GROWTH OF MEXICO AND TLATELULCO.

357

The

establishment was miraculously pointed out. 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, and called their new home Xaltelulco, afterwards, Tlatelulco.61

60

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

Go Veytia says they first applied to Quinantzin, placing this event in the reign of Alconahuacatl, as emperor.

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.

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 controling 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.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,63

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 Huitzilihuit 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, Cong. 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.

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; Granado 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.

CHAPTER VII.

THE CHICHIMEC PERIOD.-CONCluded.

AZTEC HISTORY-REIGNS OF ACAMAPICHTLI II. AND QUAQUAUHPITZAHUAC-REBUILDING OF CULHUACAN-HUITZILIHUITL II., KING OF MEXICO-TLACATEQTZIN, KING OF TLATELULCO-CHIMALPOPOCA SUCCEEDS IN MEXICO-FUNERAL OF TECHOTL-IXTLILXOCHITL, EMPEROR OF THE CHICHIMECS-SYMPTOMS OF DISCONTENT -PLANS OF TEZOZOMOC, THE TEPANEC KING-SECRET COUNCIL OF REBELS RELIGIOUS TOLERATION IN TEZCUCO-CONQUEST OF XALTOCAN AND CUITLAHUAC-BIRTH OF NEZAHUALCOYOTL-WAR BETWEEN TEZCUCO AND AZCAPUZALCO-VICTORIES OF IXTLILXOCHITL -SIEGE AND FALL OF AZCAPUZALCO-TREACHERY OF TEZOZOMOC -FALL OF TEZCUCO-FLIGHT AND DEATH OF IXTLILXOCHITL— TEZOZOMOC PROCLAIMED EMPEROR-REORGANIZATION OF THE EMPIRE-ADVENTURES OF NEZAHUALCOYOTL-DEATH OF TEZOZOMOCMAXTLA USURPS THE IMPERIAL THRONE-MURDER OF THE MEXICAN KINGS - NEZAHUALCOYOTL'S VICTORY-ITZCOATL, KING OF MEXICO-ACOLHUA AND AZTEC ALLIANCE-FALL OF AZCAPUZALCO -THE TRI-PARTITE ALLIANce, or the New EMPIRE.

The next and final chapter of the Chichimec annals covers a period of three quarters of a century, extending from the death of the emperor Techotl in 1357, to the formation of the tri-partite alliance between the Acolhuas, Aztecs, and Tepanecs, in 1431. It embraces the reigns of three emperors, Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, and Maxtla; and is a record of continued struggles for the imperial power between the Acolhuas and Tepanecs, resulting in the humilia

tion of the latter and the triumph of the former, through the aid of a third power, which is admitted as an equal to the victor in the final reconstruction of the empire. The rôle of the other nations of Anáhuac during this period, is that of allies to one or the other of the powers mentioned, or, occasionally, of rebels who take advantage of the dissensions of the ruling powers to declare their independence, enjoyed as a rule only until such time as the masters may have an opportunity to reduce them to their old allegiance. We find the aboriginal record more and more complete as we approach the epoch of the conquest, with much less confusion in chronology, so far as leading events are concerned, although perfect agreement among the authorities is yet far from being

attained in the minor details with which the narrative is crowded. A new source of disagreement is, moreover, reached as we approach the final century of the native annals-national prejudices on the part of the native historians through whom those annals have been handed down, and a constant tendency among such writers as Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, Chimalpain, and Camargo, to exhibit in their highest colors the actions of the nations from which they have descended, while ever disposed to cloud the fame of rival powers. Fortunately, one authority serves, generally, as an efficient check upon another in such cases.

Before relating the general history of Anáhuac during the successive reigns of the emperors Ixtlilxochitl and Tezozomoc, in which history the Mexicans took a prominent part as allies of the latter, it will be well to glance, briefly-for there is little to say on the subject-at the course of events in the new cities on the lake marshes. We left Tenochtitlan under the rule of its Culhua king, Acamapichtli II., or rather under the regency of his queen, Ilancueitl; while Quaquauhpitzahuac, son of the Tepanec king Tezozomoc, was on the throne of Tlatelulco, both kingdoms being tributary to that of Azcapuzalco.

REIGN OF ACAMAPICHTLI II.

361

One of the last acts of the queen was the re-settlement of Culhuacan in 1378, by means of a colony sent from Mexico under Nauhyotl, the fourth of that name who had ruled in the Culhua city. This was done partly from motives of pride in restoring the capital of her own and her husband's ancestors, and partly to serve as a check on the encroachments of the Chalcas in the south. In 1383 the queen died. Ixtlilxochitl states that she bore her husband three sons, one of whom was Huitzilihuitl; Clavigero tells us she was barren, but took charge of the education of two of her husband's sons, Huitzilihuitl and Chimalpopoca, by another wife; Torquemada confounds the two Acamapichtlis, and is, consequently, greatly_puzzled about Ilancueitl's children; and finally, Brasseur shows that she was espoused at an advanced age by the king solely for political motives, and that she lived harmoniously with his other two wives, one of whom bore him Huitzilihuitl, and the other Chimalpopoca. The reign of Acamapichtli II. dates, in a certain sense, from the death of his queen, who for many years had, at least, ruled jointly with him. The beginning of the wars between the Mexicans and Chalcas, which were waged so bitterly for many years, is attributed to Acamapichtli's reign, as are the conquests of Quauhnahuac, Mizquic, and Xochimilco; but it must be understood that it was only as the allies of the Tepanec king that the Mexicans engaged in these wars. Torquemada and Acosta assert that Acamapichtli's reign was a very peaceful one.3 It was after the conquest of Quauhnahuac,

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.

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, Cong. 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. 3 Codex Mendoza, in Kingsborough, vol. v., p. 92; Mendieta, Torquemada, Acosta, Brasseur, and Clavigero, as in preceding note.