The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History / The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, Volume 5

by Hubert Howe Bancroft

REIGN OF TECHOTL.

At one of the grand assemblies of kings and lords, held at Tezcuco, to deliberate on the general interests of the empire, in 1342, Techotl announced his intention to leave his crown to his eldest son, Ixtlilxochitl, and caused that prince to be formally acknowledged as heir apparent to the imperial throne. It does not appear that any opposition to his succession was made at the time,[VI-49] although as we shall see, his right was not undisputed at the death of his father. At one of these assemblies, as all the authorities agree, it was ordered that the Nahua language should be employed exclusively at court, in the tribunals, and in the transaction of all public affairs. It has been inferred from this, by many writers, that the language of the Chichimec nations was different from that of the Toltecs;[VI-50] but such a supposition would be inconsistent with the whole tenor of the aboriginal annals, and cannot be admitted. Among the new tribes that occupied Anáhuac after the Toltecs, there were doubtless some that spoke another tongue; the enforced use of the Nahua at court was aimed at the chiefs of such tribes, and was a part of the emperor's general policy. Of course it is just possible that one of the tribes of foreign tongue had become powerful and constituted a large part of the population of Tezcuco, but such a state of affairs is not probable, and the statement of some writers that the many learned Culhuas and Mexicans gathered at the Chichimec capital during this period, came as teachers of the Nahua language at the court of Techotl, cannot be accepted. Brasseur's idea, as implied throughout this period of aboriginal history, that the Chichimecs were barbarians, gradually civilized by the few Toltecs that remained in the country, and forced by their kings to adopt Nahua language and institutions, I regard as wholly imaginary. The struggles of Quinantzin and his successors were directed, not to the introduction of Toltec usages, but to the preservation of their culture, threatened by the spirit of anarchy and independence that followed the downfall of the Toltec empire.

DEATH OF TECHOTL.

Feeling, at last, that his end was drawing near, and that the work to which he had devoted his energies must be committed to other hands, the aged monarch is reported to have held a long interview with his son and heir, Ixtlilxochitl. Most earnestly he instructed his son concerning his future duties, and warned him against dangers whose occurrence he already foresaw. He feared, above all, the projects of Tezozomoc, the Tepanec king, who had already, although nominally loyal to Techotl, shown tokens of far-reaching ambition and the possession of great executive ability, and who evidently remembered that Acolnahuacatl, his predecessor, had once been emperor. Special advice was given to Ixtlilxochitl, who was probably a very young man, although there is some disagreement about the date of his birth,[VI-51] as to the best policy to be followed with the king of Azcapuzalco, and after jealously striving to imbue his successor with the spirit that had made his own reign so glorious, the emperor died, as has been stated, in 8 Calli, 1357.[VI-52]

AZTECS AT MEXICO TENOCHTITLAN.

Having traced the glorious, though peaceful career of the emperor Techotl, I have to close this chapter by narrating the events of Culhua and Mexican history during a corresponding period; a period most fatal to Culhuacan, the metropolis of Anáhuac in Toltec times, and the only Toltec city that had retained its prominence through the dark days of Chichimec invasion. We have seen the Mexicans expelled from Culhuacan at the triumph of Achitometl over his brother Acamapichtli; and, after a series of wanderings about the lake, founding their city of Mexico Tenochtitlan in 1325. One year before the city was founded, however, Acamapichtli seems to have regained his power, and this time, his father Coxcoxtli having died, he assumed the title of king. His rule was probably very advantageous to the Mexicans, his friends, during their first years in their new city, while they were strengthening their position; but in 1336 he died, murdered, as some of the records imply, and was succeeded by his brother Achitometl II., the avowed enemy of the Mexicans and their religious rites. His accession drove many of the rival sect to Mexico, and he thus aided, involuntarily, in building up the new power. The infant son of the dead king, also named Acamapichtli, was saved either by his mother, or, as others say, by the princess Ilancueitl.[VI-53] During the troubles between the rival sects headed by Acamapichtli and Achitometl, large numbers of Culhuas had left their city and either taken refuge in Tezcuco, or had joined kindred tribes in different localities. On the final accession of Achitometl this depopulating movement was continued to a greater extent than ever before. According to Brasseur's documents, a war with Chalco in 1339, fomented by Tezozomoc, who had succeeded to the Tepanec throne eight years before, gave the finishing blow to the power of Culhuacan, which was practically abandoned by king and people about 1347, her weaker tributary provinces being in part appropriated by the stronger, which now became independent of all save imperial power, although a large portion fell into the hands of the kings of Azcapuzalco and Acolhuacan. The larger part of the Culhuas proper were divided between Quauhtitlan,—which soon became practically a Culhua, or Toltec, city, under Iztactototl, grandson of Coxcoxtli, who succeeded in 1348,—and Mexico.[VI-54]

The territory on which Mexico Tenochtitlan was built seems to have belonged to the domain of Azcapuzalco, and the Mexicans were obliged to pay to the Tepanec king a certain amount of tribute in fish and other productions of the lake. Their prosperity, the improvements they were constantly making in their city, and their strong position in the lake, taken in connection with their well-known valor and ambition, excited much jealousy among the surrounding nations. Possibly this jealousy is alluded to in the fable of a fatal epidemic which prevailed at this time, ascribed in the popular tradition to the fumes of fried fish and other delicacies, wafted from the island town, which created so violent a longing as to occasion illness.[VI-55] The Tepanecs were the only people that had the power to oppress the Aztecs, which they are said to have done, not only by the exaction of the regular tribute due them, but by imposing special taxes, to be paid in articles of no value to the receivers, but which could be obtained by the Mexicans only with great difficulty or danger.[VI-56] Brasseur says that Tezozomoc even went so far as to send his son Tlacotin to rule in Mexico after Tenuch's death, and he dying after a short time, another son, Teuhtlehuac, became governor.[VI-57] I find nothing in the Spanish writers respecting Tepanec governors in Mexico, although none of them give any very definite idea how the city was governed in the early period of its existence. Some authors mention Tenuch as one of the chiefs that directed the original Aztec migration; others, as we have seen, make him the chief of an Aztec band at Iztacalco, just before the founding of the city, and imply that he was the leader under the priesthood at the time of its foundation, and for some time after; while still other writers state that he was elected chief three years after the foundation.[VI-58]

At this period took place the division of the Aztecs into Mexicans and Tlatelulcas, although Veytia dates it back before the foundation of the city, and before many of the events already related. It was caused by a quarrel between the priests and nobles, and was a secession of the latter when unable to check the growing power of the former. Torquemada attributes the separation merely to the overcrowded state of the city; and the fable of the two bundles which originated the dissension in early times has already been related.[VI-59] Brasseur sees in this division the inevitable Nahua tendency to struggle bravely and unitedly against misfortune, but at the first dawn of prosperity to indulge in internal strife. The priesthood used their influence to excite the lower classes against the nobility, and particularly against their Tepanec governor, whom they denounced as a tyrant. They finally succeeded in raising such a storm that Teuhtlehuac was driven out, and his party, including most of the nobility, determined to seek a new home. The connection of a Tepanec governor with the matter, removes some of the difficulties involved in other versions, but it is not easy to understand why Tezozomoc permitted his son to be driven from Tenochtitlan. Whatever the circumstances which led to the secession, the location of the new establishment was miraculously pointed out. The 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,[VI-60] and called their new home Xaltelulco, afterwards, Tlatelulco.[VI-61]

GROWTH OF MEXICO AND TLATELULCO.

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 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 controlling 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.[VI-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.[VI-63]