor. Special advice was given to
Ixtlilxochitl, who was probably a very young man, although there is
some disagreement about the date of his birth,[VI-51] as to the best
policy to be followed with the king of Azcapuzalco, and after jealously
striving to imbue his successor with the spirit that had made his own
reign so glorious, the emperor died, as has been stated, in 8 Calli,
1357.[VI-52]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: AZTECS AT MEXICO TENOCHTITLAN.]
Having traced the glorious, though peaceful career of the emperor
Techotl, I have to close this chapter by narrating the events of Culhua
and Mexican history during a corresponding period; a period most fatal
to Culhuacan, the metropolis of Anáhuac in Toltec times, and the only
Toltec city that had retained its prominence through the dark days of
Chichimec invasion. We have seen the Mexicans expelled from Culhuacan
at the triumph of Achitometl over his brother Acamapichtli; and, after
a series of wanderings about the lake, founding their city of Mexico
Tenochtitlan in 1325. One year before the city was founded, however,
Acamapichtli seems to have regained his power, and this time, his
father Coxcoxtli having died, he assumed the title of king. His rule
was probably very advantageous to the Mexicans, his friends, during
their first years in their new city, while they were strengthening
their position; but in 1336 he died, murdered, as some of the records
imply, and was succeeded by his brother Achitometl II., the avowed
enemy of the Mexicans and their religious rites. His accession drove
many of the rival sect to Mexico, and he thus aided, involuntarily,
in building up the new power. The infant son of the dead king, also
named Acamapichtli, was saved either by his mother, or, as others say,
by the princess Ilancueitl.[VI-53] During the troubles between the rival
sects headed by Acamapichtli and Achitometl, large numbers of Culhuas
had left their city and either taken refuge in Tezcuco, or had joined
kindred tribes in different localities. On the final accession of
Achitometl this depopulating movement was continued to a greater extent
than ever before. According to Brasseur's documents, a war with Chalco
in 1339, fomented by Tezozomoc, who had succeeded to the Tepanec throne
eight years before, gave the finishing blow to the power of Culhuacan,
which was practically abandoned by king and people about 1347, her
weaker tributary provinces being in part appropriated by the stronger,
which now became independent of all save imperial power, although
a large portion fell into the hands of the kings of Azcapuzalco and
Acolhuacan. The larger part of the Culhuas proper were divided between
Quauhtitlan,--which soon became practically a Culhua, or Toltec, city,
under Iztactototl, grandson of Coxcoxtli, who succeeded in 1348,--and
Mexico.[VI-54]
The territory on which Mexico Tenochtitlan was built seems to have
belonged to the domain of Azcapuzalco, and the Mexicans were obliged to
pay to the Tepanec king a certain amount of tribute in fish and other
productions of the lake. Their prosperity, the improvements they were
constantly making in their city, and their strong position in the lake,
taken in connection with their well-known valor and ambition, excited
much jealousy among the surrounding nations. Possibly this jealousy
is alluded to in the fable of a fatal epidemic which prevailed at this
time, ascribed in the popular tradition to the fumes of fried fish and
other delicacies, wafted from the island town, which created so violent
a longing as to occasion illness.[VI-55] The Tepanecs were the only people
that had the power to oppress the Aztecs, which they are said to have
done, not only by the exaction of the regular tribute due them, but
by imposing special taxes, to be paid in articles of no value to the
receivers, but which could be obtained by the Mexicans only with great
difficulty or danger.[VI-56] Brasseur says that Tezozomoc even went so far
as to send his son Tlacotin to rule in Mexico after Tenuch's death,
and he dying after a short time, another son, Teuhtlehuac, became
governor.[VI-57] I find nothing in the Spanish writers respecting Tepanec
governors in Mexico, although none of them give any very definite idea
how the city was governed in the early period of its existence. Some
authors mention Tenuch as one of the chiefs that directed the original
Aztec migration; others, as we have seen, make him the chief of an
Aztec band at Iztacalco, just before the founding of the city, and
imply that he was the leader under the priesthood at the time of its
foundation, and for some time after; while still other writers state
that he was elected chief three years after the foundation.[VI-58]
At this period took place the division of the Aztecs into Mexicans
and Tlatelulcas, although Veytia dates it back before the foundation
of the city, and before many of the events already related. It was
caused by a quarrel between the priests and nobles, and was a secession
of the latter when unable to check the growing power of the former.
Torquemada attributes the separation merely to the overcrowded state
of the city; and the fable of the two bundles which originated the
dissension in early times has already been related.[VI-59] Brasseur sees
in this division the inevitable Nahua tendency to struggle bravely
and unitedly against misfortune, but at the first dawn of prosperity
to indulge in internal strife. The priesthood used their influence
to excite the lower classes against the nobility, and particularly
against their Tepanec governor, whom they denounced as a tyrant.
They finally succeeded in raising such a storm that Teuhtlehuac was
driven out, and his party, including most of the nobility, determined
to seek a new home. The connection of a Tepanec governor with the
matter, removes some of the difficulties involved in other versions,
but it is not easy to understand why Tezozomoc permitted his son to
be driven from Tenochtitlan. Whatever the circumstances which led to
the secession, the location of the new establishment was miraculously
pointed out. The nobles were attracted by a whirlwind to a sandy spot
among the reeds of the lake, about two miles from Tenochtitlan, and
found there the shield, arrow, and coiled serpent, which they deemed a
most happy augury. They obtained a title of the land from the Tepanec
king, on condition of a yearly tribute,[VI-60] and called their new home
Xaltelulco, afterwards, Tlatelulco.[VI-61]
[Sidenote: GROWTH OF MEXICO AND TLATELULCO.]
Both cities grew rapidly, and acquired much prosperity and power,
notwithstanding the separation, by reason of the large immigration
that they received, and of the rivalry that sprang up between the two
divisions. The additions to the population in Tenochtitlan were chiefly
Culhuas, who came in so large numbers as to outnumber, perhaps, the
original Mexicans; while Tlatelulco received a corresponding influx of
Tepanecs, and many from other neighboring nations. We have no further
details of their history down to the death of the emperor Techotl,
at Tezcuco, except that the establishment of a monarchy in each of
the two cities. The Mexicans were at first ruled by the priests, with
certain chiefs not definitely named; although by some Tenuch is still
spoken of as alive and ruling down to 1357. It was finally decided,
in an assembly of priests and wise men of the nation, to choose a
king, and the choice fell upon Acamapichtli II., son of Acamapichtli
of Culhuacan. The large Culhua element in Tenochtitlan doubtless had a
great influence in this choice; and other motives were the friendship
of the candidate's father for the Mexicans in past times, the
possibility of reconquering the old Culhua possessions and joining them
to the Aztec domain, and possibly the extreme youth of Acamapichtli,
which offered to the priesthood a prospect of easily controlling his
actions. The young candidate was summoned from Tezcuco, where he had
taken refuge, together with the princess Ilancueitl, who had rescued
him, who seems to have been regent during his minority, and who is
even said to have become his wife. 1350 was the date of the accession
of Acamapichtli II., the first king of Mexico Tenochtitlan.[VI-62]
Soon after, probably the following year, 1351, the Tlatelulcas also
determined to establish a monarchical form of government. They also
sent abroad for a king, and received a son of the Tepanec king,
Tezozomoc, named Quaquauhpitzahuac.[VI-63]
FOOTNOTES:
[VI-1] 1194, _Codex Chimalpopoca_; 1140 or 1189, _Ixtlilxochitl_;
1245, _Clavigero_; 1331, _Gondra_; 1298, _Veytia_, _Gama_, and
_Gallatin_.
[VI-2] I give here as compactly as possible the course of the Aztec
migration as given by the leading authorities:--Leave Aztlan 1
Tecpatl, 1064 A.D., and travel 104 years to Chicomoztoc, where they
remain 9 years; thence to Cohuatlicamac, 3 years, Matlahuacallan, 6,
Apanco, 5, Chimalco, 6, Pipiolcomic, 3, Tollan, 6, Cohuactepec
(Coatepec), 3, Atlitlalacayan, 2, Atotonilco, 1, Tepexic, 5, Apasco,
3, Tzonpanco, 7, Tizayocan, 1, Ecatepec, 1, Tolpetlac, 3, Chimalpan,
4, Cohuatitlan, 2, Huexachtitlan, 3, Tecpayocan, 3, Tepeyacac
(Guadalupe), 3, Pantitlan, 2 years, and thence to Chapultepec,
arriving in 1298, after a migration of 185 years, which necessitates
an addition of 49 years for their stay in Michoacan. _Veytia_, tom.
ii., pp. 91-8. According to Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 77-82, they
reached Huey Culhuacan one year after their start; the time consumed
in reaching Chicomoztoc is not given, and no dates are mentioned.
Otherwise the account agrees exactly with Veytia's, except that an
unnamed station is represented as having occupied 3 of the 6 years'
stay at Matlahuacallan; there are also a few slight differences in
orthography. Tezozomoc's account is as follows:--Aztlan, Culhuacan,
Jalisco, Mechoacan, Malinalco (Lake Patzcuaro), Ocopipilla,
Acahualcingo, Coatepec (in Tonalan), Atlitlanquian or Atitalaquia,
Tequisquiac, Atengo, Tzompan, Cuachilgo, Xaltocan and Lake Chinamitl,
Eycoac, Ecatepc, Aculhuacan, Tultepetlac, Huixachtitlan, Tecpayuca (in
2 Calli), Atepetlac, Coatlayauhcan, Tetepanco, Acolnahuac, Popotla
(Tacuba), Chapultepec (Techcatepec and Techcatitlan) in 2 Tochtli.
_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 5-8. Following Clavigero, tom. i., pp.
156-63, the Aztecs left Aztlan in 1160, crossed the Colorado River,
stayed 3 years at Hueicolhuacan, went east to Chicomoztoc, where they
separated from the Nahuatlaca tribes, then to Coatlicamac, and reached
Tula in 1196, remaining 9 years; then spent 11 years in different
places, reached Zumpanco in 1216, remaining 7 years, then Tizajocan,
Tolpetlac, Tepejacac, and Chapultepec in 1245 during Nopaltzin's
reign. Gallatin, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., pp.
124-9, merely makes some remarks on Clavigero's account, fixing the
departure, however, in 1064, and noting the completion of the first
cycle in 1090 at Tlalixco. Gama, _Dos Piedras_, pt i., pp. 19-20,
makes them leave Aztlan in 1 Tecpatl, 1064, and arrive at Tlalixco, or
Acahualtzinco, in 1087, where they completed their first cycle in
1091, and remained 9 years. Acosta, pp. 454-62, says that 6 Nahuatlaca
tribes left Aztlan in 820, and were 80 years in reaching Mexico. The
Aztecs started in 1122, passed through Michoacan, and halted at
Malinalco and Coatepec before reaching Chapultepec. Herrera, dec.
iii., lib. ii., cap. x-xi, agrees with Acosta. Duran, MS., tom. i.,
cap. i, ii, iii, says they left Aztlan in Chicomoztoc, giving dates as
by Acosta; but he also gives as stations, Patzcuaro, Malinalco,
Ocipila, Acahualcingo, Coatepec, Tulla, Atlitlalacpan, Tequixquiac,
Tzumpanco, Xaltocan, Ecatepec, Tulpetlac, Tepaneca, and Chapultepec.
Sahagun, tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 145-6, vaguely states that the
Mexicans went westward from the Seven Caves to a province called
Culhuacan Mexico, whence they were ordered by their god to return, and
passed through Tulla, Ichpuchco, Chiquiuhio near Ecatepec, to
Chapultepec. According to _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 290-308,
the other Nahuatlaca tribes left Aztlan from 1062 to 1068, but the
Aztecs in 1 Tochtli, 1090. They pass through Téo-Culhuacan,
Quahuitl-Icacan, 1091, Quinehuayan-Oztotl or Quinehuayan-Chicomoztoc,
1116, stay 11 years, Acahualtzinco or Tlalixco (now S. Juan del Rio),
1st cycle in 1143, stay 9 years, Tonalan, Lake Patzcuaro, Malinalco,
Cohuatlycamac or Coatepec, 1174, stay 9 years, Apazco, Tzompanco,
Tizayocan, Tepeyacac, Pantitlan, Popotlan, and arrive at Chapultepec
in 1194, having been several times broken up into different bands on
the way. Humboldt's--_Vues_, tom. ii., p. 176, et seq.--interpretation
of Gemelli Careri's map--see vol. ii., pp. 543-7, of this work--gives
the stations in the following order: From Colhuacan, the Mexican
Ararat, 15 chiefs or tribes reach Aztlan, 'land of flamingoes,' north
of 42°, which they leave in 1038, passing through Tocolco,
'humiliation,' Oztotlan, 'place of grottoes,' Mizquiahuala,
Teotzapotlan, 'place of divine fruit,' Ilhuicatepec, Papantla,
'large-leaved grass,' Tzompanco, 'place of human bones,' Apazco, 'clay
vessel,' Atlicalaguian, 'crevice in which rivulet escapes,'
Quauhtitlan, 'eagle grove,' Atzcapotzalco, 'ant-hill,' Chalco, 'place
of precious stones,' Pantitlan, 'spinning-place,' Tolpetlac, 'rush
mat,' Quauhtepec, 'eagle mountain,' Tetepanco, 'wall of many small
stones,' Chicomoztoc, 'seven caves,' Huitzquilocan, 'place of
thistles,' Xaltepozauhcan, 'place where the sand issues,'
Cozcaquauhco, 'a vulture', Techcatitlan, 'place of obsidian mirrors,'
Azcaxochitl, 'ant flower,' Tepetlapan, 'place of tepetate,' Apan,
'place of water,' Teozomaco, 'place of divine apes,' Chapoltepec,
'grasshopper hill.' Gondra, in _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom.
iii., pp. 5-7, repeats this interpretation. Ramirez, in _García y
Cubas_, _Atlas_, justly ridicules the 'Ararat' or deluge theory, and
confines the wanderings of the Aztecs to the regions about the lakes;
15 chiefs leave their home in Chalco Lake after tying 1st cycle. The
stations are mostly adopted from Humboldt, without any opinion
expressed of their accuracy, but there are a few additions and
corrections in definitions, as follows:--Aztlan, where 2d and 3d cycle
are tied, _Cincotlan_, 10 years, Tocolco, 4th cycle, Oztotlan, 5
years, Mizquiahuala, 5th cycle, _Xalpan_, 15 years, Tetepanco, 'wall
of many stones,' 5 years, _Oxitlipan_, 10 years, Teotzapatlan, 4
years, Ilhuicatepec, 4 years, Papantla, meaning doubtful, 2 years,
Tzonpanco, 'place of skulls or bones,' 5 years, Apazco, 4 years,
Atlicalaquian, 'where water collects,' 2 years, Cauhtitlan, 'near the
eagle,' 3 years, Azcapotzalco, 'in the ant-hill,' 6th cycle, 7 years,
1 year to Chalco, Pantitlan, 'place of tiers,' 'place of departure,'
neither quite correct; Tolpetlac, 2 years, _Epcohuac_, 'serpent,'
Cuauhtepec, 2 years, Chicomoztoc, 8 years, Huitzquilocal, 3 years,
Xaltepozauhcan, doubtful, 4 years, Cozcacuauhco, 4 years,
Techcatitlan, 5 years, Azcaxochic, 4 years, Tepetlapa, 5 years, Apan,
'on the water,' Teozomaco, 'in the monkey of stone,' 6 years,
Chapoltepec, 4 years. The same author from the Boturini map--see vol.
ii., pp. 547-50--derives the following: Left their island home, passed
through Coloacan, stayed 5 days in a place not named, thence to
Cuextecatlichocayan, Coatlicamac, 28 years, Tollan, 19, Atlicalaquiam,
10, Tlemaco, 5, Atotonilco, 5, Apazco, 12, Tzonpanco, 4, Xaltocan, 4,
Acalhuacan, 4, Ehecatepec, 4, Tolpetlac, 8, Coatitlan, 20,
Huixachtitlan, 4, Tecpayocan, 4, ----, Amalinalpan, 8, Pantitlan, 4,
Acolnahuac, 4, Popotla, 4, ----, Atlacuihuayan or Tacubaya, 4,
Chapoltepec, 20 years. Gondra, in _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom.
iii., pp. 23-30, interprets the Boturini map as follows:--Leave Aztlan
1168, pass through Colhuacan, Cuatlicamaca, 1216-25, Apanco, 1226-9,
Tlamaco, 1230-4, Tzompango, 1246, Azcapotzalco, 1250, Jaltocan,
1251-4, Colhuacan, 1258, Tolpetlac, 1262, Ecatepetl, 1270, Cuautitlan,
Chalco, Tecpayocan, 1295, Pantitlan, Atotonilco, 1303, Azcapotzalco,
1311, Apan, 1315, Acaxochitl, 1319, Tlacuihuallan, 1327, Chapoltepetl,
1331-51.
[VI-3] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 292-5, on the authority of
the _Mem. de Culhuacan_ and other original documents.
[VI-4] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 135-6.
[VI-5] _Id._, pp. 136-8. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 79-80, followed by
Clavigero and Vetancvrt, represents this event as having occurred at a
subsequent halting-place.
[VI-6] Veytia conjectures the emerald to typify the nobility of the
Tlatelulcas, a useless attribute when compared with Aztec science and
industry.
[VI-7] _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 293-6; _Ixtlilxochitl_, vol. ix., p.
214. Veytia, tom. ii., p. 95, makes Chalchiuh Tlatonac another name of
Huitziton.
[VI-8] On Huitzilopochtli see vol. iii., pp. 288-324. Some of the
authorities imply that Huitzilopochtli died or at least appeared as an
idol long before this period, soon after their departure from Aztlan.
Boturini, _Idea_, pp. 60-1, states that Huitziton was taken up to
heaven in sight of the people. See also on his death and the
abandonment of Malinalxochitl; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 93-101;
_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 78, 80-1; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_,
vol. ix., pp. 6-8; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. ii.-iv.; _Acosta_, pp.
459-61, 468; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 160-1; _Brasseur_, _Hist._,
tom. ii., pp. 299-302; _Sigüenza_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii.,
tom. i., pp. 39-43; _Ramirez_, in _García y Cubas_, _Atlas_; _Gondra_,
in _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., p. 25.
[VI-9] See vol. ii., p. 130; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix.,
p. 6; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. iii.; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 103-5;
_Pimentel_, _Cuadro_, tom. i., p. 272; _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles
Annales_, tom. xcviii., pp. 131-2.
[VI-10] See vol. ii., pp. 297-9; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 106-8;
_Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 7-8.
[VI-11] See besides references in preceding notes, _Vetancvrt_,
_Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 18-19; _Herrera_, _Hist. Gen._, dec. iii., lib.
ii., cap. xi.; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i.,
pp. 125-6; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 302-5.
[VI-12] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 96-7, calls the bride of Ilhuicatl,
Tiacapapantzin; and Torquemada, tom. i., p. 82, Tiacapantzin. See also
_Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 163; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. iii.;
_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 306-8.
[VI-13] Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 213, 346, 397,
gives the dates 1107, 1158, and 1105; the first date is 5 Acatl which
agrees with Brasseur's documents, but is interpreted as 1211 or one
cycle later than Ixtlilxochitl's interpretation. Veytia, tom. ii., pp.
79-80, gives the date 1263.
[VI-14] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 323, 378; _Torquemada_,
tom. i., p. 254. This author gives the succession of kings at
Culhuacan as Achitometl, Mazatzin, Quetzal, Chalchiuhtona, Quauhtlix,
Yohuallatonac, Tziuhtecatl, Xuihtemoctzin, and Coxcotzin. Veytia gives
the succession as follows: Achitometl, Xohualatonac, Calquiyauhtzin,
and Coxcox. It is impossible to reconcile this matter; but no events
of great importance in which the Culhuas were engaged seem to have
taken place until the reign of Coxcoxtli.
[VI-15] _Leon y Gama_, _Dos Piedras_, pt i., p. 20, and _Codex
Chimalpopoca_. Gallatin makes the date one cycle later or 1298.
[VI-16] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 83-4. This author represents the
Aztecs as having been driven from Chapultepec at this time. There is
but little agreement respecting the order of events in Aztec history
previous to the foundation of Mexico.
[VI-17] _Codex Chimalpopoca_, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp.
319-23.
[VI-18] Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 348, and
Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 140-1, mention this application to Quinantzin,
but refer it to a much later period after the city of Mexico was
founded.
[VI-19] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 81-8, 110-13, gives the date of
Tlotzin's death as 1298. Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix.,
pp. 213, 346, 3981, 461, gives as dates, 1141, 1194, and 1140. See
also on his reign; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 68-72; _Clavigero_, tom.
i., pp. 143-4; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 16; _Brasseur_,
_Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 324-33.
[VI-20] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 73-4, 85; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp.
114-15; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 347-8, 399,
452-3; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 144-5; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii.,
p. 16; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 333-8; _Müller_, _Reisen_,
tom. iii., p. 48.
[VI-21] Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 215, 347-8,
399, 452-3; Veytia, tom. i., pp. 116-17, 122-25, refers these events
to a considerably later period, and states that Huitzilihuitl
previously married a niece of Acolnahuacatl. _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.
ii., pp. 338-44.
[VI-22] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 143-54, relates this rebellion and
defeat of the northern provinces, and the consequent abdication of
Acolnahuacatl, attributing these events, however, to a much later
period, after the separation of the Tlatelulcas from the Mexicans,
giving the date as 1325. Most of the authorities do not definitely fix
the date, but Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 344-55, gives
satisfactory reasons, supported by Camargo and Ixtlilxochitl, for
referring both this war and the battle at Poyauhtlan to the time when
the Mexicans were yet living under Huitzilihuitl at Chapultepec.
Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 162-73, unites the rebellion of the king's sons
and the fight against the Teo-Chichimecs, referring this latter war to
1350, and including the provinces of Huastepec, Huehuetlan, and
Cuitlahuac in the revolt. He represents the allied forces of Anáhuac,
100,000 strong, as serving in six divisions under the general command
of Quinantzin, already emperor. He also states that Quinantzin's queen
accompanied her sons in their exile. Of course there is great
diversity among the authorities in respect to names of leaders, and
details of the battles; but the general account given in my text is
the only consistent one that can be formed, since there is much even
in Veytia's account to support it. It is probable, in the light of
later events, that Quinantzin took no part in the war against the
Teo-Chichimecs, and quite possible that Camargo's statement that the
Teo-Chichimecs were victorious, though much exhausted, in the battle
at Poyauhtlan, results to a great extent from national pride in the
record of the Tlascaltecs. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 84-6, 259-60,
seems to be the authority for the second campaign of Quinantzin in the
north, which was decided by a great battle at Tlaximalco in the region
of Monte Real. Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 215-16,
349-52, 398-400, 461-2, as usual favors in different places nearly all
the views of other authorities. See also _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles
Annales_, tom. xcviii., pp. 142-3; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 144-5,
154.
[VI-23] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 160, 228; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in
_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 216-17, 351, 399, 401, 453. The chief of
the Tailotlacs was Tempantzin, or Aztatlitexcan; and the Chimalpanecs
were under Xiloquetzin and Tlacateotzin. In this, as in other cases I
have not entered minutely into the names, marriages, and genealogies
of the nobles of Anáhuac, since my space does not permit a full
treatment of the subject, and a superficial treatment would be without
value.
[VI-24] _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 86. It is not quite certain that
this revolt, and that of some southern provinces, which occurred two
years later, were not connected with those that have been already
narrated. Torquemada rarely pays any attention to chronology.
[VI-25] _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 217. It seems that Quinantzin's
successor granted permission to build temples.
[VI-26] _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 377-80.
[VI-27] _Id._, p. 382; dates 1281, or 1300. According to Veytia, tom.
ii., pp. 160-1, and Ixtlilxochitl, p. 462, Xiuhtemoc, king of
Culhuacan, died in 1340, and was succeeded by Acamapichtli.
[VI-28] See pp. 327-8.
[VI-29] _Duran_, MS. tom. i., cap. iv.; _Acosta_, pp. 462-4;
_Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi. Torquemada, tom. i., pp.
83-4, 89, says the Aztecs were either brought as slaves from Ocolco to
Tizaapan, or were invited to Culhuacan and then enslaved. See also,
_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 164-5; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp.
20-1; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 127-9. I make no effort to follow
Veytia's chronologic order which, in this part of the history, is
hopelessly confused and different from the other authorities.
[VI-30] _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 380-98.
[VI-31] There is some confusion about the parentage of Tezozomoc and
Acamapichtli: 'Coxcoxtli épousa une fille d'Acolnahuacatl dont il eut
Tezozomoc, ou Acolnahuacatl épousa une fille de Coxcoxtli dont ce
prince serait issu. Quoique le MS. de 1528 donne Acolnahuacatl pour
père à Tezozomoc, le Mémorial de Culhuacan le donne pour le fils de
Coxcoxtli et frère d'Acamapichtli. Ixtlilxochitl dit également
qu'Acamapichtli était son frère.' _Id._, pp. 394-5. See _Ixtlilxochitl_,
in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 349, 397, 401. He, however, seems to
make Acamapichtli also the son of Acolnahuacatl. Veytia, tom. ii., pp.
73, 161-2, fixes the date of the king's death at 1343. _Torquemada_,
tom. i., p. 68; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, pp. 142-3.
[VI-32] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 119-22. This author places this event
in the lifetime of Huitzilihuitl and of Acolnahuacatl. _Torquemada_,
tom. i., pp. 90-1; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 165-7.
[VI-33] See references in last note; also _Humboldt_, _Vues_, tom. i.,
pp. 260-1; _Gondra_, in _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., pp.
80-1, 260-1.
[VI-34] _Acosta_, p. 464; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. iv. He calls the
Culhua king Achitometl. _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xi.
[VI-35] In _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 398.
[VI-36] Quinantzin succeeded to the empire, and appointed his uncle,
Tenancacaltzin, governor in Tenayocan, who usurped the throne in 1299;
Huitzilihuitl, of Mexicans, obtained in marriage a niece of king
Acolhua II. of Azcapuzalco; Coxcox succeeded Calquiyauhtzin as king of
Culhuacan; the Xochimilcas were defeated by the aid of the Mexicans,
and Acolhua II. became emperor in 1299; next, Acamapichtli used the
Mexicans to conquer Coxcox, and made himself king of Culhuacan in
1301, but died in 1303 and was succeeded by Xiuhtemoc; Huitzilihuitl
died in 1318, and the Mexicans chose as their king also, Xiuhtemoc of
Culhuacan, where many of them had settled, under the rule of
Acamapichtli, and where all now removed from Chapultepec, although
against the wishes of the Culhua people; at last, in 1325, for no very
definite reason, they were driven from Culhuacan and went to
Acatzintitlan, or Mexicaltzinco; then they applied to the emperor
Acolhua II. and were allowed to live for a time near Azcapuzalco,
while their priests were searching for the predestined location of
their future city; then took place the separation between the Mexicans
and Tlatelulcas; the Tlatelulcas obtain a King from the emperor after
having applied to Quinantzin in vain; Quinantzin regains the imperial
throne from Acolhua II.; and finally, Tenochtitlan was founded in
1327. _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 114-57.
[VI-37] _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 402-3, 432-50.
[VI-38] On the foundation of Mexico, its date, and name, see--_Duran_,
MS., tom. i., cap. iv.-vi.; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 92-3, 288-91;
_Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 156-60; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_,
vol. ix., p. 461; _Tezozomoc_, in _Id._, pp. 5, 8-9; _Oviedo_, _Hist.
Gen._, tom. iii., p. 531; _Acosta_, pp. 465-6; _Clavigero_, tom. i.,
pp. 167-9; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 21; _Codex Mendoza_, in
_Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 40; _Arlegui_, _Chrón. Zacatecas_, pp.
8-9; _Cavo_, _Tres Siglos_, tom. i., p. 2; _Purchas his Pilgrimes_,
vol. iv., pp. 1066-7; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc._, _Transact._,
vol. i., pp. 144, 204-5; _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_, tom. viii., pp.
405, 415; _Müller_, _Amer. Urrel._, p. 534; _Gondra_, in _Prescott_,
_Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., p. 356.
[VI-39] Date 1325, according to Clavigero, Gama, Chimalpain, Brasseur,
and Prescott; 1327, Veytia, following Sigüenza y Góngora; 1318, Duran;
1324, _Codex Mendoza_; 1140, 1141, or about 1200, Ixtlilxochitl; 1131,
Camargo; 1326, Tezozomoc, in _Veytia_; 1316, _Id._, in _Gondra_; 1225,
Chimalpain, in _Id._; 1317, Sigüenza, in _Id._; 1341, Torquemada, in
_Id._; 1321, Zapata, in _Veytia_; 1357, Martinez, in _Veytia_ and
_Gondra_.
[VI-40] On derivation of the name, see vol. ii., p. 559; also
_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 92-3; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol.
ix., p. 5; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Id._, p. 461. These authors derive
Tenochtitlan from the Aztec name of the nopal. Cavo, _Tres Siglos_,
tom. i., p. 2, Müller, _Amer. Urrel._, p. 534, and Carbajal Espinosa,
_Hist. Mex._, tom. i., p. 315, derive Mexico from _Metl-ico_ 'place
amid the magueys.'
[VI-41] 1357, Veytia; 1213, 1249, or 1253, Ixtlilxochitl; 1305,
Brasseur.
[VI-42] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 86-7; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.
144-6; _Veytia_, tom. i., pp. 171, 176, 181; _Ixtlilxochitl_, in
_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 215-16, 352, 400, 453; _Sahagun_, tom.
ii., lib. viii., p. 275; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 422-5;
_Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, p. 39.
[VI-43] Xaltocan is spoken of by Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia as having
been at this time subjected for the first time to the emperor. Its
inhabitants were Otomís, and the refugees are said to have built, or
rebuilt, the city of Otompan. Tezozomoc is represented as having borne
the principal part in the war, while the emperor Techotl joined in it
more to watch and restrain the allies than for anything else. Another
war in Tlascala, in which forces sent by Techotl, are said by
Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 265-8, to have participated, was, perhaps,
the same already mentioned in connection with the king of Culhuacan.
[VI-44] Azcapuzalco, Mexico, Coatlichan, Huexotla, Coatepec, and four
or five others are mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol.
ix., p. 355, as paying no tribute; but some of these, according to
other authorities, were actually joined to the kingdom of Acolhuacan,
and had not even the honor of a tributary lord.
[VI-45] The list of those lords present at the funeral of Quinantzin
and the coronation of Techotl, is as follows: Tezozomoc, king of
Azcapuzalco; Paintzin, king of Xaltocan, lord of the Otomís;
Mocomatzin, Moteuhzomatzin, or Montezuma, king of Coatlichan;
Acamapichtli, king of Culhuacan and Mexico (this could not be, as
Mexico was not yet founded; Coxcoxtli was king of Culhuacan, but
Acamapichtli was, in one sense, chief of the Mexicans, and heir to the
throne of Culhuacan); Mixcohuatl, or Mixcohuatzin, king of Tlatelulco
(the Aztec Tlatelulco was not yet founded; Brasseur believes this to
refer to an ancient city of this name); Quetzalteuhtli, or
Quetzalatecuhtli, lord of Xochimilco; Izmatletlopac, lord of
Cuitlahuac; Chiquauhtli, lord of Mizquic (Chalco Atenco, according to
Brasseur); Pochotl, lord of Chalco Atenco (_Ixtlilxochitl_); Omaca, or
Omeacatl, lord of Tlalmanalco; Cacamaca, lord of Chalco; Temacatzin,
lord of Huexotzinco, (or as Brasseur has it, of Quauhquechollan);
Tematzin, prince of Huexotzinco (_Brasseur_); Cocaztzin, lord of
Quauhquelchula (_Ixtlilxochitl_); Teocuitlapopocatzin, lord of
Cuetlaxcohuapan, or Cuetlachcoapan; Chichimecatlalpayatzin,
high-priest of Cholula; Chichitzin, lord of Tepeaca; Mitl, prince of
Tlascala; Xihuilpopoca, lord of Zacatlan; Quauhquetzal, lord of
Tenamitec; Chichihuatzin, lord of Tulancingo; Tlaltecatzin, lord of
Quauhchinanco; Tecpatl, lord of Atotonilco; Iztaquauhtzin, lord of the
Mazahuas; Chalchiuhtlanetzin, lord of Coyuhuacan; Yohuatl
Chichimecatzin, lord of Coatepec; Quiyauhtzin, lord of Huexotla;
Tecuhtlacuiloltzin, lord of Acolman. _Ixtlilxochitl_, in
_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 353; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., p.
428. Ixtlilxochitl says that these were not all, but merely the
leading vassals, all related to the emperor. A list of 46 is given in
_Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 355, and _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 214-15. 73 are
said to have attended one assembly, 66 another, and 30 another.
[VI-46] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 182-3, and Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. ii.,
p. 427, state that the distant provinces of Quauhtemalan (Guatemala),
Tecolotlan (Vera Paz), Centizonac, Teoquantepec (Tehuantepec), and
Jalisco, were represented in the crowd that gathered at Techotl's
coronation, offering their homage and allegiance; but Ixtlilxochitl,
p. 353, says that these provinces would not recognize the emperor.
There is very little probability that the Chichimec power ever reached
so far, but not unlikely that communication took place between Mexico
and Central America at this period.
[VI-47] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 195-6, implies that the new rites and
ideas came rather from Mexican than Toltec influence.
[VI-48] The general Council of State, composed of all the highest
lords, men of learning, ability, and character, was presided over by
the emperor himself. Of the five special councils the first was that
of war, under a lord who received the title of Tetlahto, and composed,
according to Brasseur, of lords of the Acolhua nation. The second was
the Council of the Exchequer, under a superintendent of finance, with
the title Tlami, or Calpixcontli, having charge of the collection of
tribute, and composed of men well acquainted with the resources of
every part of the country, chiefly as is said Chichimecs, Otomís, and
lords of Meztitlan. The third was the Diplomatic Council, whose
president had the title of Yolqui, and was a kind of Grand Master of
Ceremonies, whose duty it was to receive, present, entertain and
dispatch ambassadors. Many of this council were Culhuas. The fourth
was the council of the royal household, under the Amechichi, or High
Chamberlain. This council was composed largely of Tepanecs. A fifth
official, with the title of Cohuatl, superintended the work of the
royal gold and silver smiths and feather-workers at Ocolco, a suburb
of Tezcuco. The Spanish writers state that the president of each of
the councils must be a relation of the emperor, or at least a Tezcucan
nobleman. _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 88; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 181;
_Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 182-5; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp.
430-1.
[VI-49] There seems to have been some trouble between Ixtlilxochitl
and the Tepanec king Tezozomoc, even before Techotl's death.
Ixtlilxochitl was unmarried, although by his concubines he had many
children; and, as Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 217-18, has it, he took
Tezozomoc's daughter as a wife at his father's request, but sent her
back before consummating the marriage; or, according to Ixtlilxochitl,
p. 218, he refused to take Tezozomoc's daughter, who had already been
repudiated by some one, except as a concubine. The same author, p.
356, says this occurred after his father's death. He finally married a
Mexican princess. Tezozomoc was very much offended.
[VI-50] The emperor is said to have learned the Nahua language from
his Culhua nurse Papaloxochitl, and to have become so convinced of its
superiority that he ordered its adoption. _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 217;
_Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 194-5.
[VI-51] Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 217-8, says he was over sixty years old;
Ixtlilxochitl gives 1338 as the date of his birth, which would make
him less than twenty. The method of arriving at his age seems to be by
fixing the date of his son's birth, noting that his father's wife was
eight years old at her marriage, and taking into consideration the
reported Chichimec custom which required the husband to wait until his
wife was forty before consummating the marriage. Ixtlilxochitl was
endowed, at birth, with thirteen towns or provinces; his mother is
said to have been the sister of Coxcoxtli, king of Culhuacan.
[VI-52] 1353, or 1357, _Ixtlilxochitl_; 1409, _Veytia_. On Techotl's
reign see: _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 217-18,
353-6, 400-1, 453, 462; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 178-231; _Torquemada_,
tom. i., pp. 87-9, 108; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 180-1, 184;
_Sahagun_, _Hist. Gen._, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 276; _Vetancvrt_,
_Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 16-17, 24; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp.
425-32, 457-61, 472-3.
[VI-53] _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 302; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom.
ii., p. 451. Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 127-30, agrees, except in dates, so
far as the succession of Acamapichtli is concerned, and his friendship
for the Mexicans. He, however, says nothing of Achitometl II., dates
Acamapichtli's death in 1303, and states that he was succeeded by his
eldest son Xiuhtemoc. The _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v.,
p. 42, implies that Acamapichtli transferred his court in 1370 to
Mexico, giving, as Motolinia, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom.
i., p. 6, says, the lordship of Culhuacan to one of his sons. See also
_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 218, 343, 349. Much of the confusion in the
Culhua succession is caused by the fact that there were two
Acamapichtlis, one, king of Culhuacan and in a certain sense the
leader of the Mexicans, and the other, king of Mexico at a later
date.
[VI-54] Gomara and Brasseur as above; also _Brasseur_, p. 465.
[VI-55] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 93; _Duran_, MS. tom. i., cap. x.
[VI-56] _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. vi.; _Tezozomoc_, in
_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 9-10; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii.,
cap. xii; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 471-3; _Torquemada_, tom.
i., pp. 99-101; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 176; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_,
pt ii., pp. 22-3.
[VI-57] _Hist._, tom. ii., p. 454.
[VI-58] _Veytia_, tom. ii., p. 159, writes the name Tenuhctzin, and
dates his election 1330. In the _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_,
vol. v., p. 40, it is stated that the other chiefs still continued to
govern their clans. See also, _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 173-4;
_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 289-91; _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, p.
148.
[VI-59] See pp. 325-6, of this volume.
[VI-60] Veytia says they first applied to Quinantzin, placing this
event in the reign of Alconahuacatl, as emperor.
[VI-61] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 135, 138, 140-1; _Torquemada_, tom.
i., pp. 93, 99, 291. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. v., names four chiefs
who were at the head of the secessionists. Ixtlilxochitl, in
_Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 398, mentions two chiefs with their
adherents. Others speak of eight. Acosta, p. 468, writes Tlatelulco,
'place of terraces.' Gomara, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 113, defines the name
'islet.' Vetancvrt, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 22, derives it from
_tlatelli_, 'booth,' because the market was located here. Brasseur,
_Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 467-8, says the original name was Xalliyacac,
'point of land,' which was in the territory belonging to Tlatelulco,
at the time a small village, but in the Toltec period a flourishing
city. See also, _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 170.
[VI-62] There is great diversity among the authorities respecting the
parentage of Acamapichtli II., some of which may probably be
attributed to the confounding of two of the same name. Veytia, tom.
ii., pp. 186-8, 161, dates his accession 1361, says a political
contest of four years preceded his election, and calls him the son of
Huitzilihuitl by Atotoztli, daughter of Acamapichtli. Clavigero, tom.
i., pp. 173-4, Acosta, pp. 469-71, and Duran, MS., tom. i., cap.
v-vi., represent the new king as son of Opochtli, an Aztec chief, by
Atotoztli, a Culhua princess. Clavigero makes the date 1352;
Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 94-97, refers to him as a noble Aztec, son of
Cohuatzontli by the daughter of a Culhua chieftain. Ixtlilxochitl, pp.
344, 348-9, 456, gives as usual two or three versions of the matter,
saying in one place that the new king was the third son of the king of
Azcapuzalco. Gomara, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 302, brings him from
Coatlichan, whither he had escaped with his mother after the death of
her husband the Culhua king. 'Acamapichtli, king of Culhuacan, father
of the second Acamapichtli spoken of here, was a grandson of
Acxoquauhtli, son of Achitometl I., by Azcaxochitl, daughter of the
Mexican Huitzilatl. Acamapichtli I. had also married Ixxochitl,
daughter of Teotlehuac, who was a brother of Azcaxochitl and son of
the same Huitzilatl, and had had by her Acamapichtli II.' _Brasseur_,
_Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 469-70. See also: _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt
ii., p. 22; _Motolinia_, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p.
6; _Herrera_, _Hist. Gen._, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; _Purchas
his Pilgrimes_, vol. iv., pp. 1005-6. The question of the new king's
marriage is even more deeply involved. See same authorities.
[VI-63] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 94-5; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp.
174-5; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., p. 471. Date according to
Clavigero, 1353. Ixtlilxochitl, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 213,
348-9, 398, 453, and Veytia, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., p. 141, say
that the king's name was Mixcohuatl, or Epcoatzin, or Cohuatlecatl.
See also _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 22; _Sahagun_, _Hist.
Gen._, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 273; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes
Amer._, pp. 174-5; _Müller_, _Reisen_, tom. iii., p. 49; and _Carbajal
Espinosa_, _Hist. Mex._, tom. i., pp. 317-9, with portrait.