Chapter VIII: The Aztec Period (2)

A strange anecdote is told respecting the fate of Xihuiltemoc, lord of Xochimilco, who had either taken part in the Tlatelulca war on the rebel side, or more probably had failed to aid the Mexican king in a satisfactory manner. Both Axayacatl and Xihuiltemoc were skilled in the national game of _tlachtli_, or the ball game, and at the festivals in honor of his victory, the former challenged the latter to a trial of skill. The Xochimilca lord, the better player of the two, was much embarrassed, fearing either to win or to allow himself to be beaten, but the king insisted, and wagered the revenues of the Mexican market and lake for a year, together with the rule of certain towns, against the city of Xochimilco, on the result. Xihuiltemoc won the game, and Axayacatl, much crest-fallen, proclaimed his readiness to pay his wager; but either by his directions, or at least according to his expectation, his opponent was strangled with a wreath of flowers concealing a slip-noose, by the people of the towns he had won, or as some say by the messengers charged to deliver the stakes.[VIII-43]

[Sidenote: CONQUEST OF MATLALTZINCO.]

Thus far the Aztec conquests had been directed toward the south-east and south-west, while the fertile valleys of the Matlaltzincas, immediately adjoining Anáhuac on the west, had for some not very clear reason escaped their ambitious views. A very favorable opportunity, however, for conquest in this direction presented itself in 1474, when the Matlaltzincas were on bad terms with the Tarascos of Michoacan, their usual allies, and when the lord of Tenantzinco asked the aid of the Mexicans in a quarrel with Chimaltecuhtli the king. Axayacatl was only too glad to engage in an undertaking of this nature, but, in order to have a more just cause of interference--for, as Duran says, the Aztecs never picked quarrels with other nations!--he peremptorily ordered the Matlaltzincas to furnish certain building-material and a stone font for sacrificial purposes, and on their refusal to comply with his commands, marched against their province at the head of the allied troops, and accompanied, as Torquemada says, by his colleagues. Town after town in the southern part of the province fell before his arms, and were placed under Mexican governors. Such were Xalatlauhco, Atlapolco, Tetenanco, Tepemaxalco, Tlacotempan, Metepec, Tzinacantepec, and Calimaya. Some Aztec colonists were left in each conquered town, and Torquemada tells us that people were taken from the other towns to settle in the first, Xalatlauhco. Tezozomoc relates that the king at one time in this campaign concealed himself in a ditch with eight warriors, and fell upon the rear of the enemy who had been drawn on by a feigned retreat of the Aztecs, causing great panic and slaughter. Flushed with victory, the allies pressed on to attack Xiquipilco in the north, the strongest town in the province, and Toluca, the capital. Xiquipilco is spoken of as an Otomí town under the command of Tlilcuetzpalin, with whom Axayacatl had a personal combat during this battle, being wounded so severely in the thigh that he was lame for life, and narrowly escaped death. Tezozomoc claims that the Otomí chieftain was hidden in a bush and treacherously wounded the Mexican king, who was in advance of his troops; Ixtlilxochitl, ever ready to claim honor for his ancestors, tells us that it was the Acolhua commander who saved Axayacatl's life; while Clavigero and Ortega imply that a duel was arranged between the two leaders. The enemy was defeated, their leader and over eleven thousand of his men were taken captives, and the town surrendered, as did Toluca a little later, and other towns in the vicinity. The news of the conquest was received with great joy at the capital; the senate marched out to meet and receive the victorious army on its return; triumphal arches were erected at frequent intervals, and flowers were strewn in the path of the victors. The captives were sacrificed in honor of the god of war, or as Tezozomoc says, at the dedication of a new altar in his temple, except the brave Tlilcuetzpalin and a few comrades who were reserved to grace by their death another festival, which took place somewhat later. During this Matlaltzinca war a very severe earthquake was experienced.[VIII-44]

A year or two later the Matlaltzincas revolted and obtained the promise of assistance from the Tarascos, who were anxious to measure their strength against that of the far-famed Aztecs. But the Tarasco monarch was unused to the celerity of Mexican tactics, and Axayacatl's army, thirty-two thousand strong, had entered Matlaltzinco, re-captured Xiquipilco and other principal towns, crossed the frontiers of Michoacan, and captured and burned several cities, including Tangimaroa, or Tlaximaloyan, an important and strongly fortified place, before the news of their departure reached Tzintzuntzan, the Tarasco capital. But the Tarasco army, superior to that of the Aztecs, and constantly re-inforced, soon reached the seat of war, attacked the invaders with such fury that they were driven back, with great loss, to Toluca. This was doubtless the disaster indicated by an eclipse during the same year. After thus showing their power by defeating the proud warriors of the valley, the Tarascos did not follow up their advantage, but returned to their own country, leaving the Mexicans still masters of Matlaltzinco. Another attempt at revolt is vaguely recorded some years later, but in 1478 the Matlaltzinca cities were permanently joined to the Mexican domain, and the leading Matlaltzinca divinities transferred to the temples of Tenochtitlan.[VIII-45]

[Sidenote: DEATH OF AXAYACATL.]

Axayacatl died in 1481, just after his return, as Duran informs us, from Chapultepec whither he had gone to inspect his image carved on the cliff by the side of that of Montezuma I. Brasseur states that his days were shortened by the excessive number of his concubines. He was succeeded, according to the wish of his predecessor, by Tizoc, Tizocicatzin, or Chalchiuhtona, his brother, who was succeeded in his office of commander of the army by Ahuitzotl. Duran insists that the throne was again offered to the mythical Tlacaeleltzin, who declined the honor but offered to continue to be the actual ruler during Tizoc's reign.[VIII-46]

FOOTNOTES:

[VIII-1] _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. x.; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 222-3; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 18-25; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 194-5; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 486-7; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 145. Duran and Clavigero place these events after Nezahualcoyotl had gone to Tezcuco. The former states that Tezcuco was one of the cities applied to for aid against the Mexicans, and introduces here the story of the people on the lake shore having been made ill by the smell of fish in Tenochtitlan; and the latter states that Huexotla aided Coyuhuacan in this war. Torquemada places the war in the second year of Itzcoatl's reign, and implies that the Mexicans were forced to make several expeditions before they were completely successful.

[VIII-2] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 145-6; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 196-8.

[VIII-3] _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 239-40, 407-8; the alliance with Tlascala is spoken of on pp. 247-8. _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 168-82.

[VIII-4] _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i., p. 175.

[VIII-5] _Boturini_, _Idea_, p. 26; _Ortega_, in _Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 178.

[VIII-6] See _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 239-47, 258-61, 386-8, 407-9, 454-5, 467-8; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 182-209, 223-9; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 146-7, 167-9; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 225-6, 242-7; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 197-202. Coatlichan, Tepetlaoztoc, Tepechpan, Chiuhnauhtla, Tulancingo, Quauchinanco, Xicotepec, and Teotihuacan are mentioned among the provinces whose lords were restored. Ixtlilxochitl and Veytia say that the same system of provincial government was forced on Mexico by Nezahualcoyotl.

[VIII-7] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 202-3; _Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 236; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 150; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 228; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 28.

[VIII-8] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 384, 458, and Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 149-52, 234-5, state that Nezahualcoyotl accomplished the conquest of Xochimilco with the aid of a few Tlascaltecs, leaving Itzcoatl entirely out of the affair. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 226-7, tells us that the Xochimilcas determined to make war on the Mexicans before they became too strong. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xii., xiii., relates an evil omen for the Xochimilcas, in the transformation of a dish of viands, round which they were seated in deliberation, into arms, legs, hearts, and other human parts. See also _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 203-5; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 25-30; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 488-90; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 140, 148-9; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 28; _Herrera_, _Hist. Gen._, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.

[VIII-9] Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 248-9, says that Quauhnahuac and eight other towns were awarded to Nezahualcoyotl, Tepozotlan, Huastepec and others to Itzcoatl, besides the share of Tlacopan not specified. The same author gives here without details of chronology, a list of subsequent conquests by the allies at this period, which we shall find scattered throughout this and the following reigns; such are:--Chalco, Itzucan, Tepeaca, Tecalco, Teohuacan, Cohuaixtlahuacan, Hualtepec, Quauhtochco, Atochpan, Tizauhcoac, Tochtepec, Mazahuacan, Tlapacoia, Tlauhcocauhtitlan, and Tulancingo. See also on conquest of Quauhnahuac, _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 227-8; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 149-50; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 235-6; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 28; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 205-7.

[VIII-10] _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 139-41; see p. 190, of this volume, and vol. ii., p. 528.

[VIII-11] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 208-11; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 150.

[VIII-12] _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 30-2; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xv.; _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 303; _Sigüenza_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii., tom. i., p. 59; Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 149-50, denies the story that Nezahualcoyotl submitted to Itzcoatl. Vetancvrt, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 33-4, makes them still of equal rank. Tezozomoc makes no mention of any events in Itzcoatl's reign after the conquest of Cuitlahuac. Duran, cap. xiv, states that his conquests included Chalco, Quauhnahuac, Huexotzinco, and Coatlichan. Clavigero, tom. i., pp. 228-9, 232-3; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 157, and Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 236-7, place in Itzcoatl's reign the origin of the troubles with Tlatelulco which will be spoken of hereafter. According to the _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 44, Itzcoatl, or Izcoaci, conquered 24 cities.

[VIII-13] Date, 1440. _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xiv-xv.; _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 45; _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 150; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 249, 457; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 28; _Boturini_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii., tom. iv., p. 239; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 211-12. Duran also gives 1445 and Ixtlilxochitl 1441. 1436, _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 237-8; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 229; _Bustamante_, _Mañadas de la Alameda_, tom. ii., p. 174. See also on the succession; _Herrera_, _Hist. Gen._, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 490-3; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 150, 171; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., p. 30; _Motolinia_, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 6; _Gomara_, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 303.

[VIII-14] _Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 239; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, p. 491; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 29.

[VIII-15] See pp. 241-2, 250, 255, of this volume.

[VIII-16] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 213-17; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 239-40; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 230; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 150-1; _Duran_, MS. tom. i., cap. xvi. The latter author is careful to state that Montezuma did not request, but simply ordered aid in building his temples from Tlacopan and Tezcuco.

[VIII-17] _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 240-2; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 150-4; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 230-1; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 255-7, 467-8; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 217-24; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 268; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 29.

[VIII-18] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 156-7; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 232-3; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 242-3; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 224-5; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, p. 176; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 30; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 273-4.

[VIII-19] _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 248; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 225. The former author says that this conquest extended to Quauhchinanco and Xilotepec, but implies that it took place immediately after the treaty with Tlascala, which followed Nezahualcoyotl's accession to the Tezcucan throne.

[VIII-20] The towns mentioned as included in this conquest are Cohuixco, Oztoman, Quetzaltepec, Ixcateopan, Teoxcahualco, Poctepec, Yauhtepec, Yacapichtla, Totolapan, Tlachmalacac, Tlachco, Chilapan, Tomazolapan, Quauhtepec, Ohuapan, Tzompahuacan, and Cozamaloapan. See _Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 243; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 233; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 157; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 225-7; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 30; _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 249.

[VIII-21] Several authors give the dates as 1446. _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 247-8; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 233-4; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 157-8; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 228-32. This author gives the width of the dike as about 30 feet. _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 30.

[VIII-22] 1448-54, _Veytia_; 1451-6, _Brasseur_; 1447-54, _Codex Tell. Rem._; 1404-7 (1444-7?) 11 years after accession of Montezuma, _Duran_.

[VIII-23] _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xviii., xix., xxx., says the snow fell knee-deep in the valley. He also tells us that very many sold as slaves during the famine were ransomed and returned afterwards; this, however, does not apply to such as went to Totonacapan, since these remained in that province. _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 250-1, 257, says that the slaves sold to the Totonacs were all sacrificed to secure a continuance of productiveness in the province. This author also names Xicotencatl, a Tlascaltec noble, as the person who suggested the battles for captives. _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 232-6, implies that the name Totonacapan, 'region of our subsistence,' was given on account of the events described, although the same author has spoken frequently of the Totonacs at a period many centuries earlier. See also, _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix, pp. 63-6; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 158, 171; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 233-5; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., p. 269; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 248-9; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 150. Acosta, _Hist. de las Ynd._, p. 493, and Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii, merely state that it was agreed to reserve Tlascala as a battle-field whereon to exercise the armies, and to obtain captives. Torquemada throws some doubt on this agreement.

[VIII-24] Date, 1458-9, according to Brasseur; 1456 according to the other authors. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxii., xxiii., and Tezozomoc, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 51-3, say nothing of the aid rendered by the Tlascaltecs and Huexotzincas. See also _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 236-7; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 249-51; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 237-52; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 159-61; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 30-1.

[VIII-25] According to Veytia's chronology, this conquest took place in 1457; Brasseur puts this and the following events in 1458-9. See _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 251-3; _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 467; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 237-8; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 161-2; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 31; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 252-7; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xxi., xxiv.; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 48-51, 53-6.

[VIII-26] On the conquest of Chalco, see _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xvi., xvii.; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 33-40; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 238-40; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 258-61; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 492-3; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 253-4.

[VIII-27] According to the _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., pp. 150-1, the conquest of Goazacoalco took place about this time, in 1461. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 249-50, implies that the Tlascaltecs fought on the side of Nezahualcoyotl in the conquest of Cuextlan. See _Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 254; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, p. 493; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 240; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 164; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 261-2, 267-9; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 40-6; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 32; on the commerce of the Aztecs, see vol. ii., pp. 378-99.

[VIII-28] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 232, states that the Tepanec princess was the emperor's second wife; and Ixtlilxochitl implies that Nezahualpilli was her second son. There is also no agreement respecting her name or that of her father and husband. All agree that this child was born in 1464 or 1465. See _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 253-4, 257, 467; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 244-6; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 271-3; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 154-6; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 29-30.

[VIII-29] _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 151; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 277.

[VIII-30] _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 277-80; _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 257.

[VIII-31] _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xxvii.

[VIII-32] 1464, _Veytia_; 1468, _Vetancvrt_, _Ixtlilxochitl_, _and Boturini_; 1469, _Ixtlilxochitl_, _Brasseur_, _Codex Chimalp._, _Codex Tell. Rem._, _Codex Mendoza_.

[VIII-33] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxviii-xxix., xxxi-ii., and Tezozomoc, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 58-63, 66, attribute to Montezuma I. the conquest of Oajaca, and the establishment there of a Mexican colony. They may refer to the conquest of the land of the Miztecs already related, or to that of more southern parts of Oajaca at a later period. They also state that Axayacatl was the son of Montezuma. Duran tells us that Montezuma before his death had his image sculptured on the cliff at Chapultepec; and that Axayacatl was nominated king by Tlacaeleltzin, who declined the throne. The _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., pp. 45-6, followed by Mendieta, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 150, give the number of provinces conquered by Montezuma as thirty-three. Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 257, 457, says Montezuma left several sons. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 169, 172, says he left one, not named, but that he disinherited him for the good of the nation. Acosta, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 493, 495, and Herrera, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii., make Tizoc precede Axayacatl, both being sons of Montezuma. Camargo, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcviii., p. 178, makes Ahuitzotl precede Axayacatl. Vetancvrt, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 32, says that Axayacatl, Tizoc, and Ahuitzotl were sons of Montezuma's uncle by a daughter of Itzcoatl. Motolinia, in _Icazbalceta_, _Col. de Doc._, tom. i., p. 6, and Gomara, _Conq. Mex._, fol. 303, represent Montezuma as having been succeeded by his daughter. See also on the death and character of Montezuma I., and the accession of Axayacatl:--_Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 280-2; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 241; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 254-5; _Boturini_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii., tom. iv., p. 240; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., pp. 149, 151; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 268-9.

[VIII-34] Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxii., says that the first five years of Axayacatl's reign were undisturbed by war. See on the Tehuantepec raid and the Coronation: _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 172; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 283-7; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 32; _Clavigero_, tom., i. pp. 241-2; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 496-7. Veytia, tom. iii., p. 256, and Clavigero speak of wars in the first years of his reign against the revolting provinces of Cuetlachtlan and Tochtepec.

[VIII-35] Date according to the Spanish writers, 1468. According to the _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 150, Huexotzinco had seized upon the province of Atlixco in 1456, driving away the people of Guacachula, the former possessors. Only Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 172-3, and Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 287-8, mention the apparition of Tezcatlipoca. See also _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 242, 248; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 256-7; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 32-3.

[VIII-36] Date 1469 according to Spanish writers; 1470 according to _Codex Chimalpopoca_. _Veytia_, tom. iii., p. 261; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 288; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 242; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 173; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 32.

[VIII-37] _Codex Chimalp._, in _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., p. 288.

[VIII-38] See vol. ii., pp. 246-7, 294, 471-2, 491-7.

[VIII-39] Date 1470, _Ortega_ and _Clavigero_; 1462 or 1472, _Ixtlilxochitl_; 1472, _Codex Chimalpopoca_.

[VIII-40] On the character and death of Nezahualcoyotl, and the succession of Nezahualpilli, see: _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 254-62, 408-9, 467-8; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 156, 164-9, 173-4; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 232, 242-8; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 288-301; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 33-4; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 247, 261-7.

[VIII-41] _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 176. The author says, however, that the province was 'on the coast of Anáhuac.' _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 301-2.

[VIII-42] Authorities on the Tlatelulca war:--_Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxii-xxxiv.; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 66-76; _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 176-80; _Sahagun_, tom. ii., lib. viii., pp. 269, 274; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 256-61; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 302-15; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 248-52; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 34-5; _Granados y Galvez_, _Tardes Amer._, pp. 176-8; _Mendieta_, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 150; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, p. 498; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiv.; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 262-3; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 120.

[VIII-43] _Torquemada_, tom. i., pp. 180-1; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 263-4, 458; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 35; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 316-17.

[VIII-44] According to the _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 151, this war and earthquake took place in 1462. Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 181-2, places them in the sixth year of Axayacatl's reign. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxv.-xxxvi., and Tezozomoc, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 76-82, state that Tlilcuetzpalin escaped. See also, _Ixtlilxochitl_, p. 264; _Clavigero_, tom. i., pp. 252-3; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 317-22; _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 267-8; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. iv., cap. xviii.; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 35.

[VIII-45] Most of the details of this war are from _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. iii., pp. 322-5. Duran, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxvii.-viii., and Tezozomoc, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 82-7, state simply that to procure victims for the dedication of a new sacrificial stone, the Aztecs marched to the borders of Michoacan and were defeated by superior numbers, returning to Mexico. The victims were finally obtained at Tliliuquitepec. Other authors represent the Aztecs as victorious, they having added to their possessions Tochpan, Tototlan, Tlaximaloyan, Ocuillan, and Malacatepec. See _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 182; _Clavigero_, tom. i., p. 253; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., pp. 35-6; _Codex Tell. Rem._, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 151.

[VIII-46] Clavigero, tom. i., p. 253, gives the date 1477. According to the _Codex Mendoza_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 47, it was 1482. All the other authorities agree on 1481. See on family, character, and death of Axayacatl, and succession of Tizoc: _Veytia_, tom. iii., pp. 269-71; _Duran_, MS., tom. i., cap. xxxviii-ix.; _Tezozomoc_, in _Kingsborough_, vol. ix., pp. 88-91, 143; _Ixtlilxochitl_, pp. 264-5; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 182; _Vetancvrt_, _Teatro_, pt ii., p. 36; _Acosta_, _Hist. de las Ynd._, pp. 494-5; _Sigüenza_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii., tom. i., p. 70; _Herrera_, dec. iii., lib. ii., cap. xiii.; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 164.