Colonial Latin American Review, Vol. 12, No.

2, 2003

A Reinterpretation of Nahuatl Poetics: Rejecting

the Image of Nezahualcoyotl as a Peaceful Poet
Jongsoo Lee
University of North Texas

The Nahuatl song-poems, in xochitl in cuicatl (flower song), have been inter-
preted by modern scholars as a unique expression of Nahuatl aesthetics and
world view. Some songs discuss the origin and functions of song-poetry and of
the poet, and they often deal with the ephemerality of human life. Because of
these metaphysical characteristics, the Nahuatl songs, particularly those at-
tributed to the Texcocan king Nezahualcoyotl (1402–1472), have been presented
frequently as expressions of beauty and peace, which is in clear contrast to the
Spanish image of the Mexicas as a warlike and bloodthirsty people who
practiced human sacrifice.
The representation of Nezahualcoyotl as a peaceful song composer began with
the Texcocan chroniclers Juan Bautista Pomar ([1582] 1993) and Alva Ixtlilxo-
chitl ([1600–1625] 1997).1 Pomar records that “algunos principales y señores”
were skeptical about the indigenous gods, even though they offered human
sacrifices to them. According to Pomar, among these skeptics, Nezahualcoyotl
was the most doubtful and he left his incredulity about the bloody indigenous
gods in the songs as evidence ([1582] 1993, 174–75). Pomar included many of
these songs in his chronicle as an appendix titled “Romances de los señores de
la Nueva España” ([1582] 1993). Ixtlilxochitl further develops this idea.2 He
insists that Nezahualcoyotl was one of the principal philosophers or sages in
pre-Hispanic times and that he was not only a skeptic but an open antagonist of
indigenous religion and the sacrificial practices of the Mexicas ([1600–1625]
1997, 1⬊447). In addition, Ixtlilxochitl records that Nezahualcoyotl frequently
warned his descendants of the ephemerality of human life by lamenting the
transitory nature of the Aztec empire and the Azcapotzalcan king, Tezozomoc.
The chronicler insists that Nezahualcoyotl expressed his religious and philosoph-
ical ideas in the songs, and, like Pomar, he includes some fragments of
Nezahualcoyotl’s songs in his chronicles. These two chroniclers provided a
primary basis for the studies of the Nahuatl song tradition. First, they originally
introduced the idea that there were some philosophers and sages who rejected,
or were skeptical about, human sacrifice and the Mexicas who were the symbol
of this practice. In contrast, these sages and philosophers allegedly dedicated
themselves to the composition of poems that focus on beauty and peace. Second,
these sages and philosophers established the notion of ephemerality as one of the
most distinctive themes in their poems, rather than the war and sacrifice that
were in fact the most important political and religious acts in Nahuatl society.
Among these sages and philosophers, Nezahualcoyotl was the most distinctive
and prolific. If we examine closely the sources that Pomar, Ixtlilxochitl, and their
1060-9164 print/1466–1802 online/03/020233-17  2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd on behalf of CLAR
DOI: 10.1080/10609160032000153210
 JONGSOO LEE

followers used, however, we discover that these sources do not support their
arguments.

Nezahualcoyotl, Song Composers, and Their World View

In the 1960s, Angel Marı́a Garibay and Miguel León-Portilla relied upon and
further developed Pomar’s and Ixtlilxochitl’s view that Nezahualcoyotl and other
song composers had different religious and philosophical perspectives from the
dominant religion and philosophy of the Mexicas. Garibay translated selections
of Nahuatl songs from Romances (Romances de los señores de la Nueva España
[1582] 1993) and Cantares (Cantares Mexicanos: songs of the Aztecs [1628]
1985) into Spanish, and he identified several individual poets or song composers
by simply arguing that “cuando leemos: Yo soy Tecayehuatzin, no tenemos
motivo para negarlo. Y tampoco, acaso menos, cuando leemos: Yo soy Nezahual-
coyotl, soy el poeta de gran cabeza de loro” ([1964] 1993, 1:xxxix). By
accepting that the poetic voice and the poet were the same, Garibay was able to
identify many pre-Hispanic song composers such as Nezahualpilli, Tecayehu-
atzin, Cuacuauhtzin, and others. In Garibay’s works, Nezahualcoyotl appears as
the most important poet in pre-Hispanic times, who not only composed the most
poems but also shows representatively the Nahuatl world view. Following
Garibay’s lead, León-Portilla detected more poets by providing an allegedly
consistent historical background.3 He published Trece poetas del mundo nahuatl
(1967), an edition of Nahuatl poems with a brief study of Nahuatl poetry, and
later an expanded version, Quince poetas del mundo nahuatl (1994). Among
these poets, León-Portilla pays special attention to Nezahualcoyotl because of
his achievements as a ruler and the apparently unique religious vision expressed
in his poetry.4 Garibay and León-Portilla seem to be successful in establishing
and making popular the image of Nezahualcoyotl as a peaceful non-violent poet.
To demonstrate the warlike and sanguinary Mexican tradition, Garibay and
León-Portilla focus on the rise of imperial Mexican Tenochtitlan, that is, the
Mexican ruler Itzcoatl’s reign between 1428 and 1440. Garibay pays particular
attention to Itzcoatl’s burning the ancient pictorial texts and his political and
cultural reforms: “Ideas religiosas, normas de régimen, percebimientos de
conservación literaria, poemas y relatos, quedan sometidos a la nueva mano que
rige. Nada más natural suponer que la nueva documentación datará de esta época
y que lo que ha de llegar hasta nosotros proviene de la nueva cultura, si cabe
darle este nombre” ([1953–1954] 1992, 23). León-Portilla develops this perspec-
tive in detail by focusing on the role of Itzcoatl’s half brother, Tlacaelel.
According to León-Portilla, it was Tlacaelel who introduced the mystic-militaris-
tic vision to the Aztecs. By convincing the Mexicas to believe that they were the
chosen people of the sun, Tlacaelel established Huitzilopochtli as their principal
deity and enforced human sacrifice dedicated to this god:

Como puede verse, las nuevas reformas de Tlacaelel se refieren a tres aspectos
básicos: organización polı́tica y jurı́dica, cambios en la administración eco-
nómica y, finalmente, modificaciones en la organización sacerdotal y en las

234
 A REINTERPRETATION OF NAHUATL POETICS

formas de culto que debı́an darse a sus dioses. Respecto de este último punto,
es conveniente recordar que ya mucho antes de los tiempos aztecas se
practicaban los sacrificios humanos. Sin embargo, en lo que toca a la
frecuencia de este rito, verosı́milmente puede afirmarse que fue Tlacaelel quien
elevó su número, de acuerdo con la idea de preservar la vida del Sol con la
sangre de las vı́ctimas. ([1961] 1996, 96–97)
Against Tlacaelel’s reforms, León-Portilla presents a group of Tlamatinime (wise
men) who continued to follow the ancient religion and culture before the Aztecs,
that of the peaceful and artistic Toltec culture and their deity Quetzalcoatl.
According to León-Portilla, these wise men left their peace-loving philosophy
and aesthetics in in xochitl in cuicatl:
Alejados de la visión mı́stico-guerrera de Tlacaelel, fueron estos tlamatinime
nahuas quienes elaboraron una concepción hondamente poética acerca del
mundo, del hombre y de la divinidad. (Ibid., 126)
La expresión idiomática, in xochitl in cuicatl, que literalmente significa “flor
y canto”, tiene como sentido metafórico el de poema, poesı́a, expresión
artı́stica, y, en una palabra, simbolismo. La poesı́a y el arte en general, “flores
y cantos”, son para los tlamatinime, expresión oculta y velada que con las alas
del sı́mbolo y la metáfora puede llevar al hombre a balbucir, proyectándolo
más alla de sı́ mismo, lo que en forma misteriosa, lo acerca tal vez a su raı́z.
(Ibid., 128)
León-Portilla argues that Nezahualcoyotl is the most representative example of
these tlamatinime, and consequently that the songs or poems attributed to him
show this perspective more than anyone else’s.5
Viewing Nezahualcoyotl as a contrast to the dominant religion and politics of
Anahuac has been an important perspective in interpreting the songs that have
been attributed to him. Following León-Portilla, Birgitta Leander compares
Nezahualcoyotl’s world view, which is inclined toward the beauty and goodness
of Quetzalcoatl, with Tlacaelel’s world view, which is inclined toward the war
and sacrifice of Huitzilopochtli (1976, 6–7). Similarly, Martı́nez argues that
Nezahualcoyotl composed very few songs about battle or war and avoided
metaphors related to war (1972, 131–32). In Homenaje a los indios americanos
(1972) and later its expanded version, Los ovnis de oro (1992), the famous
Nicaraguan poet Ernesto Cardenal, who has become well known for incorporat-
ing indigenous traditions in his poetry, also perpetuates the image of Nezahual-
coyotl as a peaceful and civilized poet-king opposed to the Mexicas. This
contrast between Nezahualcoyotl and the Mexican rulers, however, is not
convincing because it ignores the political, cultural, and religious background
that Nezahualcoyotl and the Mexican rulers shared.
León-Portilla studied some “anti-Mexican” philosophers and poets such as
Nezahualcoyotl and Nezahualpilli of Texcoco, Totoquihuatzin of Tlacopan,
Tecayehuatzin of Huexotzinco, Ayocuan of Tecamachalco, Xicotencatl of Tlax-
cala, and others ([1961] 1996, 116, 120). However, separating the Texcocan
rulers, Nezahualcoyotl and Nezahualpilli, and the Tlacopan ruler, Totoquihuaztli,
from the Mexican rulers is historically inaccurate because they maintained close
political ties with the Mexicas as members of the Triple Alliance.6 Furthermore,
235
 JONGSOO LEE

they also had almost the same religious and cultural traditions as their Mexican
allies.7 Nezahualcoyotl himself was established as the Texcocan ruler by his
uncle, the Mexican leader Itzcoatl (Anales de Tlatelolco [1528] 1948, 55), and
he eagerly introduced the Mexican political and religious system into his newly
recovered nation, which is confirmed by even Ixtlilxochitl ([1600–1625] 1997,
1⬊379).8 Moreover, the “anti-Mexican” philosophers and poets studied by
León-Portilla were rulers who were the most important factor in maintaining the
existing political, religious, and cultural order. According to the Florentine
Codex, the rulers determined and arranged how the war would be conducted;
they praised and rewarded brave warriors according to their merits; they
rehearsed the sacrifice of the captives for their gods, and consoled the families
whose members died in war; they appointed judges and monitored trials; and
they ordered dancing and singing ([1579] 1970, 8⬊51–58). The performance of
a song was controlled by the priest Epcoacuacuilli Tepictoton: “The Ep-
coacuacuilli Tepictoton saw to the songs. When anyone was to fashion a figure
[of a mountain] he told [the priest] so that he could assign, he could order the
singers. When they were going to sing at the home of someone who was to make
a figure, it was he who passed judgement [on the song]” (Sahagún [1559–1561]
1997, 89). I would argue that the songs whose writing and performance were
controlled by this ruling class reflect their world view by promoting the
dominant ideology.
As the major enemies of the Mexicas in central Mexico, the Huexotzincas and
Tlaxcaltecas might have maintained different political, social, and religious
traditions from that of the Mexicas, and they might have been peaceful and
non-violent. Thus, they might have condemned the Mexicas for their blood-
thirsty human sacrifice, as León-Portilla insists. This idea would seem convinc-
ing if we were to consider only the hostile relationship that these nations had
with Mexico-Tenochtitlan. This simple conclusion, however, totally ignores the
religious background and the world view that the Huexotzincas and the Tlaxcal-
tecas inherited from their immediate ancestors, the Toltecas of Tula and
Teotihuacan, and the broader context of the Mesoamerican tradition.
All the nations in central Mexico, including Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, Tlacopan,
and Chalco in the valley of Mexico and Huexotzinco, Cholula, and Tlaxcala in
the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley, inherited almost the same ethnic and religious
tradition. They were formed by emigrant ethnic groups, principally the
Chichimecas and the Mexicas from the north, and the Colhuaques who had been
living in the valleys of Mexico and Puebla-Tlaxcala. They developed a rich
ethnic blend of mixed cultures by conquering neighbors or assimilating them-
selves to neighboring groups. They spoke the same language, Nahuatl, and they
shared the same religious calendar cycles and ideas. They used the Tonalpohualli
(day count), which consists of 13 numbers and 20 day signs, to name days and
years. They also served the same or similar gods and celebrated the same
religious ceremonies. The main Mexican god, Huitzilopochtli, shares some
common features with the principal god of Huexotzincan Mixcoatl and Tlax-
calan Camaxtli. Both Huitzilopochtli and Camaxtli had the same calendar name,
1 Flint (Florentine Codex [1579] 1970, 2⬊38) and both gods played a militaris-
tic-tutelary role (Nicholson 1971, 426). Thus, as Nigel Davies points out,
236
 A REINTERPRETATION OF NAHUATL POETICS

“Camaxtli was little more than Huitzilopochtli under another name, and to have
forcibly replaced the latter deity by the former would have been an almost
meaningless gesture” (1987, 203). In addition, the Mexicas, Huexotzincas, and
Tlaxcaltecas shared other major gods such as Tezcatlipoca, Tlaloc, Quetzalcoatl,
Xochipilli, and many others. It is also important to note that they observed
religious ceremonies dedicated to these gods by following the same calendar
cycle. The most important part of these ceremonies, that of human sacrifice, was
popular and widely practiced in these nations.
To understand all the similarities among these Nahuatl speakers, it is necess-
ary to place them within the Mesoamerican cosmogony because all these gods
are involved in the creation of the world. According to the Mexican sources
Legend of the Suns (1992), Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas (1941),
and Histoire du Mechique (1979), there existed four Suns or ages before the
present Sun.9 The first Sun was Oceltonatiuh (Jaguar Sun); the people of this
Sun were eaten by jaguars and the Sun was destroyed. The second Sun,
Ehecatonatiuh (Wind Sun), was destroyed by wind and the people were turned
into monkeys. The third Sun, Quiauhtonatiuh (Rain Sun), was destroyed by a
fiery rain and the people were changed into turkeys. The fourth Sun, Atonatiuh
(Water Sun), terminated in a great deluge, and the people turned into fish. All
these Suns were presided over by the gods Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc,
and Chalchiuhtlicue. After the destruction of the fourth Sun, Tezcatlipoca and
Quetzalcoatl revived the universe, the fifth Sun, by creating earth, sun, moon,
and humankind. During the process of the creation of this Sun there occurred a
significant episode. The Sun ceased to move, asking the gods for “their blood,
their color, their precious substance” (Legend of the Suns 1992, 148). All the
gods got together and they nourished the Sun by sacrificing themselves. In this
way, the fifth Sun, Ollintonatiuh (Earthquake Sun), which is the present Sun, the
present era, was born. This self-sacrifice of the gods set an important precedent
in pre-Hispanic religion and ceremony because “the death of the gods was not
sufficient in itself to satisfy the insatiable craving of the sun and the earth for
blood and hearts. Man himself must bear the chief burden here, and to this end
war, for the primary purpose of obtaining victims for sacrifice, was instituted”
(Nicholson 1971, 402).10 The indigenous solar deities in central Mexico such as
Huitzilopochtli, Tezcatlipoca, and Mixcoatl or Camaxtli required human hearts
and blood as their nourishment for the existence of the universe. In this sense,
the Mexicas and the Texcocas, and their enemies, the Huexotzincas and
Tlaxcaltecas, were living under the same world view and practiced human
sacrifice in Tenochtitlan as well as Texcoco, Huexotzinco, and Tlaxcala. Again,
all these ideas and ceremonies were administered by the most important social
class, the priests and the rulers, who, according to León-Portilla, were the poets
or song composers of pre-Hispanic times.

Ephemerality in in xochitl in cuicatl

From the conquest to the present, Nezahualcoyotl’s notion of ephemerality has
been considered as one of the primary topics of Nahuatl poetry. Some songs
supposedly composed by him were published repeatedly even before the discov-
237
 JONGSOO LEE

ery of the Cantares at the end of the nineteenth century. These songs focus on
the transitory nature of life on earth. Brotherston (1972), for example, highlights
this ephemerality by comparing three versions of poems attributed to Nezahual-
coyotl that were published before the discovery of the Cantares. The first version
is the poem that was incorporated by Boban, Boturini, Pichardo, Bustamente,
and finally Méndez Plancarte. In this version, Nezahualcoyotl laments the
momentary greatness of the Azcapotzalcan emperor Tezozomoc, and advises the
audience of lords in the poem to remember this king’s life as an example of
ephemerality and to enjoy the present in the house of Spring. Brotherston finds
the second version of Nezahualcoyotl’s poetry in Ixtlilxochitl’s work Historia de
la nación Chichimeca. In this version, Nezahualcoyotl expresses to the audience
his anxiety about the transitory nature of life. The third version of Nezahualcoy-
otl’s poetry is found in Granados y Gálvez’s Tardes americanas. In this version,
Nezahualcoyotl appears as a first-person speaker without the audience in the
poem. He laments the shortness as well as the mutability of life by comparing
it with natural phenomena and by remembering his dead ancestors. By analyzing
and comparing these versions with the original poems attributed to Nezahualcoy-
otl in Cantares, Brotherston argues that all three versions were seriously
modified from their original Nahuatl versions or faked by the collector. The first
and the second versions show their Nahuatl origin in terms of having a common
general theme and traces of dialogue between the singers. These versions,
however, do not fit in the historical context to which Nezahualcoyotl belonged.
According to Ixtlilxochitl and other compilers, Nezahualcoyotl recited these
poems when he recovered his city, Texcoco, in the 1430s. In this context,
Brotherston insists that Nezahualcoyotl would not have lamented the ephemeral-
ity of the empire of the Azcapotzalcan king, Tezozomoc, who killed his father
and persecuted him for so many years. Furthermore, he would not have
anticipated the destruction of the city that he had just recovered. Rather, he
might have lamented the possible brevity of his political situation, the Triple
Alliance, and his newly reconstructed city, Texcoco. Brotherston also explains
that the third version of Granados y Gálvez shows a Nahuatl origin because of
its similar theme, but it is also filled with European metaphors and is inspired
by a post-conquest European perspective that views the world as filled with
burlas and engaño (1972, 404). Brotherston points out that these faked poems
of Nezahualcoyotl have been published repeatedly as if they were originals, even
after the discovery of the original Nahuatl poems.
Most Nahuatl poems attributed to Nezahualcoyotl have been identified and
published by Garibay and León-Portilla. Many of these poems exhibit the theme
of ephemerality. Some of them were repeatedly quoted as among the most
poignant examples of an indigenous core philosophy:
Yo, Nezahualcoyotl, lo pregunto:
¿Acaso de veras se vive con raı́z en la tierra?
No para siempre en la tierra:
sólo un poco aquı́.
Aunque sea de jade se quiebra,
aunque sea de oro se rompe,
aunque sea plumaje de quetzal se desgarra.

238
 A REINTERPRETATION OF NAHUATL POETICS

No para siempre en la tierra:

sólo un poco aquı́. (Cantares fol. 17r: León-Portilla 1972, 66–67)
Here, the poet first discerns the ephemerality of human life and then he expresses
his insight through beautiful images and metaphors. Just as the most precious
and durable things such as jade and gold are worn out, everything on earth
including the poet himself is fleeting and transitory. The next poem also shows
the ephemerality of earthly life:
Como una pintura
nos iremos borrando.
Como una flor,
nos iremos secando aquı́ sobre la tierra.
Como vestidura de plumaje de ave zacuán,
de la preciosa ave de cuello de hule,
nos iremos acabando
nos vamos a su casa.
(Romances fol. 36r: León-Portilla 1972, 70–71)
The poet seems to use more indigenous similes such as pictorial books and a bird
made with hule (rubber) to express the ephemerality of life. In addition, this
poem shows a more generalized idea of ephemerality because the insight of the
poet is not that of an individual “Yo”, but rather a collective “Nosotros”, and he
knows that he will go to the house of the gods after this ephemeral life. As an
interpreter of Nahuatl poems, León-Portilla seems to show persuasive
understanding of ephemerality in Nahuatl poems. He considers ephemerality to
be the most important concept in understanding Nahuatl poetics ([1961] 1996,
120–25). Even though the Nahuatl poets perceive ephemerality in everything on
earth, they consider their poems, in xochitl in cuicatl, as the only true or
everlasting thing. According to León-Portilla, for the Nahuatl poets in xochitl in
cuicatl is eternal because it originates from the Divine and “thus poetry as a
vehicle of metaphysical expression relying on metaphors, is an attempt to vitiate
the transitoriness of earthly things, the dream of tlaltı́cpac” (1963, 79).
León-Portilla’s interpretation of ephemerality seems very convincing, but his
reluctance to accept the Divine as the indigenous sun god blurs his interpretation.
As León-Portilla indicates, the Nahuatl poetry, in xochitl in cuicatl, originates
from the Divine. The first song of Cantares, “Cuicapeuhcayotl” (Beginning of
the songs), clearly demonstrates the origin, meaning, and function of songs. The
singer goes to look for good songs, that is, “good sweet flowers” (fol.1: 1.1). He
asks the quetzal hummingbirds and jade hummingbirds where he can find these
flowers. They take the singer into a land of flowers and there he sees “sundry
sweet and precious flowers, delicious precious flowers, clothed in dew, laden
with sunstruck mistbow” (fol.1: 1.4). Then the hummingbirds tell the singer to
take them to his lordly comrades and please them with the songs. Thus, the
flowers or the songs that the singer composes came from heaven, and are god’s
words. This song, “Cuicapeuhcayotl”, introduces the collection of Nahuatl
poetry in Cantares, and identifies the Divine with the sun through its
hummingbird messengers associated with Huitzilopochtli. These hummingbirds
guide and teach the poets what the poems mean, where they can find the poems,
239
 JONGSOO LEE

and what to do with them. León-Portilla does find the Divine origin of Nahuatl
poetry, but he does not relate it to the indigenous tradition. For him, in xochitl
in cuicatl is always a peaceful and non-violent act and hence it is impossible for
him to identify the Divine with the indigenous sun god. Rather, like Ixtlilxochitl,
he divorces Nezahualcoyotl’s poetry from its original historical context; he
interprets this Divine as something unknown, a different god that does not
require human sacrifice, but accepts only a peaceful act of in xochitl in cuicatl.
As León-Portilla correctly points out, ephemerality is one of the most notable
themes in the songs. He discusses some specific poets whose topic is very
similar to that of the songs attributed to Nezahualcoyotl such as Tecayehuatzin
and Ayocuan of Huexotzinco, Totoquihuaztli of Tlacopan, and Tochihuitzin of
Tenochtitlan ([1961] 1996, 120).11 León-Portilla presents all of these poets as
Tlamatinime (wise men) who view human life as brief and transitory, but he
argues that this attitude towards life contrasts sharply with the dominant
Mexican philosophy. This contrast, however, is not consistent with the historical
and political context in which each of these rulers lived. As explained before,
Totoquihuaztli maintained a close political relationship with the Mexicas
and conquered many neighboring cities as part of the Triple Alliance. According
to Diego Durán, this Tlacopan king even participated in human sacrifice with
the Mexican king ([1867–1880] 1984, 2⬊193). Thus, it is misleading to
separate him from the Mexicas in terms of his political and religious
perspective.12
In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that the Mexican noble Tochi-
huitzin maintained different philosophical beliefs than his fellow Mexicas.
León-Portilla’s interpretation of the poem attributed to Tochihuitzin may be
influenced by the fact that in the original documents it was incorporated into a
Huexotzincan piece.13 The Mexican Tochihuitzin, however, seems to have
subscribed to the practices and beliefs of the dominant religion, politics, and
culture of Tenochtitlan. Even according to the biographical information provided
by León-Portilla, Tochihuitzin made a contribution to the expansion of the
Mexican territory by participating in the conquests of neighboring cities as a son
of the great conqueror Itzcoatl, and a nephew and son-in-law of Tlacaelel (1992,
150–52). Thus, it is hard to distinguish Tochihuitzin from any other Mexican
leader, including Nezahualcoyotl, who was his cousin as well as a political ally
of his father, Itzcoatl.14 In this context, it is natural that the following song
attributed to Tochihuitzin by León-Portilla would demonstrate almost the same
concept of ephemerality presented in Nezahualcoyotl’s poems:
We only rise from sleep,
We come only to dream,
it is not true, it is not true,
that we come on earth to live.
As an herb in springtime,
so is our nature.
Our hearts give birth, make sprout,
the flowers of our flesh.
Some open their corollas,
then they become dry. (Cantares fol.14v: León-Portilla 1992, 153)

240
 A REINTERPRETATION OF NAHUATL POETICS

I would argue that the theme of ephemerality in Nahuatl poetry is not limited
to a particular area or to particular poets, but rather is popular and common in
all indigenous compositions regardless of their political affiliation in central
Mexico. One of the anonymous Huexotzincan songs expresses the same concept
of ephemerality and uses the same metaphors that appear in the poems attributed
to Nezahualcoyotl by Garibay and León-Portilla: “Create them, you princes, you
Huexotzincans! And though they’re jades, and though they’re gold, they’ll pass
away to the place where all are shorn, the Place Unknown. None will be left”
(Cantares fol.14: 18.37). Even the Mexican songs that are not attributed to
Tochihuitzin show their ephemeral sensibility toward earthly life. Their
metaphors are different from those of the previous songs, but they convey the
same concept:
In but a day we’re gone, in but a night we’re shorn on earth. And as for having
come to know each other, this we merely borrow here on earth. (Cantares fol.
26: 42.7)
Let them all be borrowed! Gold drums are roaring, pealing, in this mixcoacalli!
Not forever on earth can a man be a lord. Lordship, honor, and nobility are not
forever, O princes. Briefly, briefly do we live on earth. (Cantares fol. 24v:
39.2)

One of the Tepechpan songs that Garibay and León-Portilla attributed to

Cuacuauhtzin also sings of the ephemerality of life on earth. And here again, the
metaphors the poet uses are the same as those that appear in the poems inspired
by Nezahualcoyotl:
¿A dónde hemos de ir
que nunca muramos?
Aunque fuera yo jade,
aunque fuera yo oro,
seré fundido,
seré perforado,
en el crisol. (Romances fol. 26v: Garibay [1964] 1993, 1⬊69)

This same song is also collected in the other song text, Cantares, but is classified
as a Chalcan piece (fol. 49v: 62.25). Again, this phenomenon can be explained
not by some sectarian or partisan relationship between the Chalcas and the
Tepechpan ruler Cuacuauhtzin, but rather by the common and popular cultural
background that manifests itself in the shared notion of ephemerality expressed
through poetry among the nations in central Mexico.
The Nahuatl people knew that they would be destroyed, just as the previous
Suns had been destroyed. For them life on earth was uncertain, brief, and
transitory. The Nahuatl priests and rulers were certainly aware of the possible
termination of the fifth Sun. The Mexican ruler declared in his inauguration that
his position was just a borrowing from the god. According to the Florentine
Codex, a great nobleman or priest addressed the newly inaugurated king:
Be especially welcomed. Pay special attention. Perhaps it is our desert, our
merit, that we dream, that we see [only] in dreams that which our lord placeth
241
 JONGSOO LEE

upon thee, wisheth upon thee—fame, honor; that he leaveth not that which he
hath cherished; perhaps it is separated from thee; perhaps he seeketh a
replacement for thee … Perhaps just for a little while thou dreamest, thou
seekest in dream. Perhaps he just passeth his glory, his honor before thy face.
And perhaps he just causeth thee to smell—perhaps he just passeth before thy
lips—his freshness, his tenderness, his sweetness, his fragrance, his heat, his
warmth, which come from him, the wealth of him by whom we live. ([1579]
1970, 8⬊51–52)

The awareness of the ephemerality of earthly life is not found only in the songs
attributed to Nezahualcoyotl and those of the Huexotzincas and Chalcas, but also
in the songs of the Mexicas. Singing the brevity of life was a popular practice
among the nations in central Mexico, and it further supports the argument that
they shared a common cultural heritage.

War and Sacrifice in in xochitl in cuicatl

Not peace and beauty, but war and sacrifice are the major topics in Nahuatl
poetry. As stated before, war was an essential means for the indigenous rulers
in central Mexico to obtain captives. They could then nourish the gods with the
blood and hearts of the captives so that the universe could continue. The Nahuatl
songs reflect this world view in various ways. They praise war, battles,
conquests, and their conquerors. They admire Yaomiquiliztli (war death),
Xochimiquiliztli (flower death), and Itzmiquiliztli (obsidian-knife death), and they
commend the captives as precious xochitl (flowers). All these religious-militaris-
tic issues have been associated primarily with the Mexican imperialist tradition.
However, Nahuatl songs regardless of their regional origin clearly manifest all
these militaristic ideas.
The following stanza from Chalco perfectly reflects these religious-militaristic
features:
Look south and east! Rouse yourself where flood and blazes are spreading,
where sovereignty, empire, pure flowers, are won. A plume tassel is not
obtained without cause. With sword and shield, on the battlefields of earth, you
earn the pure flowers that you covet, that you want, my friends, that He enables
you to earn, that He bestows on you: He, the Ever Present, the Ever Near.
(Cantares fol. 4: 6.4)

The poet introduces the war not only as the most important political endeavor
that allows the expansion of territory, but also as a religious activity that enables
the natives to acquire captives to sacrifice to their god. Thus, the poet eagerly
encourages his friends to participate in war in order to gain captives, or pure
flowers, with the help of their god. However, catching captives requires not only
the help of god, but also their own efforts: “Vainly do you covet what you seek,
my friend: how can you win with the pure flowers if you do not give yourself
to war? With your shoulders and your sweat you earn the pure flowers: the
tearful war-wailing He enables you to earn: He the Ever present, the Ever near”
(Cantares fol. 4: 6.5). In addition, this stanza reveals a surprising concept of
captivity. If one wishes to catch a captive, he throws himself in the war, which
242
 A REINTERPRETATION OF NAHUATL POETICS

means that he may acquire a pure flower, but at the same time he may become
the pure flower of others. Thus, the battlefield is a joyful place for both captors
and captives. The next stanza from Huexotzinco also describes this idea: “Let
there be dancing! Let there be sacrifice in war. There’s happiness. Now one
desires to be created. O prince! Ah, whence are these nobles obtained?”
(Cantares fol. 8v: 15.15).
It is considered admirable work for the people of central Mexico to participate
in war and acquire captives, but the question of how to die is also a serious
matter for them. They have seemingly contradictory desires: they want to gain
war captives or they want to be war captives to be sacrificed for the gods. The
next stanza from Huexotzinco promotes yaoxochimiquiliztli (war-flower death)
and itzimiquiliztli (obsidian-knife death): “There, in battle, where war begins,
upon that field, lords are smoking, whirling, twisting due to flower war death,
you lords and princes! And they’re Chichimecs!/Let my heart be not afraid upon
that field. I crave knife death. Our hearts want war death” (Cantares fol. 9:
16.4–5). The songs from the nations of the Triple Alliance also extol sacrificial
death: “I grieve, I weep. What good is this? The shield flowers are carried away,
they’re sent aloft. Ah, where can I find what my heart desires?/Incomparable war
death! Incomparable flower death! Life Giver has blessed it. Ah, where can I find
what my heart desires?” (Cantares fol. 21: 31–35). Similar to many other songs,
those attributed to Nezahualcoyotl, one of the most important political figures of
the Aztec empire, also promote war and flower-death. The following song
attributed to Nezahualcoyotl reflects the image of this king as a great warrior:15
¡Esmeraldas, oro
tus flores, oh dios!
Sólo tu riqueza,
oh por quien se vive,
la muerte al filo de obsidiana,
la muerte en guerra.
Con muerte en guerra
os daréis a conocer.
Al borde de la guerra, cerca de la hoguera
os dais a conocer.
Polvo de escudo se tiende,
niebla de dardos se tiende.
¿Acaso en verdad
es lugar a darse a conocer
el sitio del misterio?
Sólo el renombre.
el señorı́o
muere en la guerra:
un poco se lleva hacia
el sitio de los descorporizados. (Romances fol. 36r–v: Garibay [1964] 1993,
88–89)
243
 JONGSOO LEE

This song synthesizes all the ideas of the Nahuatl people regarding war and
sacrifice. This poem begins with the flowers as the sacrificial victims of the gods
and praises their itzimiquiliztli (obsidian-knife death) and yaomiquilizli (war
death) for the gods. Only with these deaths are the victims able to know the gods
and to go to the land of the gods.
To better understand the exaltation of war and sacrificial death in Nahuatl
poetry regardless of the national boundaries, it would be necessary to examine
the promised war, that is, the xochiyaotl (flower war) or xochiyaoyotl (flower
war-ness) that was conducted among the nations in the valley of Mexico and in
the Puebla-Tlaxcalan valley. León-Portilla insists that conducting wars such as
the xochiyaotl (flower war) was introduced by Tlacaelel to provide captives for
Huitzilopochtli. Don Francisco de San Antón Muñón Chimalpahin
Quauhtlehuatzin records, however, that there occurred various flower wars
between the Chalcas and the Mexicas even far earlier than Tlacaelel’s era.16 In
the beginning, both sides released their captives after the war, but from 1415 on
they began to sacrifice the captives (Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuatzin 1965, 189).
This flower war does not apply only to the Mexicas or Chalcas. It seems to be
a very important and popular practice among the nations or cities in central
Mexico. Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuatzin records that even the cities within the
Chalcan area practiced the flower war. According to him, one of the Chalcan
ethnic groups, the Tlacochcalcas, conducted such wars against the other Chalcan
group, the Acxotecas, in 1324 “por la sola voluntad” (1965, 177). The flower
war between the Triple Alliance (Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan) and
other nations—primarily, Huexotzinco, Tlaxcala, and Cholula—was conducted
by mutual agreement of these nations for their mutual benefit. They designated
the time and place for the war, and each side needed to take captives for
sacrifices to their respective gods—Hutzilopochtli, for instance, for the Triple
Alliance, and Camaxtli for the Tlaxcaltecas.17 The most precious captives for the
Aztecas, Huexotzincas, Tlaxcaltecas, and Cholultecas were those obtained from
this war. By mutual consent this flower war seems to have turned into real war
by the end of the fifteenth century (Isaac 1983, 427), but the religious purpose
still continued despite the intensified hostility among these nations.
The Mexican chronicler Tezozomoc records that the Mexican ruler Ahuitzotl
invited the enemy nobles of Huexotzinco, Cholula, and Tlaxcala to his
inauguration ceremony. The nobles of Huexotzinco and Cholula gladly came to
watch it, and they enjoyed dancing with the Mexican nobles (1975, 476–78).
Tezozomoc also records that Moctezuma II sent his messengers to neighboring
enemy nations in order to invite them to a religious ceremony in Tenochtitlan.
The messengers were told to invite neighboring nobles in the following way:

Dijeron los mexicanos: señor nuestro, nuestra embajada es, que el rey nuevo
de México, y todos los demás principales, os envı́an muchos saludos, y os
ruegan, que para que vean la manera de que se hace la coronación, fiesta,
alegrı́as y sacrificios á los dioses, se vayan á holgar algunos dı́as, dejando
aparte enemistades y guerras civiles entre nosotros, como es el Xuchiyaoyotl,
que eso es con esfuerzo y valiente de los unos y los otros, salvo estas fiestas
y convite. (Ibid., 591)

244
 A REINTERPRETATION OF NAHUATL POETICS

All the invited enemy nobles came to Tenochtitlan and had a good time by doing
“el areito y mitote con mucha vocerı́a” (ibid., 592). On the other hand, Tlaxcalan
chronicler Diego Muñóz de Camargo records enmity and flower wars between
the Mexicas and the Tlaxcaltecas, and at the same time he describes a connection
between the Mexican and Tlaxcalan nobles:
Sin embargo de esto [flower war], los señores mexicanos y tezcucanos, en
tiempos que ponı́an treguas por algunas temporadas, enviaban a los señores de
Tlaxcalla grandes presentes y dádivas de oro, ropa, cacao, sal y de todas las
cosas de que carecı́an, sin que la gente plebeya lo entendiese, y se saludaban
secretamente, guardándose el decoro que se debı́an. Mas con todos estos
trabajos, la orden de su República jamás se dejaba de gobernar con la rectitud
de sus costumbres, guardando inviolablemente el culto de sus dioses. (1986,
140)

The participation of the Tlaxcaltecan, Huexotzincan, and Cholultecan nobles

in the ceremonies of Tenochtitlan also means that they witnessed the Mexican
priests sacrifice their people—the Tlaxcaltecas, the Huexotzincas, and the
Cholultecas. These Mexican enemies willingly came to see their own people die
at their enemy’s hand. This seems to be totally illogical from a Western
perspective, but it would be completely natural to the Nahuatl people. It was an
honor because the enemies as well as the hosts blessed the captives for their
sacrifice to the gods. Here, it is necessary to remember that the Nahuatl poets
belonged to the noble class, which in many ways transcended political
boundaries. Thus, as the product of the noble class, Nahuatl poetry promotes
sacrificial death and reflects the ideology of sacrifice ascribed to the Mexicas and
their enemies.

Conclusion
The in xochitl in cuicatl was an artistic activity neither distanced from nor
contradicted by the dominant political and religious system in central Mexico.
Neither can the producers of this poetry be distinguished among themselves in
terms of their religious and philosophical perspective. Rather, Nahuatl poetry
was created and enjoyed by the elite social groups who inherited the religious
and cultural traditions of Nahuatl society. In fact, these groups that belonged to
the highest social class of rulers, captains, and priests used Nahuatl poems as a
means of reproducing the existing social order through the educational system.
The Aztec noble youth in Tenochtitlan learned Nahuatl songs from tlamatinime,
who according to León-Portilla were sages and poets, at the Calmecac, where at
the same time they learned the martial skills necessary to become warriors. The
Nahuatl noble class also used to consolidate their own ideology facilitated by a
brotherhood of close friendships established among themselves. In many cases
in Cantares and Romances, Nahuatl nobles got together to compose songs or to
listen to the songs with music. León-Portilla describes in detail, for example, the
famous meeting of several poets at the palace of Tecayehuatzin in Huexotzinco.
The poets praise the songs, since they are god’s words, discuss the ephemerality
of human life, honor the heroic exploits of jaguar and eagle soldiers, and finally
245
 JONGSOO LEE

commend their friendship (León-Portilla [1961] 1996, 128–39). According to

León-Portilla, Temilotzin, the defender of Tenochtitlan during the siege of
Tenochtitlan, also promotes the same kind of brotherhood by claiming that
he was sent by god to console his friends with his flowers, songs (1992,
186–95). Whether or not Nezahualcoyotl was really a poet, he was not excep-
tional in Nahuatl poetry but rather shared the same world view with his
contemporaries.
The Texcocan chroniclers Pomar and Ixtlilxochitl represented Nezahualcoyotl
as a peaceful poet in order to show that their Texcocan tradition was different
from that of the “bloodthirsty” Mexicas and similar to that of the European
invaders. Later historians and literary critics have not challenged their argument
but rather have taken advantage of it. In the nineteenth century, Prescott
interpreted Nezahualcoyotl’s ephemerality as an anticipation of the destruction
of the “barbarous” Mexican world so that he could justify the European conquest
of the Mexican Tenochtitlan. Garibay and León-Portilla in the twentieth century
polished and elaborated the image of Nezahualcoyotl as a peaceful poet in order
to highlight highly civilized and peace-loving Nahuatl culture as opposed to
barbarous and warlike Mexican culture. The attempt to distinguish between
songs composed by Nezahualcoyotl and those of other poets based on differing
world views is not possible either because Nezahualcoyotl supported and
participated in the same religious and political institutions as those of the other
poets: Mexican, Huexotzincan, Chalcan, Tlaxcalan, and others. Contrary to
much contemporary scholarship, the songs attributed to Nezahualcoyotl confirm
that he was a conqueror and warrior who shared the same cultural tradition as
other Mexican and indigenous leaders recalled in so many other Nahuatl songs.

Notes
1
Ixtlilxochitl wrote five works that have been collected under the title Obras completas.
Edmundo O’Gorman establishes a hypothetical chronology regarding the date of each of these
works. He argues that the four works were written between 1600 and 1625, but he is unable
to determine the date of Ixtlilxochitl’s last work ([1600–1625] 1997, 229–33). I use 1600–1625
for the original date of his Obras completas.
2
Ixtlilxochitl explains that Pomar’s chronicle was one of his sources ([1600–1625] 1997, 2⬊137).
3
John Bierhorst, however, has seriously challenged the individual authorship of Nahuatl songs,
focusing on their origin, performance, and structure. According to him, there were no sources
before the existing song texts that mentioned individual singers or composers. Bierhorst (1985)
also insists that many songs of the Cantares were reproduced perfectly or partially in the other
songs of the same collection or in Romances. This phenomenon demonstrates that many songs
were composed in the mid-1500s by incorporating into them existing song phrases. In addition,
Bierhorst explains that the songs were performed by singers, not by a single singer in a typical
situation. Thus, if the singer says, “I am Nezahualcoyotl,” he speaks with the voice of
Nezahualcoyotl, either recognizing Nezahualcoyotl’s spirit as his muse or merely filling in a
needed portion of the dramatic monologue (1985, 101). Therefore, according to Bierhorst,
identifying the performer/singer with the role he played is one of the “most destructive
misconceptions about Aztec poetry” (ibid., 101). Bierhorst blames Ixtlilxochitl and his readers
such as Torquemada for representing Nezahualcoyotl as the poet-king.
4
Nezahualcoyotl has been viewed as a religious king who rejected human sacrifice by intuiting
an unknown god, Tloque Nahuaque. I would argue that this image of Nezahualcoyotl is a clear
invention of post-conquest colonial chroniclers such as Pomar, Ixtlilxochitl, and Torquemada.

246
 A REINTERPRETATION OF NAHUATL POETICS

These writers, who were either mestizos with a monastery education or Spanish friars, interpret
Nezahualcoyotl’s intuition of this god and his peaceful religious practice as an anticipation of
the arrival of Christianity.
5
See León-Portilla (1972, 17–20).
6
Around the time Nezahualcoyotl was inaugurated as the ruler of Texcoco in the early 1430s,
his Texcoco, Itzcoatl’s Tenochtitlan, and Totoquihuaztli’s Tlacopan reached an agreement to
establish the Triple Alliance. During his reign, Nezahualcoyotl participated in many military
expeditions with the Mexican kings Itzcoatl, Huehue Moctezuma, and Axayacatl and the
Tlacopan king, Totoquihuaztli. Through the alliance with the Mexicas, Nezahualcoyotl was able
not only to expand Texcocan territory much further than the area his ancestors had ruled, but
also to quickly make his nation second only to Tenochtitlan in central Mexico in the fourteenth
century.
7
I will deal in detail with the religious similarities between Texcoco and Tenochtitlan elsewhere.
8
Ixtlilxochitl records that Nezahualcoyotl asked the Mexicas to send him government officials
and priests: “Nezahualcoyotzin mandó a ciertos mensajeros que fuesen a México, que trujesen
algunos oficiales de todos los oficios para Tezcuco, los cuales, sabiendo la voluntad de
Nezahualcoyotzin, fueron muchos, y les dieron tierras en que viviesen, y luego mandó que se
hiciese una casa grande para sus ı́dolos y hiciesen, lo cual luego se puso por obra, y se hizo
un cu y una casa mayor que ninguna de cuantas hasta entonces se habı́an hecho” ([1600–1625]
1997, 1⬊379). This portion of Ixtlilxochitl’s account seems to contradict his argument about
Nezahualcoyotl as an anti-Mexican philosopher. This inconsistency may owe to Ixtlilxochitl’s
attempt to bring indigenous history into line with a Christian ideology.
9
These texts are major sources for the cosmogony of pre-Hispanic times. Nicholson well
summarized all three (1971, 397–403). See also Myths of Ancient Mexico (1997) by Graulich,
which explains in detail the concept of the Suns in ancient Mexico.
10
Although all of the sources mentioned here are from Tenochtitlan, the legend is not exclusively
of the Mexicas but is shared by all the people of Mesoamerica. Brotherston shows that the story
of the four Suns described in Mexican sources such as the Legend of the Suns and the Sun Stone
is a schematic summary of the Popol Vuh (1992, 238–45).
11
León-Portilla finds the origin of Tochihuitzin in Tlatelolco in Los antiguos mexicanos ([1961]
1996), but later he changed it to Tenochtitlan (1994, 167–69).
12
León-Portilla does not present any song attributed to Totoquihuaztli that shows ephemerality.
13
According to León-Portilla, Tochihuitzin’s full name is Tochihuitzin Coyolchiuhqui (1994,
167).
14
Nezahualcoyotl’s mother was Matlalcihuatzin, a daughter of the second Mexican king
Hutzilihuitl and sister of the second and fourth rulers, Chimalpopoca and Itzcoatl. This
close genealogical relationship made it possible to explain Nezahualcoyotl’s alliance to the
Mexicas.
15
Garibay and Martı́nez attribute this song to Nezahualcoyotl in the introductions to Poesı́a
nahuatl (1964] 1993, 1⬊88–99) and Nezahualcoyotl, vida y obra (1972, 212), respectively.
16
This flower war seems to have been a Mesoamerican tradition. According to Nigel Davies, “it
could even be derived from Teotihuacan times, and the figures in certain murals, richly
caparisoned and yet armed with darts or arrows, are rather suggestive of such forms of warfare.
Ritual or semi-ritual encounters are a common feature among tribal peoples throughout the
Americas; the Mexicas may have differed only in seeking to preserve the practice at a stage in
their development when they no longer ruled a village but an empire” (1987, 237).
17
According to Ixtlilxochitl, it was Nezahualcoyotl who introduced the flower war between the
Triple Alliance, Huexotzinco, and Tlaxcala so that each nation could regularly acquire captives
to sacrifice to its gods. Ixtlilxochitl argues that the real reason Nezahualcoyotl introduced this
war was to reduce human sacrifice by confining the sacrificial people to war captives only
([1600–1625] 1997, 2⬊111–13). His argument, however, is not convincing, since war captives
were the majority of the people who were sacrificed, and Nahuatl nations believed that the most
precious captives were those who were obtained in the flower war. Thus, if Nezahualcoyotl
really proposed this kind of war, then this action confirms, contrary to Ixtlilxochitl’s argument,
that the king must have been a very religious person who supported the most important
ceremony of the Nahuatl religion.

247
 JONGSOO LEE

Bibliography
Anales de Tlatelolco. [1528] 1948. Mexico: Antigua Librerı́a Robredo.
Annals of Cuauhtitlan. 1992. In History and mythology of the Aztecs: the Codex Chimalpopoca,
trans. John Bierhorst, 17–138. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Benavente, Toribio de. 1971. Memoriales o Libro de las cosas de la Nueva España y de los
naturales de ella. Mexico: UNAM.
Bierhorst, John. 1985. General introduction and commentary to Cantares mexicanos. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Brinton, Daniel G. 1969. Ancient Nahuatl poetry. New York: AMS.
Brotherston, Gordon. 1972. Nezahualcoyotl’s “Lamentaciones” and their Nahuatl origins: the
westernization of ephemerality. Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl 10⬊393–408.
———. 1973. An Indian farewell in Prescott’s The conquest of Mexico. American Literature 45
(3): 348–56.
———. 1992. Book of the Fourth World. Reading the native Americas through their literature.
London: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1995. Painted books from Mexico. London: British Museum.
Cantares Mexicanos: songs of the Aztecs. [1628] 1985. Trans. John Bierhorst. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Cardenal, Ernesto. 1972. Homenaje a los indios americanos. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Carlos
Lohlé.
———. 1992. Los ovnis de oro. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Castillo Farreras, Vı́ctor. 1972. Nezahualcoyotl: Crónica y pinturas de su tiempo. Texcoco:
Gobierno del Estado de Mexico.
Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuaitzin, Domingo Francisco de San Antón Muñon. 1965. Relaciones
originales de Chalco Amaquemecan, trans. S. Rendón. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura.
———. 1991 Memorial breve. Mexico: UNAM.
Clavijero, Francisco Javier. 1958. Historia antigua de Mexico, ed. Mariano Cuevas. 4 vols.
Mexico: Porrúa.
Dakin, Karen. 1986. A Nahuatl–English dictionary and concordance to the Cantares Mexicanos:
with an analytic transcription and grammatical notes. Linguistic Anthropology 88⬊1015–16.
Davies, Nigel. 1973. The Aztecs: a history. London: Macmillan.
———. 1980. The Toltecs heritage: from the fall of Tula to the rise of Tenochtitlan. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
———. 1987. The Aztec empire: the Toltec resurgence. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Durán, Diego. [1570–1579] 1967. Historia de las indias de Nueva España e Islas de la Tierra
Firme, ed. Angel M. Garibay. 2 vols. Mexico: Porrúa.
Florentine Codex. [1579] 1970. Trans. Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles Dibble. 12 vols. Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Garibay, Angel Marı́a. 1961. Llave del nahuatl: colección de trozos clásicos con gramática y
vocabulario para utilidad de los principiantes. Mexico: Porrúa.
———. [1953–1954] 1992. Historia de la literatura nahuatl. Mexico: Porrúa.
———. [1964] 1993. Poesı́a nahuatl, 2nd edn. 3 vols. Mexico: UNAM.
Gillmor, Frances. [1949] 1983. Flute of the smoking mirror, a portrait of Nezahualcoyotl,
poet-king of the Aztecs. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Glass, John B. 1975. A survey of native Middle American pictorial manuscripts. In Handbook of
Middle American Indians, ed. H. F. Cline, 14⬊3–80. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Graulich, Michel. 1997. Myths of ancient Mexico, trans. Bernard R. Ortiz de Montellano and
Thelma Ortiza de Montellano. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Hicks, Frederic. 1979. Flowery war in Aztec history. American Ethnologist 6⬊87–92.
Histoire du Mechique. 1979. In Teogonı́a e historia de los mexicanos, trans. Angel Marı́a Garibay,
91–120. Mexico: Porrúa.
Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas. 1941. In Nueva colección de documentos para la
Historia de México, ed. Joaquı́n Garcı́a Icazbalceta. 3⬊209–40. Mexico: Editorial Chavez
Hayhoe.

248
 A REINTERPRETATION OF NAHUATL POETICS

Isaac, Barry L. 1983. The Aztec “flowery war”: a geopolitical explanation. Journal of Anthropo-
logical Research 39⬊415–32.
Ixtlilxochitl, Fernando de Alva. [1600–1625] 1997. Obras históricas, ed. Edmundo O’Gorman. 2
vols. Mexico: UNAM.
Karttunen, Frances, and James Lockhart. 1980. La estructura de la poesı́a nahuatl vista por sus
variantes. Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl 14⬊15–64.
Leander, Birgitta. 1976. In xochitl in cuicatl. Flor y canto: la poesı́a de los aztecas. Mexico:
Instituto de investigaciones
Legend of the suns. 1992. In History and mythology of the Aztecs: the Codex Chimalpopoca, trans.
John Bierhorst, 139–62. Tucson: University of Arizona.
León-Portilla, Miguel. 1963. Aztec thought and culture, trans. Jack Emory Davis. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
———. 1967. Trece poets del mundo nahuatl. Mexico: UNAM.
———. 1971. Philosophy in ancient Mexico. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, eds.
Gordon F. Ekholm and Ignacio Bernal, 10⬊447–51. Austin: University of Texas Press.
———. 1972. Nezahualcoyotl: poesı́a y pensamiento. Texcoco: Gobierno del Estado de Mexico.
———. 1992. Fifteen poets of the Aztec world. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
———. 1994. Quince poetas del mundo nahuatl. Mexico: Diana.
———. [1961] 1996. Los antiguos mexicanos a través de sus crónicas y cantares, 12th edn.
Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
List Arzubide, German. 1975. Tlatoani: vida del gran señor Nezahualcoyotl. Mexico: Porrúa.
Lockhart, James. 1991. Care, ingenuity and irresponsibility: the Bierhorst edition of the Cantares
Mexicanos. Anthropology 16 (1–4): 119–32.
———. 1992. The Nahuas after the conquest. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Martı́nez, José Luis. 1972. Nezahualcoyotl. Textos coleccionados con un estudio preliminar.
Mexico: Secretaria de Educación Pública.
Mascaro y Sosa, Pedro.1972. El emperador Nezahualcoyotl: considerado como poeta elegiaco.
Mexico: Gobierno del Estado de Mexico.
Méndez Plancarte, Alfonso. 1964. Poetas novohispanos: Primer siglo (1521–1621). Mexico:
UNAM.
Muñóz de Camargo, Diego. 1986. Historia de Tlaxcala. Madrid: Historia 16.
Nicholson, Henry B. 1971. Religion in pre-Hispanic central Mexico. In Handbook of Middle
American Indians, eds. Gordon F. Ekholm and Ignacio Bernal, 10⬊395–446. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Pomar, Juan Bautista de. [1582] 1993. Relación geográfica de Texcoco. In Poesı́a nahuatl, ed.
Angel Marı́a Garibay, 1⬊149–219. Mexico: UNAM.
Reyes Garcı́a, Luis. 1993. Cantares Mexicanos: approaching the Nahuatl text. Indiana Journal of
Hispanic Literatures 1 (2): 89–100.
Romances de los señores de la Nueva España. [1582] 1993. In Poesı́a nahuatl, ed. and trans.
Angel Marı́a Garibay, 1⬊1–101. Mexico: UNAM.
Sahagún, Bernardino. [1565–1568] 1990. Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España, ed. Juan
Carlos Temprano. Madrid: Historia 16.
———. [1559–1561] 1997. Primeros memoriales, trans. Thelma D. Sullivan. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press.
Tezozomoc, Fernando Alvarado. 1975. Crónica mexicana/Códice Ramı́rez, ed. Manuel Orozco y
Berra. Mexico: Porrúa.
Torquemada, Juan de. 1975. Monarquı́a indiana, ed. Miguel León-Portilla. 3 vols. Mexico: Porrúa.
Vigil, José Marı́a. 1957. Nezahualcoyotl, el rey poeta. Mexico: Ediciones de Andrea.

249