[1031] Herrera calls them 100,000; Vetancurt, 140,000.
[1032] At Tlepehuacan, near the border. Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., 306-7.
[1033] Ixtlilxochitl calls him in one place the brother of Cohuanacoch. Id., 299.
[1034] ‘As a spy,’ adds Cortés, Cartas, 176. Ixtlilxochitl states, contrary to Cortés, that this general sent him to Tezcuco on the same errand as the previous envoy. Hist. Chich., 306. But this appears a needless exposure of an important personage.
[1035] Bernal Diaz states that Cortés nevertheless embraced the envoys, three of whom were relatives of Montezuma. Hist. Verdad., 120.
[1036] Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., 214.
[1037] Prescott says Nezahualpilli’s, but this was burned at this very time according to the only authority on the point, Ixtlilxochitl, Hor. Crueldades, 10. Brasseur de Bourbourg assumes that the allies stayed at Huexotla, which is doubtful. Hist. Nat. Civ., iv. 402.
[1038] The stuffed skins of the five horses were found, and other things, offered to the idol. Cortés, Cartas, 183. Strange that the Tezcucans should not have removed so palpable evidence against them.
[1039] Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., 306.
[1040] Real Cédula, 1551. In this cédula are named a number of the brothers, but the pagan name is not given in every instance. Bernal Diaz and Torquemada confirm this baptismal name for the ruler now appointed; Cortés writes merely Fernando; Ixtlilxochitl adds Tecocoltzin; Sahagun gives the latter name and calls him legitimate, as he was in a certain sense. Hist. Conq. (ed. 1840), 143. Clavigero calls him Fernando Cortés Ixtlilxochitl; Chimalpain interpolates De Alvarado in lieu of Cortés, but substitutes Tecocoltzin for Ixtlilxochitl in one place. Hist. Conq., 21, 55. Vetancurt evidently accepts the true name, but applies the baptism and appointment to Ixtlilxochitl. Teatro Mex., pt. iii. 152. The latter, who succeeded to the Tezcucan rulership toward the end of 1521, received the name of Fernando Pimentel, and it is this similarity of the first name that has led to the pretty general confusion about the appointee. Lockhart actually attempts to rectify the correct statement of Bernal Diaz with a blunder, Memoirs, ii. 411; and Zamacois, in doing the same with the blundering Solis, gives a long note amusingly erroneous. Hist. Méj., iii. 585.