Determining the Authorship of the Crónica Mexicayotl:Two Hypotheses
Since the seventeenth century, the Crónica Mexicayotl, an invaluable account documenting the Mexica Tenochca history, has been attributed either to Domingo de San Antón Muñón Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, to Hernando de Alvarado Tezozomoc, or sometimes to both. To examine these attributions, we focus here on the way the document as we know it today was written, pointing out the fact that it was made by assembling material from several heterogeneous sources, among which we find the famous and now lost Crónica X. Important passages allow us to emphasize the role played by Tezozomoc in the composition of the original Crónica Mexicayotl, and to propose with reference to the later version that has reached us, that a considerable number of insertions can be attributed to Chimalpahin. In that regard we present two different hypotheses regarding the relationship of the Crónica Mexicayotl to other works, as well as to the authors Tezozomoc and Chimalpahin.
The earliest known manuscript containing the text of the Crónica Mexicayotl is in the third volume of Manuscript 374, acquired in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society.1 The library of this foundation, now called simply the Bible Society, was moved in 1985 from Swindon to Cambridge University, [End Page 315] where the manuscript was still found until last year.2 The three volumes of MS 374 belonged to the collection of New Spain’s famous intellectual and bibliophile Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora (1645-1700). The Crónica Mexicayotl is the second part of the third volume, which contains various historical works in Spanish and Nahuatl, all in the hand of Chimalpahin.3
Upon Sigüenza y Góngora’s death, his entire collection of ancient manuscripts and books was donated to the library of the Jesuit Colegio Máximo de San Pedro y San Pablo in Mexico City. During his stay in New Spain (1736-1743), the Italian Lorenzo Boturini Benaduci (1702–1755) reviewed the collection and was able to copy a part of it, in particular the volume written by Chimalpahin (MS 374, vol. III). In 1746, he published a catalogue of the collection, with the title Catálogo del museo histórico indiano, in which he designates the same volume of MS 374 as “Tome 4.”4
At the end of the eighteenth century, the copy of the Crónica Mexicayotl in Boturini’s Tome 4 was transcribed by two important scholars of Aztec antiquity: the father José Antonio Pichardo (1748–1812), and Antonio de León y Gama (1735–1802).5 This tertiary copy of the Crónica Mexicayotl was acquired by Joseph Marius Alexis Aubin (1802–1891), a French collector of documents of the indigenous history of Mexico.6 Five years later, he sold all of his manuscripts to another collector, the French bibliophile Eugène Goupil (1831–1896).7 After Goupil’s death, his wife donated his collection to the Paris Bibliothèque Nationale, which created a special Mexican fund to acquire and maintain more than 400 original manuscripts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and copies made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. [End Page 316] The manuscripts received a new numeration and the tertiary copy of the Crónica Mexicayotl was recatalogued as Manuscript 311.8
There are thus three ‘Crónica Mexicayotl’ manuscripts: the oldest version was in the hand of Chimalpahin (MS 374, vol. III), and from it derives the secondary copy from Boturini (Tome 4) and then the tertiary copy transcribed by Pichardo and León y Gama (MS 311). In 1949, UNAM published, for the first time, the Crónica Mexicayotl with a translation into Spanish, by Adrián León. This edition was based on photocopies of MS 311, the tertiary copy, which presents errors and omissions. It was reprinted three times at UNAM, in 1975, 1992, and 1998.9 Fortunately, the American historians Susan Schroeder and Arthur J. O. Anderson made an effort to publish the original MS 374, vol. III, and in 1997 this critical edition with a translation into English was printed in two volumes by the University of Oklahoma under the title Codex Chimalpahin.10 In 2004, Berthold Riese published an interesting edition of the Crónica Mexicayotl based on MS 374, vol. III, accompanied by a German translation.11 Finally, in 2013, Rafael Tena published yet another new edition of the Crónica Mexicayotl, also based on MS 374, vol. III, and translated into Spanish.12
Two Authors: Tezozomoc and Chimalpahin
The fact that Chimalpahin was the scribe of all of the historical documents that appear in MS 374, vol. III, does not mean that he was the author of all of these documents. The authorship of the Crónica Mexicayotl is not clear. Scholars’ analyses can be split into three groups: those who attribute the entire account to Chimalpahin, those who ascribe it completely to Tezozomoc with Chimalpahin as mere copyist and occasional glosser of the text, and those who think that parts of the text are Tezozomoc’s and that the others belong to Chimalpahin.
Son of don Diego Huanitzin and doña Francisca de Moctezuma, Hernando de Alvarado Tezozomoc was also the grandson of the last Mexica ruler, Moteuczoma [End Page 317] Xocoyotzin.13 His dates of birth and death are uncertain. He would have been born at the latest in 1542 (the year following his father’s death), and he was still alive in 1610 when his name appears in a document on the genealogy of doña Francisca de Guzmán.14 We find no trace of him after that date.15 The work of Tezozomoc is essentially focused on Mexico-Tenochtitlan. The Crónica Mexicana (1598) and the Crónica Mexicayotl (1609), as well as some other texts of lesser importance that we know through Chimalpahin’s later use of them, give us evidence of his activities as a historian.16 Additionally, Tezozomoc became involved in the defense of native noblemen’s interests, which were ever more threatened as the colonial government was extended. As Vázquez Chamorro noted, Tezozomoc notably protected the interests of his cousin Juan Cano Moctezuma, a son of doña Isabel Tecuichpo, a legitimate daughter and heiress of Moteuczoma Xocoyotzin.17 Cano lived in Spain from 1550 and never returned to Mexico.18
We turn now to the man believed to be the other author of the Crónica Mexicayotl. Domingo de San Antón Muñón Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin was born in 1579 to a noble family of Amaquemecan Chalco.19 He lived in Mexico from 1593 to at least 1625; the date of his death is uncertain.20 His two major works are the Relaciones (ca. 1606–1631) and the Diario (ca. 1615). Other writings were also attributed to him, among them the manuscripts known together as Codex Chimalpahin, which include the oldest version known of the Crónica Mexicayotl.21 The method of Chimalpahin is well known: the [End Page 318] Chalco historian worked with various documents of diverse origins, which he copied and whose information he reorganized.22 Some of these documents were only fragments, causing gaps in his chronology; elsewhere his data is redundant.23 His tendency to make personal amendments to the texts he was copying caused problems of attribution, the best example being the one discussed here, the Crónica Mexicayotl.24
We can ask ourselves what relationship Chimalpahin and Tezozomoc may have had. Maybe the two authors knew each other; they were contemporaries, and some of Tezozomoc’s sources and works were familiar to Chimalpahin.25 Furthermore, it is likely that Chimalpahin witnessed Tezozomoc’s visit to the viceroy, an event he reported in his Diario in the year 1600.26 But we do not know if Chimalpahin collaborated with him or if he otherwise knew Tezozomoc’s work. The Crónica Mexicayotl, as we know it today in the Codex Chimalpahin, shows a mix of two authorial voices: Tezozomoc’s and Chimalpahin’s. However, opinions differ as to their respective degree of participation. In 1746, Boturini Benaduci stated that the Crónica Mexicayotl was Chimalpahin’s work, while a few years later, León y Gama asserted that the author was Tezozomoc, in a note he added to the copy he made of the work.27 León y Gama’s assertion was seconded in 1885 by Aubin, who noted Chimalpahin’s role as annotator in his study on the pictographic painting and writing of the ancient Mexicans: “Gama, dont j’ai la copie, attribue à Tezozomoc cette histoire, en mexicain très élégant. Ce sont des fragments de Tezozomoc et d’Alonso Franco, annotés par Chimalpahin, qui se nomme en les citant.”28 Aubin also pointed out the role of Alonso Franco, mentioning him as an author, as he did Tezozomoc.
Much later, León, Romero Galván, Brennan, and Riese followed and further developed Aubin’s observations.29 According to León, the main author of the [End Page 319] document is indeed Tezozomoc because he provides his name in the introduction, where he also explains his objectives and mentions the members of his own family who served as his informants. Following this evidence, Chimalpahin did not write the original Crónica Mexicayotl, but instead copied it, making additions and corrections when he considered them relevant.30 Subsequently, Kirchhoff, and Gibson and Glass as well, suggested that the first part (fs. 18–38r, § 1–106) should be attributed to Tezozomoc but that the second part (fs. 38v–63, § 107–374) was the work of Chimalpahin.31 The researchers pointed out the similarities of this second part with the other works of Chimalpahin, and Kirchhoff added that the style of the second part was very different from that of the first.
Romero Galván replied that if these two parts of the Crónica Mexicayotl were so different, it was because their principal sources were different works.32 In doing so, he drew attention to a very important fact: several heterogeneous sources were used by the authors who composed the Crónica Mexicayotl as we know it today. Brennan noticed that in the second part of the Crónica Mexicayotl it was the Tenochca royal lineage, connected to Tezozomoc, that was the main concern; other events received little attention.33 Brennan considered the attribution of the work to Tezozomoc thereby confirmed—virtually every individual mentioned in this second part was somehow connected to him. It was, basically, the story of his family. Nevertheless, the discovery of the manuscripts of the Bible Society led Schroeder to decide that the Crónica Mexicayotl had to be recognized as an original composition of Chimalpahin, who used and rewrote in his own style the documents of Tezozomoc and Alonso Franco.34
Structure and Sources of the Crónica Mexicayotl
The Crónica Mexicayotl, as we know it today in the Codex Chimalpahin, begins with an introduction (fs. 18–19, § 1–7) in which Tezozomoc announces that he will set down the history of the Mexica Tenochca and claims to have used elders’ accounts and pictographic documents as the basis for what [End Page 320] he will write.35 He also mentions several members of his family among his collaborators. After this introduction, the Crónica Mexicayotl can be divided into two main parts. The first one (fs. 20–40, § 8–118) is a narrative that reports the history of the Mexica from their departure from Aztlan to their installation in Mexico-Tenochtitlan and the election of their first tlatoani (pre-Hispanic ruler, plural tlatoque), Acamapichtli.36 The second part (fs. 41–63, § 119–374) is essentially genealogical; it reports very briefly the reigns of the different tlatoque of Mexico-Tenochtitlan and enumerates their descendants up to the colonial period.37
The copyists, editors, and scholars of the Crónica Mexicayotl have all recognized that Tezozomoc’s introduction is part of the work, with the exception of Schroeder. She asserts that Tezozomoc’s introduction belongs not to the Crónica Mexicayotl, but instead to the Historia o crónica mexicana, the Spanish historical work that precedes (in fs. 1–16) the Crónica Mexicayotl in the Codex Chimalpahin.38 According to Schroeder, this introduction demonstrates without a doubt that Tezozomoc is the author of the Historia o crónica mexicana, but not of the Crónica Mexicayotl. This position appears to be untenable for several reasons. First, it would be very strange that an authorship statement, like the one Tezozomoc wrote in Nahuatl in his introduction, would be found at the end of a Spanish history, rather than at the beginning. The history was in a different language and separated from the introduction by a blank folio.39 Would it not be more natural to think that Tezozomoc’s statement belonged to the Crónica Mexicayotl, located as it is at the beginning of this Nahuatl history, in the same language and with no such separation of a blank folio?
Furthermore, there is proof that the Historia o crónica mexicana was composed by Chimalpahin rather than by Tezozomoc. The year 1621, which the [End Page 321] writer of the introduction himself declares to be the date of this work, is too late for Tezozomoc. Moreover, there are literal quotations in the Historia o crónica mexicana that are taken from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century books printed in Spanish, which Chimalpahin knew very well and utilized in his own work. The author of the Historia o crónica took several passages from the Reportorio de los tiempos composed by Henrico Martínez, such as those shown in Table 1.
Parallel Passages: Historia o crónica mexicana and Reportorio de los tiempos
It is clear that Chimalpahin was very familiar with Martínez’s Reportorio de los tiempos. In fact, in his Segunda and Cuarta relaciones, Chimalpahin translated some passages of Martínez’s work into Nahuatl.41 Likewise, at the end of the Historia o crónica mexicana we find information transcribed from Francisco López de Gómara’s La conquista de México, another Spanish history that Chimalpahin used as a source and from which he copied integral elements.42 [End Page 322] Therefore, we consider that, without a doubt, the Historia o crónica mexicana, which as noted precedes the Crónica Mexicayotl in the Codex Chimalpahin, was composed by Chimalpahin, and not by Tezozomoc. Furthermore, we think that a careful study of the sources of the Crónica Mexicayotl and the way it was elaborated and structured can bring new evidence to the authorship discussion. Like most of their contemporaries, Tezozomoc and Chimalpahin rarely mentioned the sources they used. In the cases where they did make mention of them, they resorted to very vague terms that continue to generate confusion among today’s historians. It is indeed difficult to connect references such as “as the ancient ones say” to any identifiable source or informant or author, and even to determine the type of source involved. This possibly explains the lack of attention placed by researchers on the sources of the Crónica Mexicayotl. To remedy this lack, we examine them carefully here, from our own vantage point and from within their context.
We shall begin by establishing an exhaustive list of the sources mentioned in the Crónica Mexicayotl. Table 2 presents references to various documents and informants, with hypotheses as to the type of source each reference may invoke.43 The bold type indicates the information leading to the hypothesis for each source.
We notice immediately that there are only two passages that provide a precise reference to a source: f. 19, § 5–7, gives the names of informants consulted by Tezozomoc, and f. 24r, § 34, mentions an account coming from a certain Alonso Franco, a mestizo who lived in Mexico-Tenochtitlan and died in 1602. The most interesting passage, however, concerns a source that neither Tezozomoc nor Chimalpahin mentioned. It is a passage from fs. 24r–40, § 35–118, which describes the wanderings of the Mexica after their departure from Aztlan, their arrival at Mexico-Tenochtitlan, and the choice of their first tlatoani, Acamapichtli. This passage comes from a document well known to Mexicanists, the Crónica X, which was very closely followed, maybe even copied, by the author of the Crónica Mexicayotl.44 The Crónica X, a major source on Aztec civilization, written in Nahuatl and probably with illustrations, reported the history of the Mexica from their origins to the Spanish conquest. [End Page 323]
Sources Mentioned in the Crónica Mexicayotl
[End Page 325]
Although the original is considered today as lost, Crónica X eventually came to light through secondhand documents, mainly two adaptations in Spanish dating from the last quarter of the sixteenth century: the Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e Islas de Tierra Firme (1581) from the Spanish Dominican friar Diego Durán and the Crónica Mexicana (ca. 1598) from Tezozomoc.45 Robert Barlow was the first researcher to postulate the existence of this lost source, common to Durán and to Tezozomoc, which can be likened to the ‘historia mexicana’ that Durán mentioned frequently.46 However, the two authors, although both drawing from Crónica X, did not restrict themselves to a literal translation from Nahuatl to Spanish. They interpreted their source, explained it, and adapted it to their respective objectives, and [End Page 326] both resorted to additional sources.47 This is why it is not simple, even by comparing the Crónica Mexicana with the Historia de las Indias sentence by sentence, to reconstruct what the Crónica X most likely was.
Example: Peperstraete’s Reconstruction of a Passage of the Crónica X
In a recent book, Peperstraete attempted to do just that, using the method proposed by Barlow, with some qualifications.48 The passage shown in Table 3 [End Page 327] illustrates, by means of an example, how Peperstraete proceeded: the texts of the two authors are placed next to one another, with the common passages highlighted in bold type. Both passages state that Tezozomoctli sent messengers to the Mexica, that he exempted them from paying their tribute (excepting the ducks, fishes, and frogs from the lagoon), and that he told them they could rest. In Tezozomoc, the tribute list contains a series of Nahuatl words—yzcahuitle, tecuitlatl, axaxayacatl, acoçil, anenez, cocolli, michpilli—which Durán reduces to “las demas sauandijas.”
Let us now return to fs. 24r–40, § 35–118, of the Crónica Mexicayotl. It appears that the accounts of the wanderings of the Mexica after their departure from Aztlan, the foundation of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, and the election of Acamapichtli correspond exactly to the version of these events presented in Crónica X, to the extent that we know it through the work of Durán and the Crónica Mexicana. The correlations are presented in Table 4.49
Not only are the contents of this very important passage similar to that of the Historia de las Indias and the Crónica Mexicana, but they also correspond perfectly with the Crónica X as far as it is possible to reconstruct it.
We find in this passage of the Crónica Mexicayotl elements that we suppose were included in the Crónica X but were abbreviated in Durán and in the Crónica Mexicana. For example, during the installation in Mexico, when the gods were distributed in the various calpolli (ethnic divisions of the Aztec people), Durán asserts that he will not provide the names of all these calpolli, and Tezozomoc also fails to name them in his Crónica Mexicana.50 We suppose, however, that the list did appear in the Crónica X because these calpolli are evoked by both authors, and because Durán’s comment makes it obvious that the Dominican had the names of the calpolli before him while he was working on his Historia de las Indias. In the Crónica Mexicayotl, in this precise place (f. 37v, § 103), the list appears in full. In another passage, Durán explains that Mexicatzinco was so named “por causa de cierta torpedad que á causa de no ofender los oídos de los lectores, no la contaré”; thus, he deprives us of this episode of the Mexica wanderings, which was told in the Crónica X.51 But the passage appears in full in the Crónica Mexicayotl (f. 33, § 82), allowing us to [End Page 328] understand Durán’s motivation: “There they held one named Acatzin head down; they saw his buttocks and shot him with arrows. Hence they named the place Mexicatzinco.”
Comparison of an Episode: Durán, the Crónica Mexicana, and the Crónica Mexicayotl
We can thus conclude that fs. 24r–40, § 35–118, of the Crónica Mexicayotl are very close to the Crónica X. Besides, like the Crónica X, the Crónica Mexicayotl was written in Nahuatl, and it may be that these folios are merely an extract [End Page 329] of the Crónica X, copied by the author of the Crónica Mexicayotl. An additional argument in favor of this hypothesis is that sometimes the Nahuatl words we find in the Crónica Mexicayotl are also present in the corresponding passage of the Crónica Mexicana, when Tezozomoc faces difficulties translating from Nahuatl to Spanish. Let us observe, for example, the way the bad actions of Malinalxochitl, who eats the heart and the calves of people, are described in the Crónica Mexicana: “que es lo que llaman <en>tre ellos agora teyol<l>ocuani, tecotzana [tecotzcuani], teixcuepani.“52 The words in Nahuatl are exactly the same as those we find in the corresponding passage of the Crónica Mexicayotl (f. 25r, § 38). We observe the same situation in the song sung by Huitzilopochtli at Coatepec, “cuicoyan no hualmitotia,” in the Crónica Mexicayotl (f. 26r, § 43), and “cuicoyan nohuan mitotia” in the Crónica Mexicana.53
We also note that in this part of the Crónica Mexicayotl there are four references to additional sources, in fs. 29r, 29v–30r, 30r–30v, and 36v–37r, § 57, 62, 64, and 100, respectively (see Table 3). The version in f. 29r, § 57, differs from that of the Crónica X.54 Here, Tezozomoc or Chimalpahin consulted a source where the teomama (god-carrier) who throws Copil’s heart is named Quauhcoatl, and not Quauhtlequetzqui as in the Crónica X. This the author indicates in his text: “Thereupon Quauhcoatl returned from where he had gone to throw the heart—or it was Quauhtlequetzqui. The ancient ones make two [versions in] their accounts as to who threw the heart; because there was a certain Quauhtlequetzqui, and there was also a certain Quauhcoatl who reached Tenochtitlan with the others.” The references of fs. 29v–30r, 30r–30v, and 36v–37r (§ 62, 64 and 100) are clearly interventions of Chimalpahin—our author gives his name in fs. 29v–30r and 30r–30v, § 62 and 64, and the intervention in fs. 36v–37r, § 100, can be attributed to him (see Peperstraete’s historiographical hypothesis and Table 6).
The second part of the Crónica Mexicayotl (fs. 41–63, § 119–374), on the other hand, is essentially based on genealogical sources. Among these could well be documents such as the Fragmento de genealogía de los príncipes mexicanos.55 This body of information probably came from informants, because it concerns the royal family of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, with which Tezozomoc was connected; indeed, the informants may be the members of his own family that he names in his introduction. In any case, there were at least two different [End Page 330] sources, with diverging opinions on certain points. For instance, having enumerated 17 children of Tlacaelel, the author of the Crónica Mexicayotl adds that, according to what “other Mexica say” the famous cihuacoatl was father to 83 children, not 17 (f. 51v, § 242). Even the few additional narrative passages such as the conception of Moteuczoma Ilhuicamina (fs. 42r–43r, § 138149: “And as the departed ancient ones said”) and the cause of the war against Tlatelolco (fs. 48v–49r, § 213–215: “As the ancient ones said”) are family stories, told perhaps by the informants Tezozomoc mentions in the introduction.
Finally, as in the first part, we notice the use of several additional sources, some of which are attributable to Chimalpahin’s contributions (see Peperstraete’s historiographical hypothesis and Table 6). They are respectively quoted in f. 47r, § 196 (a Tlatelolca source on Moquihuix: “As the Tlatelolca say, he only came from his residence in Aculhuacan”); f. 54r, § 271 (a Chalca source giving the year of birth of Miccacalcatl Tlaltetecuintzin, 1469, states: “according to the people of Tequanipan, the Chalca”); and f. 54v, § 274, offers two divergent opinions on the duration of the reign of Tizoc: “He really ruled for six years [though] some state that he ruled for only four years.”
Table 5 illustrates the structure of the Crónica Mexicayotl as we analyze it, and presents its presumed sources. Among the sources were at least two genealogical documents, as implied in “other Mexica say” about Tlacaelel’s 83 children (f. 51v, § 242), as well as some additional sources listed below.
This heterogeneous collection represents several sources or fragments of sources brought together with the aim of composing a new work. That may well come as a surprise to today’s historians, but it explains very well the abrupt changes of style in the different parts of the Crónica Mexicayotl. To develop this argument further, the two authors present their own hypotheses in the following sections.
A Historiographical Hypothesis: Peperstraete
This survey of the sources of the Crónica Mexicayotl and the way it was structured and elaborated allows Peperstraete to propose the following hypothesis: Tezozomoc was the author of the original Crónica Mexicayotl. He used various types of sources, oral and pictographic (most notably those from his family members mentioned in f. 19, § 5–7) and written (especially the Crónica X). Peperstraete’s hypothesis also explains the different styles we find in this work. The use of the lost Crónica X is a very strong argument in favor of Tezozomoc’s authorship, because it is well known that he had a strong connection to that document and adapted it in Spanish in his Crónica Mexicana. But the [End Page 331]
Summary of the Structure of the Crónica Mexicayotl, with the Presumed Sources
[End Page 332]
Summary of the Crónica Mexicayotl Textual Interventions Attributable to Chimalpahin
version of the Crónica Mexicayotl as we know it today from the Codex Chimalpahin, was copied, amended, and reused by Chimalpahin.
Which, then, are the passages of the Crónica Mexicayotl as we know it today that can be attributed to Chimalpahin? Of course, there are the two interventions in which the author tells his name (fs. 29v–30r and 30r–30v, § 62 and 64). The first concerns the ruler who reigned in Chalco when the Mexica were in Chapultepec; in the second Chimalpahin asserts that it was Coxcoxtli and not Achitometl (as the version of the Crónica X claims) who reigned in Colhuacan when the Mexica arrived there.56 However, other interventions, usually related to Chalco and abruptly interrupting the account which is otherwised centered on Mexico-Tenochtitlan, can also be attributed to Chimalpahin. Among these are the additions inserted into the Crónica X passages, that is, in [End Page 333] fs. 24r–40, § 35–118. These are particularly obvious because we find them neither in Durán’s Historia de las Indias nor in Tezozomoc’s Crónica Mexicana. Specifically, we refer to fs. 30v–31v, § 69–74, which provide further information regarding Coxcoxtli and his children; fs. 36r–37r, § 96–100, which summarize the Mexica wanderings and add data regarding the rulers who reigned in Chalco at this time; and f. 38v, § 108 and 109, which supplies data on the rulers of Chalco in the year of the death of Tenochtzin, in 1363.57 The genealogical section, f. 54v, § 271, which concerns the birth date of an important figure of Chalca history and also mentions a Chalca document, is credibly also the work of Chimalpahin. These attributions are strengthened by the fact that the data on the Chalca rulers is also present in other works of Chimalpahin. Table 6 summarizes the hypotheses put forth in these paragraphs. It is even possible that Chimalpahin, who handled dozens of documents is also the author of some of the “additional sources” he refers to (see Table 2: § 57, 274), but we cannot make this assertion with any certainty.
Historiographical Hypothesis Put Forth by Kruell
Kruell presents a historiographical hypothesis based on study of the sources and structure of the Crónica Mexicayotl and on the work of Paul Kirchhoff. In 1951, Kirchhoff put forward the hypothesis that the second part of the Crónica Mexicayotl does not correspond to Tezozomoc but rather to Chimalpahin, for two important reasons: first, because the style of the historical text changes significantly between the two parts, from the dramatic and narrative historical genre attributable to Tezozomoc to a historical genre ascribable to Chimalpahin, an author who privileges chronologic and dynastic descriptions.58 The second reason: all of the dates that appear in the second part and that are in both the Nahuatl and Christian calendars correspond perfectly with the years that Chimalpahin covers in the annals he wrote, which are known as Relaciones.59 The account presented in the Crónica Mexicayotl was interrupted at the end of f. 40v and was completed by Chimalpahin in a different historical genre, one that focused on the chronologies and genealogies of the rulers of Tenochtitlan. Therefore, the folios attributed to Chimalpahin, starting at f. 41r [End Page 334] and ending at f. 63r of the Codex Chimalpahin, do not belong to the original Crónica Mexicayotl of Tezozomoc—Chimalpahin did not pick up the thread of the Tezozomoc’s narrative here, nor did he do so later.
We have already seen that there are two critical pieces of evidence pointing to Tezozomoc as the author of the first part of the Crónica Mexicayotl. The first is Tezozomoc’s introduction, and the second is the deep connection that exists between the Crónica Mexicayotl and Tezozomoc’s Crónica Mexicana. In fact, a comparative analysis of the Nahuatl text of the Crónica Mexicayotl and the Spanish text of the Crónica Mexicana reveals not only that the titles are similar, but also that both histories relate the same account. Kruell showed recently that the Crónica Mexicana is Tezozomoc’s Spanish translation of the Crónica Mexicayotl.60 The work we know today through MS 374, vol. III, is a copy made by Chimalpahin, and is believed to be incomplete. It accounts for only a small part of Tezozomoc’s original Nahuatl account, from the origins of the Mexica to the election of the first ruler in Mexico-Tenochtitlan. The complete, original Nahuatl version of Tezozomoc’s Crónica Mexicayotl is considered to be lost and, according to Kruell, it would have been written by Tezozomoc before the year 1581, because Durán utilized it in that year as the source for writing the Historia de las Indias. Following this hypothesis, the original Crónica Mexicayotl should have comprised the entire account that is contained in the Crónica Mexicana, up to the Spanish conquest.61
If this hypothesis (see Figure 1) is correct, it means that the lost version of the Crónica Mexicayotl, which would predate the fragmentary copy made by Chimalpahin that we know today, could be identified as the lost Crónica X, the source of the Historia de las Indias (1581) and the Crónica Mexicana (1598).
To summarize, the historiographical hypothesis of Kruell distinguishes itself from Peperstraete’s point of view in that it proposes that the original Crónica Mexicayotl matches Crónica X and that Tezozomoc was its author and not a mere user of this important Mexica-Tenochca historical source.
A Closer Look at Chimalpahin’s Interpolations
The comparison between the Crónica Mexicayotl and the derived Spanish histories, namely the Crónica Mexicana and the Historia de las Indias, reveals numerous interpolations into the text of MS 374, vol. III, by Chimalpahin, more [End Page 335]
Historiographical Hypothesis on the Authorship of the Crónica Mexicayotl (Kruell)
than we have recognized before. Alonso Franco’s account, for example, constitutes one of Chimalpahin’s interpolations into Tezozomoc’s Crónica Mexicayotl, because Franco’s historical information is found in neither the Crónica Mexicana nor the Historia de las Indias. It seems that Chimalpahin was more familiar than Tezozomoc with Alonso Franco’s historical material; in fact, he copied several of Franco’s passages in his Tercera Relación and Memorial de Colhuacan.62 Moreover, the events of the Crónica Mexicayotl are dated with a Nahuatl-Christian year that does not correspond to any year of the Crónica Mexicana nor to any in the Historia de las Indias. However the years given perfectly match those in Chimalpahin’s Relaciones and in his Memorial de Colhuacan, as well as his Historia o crónica mexicana.63 Other insertions by Chimalpahin [End Page 336] in the Crónica Mexicayotl are detectable because the Chalca historian inserted words within brackets.64 Finally, we can suspect another kind of insertion when we read the word anozo (or), which Chimalpahin uses to introduce a variant in historical information, often based on alternative years or different characters. A representative example is found in f. 29r, § 57, where Tezozomoc relates the moment in which the god-carrier Quauhtlequetzqui throws the heart of the sacrificed Copil into the lake of Mexico. Chimalpahin changes the name of the god-carrier to Quauhcoatl, as noted above (see Table 2).
Chimalpahin’s insertions into Tezozomoc’s Crónica Mexicayotl create a heterogeneous style, a hybrid of the annals genre and a story based on narration and dramatization. Tezozomoc’s dramatization of the Mexicas’ story is expressed through numerous speeches and frequent dialogues between the characters. Further, we can perceive at times a break in the account of the Crónica Mexicayotl due to a sudden interpolation of the author’s voice, here that of Chimalpahin. Note the words in brackets in the following passage:
“And here are the names of those who then spoke: Acacihtli tecpanecatl, Chichimecatl teuchtli, Tençacatetl, Ahuexotl, Ahatl, Xomimitl, and Ocelopan. [These [last] two whom the ancient ones place here belonged to Tlatelolco.] They said: Mexica, if we do to Azcapotzalco, it will not result well, and also if we go to Aculhuacan or Aculhuacan Coatl Ichan, it will not result well.”65
In some cases, it is very difficult to determine whether a passage of the Crónica Mexicayotl belongs to Chimalpahin or to Tezozomoc because it matches neither the work of the Chalca historian, nor Tezozomoc’s Crónica Mexicana or Durán’s Historia de las Indias. For example, in f. 20 there is a passage in the Crónica Mexicayotl that explains the role of God in the Mexica history. Was it written by Chimalpahin, whose Christian devotion was unquestionable? Or by Tezozomoc, who in the Crónica Mexicana declares his Christian abhorrence for the religion of his ancestors, full of bloody rituals? [End Page 337]
Conclusions
We hope that the analysis we have provided here allows for a better understanding of how the Crónica Mexicayotl was written. We have pointed out the fact that the document as we know it today was made by assembling material from several heterogeneous sources. Among these, we found passages taken directly from the famous Crónica X. Those finds are of fundamental importance since the original was lost a long time ago. We think that these passages allow us to emphasize the role played by Tezozomoc, whose close connection with the Crónica X is well known, as evidenced in the composition of the Crónica Mexicayotl. They offer us, as well, numerous additional and more precise observations regarding the Crónica X itself, in relation to the Spanish versions we have in the Historia de las Indias de Nueva España of Durán and the Crónica Mexicana of Tezozomoc. We are convinced that these passages should allow us to go one step further in the reconstruction of the lost Crónica X, and finally to study and appreciate its beautiful original style, in Nahuatl. [End Page 338]
École Pratique des Hautes Études Paris, France
Sylvie Peperstraete is Professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium) and Director of Studies (Directeur d’Études) at the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris. She is interested in Mesoamerican history, art, and religion. Her research focuses on manuscripts of colonial Central Mexico. Her publications include La “Chronique X.” Reconstitution et analyse d’une source perdue fondamentale sur la civilisation aztèque (2007), Image and Ritual in the Aztec World (2009), and articles in Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl and the Journal de la Société des Américanistes.
Gabriel Kenrick Kruell is a doctoral student at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. He is mainly interested in Nahua history, religion, and institutions. His master’s thesis (Estudios Mesoamericanos, UNAM), titled La Crónica X: nuevas perspectivas a partir del problema historiográfico de la Crónica mexicáyotl y su cotejo con la Crónica mexicana, was awarded the Alfonso Caso medal. His publications include articles in Estudios Mesoamericanos and Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl.
Footnotes
We are very grateful to Cynthia Martínez Cruz, wife of Gabriel Kruell, and to Carolyn O’Meara, researcher at UNAM, for their help throughout the revisions of this article. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of The Americas and Jill Ginsburg, copy editor.
1. Susan Schroeder, “Father José María Luis Mora, Liberalism, and the British and Foreign Bible Society in Nineteenth-Century Mexico,” The Americas 50:3 (1994), pp. 377–397; Susan Schroeder, introduction to Domingo de San Antón Muñón Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Codex Chimalpahin, edited and translated from Nahuatl into English by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Susan Schroeder (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997), vol. 1, pp. 3–4. Hereinafter we refer to the third volume of Bible Society’s Manuscript 374 with the abbreviation MS 374, vol. III, or we refer to it as Codex Chimalpahin, the title proposed by Anderson and Schroeder.
2. On his trip to Cambridge in December 2013 to consult the MS 374, Gabriel Kenrick Kruell found out that the three volumes had been transfered to London by the Bible Society in order to be sold at auction. The selling took place on May 21st 2014 at the Christie’s Auction House and up to now it is not known who has bought the manuscripts. For further information, see the article of the mexican newspaper El Universal: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/cultura/2014/tres-siglo-xvii-escritos-ejemplares-fernando-de-alva-chimal-pahin-cuauhtlehuanitzin-subasta-londres-cambrige-nueva-espania-nahuatl-christies-1009035.html.
3. Wayne Ruwet, “Los manuscritos de la Bible Society: su historia, redescubrimiento y contenido,” in Suma y epíloga de toda la descripción de Tlaxcala, Andrea Martínez Baracs and Caracs Sempat Assadourian, eds. (Tlaxcala: Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, 1994), pp. 28–30; Ruwet, “Physical Description of the Manuscripts,” in Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Codex Chimalpahin, vol. 1, p. 22.
4. Lorenzo Boturini Benaduci, “Catálogo del museo histórico indiano del cavallero Lorenzo Boturini Benaduci,” in Boturini Benaduci, Idea de una nueva historia general de la América septentrional (Madrid: Juan de Zúñiga, 1746), pp. 6–7, 15–16.
5. According to Berthold Riese, “Handschriften und Editionen des Crónica mexicáyotl,” Journal de la Société des Américanistes 84:2 (1998), p. 217, the first six pages of this manuscript were written by José Antonio Pichardo and the rest by Antonio de León y Gama.
6. Joseph Marius Alexis Aubin, Mémoires sur la peinture didactique et l’écriture figurative des anciens Mexicains (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1885), pp. 8–9.
7. Eugène Boban, Documents pour servir à l’histoire du Mexique. Catalogue raisonné de la collection de M. E. Eugène Goupil (ancienne collection J. M. A. Aubin) (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1891), vol. 2, pp. 457–458.
8. Manuscript 311, Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, Catalogue des manuscrits mexicains de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris: E. Buillon, 1899), p. 48. Hereinafter we abbreviate Manuscript 311 to ‘MS 311.’
9. Fernando Alvarado Tezozómoc, Crónica Mexicáyotl, edited and translated from Nahuatl into Spanish by Adrián León (Mexico: UNAM, 1998 [1949]).
10. Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Codex Chimalpahin. The Anderson and Schroeder edition presents not only the Crónica Mexicayotl (vol. 1, pp. 60–177), but almost all of the historical documents of attributed to Chimalpahin.
11. Berthold Riese, Crónica Mexicayotl. Die Chronik der Mexikanertums des Alonso Franco, des Hernando Alvarado Tezozómoc und des Domingo Francisco de San Antón Muñón Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin. Aztekischer Text ins Deutsche übersetzt und erläutert, edited and translated from Nahuatl into German by Berthold Riese (Sankt Agustin: Academia Verlag, 2004).
12. Tres crónicas mexicanas. Textos recopilados por Domingo Chimalpáhin, edited and translated from Nahuatl into Spanish by Rafael Tena (Mexico: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 2013), pp. 25–155.
13. Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Codex Chimalpahin, vol. 1, pp. 62–63, 164–165.
14. Published in Luis Reyes García, “Genealogía de doña Francisca de Guzmán, Xochimilco, 1610,” Tlalocan 7 (1977), pp. 31–35.
15. Ángel M. Garibay Kintana, Historia de la literatura náhuatl (Mexico: Editorial Porrúa, 1953–1954), vol. 2, p. 301; José Rubén Romero Galván, La Crónica mexicana de Hernando Alvarado Tezozomoc: manifestation d’une conscience de peuple conquis chez un auteur indigène du XVIe siècle (PhD thesis, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1982), pp. 93–103; Germán Vázquez Chamorro, “Alvarado Tezozómoc, el hombre y la obra,” in Tezozómoc, Crónica Mexicana, Gonzalo Díaz Migoyo and Germán Vázquez Chamorro, eds. (Madrid: Historia 16, 2001), pp. 30–33; Sylvie Peperstraete, La “Chronique X”: reconstitution et analyse d’une source perdue fondamentale sur la civilisation aztèque, d’après l’Historia de las Indias de Nueva España de D. Durán (1581) et la Crónica Mexicana de F. A. Tezozómoc (ca. 1598) (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2007), pp. 37–38.
16. See Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Codex Chimalpahin, vol. 2, pp. 50–51, 58–61, and 86–87.
17. Vázquez Chamorro, “Alvarado Tezozómoc,” p. 33.
18. See Donald Chipman, “Isabel Moctezuma: precursora del mestizaje (Nueva España, siglo XVI),” in Lucha por la supervivencia en la América colonial, David G. Sweet and Gary B. Nash, eds. (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1987), pp. 253–262.
19. Domingo de San Antón Muñón Chimalpáhin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Las ocho relaciones y el memorial de Colhuacan, edited and translated from Nahuatl into Spanish by Rafael Tena (Mexico: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 1998), vol. 2, pp. 248–249.
20. Jacqueline de Durand-Forest, L’Histoire de la Vallée de Mexico selon Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin (du XIe au XVIe siècle) (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1987), pp. 44–45; Schroeder, introduction to Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Codex Chimalpahin, vol. 1, pp. 5–6; Rafael Tena, “Presentación” in Chimalpáhin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Las ocho relaciones, vol. 1, p. 11.
21. Schroeder, introduction to Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Codex Chimalpahin, vol. 1, p. 5.
22. Susan Schroeder, Chimalpahin and the Kingdoms of Chalco (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1991), p. 19.
23. See Günter Zimmermann, Die Relationen Chimalpahin’s zur Geschichte Mexico’s (Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, 1963–1965).
24. Schroeder, introduction to Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Codex Chimalpahin, vol. 1, p. 8.
25. Schroeder, Chimalpahin and the Kingdoms of Chalco, p. 15.
26. De Durand-Forest, L’Histoire de la Vallée de Mexico, p. 126.
27. Boturini Benaduci, “Catálogo del museo histórico indiano,” p. 15; León y Gama in Wigberto Jiménez Moreno, “Apéndice III,” in Francisco del Paso y Troncoso: su misión en Europa, 1892–1916, Silvio Arturo Zavala, ed. (Mexico: Departamento Autónomo de Prensa y Publicidad, 1938), p. 582.
28. Aubin, Mémoires, pp. 8–9. “Gama, whose copy I have, attributes this history, in very elegant Mexican, to Tezozomoc. These are fragments of Tezozomoc and Alonso Franco, annotated by Chimalpahin, who names himself in quoting them.”
29. Adrián León, introduction to Fernando Alvarado Tezozómoc, Crónica mexicáyotl, Adrián León, ed. and trans. (Mexico: Imprenta Universitaria, 1949), pp. xviii-xix; Romero Galván, La Crónica Mexicana, p. 167; Sallie C. Brennan, Cosmogonic Use of Time and Space in Historical Narrative: the Case of the Crónica mexicáyotl (PhD diss.: University of Rochester [Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, microfilm] 1988), pp. 3142; Riese, “Handschriften,” pp. 213–214.
30. León, introduction to Alvarado Tezozómoc, Crónica mexicáyotl, pp. xviii-xix.
31. Paul Kirchhoff, “El autor de la segunda parte de la Crónica Mexicáyotl,” in Homenaje al Doctor Alfonso Caso, Antonio Pompa y Pompa, ed. (Mexico: Imprenta Nuevo Mundo, 1951), pp. 225–227; Charles Gibson and John B. Glass, “A Census of Middle American Prose Manuscripts in the Native Historical Tradition,” in Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. XV, Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources, Part Four, Howard F. Cline, ed. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1975), p. 346.
32. Romero Galván, La Crónica Mexicana, p. 167.
33. Brennan, Cosmogonic Use of Time and Space, pp. 31–42.
34. Schroeder, introduction to Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Codex Chimalpahin, vol. 1, p. 10.
35. Chimalpahin drew a cross at the top of f. 18r to point out the beginning of Tezozomoc’s introduction.
36. At the top edge of f. 20r, Chimalpahin drew a cross to indicate the start of the account in the Crónica Mexicayotl, and under the cross he wrote a very indicative Nahuatl word: Tlatolpeuhcayotl (beginning of the account). The Spanish title and the term used to begin the account in Nahuatl confirm that the Crónica Mexicayotl begins here: “Aqui comiença La chronica, y Antiguedad De los Mexicanos.ettsa. / Yzcatqui Nican ompehua yn chronica Mexicayotl.”
37. The account is interrupted abruptly at f. 40v, in the middle of a speech addressed by the Mexica to the new ruler of Tenochtitlan, Acamapichtli. Then, f. 41r begins with a genealogical list of the sons of Tlatolzacatzin and grandsons of Acamapichtli. We believe that between f. 40r and f. 41v there is not only a narrative break that interrupts the account, but also a textual gap that indicates that some folios of MS 374, vol. III were most likely lost. An important proof of this textual gap is the fact that the reference word that is found at the lower edge of f. 40v, and which should anticipate the first word of the following folio, does not match the first word of f. 41r.
38. Susan Schroeder, “The Truth About the Crônica Mexicayotl,” Colonial Latin American Review 20:2 (2011).
39. Between the Historia o crónica mexicana and Tezozomoc’s statement there is an entire folio left blank (f. 17).
40. Schroeder, in Codex Chimalpahin, Anderson and Schroeder, eds. and trans., vol. 1, p. 55: “Emperor Moteucçoma having ruled for nineteen years in great prosperity, causing himself to be served and respected to excess through the use of enormous cruelties as sacrifices, it was the will of our Lord God that he be punished, that his high and proud designs be humbled, and that the empire of the devil that was so extensive in this New World be demolished, his divine Majesty permitting that beforehand there be visions, strange portents, and fearsome events, which the Mexicans saw before the fall of their empire.”
41. Chimalpáhin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Las ocho relaciones, vol. 1, pp. 64–71, 308–311.
42. Chimalpahin did not limit himself to copying López de Gómara; he also inserted information. Curiously, a passage interpolated by Chimalpahin into La Conquista de México is almost identical to a passage in the Historia o crónica mexicana. See Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Codex Chimalpahin, vol. 1, p. 58; and Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Chimalpáin y la conquista de México. La crónica de Francisco López de Gómara comentada por el historiador nahua, Susan Schroeder, David E. Tavárez Bermúdez, and Cristián Roade-la-Carrera, eds., prologue by José Rubén Romero Galván (Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2012), pp. 405–406.
43. The English translation of the Crónica Mexicayotl is taken from the Anderson and Schroeder edition (Codex Chimalpahin). Bold characters are used to highlight the references cited.
44. See for comparison Peperstraete, La “Chronique X.”
45. Diego Durán, Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e Islas de Tierra Firme, Rosa de Lourdes Camelo Arredondo and José Rubén Romero Galván, eds. (Mexico: CONACULTA, 1995); Hernando de Alvarado Tezozómoc, Crónica Mexicana, Gonzalo Díaz Migoyo and Germán Vázquez Chamorro, eds. (Madrid: Historia 16, 2001 [1997]).
46. Robert H. Barlow, “La Crónica X: versiones coloniales de la historia de los mexica tenochca,” Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos 7 (1945), pp. 70–76. On the Historia Mexicana, see for example Durán, Historia de las Indias, vol. 1, pp. 258, 431, and 444.
47. Ignacio Bernal, “Durán’s Historia and the Crónica X,” in Diego Durán, The History of the Indies of New Spain, Doris Heyden, ed. and trans. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994), p. 572; Nigel Davies, The Aztec Empire: The Toltec Resurgence (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987), p. 54; Peperstraete, La “Chronique X”, pp. 43–46.
48. Peperstraete, La “Chronique X.” Barlow, in “La Crónica X,” pp. 76–77, suggests that Crónica X be regarded as the source for all that appears in both the work of Durán and the Crónica Mexicana of Tezozomoc. If this is accepted, it becomes possible to extend the list of common passages to include additional shared data. For example, Durán introduces many sentences with the phrase “cuenta la historia”; that is the way he usually refers to his principal source. Even if Durán uses episodes condensed or omitted by Tezozomoc, these can thus be integrated into the reconstruction. The same applies when Durán says to shorten or remove an enumeration, but the enumeration appears in Tezozomoc. And finally, since the Crónica X was written in Nahuatl, Tezozomoc could remain closer to his main source than could Durán. When the former uses Nahuatl words, one may give them preference over the generalities or approximations of these terms that Durán proposes in Spanish. For more details, see Peperstraete, La “Chronique X,” pp. 58–59.
49. Durán, Historia de las Indias, vol. 1, pp. 71–99; Tezozómoc, Crónica Mexicana, pp. 54–63.
50. Durán, Historia de las Indias, vol. 1, p. 94; Tezozómoc, Crónica Mexicana, p. 63.
51. Durán, Historia de las Indias, vol. 1, pp. 87–88. English translation from Doris Heyden, The History of the Indies of New Spain, p. 39: “because of a certain lewd happening that I shall refrain from telling in order not to offense the ears of the readers.”
52. Tezozómoc, Crónica Mexicana, p. 56.
53. Ibid., p. 59.
54. Durán, Historia de las Indias, vol. 1, p. 81; Tezozómoc, Crónica Mexicana, p. 61.
55. Alfonso Caso, “Fragmento de genealogía de los príncipes mexicanos (Cat. Boban 72),” Journal de la Société des Américanistes 47 (1958), p. 1.
56. See Durán, Historia de las Indias, vol. 1, p. 83.
57. Besides, this summary is inserted between two key passages. The first is the passage in which the Mexica bring up the possibility of asking for building materials for the Azcapotzalca (f. 35v, § 95), and the second is the passage in which they decide to exchange the materials for fishing products (f. 37r, § 101), indicating clearly that it is a later addition.
58. Schroeder, “The Truth about the Crónica Mexicayotl,” p. 234. Here, Schroeder affirms that there is no change in vocabulary, style, or prose from the beginning of the Crónica Mexicayotl to its end, and that this uniformity means it can be attributed only to Chimalpahin. Kruell disagrees, as noted in his hypothesis.
59. Kirchhoff, “El autor de la segunda parte de la Crónica Mexicáyotl” pp. 226–227. Kirchhoff sees the end of the first part at f. 38r, § 106. We disagree with the German anthropologist on this point. We consider that the Crónica Mexicayotl is interrupted at f. 40v.
60. Gabriel Kenrick Kruell Reggi, La Crónica X: nuevas perspectivas a partir del problema historiográfico de la Crónica mexicáyotl y su cotejo con la Crónica mexicana (Master’s thesis: UNAM, 2011).
61. Gabriel Kenrick Kruell, “La Crónica mexicáyotl: versiones coloniales de una tradición histórica mexica tenochca,” Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 45 (2013), pp. 197–232.
62. Compare the events of the year 1064 as recounted in the Crónica Mexicayotl, fs. 20v-21r, § 14–15; the Memorial de Colhuacan (Chimalpáhin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Las ocho relaciones, vol. 1, pp. 84–97); and the Tercera Relación (ibid., vol. 1, pp. 178–185).
63. There are only two Nahuatl dates with parallels in both the Crónica Mexicayotl and the Crónica Mexicana: the year 9-Reed and the year (or day) 1-Flint. See also the Crónica Mexicayotl, f. 25v, § 39, and the Crónica Mexicana (Tezozómoc, Crónica Mexicana, pp. 57, 60). Some Nahua-Christian years are found in the Crónica Mexicayotl, the Historia o crónica mexicana, in Relaciones 3, 4, 5 and 7, and also in the Memorial de Colhuacan. In these books we can read the same events; many times these are related by Chimalpahin with the same words. The years are 1—Flint (1064), 5—Flint (1068), 1—Flint (1168), 11—Reed (1075), 1—House (1285), 2—Rabbit (1286), 11—Reed (1295), 2—Reed (1299), 10—Reed (1307), 13—Reed (1323), 2—House (1325), 1—House (1337), 1—Reed (1363), and 5—Reed (1367). Therefore, Kruell believes that all of these dates represent Chimalpahin’s interpolations into the Crónica Mexicayotl.
64. In f. 27r, § 51 of the Crónica Mexicayotl, for example, there are two obvious insertions in brackets.
65. Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Codex Chimalpahin, vol. 1, p. 113..
