The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History

640

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.

641

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.

642

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.

643

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

644

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.

645

Brasseur says the first interview was at Tenayocan.

646

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.

647

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.

648

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.

649

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.

650

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 (#cn_648).

651

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.

652

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.

653

Torquemada, tom. i., pp. 145-6; Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 196-8.

654

Ixtlilxochitl, pp. 239-40, 407-8; the alliance with Tlascala is spoken of on pp. 247-8. Veytia, tom. iii., pp. 168-82.

655

Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 175.

656

Boturini, Idea, p. 26; Ortega, in Veytia, tom. iii., p. 178.

657

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.

658

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.

659

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.

660

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.

661

Hist. Gen., tom. iii., lib. x., pp. 139-41; see p. 190 (#Page_190), of this volume, and vol. ii., p. 528.

662

Codex Chimalp., in Brasseur, Hist., tom. iii., pp. 208-11; Torquemada, tom. i., p. 150.

663

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.

664

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.