Chapter VII: The Chichimec Period.--Concluded (2)

Such was the state of affairs in the early part of 1429, when the news of Nezahualcoyotl's success reached Azcapuzalco and Mexico. All communication had been cut off between the cities of the lake and the mainland; many sharp attacks had been made by Itzcoatl on the enemy's lines; but no general engagement had taken place. The Mexicans began to find their condition critical; Maxtla expected to be at an early date in possession of the Aztec strongholds, and deferred until after such success all offensive operations against Nezahualcoyotl; the besieged Aztecs naturally looked towards the Acolhua prince for assistance against their common foe. Here the national prejudices of the original native authorities, followed by Spanish writers, begin to appear in the historic annals. Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia favoring the Acolhua interests, represent the Aztecs, hard pressed by the Tepanecs, as having humbly implored the aid of Nezahualcoyotl, who graciously came to their relief; Tezozomoc, Duran, and Acosta make the Mexicans conquer the Tepanec king unaided, and render assistance to the Acolhua prince afterwards; while Torquemada, Clavigero, and the authorities followed by Brasseur state, what in the light of future events is much more probable, that the two powers formed an alliance on equal terms, and for mutual advantage against the usurping emperor. At any rate Montezuma[VII-50]--identical, as Clavigero and Brasseur think, with Tlacaeleltzin--was sent to Nezahualcoyotl, in company with two other lords. The ambassador succeeded in penetrating the enemy's lines, although one of his companions was captured, made known to Nezahualcoyotl the wishes and condition of the Mexicans, and received assurances of sympathy, with promises to consult with his allies, render aid if possible, and at least to have an interview with Itzcoatl. His chief difficulty would seem to have been that most of his allies not without reason detested and feared the Mexicans more than the Tepanecs, and by too hastily following his own inclinations and espousing the Aztec cause, he might risk his own success. The fact that an alliance was finally concluded between these powers shows clearly that neither alone could overthrow the formidable Maxtla, and that it was no act of condescension or pity on the part of either, but rather of necessity, to join their forces. On his return Montezuma was captured by the Chalcas, or being sent, as some authorities state, to Chalco for aid was retained for a time as a prisoner, but set at liberty by his jailer, and reached Mexico in safety.[VII-51] This action of the Chalcas is said to have so displeased the surrounding nations that neither party would accept their alliance, but this may well be doubted, considering the strength of that people. The Huexotlas, according to Torquemada, withdrew their allegiance on hearing that the Aztecs were to be aided. Nezahualcoyotl and Itzcoatl had an interview soon after at Mexico,[VII-52] where the former was received with great rejoicing, and a plan settled for the campaign against Maxtla, whose territory was to be invaded by the allied armies. At about this time, according to the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, the province of Quauhtitlan succeeded after a succession of reverses and victories in shaking off the Tepanec yoke and announced their friendship to the Mexicans, although they were unable to render any open assistance in the early part of the campaign.[VII-53]

[Sidenote: SIEGE OF AZCAPULZALCO.]

The campaign by which Maxtla was overthrown and the imperial power wrested from the hands of the Tepanecs, lasted over a hundred days. To relate in detail all that the authorities record of this campaign, the marches and counter-marches, the attacks and repulses, the exploits of the leaders and lesser chieftains, noting all the minute variations in statement respecting the names of chiefs, places attacked, number of troops engaged, and the chronological order of events, would require a chapter much longer than my space will allow, would be monotonous to the general reader, and could not probably be made sufficiently accurate to be of great value to the student of aboriginal military tactics. The general nature of the war and the results of the victory may be told in a few lines. The allied Acolhua, Tlascaltec, Cholultec, Mexican, and Tlatelulcan forces, under Nezahualcoyotl, Itzcoatl, Montezuma, and other leaders, amounted to three or four hundred thousand men. Most entered Mexico in canoes from the east; but some divisions marched round the lake. At a preconcerted signal, the lighting of a fire on Mt Quauhtepec, all the forces advanced--probably in canoes, for it is not certain that causeways had yet been constructed--on the Tepanec territory. The lord of Tlacopan, by a previous understanding with the allies, opened that city to the invaders, thus giving them a sure footing in the country of their foe, and in a few days Azcapuzalco was closely besieged. Maxtla had an army somewhat smaller than that of his opponents but they fought for the most part behind intrenchments. The emperor personally took no part in the battles that ensued, but placed his greatest general, Mazatl, at the head of his armies. Day after day the conflict was waged at different points about the doomed capital without decisive result, although many local victories were won by both sides. At last, by a desperate effort, Mazatl succeeded in driving the Mexicans back to the lake shore; in the panic that ensued many Mexican soldiers threw down their arms and begged for quarter; Itzcoatl deemed the battle and his cause lost. Cursing the cowardice of his troops, he called upon his nobles and chieftains to rush upon the foe and die bravely; his call was responded to by large numbers, the troops followed with new courage, and, re-inforcements having arrived opportunely, the tide of battle was turned, Mazatl was slain in hand-to-hand combat by Montezuma, and the Tepanec capital carried by assault. Large numbers of the soldiers were put to the sword, a few bands escaped to the marshes and mountains, the city was plundered and burned, and the emperor was found in a bath and slain. Azcapuzalco never regained a prominent place among the cities of Anáhuac; it was chiefly noted in later times as a slave mart, and the disgraceful traffic is said to have been inaugurated by the sale of the Tepanec inhabitants after the Acolhua and Aztec victory. For a short time the victorious armies ravaged the territories on the west of the lakes, which still remained faithful to Maxtla, and were then recalled, and the allied troops dismissed, laden with spoils, to their own provinces. Itzcoatl and Nezahualcoyotl had no doubt of their ability to keep their foes in check and complete the conquest by the aid of their own troops; they consequently returned to Mexico to celebrate their victory.[VII-54]

The fêtes in honor of the victory and victors were long continued, and conducted on a scale unprecedented in the Mexican capital. After Itzcoatl and Nezahualcoyotl, Montezuma seems to have carried off the highest honors. The altars ran with the blood of sacrificed human victims, rites most repulsive, as is stated, to the Acolhua king, but which he could not prevent on such an occasion. A prominent feature of the ceremonies was the rewarding by lands and honors of the chiefs who had distinguished themselves for bravery in the war, and, as some authorities say, the punishment by exile of such as had shown cowardice. The fêtes were immediately followed, perhaps interrupted, by the tidings that Huexotla, Coatlichan, Acolman, and the adjoining towns, had revolted; and the Mexican, Acolhua, and Tlatelulca forces, with some assistance from the eastern plateau, marched through the eastern part of the valley, and after a series of hard-fought battles conquered the cities mentioned, together with Teotihuacan and in fact nearly all the towns from Iztapalocan to the northern mountains, excepting probably Tezcuco, although some authors include the conquest of that capital in this campaign. In some of the cities no mercy was shown to any class, but all were slain. Veytia moreover divides this campaign into two, and places in the interval between them the final establishment of the empire to be given later. Torquemada and Clavigero connect the latter part of this campaign with a subsequent one against Coyuhuacan.[VII-55]

[Sidenote: THE TRI-PARTITE ALLIANCE.]

At this time, in the year 1431, and before Nezahualcoyotl had regained the capital of his father's empire, as Brasseur insists, took place the events which closed the Chichimec period of aboriginal history, the division of Anáhuac between the victors, the re-establishment of the empire on a new basis. The result is well known, but respecting the motives that led to it there is great confusion. It was decided to re-establish with slight modifications the ancient Toltec confederacy of three kingdoms, independent so far as the direction of internal affairs was concerned, but allied in the management of foreign affairs and in all matters affecting the general interests of the empire, in which matters neither king could act without the consent of his two colleagues. The three kingdoms were Acolhua with its capital at Tezcuco, under Nezahualcoyotl with the title of Chichimecatl Tecuhtli; the Aztec with Mexico for its capital, under Itzcoatl bearing the title of Culhua Tecuhtli; and the Tepanec capital Tlacopan, under Totoquihuatzin with the title Tepaneca Tecuhtli. A line drawn in a general north and south direction through the valley and lake just east of the city of Tenochtitlan, divided the Acolhua domains on the east from those of Mexico on the west. The capital Tlacopan, with a few surrounding towns, and as some say the Otomí province of Mazahuacan in the northwest, made up the limited Tepanec domain.[VII-56] Tezcuco and Mexico seem to have been in all respects equal in power, while Tlacopan was far inferior to either. As a descendant and heir of the Chichimec emperors, Nezahualcoyotl nominally took precedence in rank, presiding at meetings, occupying the place of honor at public ceremonies with his colleagues on his right and left, but had no authority whatever over them, and was probably in respect to actual military power somewhat inferior to Mexico. Provinces conquered by the allied forces, together with all the spoils of war, were to be divided equally between Mexico and Tezcuco after deducting one fifth for Tlacopan.[VII-57]

[Sidenote: TERMS OF THE ALLIANCE.]

[Sidenote: CLOSE OF THE PERIOD.]

The confusion among the authorities about the circumstances and motives that led to the tri-partite alliance on the above basis, arises chiefly from the patriotism of the native authors. The narrative as given by Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia, to the effect that Nezahualcoyotl suspended his triumphal march through his old dominion of Acolhuacan to assist his friend and relative in overthrowing Maxtla, dismissed his allies, and then, out of kindness, admitted Itzcoatl to an equal share with himself in the empire, before completing the conquest of Tezcuco, must evidently be accepted with many allowances. There is still more evident exaggeration in the tale of Clavigero, Tezozomoc, and Duran, that Itzcoatl overthrew the Tepanecs, held the power in his own hands, and graciously put the Acolhua prince on the throne of Tezcuco in consideration of his friendship and assistance. It is evident, as already stated, that the alliance between Itzcoatl and Nezahualcoyotl was formed for the protection of mutual interests; that no allied troops were disbanded which could be retained; that if the conquest of Tezcuco was postponed after the fall of Azcapuzalco, it was because the allies had their hands full in other directions; and that in the final division and establishment of the empire necessity and policy played a much more prominent part than friendship or condescension. On the one hand, if we suppose that the Aztec military force, as is very probable, was at the time superior to that of the Acolhuas, it must be remembered that Nezahualcoyotl had the prestige of being the legitimate heir to the imperial throne of the Chichimecs, that he was popular in Anáhuac and had the support of the eastern cities; while the Aztecs were universally hated and could depend only on the valor of their chiefs and the numbers of their army. It is not impossible that the delay in taking possession of the Acolhua capital, was because the allies of Nezahualcoyotl refused to complete the conquest until their prince had some guaranty against the ambition of the Mexicans. On the other hand, if we credit the statements of those who represent Nezahualcoyotl as holding the balance of power in the first alliance, it is to be noted that the struggle had been a desperate one, even with the aid of Mexico; that it was yet far from ended, that revolts were occurring in every direction, and that with the Aztecs as foes, the success of Nezahualcoyotl was more than doubtful. On this supposition the delay in taking Tezcuco is to be attributed, as indeed some authors claim, to the fear of Itzcoatl that if he contributed further to increase his ally's power he would soon be in a position to dictate terms. Neither power could stand alone, Mexico against all Anáhuac, Tezcuco against Mexico and her own independent and revolting vassals; hence the foundation of the alliance on equal terms is perfectly comprehensible. To account for the admission of Tlacopan to the alliance, we have the facts that that city had rendered important service in the defeat of Maxtla at Azcapuzalco; that she may very likely have been promised a place in the empire in case of success; that in any event it was policy to concentrate the yet powerful Tepanec element in a friendly kingdom; and finally, as several authors state, that the families of Totoquihuatzin and Nezahualcoyotl were closely related by marriage. Some authorities state that Tlacopan was admitted through the influence of Itzcoatl, others insist that it was Nezahualcoyotl's idea. The inauguration of the new order of things, including the crowning of Nezahualcoyotl, king of Acolhuacan, and the conferring of the proper titles upon each of the colleagues, was celebrated in Mexico with great pomp in 1431. Thus ends the Chichimec period, during which a small band of turbulent marauders had passed through oppression and misfortune to a leading place among the American nations. Many strong tribes were yet to be persuaded or forced to submit to the new order of political affairs; the measures by which this was accomplished, and the Aztec power spread far and wide from Anáhuac as a centre, until it came in contact with a greater power from beyond the ocean, will form the subject of the following chapters.[VII-58]

FOOTNOTES:

[VII-1] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 99. In the explanation of the _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 148, vol. vi., p. 134, it is stated that king Acamapichtli burned the temple of Culhuacan in 1399, probably referring to the quarrels of Acamapichtli I. with Coxcoxtli, or Achitometl, at an earlier period.

[VII-2] _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 213; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 176-7; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 95-8; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 100; _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 302; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 470-3; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xiii; _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, pp. 148-9; _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 43.

[VII-3] _Codex Mendoza_, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 92; _Mendieta_, _Torquemada_, _Acosta_, _Brasseur_, and _Clavigero_, as in preceding note.

[VII-4] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 111.

[VII-5] Date, 1404, _Duran_; 1402, after reigning 41 years, _Veytia_; 1405, _Boturini_; 1389, 37 years, _Clavigero_; 1406, 7 years, _Codex Tell. Rem._; 1396, _Mendieta_; reigned 21 years, _Torquemada_, _Sahagun_, _Codex Mendoza_; 1271, 51 years, _Ixtlilxochitl_; 46 years, _Gomara_ and _Motolinia_; 40 years, _Acosta_ and _Herrera_; 1403, 53 or 21 years, _Brasseur_.

[VII-6] Acosta and Herrera write the name of Huitzilihuitl's wife Ayauchigual. Veytia says her name was Miahuaxochitl, and that she was the daughter of Tezozomoc. Torquemada, Clavigero, and Gomara make him marry, first, Ayauhcihuatl, daughter of Tezozomoc, and afterwards, Miahuaxochitl, princess of Quauhnahuac, the latter of whom bore Montezuma I. Ixtlilxochitl says the king married his niece, Tetzihuatzin, grand-daughter of Tezozomoc, one of whose children was Chimalpopoca. Brasseur, relying on the _Codex Chimalp._ and _Mem. de Culhuacan_, gives the account I have presented in the text. The _Codex Tell. Rem._ says Huitzilihuitl married a daughter of the princess of Coatlichan, and a grand-daughter of Acamapichtli, having by her no sons. Tezozomoc and Duran name Chimalpopoca as Huitzilihuitl's first son; Veytia says it was Montezuma I., and Torquemada, Clavigero, and Brasseur name the first son Acolnahuacatl.

[VII-7] On the death of Acamapichtli II., and the succession and marriage of Huitzilihuitl II., see _Duran_, MS. tom. i., cap. vi, vii; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 176-80; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 98-106; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 218, 353, 456-7; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 219-26; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 10-11; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Id._, vol. v., pp. 148-9; _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 302; _Motolinia_, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 6; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 473-5; _Sigüenza_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii., tom. i., p. 50; _Boturini_, in _Id._, p. 239; _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 149; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 110-17.

[VII-8] According to Veytia, tom. ii., pp. 216-7, 246, 249-51, Mixcohuatl reigned 75 years, was succeeded by Quaquauhpitzahuac in 1400, and he by Tlacateotzin in 1414. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 213, 218, 353, 356, 453, 462, says Mixcohuatl died in 1271, reigned 51 years, and was succeeded by his son Quaquauhpitzahuac; or that he died in Techotl's reign and was followed by Tlacateotzin; or that Quaquauhpitzahuac died in 1353; or was succeeded by Amatzin; or again, that Tlacateotzin succeeded his father; and that he married a daughter of Tezozomoc. Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 273, ignores Mixcohuatl, as do Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 94-5, 99, 127-8, and Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 175, 184. Both the latter authors make the first king a son of Tezozomoc. Clavigero places his accession in 1353, and that of Tlacateotzin, his successor, in 1399. Torquemada says the first king reigned 35 years, and was followed by Tlacateotzin in the tenth year of Huitzilihuitl's rule. Both Mexicans and Tlatelulcas seem to have claimed the honor of having had the first king. See also _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 123.

[VII-9] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 120.

[VII-10] _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. vii.; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 106; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 226-8, 246; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 127-8.

[VII-11] _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 149; _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 43; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268.

[VII-12] Date 1414, _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 246-7; _Boturini_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii., tom. iv., p. 239; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 149; 1353, _Ixtlilxochitl_, in _Id._, vol. ix., pp. 218, 356, 457; 1409, _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 186; 1417, _Codex Chimalp._ in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 129, and _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 43.

[VII-13] On death of Huitzilihuitl II. and succession of Chimalpopoca, see _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 246-9; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 105-7; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 182-7; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 218, 355-6, 457; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 475-8; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. vii, viii; _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 149; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 129-31; _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 43; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Id._, p. 149.

[VII-14] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 231-3, 236, 245; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 108-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 185; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 218-19, 356, 358-9, 401; _Boturini_, _Idea_, p. 142; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 87-92.

[VII-15] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 234-7; _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 356.

[VII-16] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 219, 356-7; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 108-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 185; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 93-5.

[VII-17] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 95-6.

[VII-18] _Id._, pp. 97-106.

[VII-19] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 219, 357, 401-2; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 108-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 185-6; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 234-45; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 106-8.

[VII-20] _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., pp. 108-9.

[VII-21] The former also called Tozquentzin and Atotoztli; and the latter, Acolmiztli and Yoyontzin.

[VII-22] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 218, 359, 401, 405, 453; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. vi.; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 110; _Leon y Gama_, _Dos Piedras_, pt ii., pp. 41-2; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 109-10; _Camargo_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., p. 146.

[VII-23] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 117-18.

[VII-24] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 219, 358-9, 402. Dates according to this author, April 15, 1359; Dec. 30, 1363; 1415. _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 255-6; date, Aug. 6, 1415. _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 109; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 185-6; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 120-1.

[VII-25] Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 277-8, gives a list of the succession of lords at Huexotla from the earliest Chichimec times.

[VII-26] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 219-20, 359, 402. He states that in this meeting, or another held about the same time, there were many other lords present, including those of Acolman and Tepechpan, who, although pretending to be faithful, kept Tezozomoc posted as to the course events were taking. See also _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 257-8; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 110; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 121-2.

[VII-27] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 359-60, 402-3; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 257-68; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 108-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 186; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 122-5.

[VII-28] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 186, states that Ixtlilxochitl granted this peace, not because he had any faith in Tezozomoc or was disposed to be lenient to his allies, but because his army was equally exhausted with that of the enemy, and he was unable to continue hostilities. This is hardly probable, although he had doubtless suffered more than the records indicate. See also _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 220, 360-2, 403, 453; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 268-76; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 108-10; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 122-7.

[VII-29] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 129-30.

[VII-30] Chiuhnauhtlan, as the Spanish writers say; Brasseur says it was at Tenamatlac, a Tepanec pleasure-resort in the mountains of Chiucnauhtecatl.

[VII-31] Brasseur says Coatlichan, which is more likely.

[VII-32] 50, and 16, are Ixtlilxochitl's figures in different places; Veytia says 10, and Brasseur 40.

[VII-33] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 220-3, 362-4, 403-4, 453-4, 462-3; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 278-99; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 110-13; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 187-9; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 129-38.

[VII-34] Oct. 29, 1418, _Veytia_; 1410, _Clavigero_; 1410, _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 463; April 22, 1415, _Id._, p. 454; Sept. 21, 1418, _Id._, p. 404; 1419, _Brasseur_. Torquemada implies that Ixtlilxochitl's reign lasted only seven years. Sahagun, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 276, says he ruled 61 years, during which time nothing worthy of mention occurred. Ixtlilxochitl in one place, p. 223, says that the last Tepanec wars lasted 3 years and 273 days; elsewhere, p. 364, that they lasted 50 consecutive years, and that millions of people perished.

[VII-35] Torquemada states that Tezozomoc reserved Coatlichan for himself.

[VII-36] Ixtlilxochitl tells a strange story, to the effect that Tezozomoc's officers were directed to ask the children in each province, who was their king; such as replied 'Tezozomoc,' were to be caressed and their parents rewarded; but those that answered 'Ixtlilxochitl,' or 'Nezahualcoyotl,' were put to death without mercy. Thus perished thousands of innocent children. In _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 223, 463.

[VII-37] _Veytia_, tom. i., pp. 300-6, 315-17; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 224-5, 365-8, 404, 454, 463; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 113-16; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 190-3; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 138-48; _Boturini_, _Idea_, pp. 143-4; _Motolinia_, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 254.

[VII-38] On Nezahualcoyotl's adventures during this period, down to about 1426, see _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 224-5, 366-9, 404-5, 463-4; _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 304, 311-14, 317-19; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 190-1, 193-4; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 116-7; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 148-50.

[VII-39] There is much confusion respecting these sons of Tezozomoc. Ixtlilxochitl in one place, pp. 368-9, names Maxtla, Tayauh, and Atlatota Icpaltzin, or Tlatecaypaltzin, as the sons summoned to his death-bed. In another place, p. 464, he calls two of them Tiatzi, or Tayatzi, and Tlacayapaltzin. Torquemada names them Maxtla, Tayatzin, and Tecuhtzintli. All imply that Maxtla was the eldest son. Brasseur, following the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, states that Tezozomoc had eight legitimate sons, of whom Maxtlaton was the seventh and Quetzalayatzin (Tayauh, or Tayatzin), the sixth.

[VII-40] _Veytia_, tom. ii., pp. 321-9, tom. iii., pp. 3-11; date, Feb. 2, 1427. _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 217, 225-7, 368-70, 405, 454, 464; dates, March 20, 1427, March 24, 1427, 1424. _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 68, 117-21, 253; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 194-6; date, 1422. _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 148-54; date, March 24, 1427.

[VII-41] See on the usurpation of Maxtla and the death of his brother, _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 226, 371, 464-5; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 11-18; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 119-21; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 196-8; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 155-7; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 26.

[VII-42] On account of their friendship for Nezahualcoyotl and Tayauh. Another cause of enmity between Chimalpopoca and Maxtla, is said to have been the dishonor of the former's wife by the latter, she having been enticed to Azcapuzalco by the aid of two Tepanec ladies.

[VII-43] Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 18-32, says that immediately after the assassination of Tayauh, a posse of men was sent to seize Chimalpopoca, whom they found engaged in some religious rites in the temple. Several authors state that the king died in prison, having been previously visited by Nezahualcoyotl, who risked his own life to save him. Veytia says Nezahualcoyotl found him much reduced from starvation, went for food, and found him dead on his return. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 122-8, following Sigüenza, says he hung himself to avoid starvation. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 226-8, 371-3, 457, 464-5, in one place states that he died in Nezahualcoyotl's arms. In another relation he says that Maxtla in his rage at Nezahualcoyotl's escape sent to Mexico and had Chimalpopoca killed in his stead, the assassins finding him in the temple carving an idol. Acosta, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 475-9; Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xii.; Tezozomoc, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 11-12, and Duran, MS., tom. i., pp. 129-37--state that during Tezozomoc's reign the Tepanec nobles, fearful that Chimalpopoca, as the grandson of Tezozomoc would succeed to the Tepanec throne, sent to Mexico and had him assassinated while asleep; adding that the grandfather Tezozomoc, died of grief at this act! Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 158-9, 164, implies that Maxtla only arrested the proposed sacrifice, and agrees with Ixtlilxochitl's statement that the king was murdered at Mexico while at work in the temple.

The Tlatelulcan king was killed by the same party. He at first escaped from his palace, but was overtaken on the lake while striving to reach Tezcuco, and his body was sunk. Such is the account given by most authors; Ixtlilxochitl says he drowned himself; while Torquemada records two versions--one that he was killed for treason against Nezahualcoyotl; and the other, that he was killed by Montezuma I. of Mexico. See also on the death of the Aztec kings--_Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 200-3; _Motolinia_, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 6; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, p. 154; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 26-7; _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 44; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Id._, vol. vi., p. 135.

[VII-44] Date, July 23, 1427, or 1424, _Ixtlilxochitl_; May 31, 1427, _Sigüenza_; March 31, 1427, _Vetancvrt_; July 19, 1427, _Veytia_; 1423, _Clavigero_; 1427, _Codex Mendoza_; 1426, _Codex Tell. Rem._; 1428, _Codex Chimalpopoca_.

[VII-45] The Spanish writers state that about this time the king of Chalco became disaffected, and a messenger, Xolotecuhtli, was sent to win him over through the influence of his wife, who was a sister of Huitzilihuitzin, Nezahualcoyotl's chief counselor. The Chalca king said his change of allegiance was on account of his hatred and fear of the Mexican king, but consented at last to leave the matter to his people, who decided unanimously in favor of Nezahualcoyotl.

[VII-46] I have omitted in this account of Nezahualcoyotl's flight, return, and victorious campaign, the numerous details of the prince's adventures and escapes, the names of lords to whom he applied and the tenor of each reply, the wonderful omens that on many occasions foretold success to his plans, told at so great length by the authorities, but comparatively unimportant, and altogether too bulky for my space. See on this period of history: _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 14, 33-79, 92-107; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 228-35, 373-81, 405-6, 465-7; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 125-40; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 202-10; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 171-3; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 26-7.

[VII-47] This discussion is placed by different authorities before or after the choice of a king. This is a matter of no great importance; the opposition to war probably continued down to the commencement of hostilities, but the election of a warlike king was of itself equivalent to a declaration of war, in view of Maxtla's well-known designs; consequently, I have placed it before the election.

[VII-48] An extraordinary treaty is spoken of by Tezozomoc, Duran, Acosta, and Clavigero, by the terms of which the nobles bound themselves in case of defeat to give up their bodies to be sacrificed to the gods; while the people bound themselves and their descendants in case of victory to become the servants of the nobles for all future time. Veytia states that titles of nobility, and permission to have many wives, were among the inducements to bravery held out to the plebeians. It is not impossible that the contract alluded to may have been invented or exaggerated in later times by the nobles to support their extravagant claims upon the people. Torquemada and Ixtlilxochitl refer to no such contract, and to no claim for the Tepanec recognition of their king; but state that the election of Itzcoatl on the one side, and the heavy tributes with the dishonor of Itzcoatl's wife on the other, led to the establishment of the blockade.

[VII-49] On the succession and declaration of war in Mexico, see--_Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 128-34. This author says nothing of the succession of a new king in Tlatelulco. _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 206-13; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 78-91, 137; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 479-83; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. viii., ix., _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 235-6, 381, 383, 406, 465; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 11-15; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 165-8; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 27; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, p. 154.

[VII-50] This name is written in many ways; Moteuhzoma or Moteuczoma being probably more correct than the familiar form of Montezuma.

[VII-51] Totzintecuhtli, king of Chalco, is said to have sent the prisoner first to Huexotzinca and then offered him to Maxtla to be sacrificed; but the kings sent him back and refused to do so dishonorable a deed.

[VII-52] Brasseur says the first interview was at Tenayocan.

[VII-53] See _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 91-2, 108-22; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 209-11; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 236, 381-2, 406-7, 464-6; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 136-40; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 173-9; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. ix.

[VII-54] The chief point of difference between the authorities on this campaign, is the relative honor due to the different allies and leaders, and especially the share which the Mexicans and Acolhuas respectively had in the overthrow of the Tepanec tyrant. Clavigero places this war in 1425, and thinks that causeways were already built. Veytia gives the date 1428, notes that the Mexican troops were richly clad, while the forces of Nezahualcoyotl wore plain, white garments, and makes the siege last 140 days. Ixtlilxochitl also gives the date 1428, and the length of the war 100 and 115 days. According to Brasseur, Nezahualcoyotl found time during the siege of Azcapuzalco to reconquer Acolman and Coatlichan, which had revolted. He calls the Tepanec leader Mazatzin, and gives the date as 1430. See _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 236-7, 382-4, 407, 466; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 120-39; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. ix.; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 214-20; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 140-3; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 180-5; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 483-5.

[VII-55] See _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 221-3; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 142-6; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 136-47, 155-60; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 237-8, 383-5, 407, 466-7; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 16-17; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. ix.; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 484-5; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt. ii., p. 28; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 187-9.

[VII-56] The line is said to have extended from Totoltepec in the north to a point in the lake near Mexico, which would be in a S.W. course. Thence it extended to mount Cuexcomatl probably towards the S.E. Subsequent events seem often to indicate that these lines were intended to be indefinitely prolonged, and to bound future conquests. Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 266, takes this view of the matter, although on p. 191 he implies the contrary.

[VII-57] Such was the basis of the alliance according to Ixtlilxochitl, Veytia, Zurita, and Brasseur. All agree respecting the inferior position of Tlacopan and her share of the spoils, but Ixtlilxochitl, p. 455, makes both pay a small tribute to Tezcuco. Veytia makes Nezahualcoyotl superior in nominal rank as above; Ixtlilxochitl in most of his relations makes him and Itzcoatl equal in this respect; while Torquemada, Clavigero, Gomara, and Duran make Itzcoatl supreme, and give to Mexico two thirds instead of one half of the spoils after deducting the share of Tlacopan. The chief support of the latter opinion is the great proportional growth of the Mexican domains in later times; but practically Mexico received much more even than the two thirds allotted to her by these authors. I think it more likely that Mexico in her great military power and love of conquest took much more than her proper share, at first with the consent of her colleagues and later without such consent; and it is also possible that the division agreed upon referred only to conquests accomplished under certain conditions not recorded, or, a supposition which agrees very nearly with the actual division in later times, that each of the three kingdoms was to have the conquered provinces that adjoined its territory, and that Mexico obtained the largest share, not only on account of her ambition, but because the most desirable field for conquest proved to be in the south-east and south-west. See preceding note.

[VII-58] Totoquihuatzin was the grandson of Tezozomoc, and his daughter was either concubine or wife of Nezahualcoyotl. Torquemada and Clavigero state that the people of the region about Tezcuco petitioned Itzcoatl to allow Nezahualcoyotl to rule over them, because, as the latter suggests, this territory had been given to Chimalpopoca by Tezozomoc. To Nezahualcoyotl, during his stay in Mexico, are attributed a palace and hunting-park at Chapultepec, together with several reservoirs and the idea of an aqueduct to supply water to the city. Veytia claims to have seen traces of the boundary line between the Aztec and Acolhua domains. It extended from Mount Cuexcomatl in the south, between Iztapalapan and Culhuacan, through the northern lake at Zumpango to Totoltepec. This would, however, be far from a straight line. See respecting the establishment of the new alliance:--_Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 237-8, 383, 407, 454, 467; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 155-68; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 143-4, 154-6; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 221-5; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. ix., x., xiv.; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 187-93; _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 303; _Prescott's Mex._, vol. i., p. 19; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 28.