tributed to Cuitlahuatzin's desire to remove any dangerous rival to the throne. Not that this was a necessary precaution, since his standing, as a younger brother of Montezuma, and his successful operations against the Spaniards, were sufficient to raise him above every other candidate.[1] Furthermore, as commander-in-chief of the army and as leader of the successful party, he held the key to the position, and accordingly was unanimously chosen. About the same time Cohuanacoch was elected king at Tezcuco, in lieu of the younger brother forced on the people by Cortés, and Quauhtemotzin, nephew of Montezuma, rose to the office of high-priest to Huitzilopochtli. The coronation was the next prominent event,[2] for which the indispensable captives had already been secured from the fleeing army. What more precious victims, indeed, could have been desired for the inaugural than the powerful Spaniards and the hated warriors of brave Tlascala? And what grander site for the ceremony than the great temple, recovered from the detested intruders and purified from foreign emblems? In connection with this came a series of festivals.[3]
The utmost activity was displayed in repairing the damage caused by the Spaniards, and in fortifying the city and its approaches against a possible future invasion. The construction and discipline of the army were improved in some degree after the examples given by the Europeans; its tactics were revised, and its arms perfected with the aid of captured weapons,
- ↑ Cortés assumes only two rivals, the natural sons of Montezuma, 'el uno diz que es loco y el otro perlático.' Cartas, 153.
- ↑ Twenty days after Montezuma's death. Ixtlilxochitl, Relaciones, 413, 304.
- ↑ Of which Sahagun gives some account, Hist. Conq. (ed. 1840), 137. See also Torquemada, i. 511.
to be the sons of Montezuma, the last named a bastard. Cipocatli, accepted by him as the other name for Asupacaci, the legitimate heir of the emperor, he assumes with Cano to have been murdered by Quauhtemotzin. Hist. Nat. Civ., iv. 345. But we have seen that Cortés appears more correct in saying that the prince fell with him during the Noche Triste. Brasseur de Bourbourg's assumption serves merely to show how hasty and untrustworthy his statements often are.
