APPENDIX II.
MEXICO-TENOCHTITLAN
The migratory period of the Aztecs in the valley of Anáhuac came to its close with the foundation of Mexico-Tenochtitlan in 1325. The name Mexico signifies habitation of the god of war, Mexitli—otherwise known as Huitzilopochtli. The name Tenochtitlan signifies a cactus on a rock and was given to the new city because the choice of the site was decided by the augurs beholding, perched upon a cactus plant which grew on a rock, an eagle with a serpent in its talons. The emblem of the cactus and the eagle holding a serpent became the national standard of Mexico, and is displayed in the coat of arms of the present Republic.
The two islands of Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco stood in the salt waters of the lake of Texcoco, separated from one another by a narrow channel of water, and in the beginning, Tlatelolco had its separate chief; but in the reign of Axayacatl, the last king of Tlatelolco, called Moquihuiz, was overthrown, and the islands afterwards became united by bridges and formed one city, with a single ruler. The city was joined to the main land by three great causeways, so solidly built of earth and stone, and having draw-bridges to span the canals which crossed them, as to excite the admiration of the Spaniards. The northern causeway, from the Tlatelolco quarter, extended for three miles to Tepejaca, where stands the present shrine of Guadaloupe; the causeway reaching to Tlacopan (Tacuba) was two miles long, and the southern road, by which the Spaniards entered, extended for seven miles to Itztapalapan, with a division at the small fortress of Xoloc, where one branch diverged to Coyohuacan and hence caused Cortes to mention four causeways, which strictly speaking was correct. Robertson erroneously speaks of a causeway leading to Texcoco. While the width of these splendid roads varied, Clavigero says that all were wide enough for ten horsemen to ride abreast (vol. iii., lib. ix.). To the minute description of the city given in the letter of Cortes, it seems unnecessary to add anything; he says nothing, however, about the number of inhabitants, which all the earlier authorities practically agree in numbering at 60,000 households—by an obvious error the Anonymous Conqueror speaks of 60,000 people, which should, of course, be families. Zuazo, Gomara, Motolinia, Peter Martyr, Clavigero, and others, give this estimate, hence it may be safely stated, that the
330
