Chapter VI: The Chichimec Period.--Continued (2)

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.