[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.

[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.

[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.