A note on the position and extent of the great temple enclosure of Tenochtitlan, and the position, structure and orientation of the Teocolli of Huitzilopochtli. — Story, Setting & Ideas

Source Evaluation as a Foundation

Maudslay does not present a unified narrative but instead lets the sources speak, then judges their value. He identifies the Anonymous Conqueror as an eyewitness to the Conquest, yet cautions that the text survives only in translation. Motolinia, he notes, was a Franciscan who defended Indians and lived in Mexico City from 1525, making him familiar with remaining structures. Sahagun is singled out as the most dedicated scholar of Mexican culture, writing in Spanish, Nahua, and Latin. By foregrounding these credentials, Maudslay invites readers to weigh each account's credibility before considering the temple's details.

The Teocalli's Dual Structure

The excerpts describe the principal tower as divided at the top, appearing as two, with separate chapels for Huitzilopochtli and Tlaloc. Each chapel had its own dome and badges. Before each stood a round stone like a chopping-block, suggesting sacrificial use. Maudslay's compilation of such details from Sahagun and others allows a reconstruction of the temple's form: a single base with twin sanctuaries, a feature that distinguishes it from simpler pyramids. The text also notes that the court was nearly two hundred fathoms square, paved, and filled with many buildings and towers dedicated to various gods.

Ritual Procession and the Teocalli's Orientation

Sahagun's account of the festival Panquetzaliztli traces a procession from the temple to Tlaltelulco, then to Popotla near Tacuba, and back. The route passes the Tlachtli (ball court) inside the temple courtyard, where slaves were killed. A banner like a fly-whisk, full of holes with feather bunches, was carried ahead, compared to a cross in a Christian procession. These details hint at the temple's orientation and its relationship to surrounding landmarks, though Maudslay does not fully resolve the layout. The procession's path suggests the teocalli faced west or was approached from the east, but the excerpts leave the exact orientation open to inference.

Comparative Value of the Extracts

Maudslay prints the extracts at the end of his note, so the reader encounters them after his commentary. He provides biographical sketches to help assess each source's reliability: the Anonymous Conqueror's identity is unknown but he was a companion of Cortés; Motolinia arrived in 1524 and lived among Indians; Sahagun spent decades studying Nahua culture. This structure encourages a critical reading: one must weigh the Anonymous Conqueror's firsthand but filtered account against Sahagun's systematic but later compilation. Maudslay does not dictate conclusions but equips the reader to judge.

Maudslay's note is best read as a sourcebook with commentary. The extracts are the primary evidence; his role is to frame them. Readers should pay attention to the dates of each source and the author's proximity to the events described. The note does not offer a definitive reconstruction but rather a careful weighing of conflicting or complementary accounts. For those interested in Aztec architecture or colonial historiography, this work demonstrates how early modern scholars grappled with fragmentary and translated records.

There’s something tender about Maudslay’s careful sifting of old accounts, trying to reconstruct a lost city from fragments. It reminds me of flipping through A Sketch-Book of R. Caldecott's — A Reader’s Guide—not for answers, just for the gentle ache of seeing a world half-remembered.