One of the problems scholars face in the reconstruction of the Quetzalcoatl material is that the material itself appears to relate to multiple aspects revolving around the same or similar names. At times Quetzalcoatl is referred to as Ehecatl (wind), at times as Topiltzin (our Lord), and at times with combinations of names, such as Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl. "Some accounts of Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl place him in the realm of the gods, some at the boundary of that realm and the realm of mortals, and some withing totally mundane contexts, treating him as an ordinary man" (Gillespie 1989: 136). How does one deal with these multiple presences? H.B. Nicholson attempted to segregate the aspects of Quetzalcoatl by polarizing the mythology around two aspects. Nicholson termed Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl the aspect of the deity which is purely mythical, and Topiltzin-Quetzalcoatl those elements which appear to revolve around an historical person (Nicholson, H.B. 1957).

Rather than Nicholson's dual aspects of Quetzalcoatl, I suggest that Gillespie has more accurately defined the contexts in which we find Quetzalcoatl, and that there are three important divisions in the mythical-legendary data rather than two. I suggest that the texts themselves reflect this triune nature of the Quetzalcoatl mythology, and that the key to understanding the particular aspect begin discussed lies in the ascription of the father of Quetzalcoatl in the text.

No less than four figures are credited with being the father of Quetzalcoatl: Tonacatecuhtli, Mixcoatl, Camaxtli, and Totepeuh.⁽¹⁾ Why such variation in the names of Quetzalcoatl's father? While it is possible that the variation is simply related to predictable variability in oral traditions, the contexts in which these names occur suggest that there is a much more important and fundamental reason for the multiple fathers of Quetzalcoatl. These names provide clues to the realm in which conceptual aspects Quetzalcoatl is to be interpreted. They are the key to resolving Gillespie's dilemma of contexts.

While there are four names, the figures they represent may be reduced to three as Mixcoatl and Camaxtli are two names which appear to be applicable to the same figure. Not only are their stories identical, but Munoz Camargo equates them in his version of the tale by using the hyphenated form Mixcoatl-Camaxtli (Munoz Camargo 1966, p. 40). Among the three remaining names, Tonacatecuhtli is the most easily segregated.

Tonacatecuhtli is only given as the father of Quetzalcoatl when the context clearly indicates Nicholson's Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl, the wind god. Just like Nicholson's purely mythical god, Tonacatecuhtli is exclusively an 'other-worldly' god who resides in the thirteenth heaven and remains there forever (Historia de Mexico 1973, p. 23). The activities of Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl are uniquely celestial. He precedes and participates in the creation of the world. He governs the rain-bringing winds. While his image may be worshiped on earth he himself is never a terrestrial being. Both Tonacatecuhtli and Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl are exclusively celestial deities. When the mythology places the name of Quetzalcoatl in the context of being a "child" of Tonacatecuhtli, the texts are indicating that the aspects of Quetzalcoatl in question are those which are exclusively other-world.

In sharp contrast to the patently celestial associates of the Tonacatecuhtli/Ehecatl birth is the uniquely terrestrial nature of Quetzalcoatl's birth of Mixcoatl-Camaxtli or Totepeuh. The legends associated with these two figures lack the specific creator/wind god traits characteristic of Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl. In the tales associated with either of these two 'fathers' the terrestrial context always revolves around the legendary/historical site of Tula.

Wigberto Jimenez Moreno has suggested that Totepeuh and Mixcoatl-Camaxtli are also interchangeable names for the same figure (Jimenez Moreno 1954-55, 14:222). He based his opinion on the seemingly identical positions as the father of the terrestrial Quetzalcoatl. Unlike the close parallels between Mixcoatl and Camaxtli which support their single identity, the contexts in which Totepeuh appears require his treatment as a separate entity.

The genealogy of Mixcoatl-Camaxtli has variants like that of Quetzalcoatl. In the version found in the "Leyenda de los soles" Mixcoatl-Camaxtli is the son of the extra-worldly Iztacchalciuhtliicue (Leyenda 1945, p. 122). The "Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas" indicates that none other than Tezcatlipoca changed himself into Mixcoatl who then became the father of Topiltzin-Quetzalcoatl (Historia 1973, p. 32-33). There are insufficient corroborating data to make a reconstruction of the more likely parentage of Mixcoatl, but it can be deduced that It is the supernatural character of Mixcoatl-Camaxtli which is most significant. Mixcoatl is a deity of the heavens who has come down to the earth (Historia 1973, p. 23) and as such his feats are decidedly super-human. His relations with Chimalman (the mother of Quetzalcoatl in these legends) as well as Quetzalcoatl's birth are filled with mythic circumstances.

Chimalman miraculously thwarts Mixcoatl's attempts to kill her. Only after he finds that he is unable to kill her does he lie with her. The tale reports that Chimalman was 'greatly troubled' and gave birth to Quetzalcoatl after only four days (Leyenda 1945, p. 124). A similar miraculous gestation occurs in Mendieta's version of the creation of man where the gods bleed themselves on the bones of former races and a male and female child are born after four days. (Mendieta 1945, 1:84). The four day gestation clearly uses the sacred number four to impart to these two births a sacred and mystical (and extra-worldly) character. With such spectacular parentage and birth, Quetzalcoatl can be nothing but superhuman also. In all sources which give Mixcoatl or Camaxtli as his father, Quetzalcoatl is a culture hero connected with greater-than-real actions and circumstances. This is the child of the fantastic Tula of colored cotton. This is the Quetzalcoatl whose handprints in rock are visible throughout the years. This is the Quetzalcoatl who is apotheosized into the Morning Star in one version of the myth.

The child of Totepeuh has no such spectacular qualifications. In the context of this father Quetzalcoatl is a human who sat on the throne of Tula. He is in every way the man for whom Nicholson searched and labeled Topiltzin-Quetzalcoatl, though Nicholson's description also encompassed the son of Mixcoatl-Camaxtli. Unlike the extra-worldly genealogies of Mixcoatl and Camaxtli, however, Totepeuh is strictly an earthly being. He is exclusively mentioned in texts where the chief concern is history, and always in connection with the throne of Tula. He occupies that position even when he is not given as the father of Quetzalcoatl (Ixtlilxochitl, Obras historicas. 1952 1:70).

The conceptual difference between the nature of Totepeuh and his son and that of Mixcoatl-Camaxtli and the extra-human Quetzalcoatl is best illustrated in the writings of Juan de Torquemada. For Torquemada the supernatural figure of the tales is always Quetzalcoatl, and his father is always Mixcoatl-Camaxtli. When Torquemada discusses the kings of Tula, he includes Totepeuh. The name of Totepeuh's son in this section is not Quetzalcoatl, but rather "Topilis" (Torquemada. 1943, 1:254). While Topiltzin is definitely a name associated with Quetzalcoatl, and is even interchangeable in other sources, there is no internal evidence in Torquemada for the association. If Torquemada were our only source, the two would remain forever separate. Even though Torquemada is writing comparatively late, and is not known for his personal perception of the native mythology, he is nevertheless reproducing a pattern which can be seen underlying several texts.

The mythological material extant for Quetzalcoatl is perhaps the largest of any Mesoamerican deity. It is complex and convoluted, and has led to any number of speculations about the essential character of Quetzalcoatl, from demon to mythical deity to European foreigner. The volume of reconstructable variations indicates that the material was complex even before the Conquest. It is not reasonable, however, to assume that the natives were completely confused. Some mythical overlap is quite natural, but there is sufficient evidence in the texts to suppose that the natives were able to comprehend which of the triune aspects was being discussed. While Nicholson name his dual aspects Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl and Topiltzin-Quetzalcoatl, I will add a third, Ce Acatl-Quetzalcoatl as a name for the demi-god on earth.

In this reconstructed system, if the teller of the tale has Quetzalcoatl born of Tonacatecuhtli, the hearer may be certain that the tale refers to the celestial affairs of the extra-worldly gods. Both of these deities operate in the heavens, and do not walk on the earth. The hearer knows to place the context of the tale into the celestial realm. These are the great events, and effect earth life only in the most remote of senses. Whenever Tonacatecuhtli is invoked, Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl is the intended aspect.

The selection of Totepeuh as the father of Quetzalcoatl tells the hearer that the information is to be taken as history, devoid of legendary affiliations. It is very likely that Totepeuh was indeed an historical figure, for the Annals of the Cakchiquels indicates that the Cakchiquel heroes traveled a great distance for an audience with the lord "Tepeuh" (Annals of the Cakchiquels. 1969, p. 119). Whenever Totepeuh is indicated as the father, Topiltzin-Quetzalcoatl is the son. This is a genealogy, and as close as Nahua historians came to straight history.

Mixcoatl-Camaxtli signals an intermediate step between the gods and man. In these tales the gods have come to earth. Mixcoatl-Camaxtli is one of several gods who change their locus but not their essence. In this manner the celestial Tezcatlipoca appears on earth, either as Mixcoatl and thus Quetzalcoatl's father, or as Quetzalcoatl's adversary in the legendary tale of the fall of Tula. The celestial genealogy of Camaxtli is no less illustrious. In the Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas Camaxtli is one of the four sons of Tonacatecuhtli, and thus brother to both Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl (Historia 1973 p. 23). In the context of Mixcoatl or Camaxtli, the aspect is Ce Acatl-Quetzalcoatl, a demi-god on earth. In this context we expect the miraculous aspects of the Tula cycle.

This celestial relationship between Camaxtli, Tezcatlipoca, and Quetzalcoatl helps explain the curious passages in both Torquemada and las Casas which indicate that Quetzalcoatl and Camaxtli were the same god (Torquemada 1943, 2:288 and Las Casas, 1969, 1:196). While it could simply be an error, there may be a more important cultural context in which the information is essentially correct (though perhaps misstated).

The correlation seems to be based on a ceremony in which the idols exchange clothing and thus indicate their interchangeableness. Torquemada states that they are the same god, yet still records that Camaxtli is the father of Quetzalcoatl. Given the nature of Camaxtli and Quetzalcoatl as celestial deities who also live on the earth in a somewhat altered form, the problem simply becomes one of contexts. When the context is that of the earthly affairs, the two are parent and child. Once the context shifts to the other-worldly, as it does in the sacred rites, they are once again sons of Tonacatecuhtli, brothers, and hence equals in position. Thus they may exchange ritual clothing as equals, not equivalents.

This triple division among Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl, Topiltzin-Quetzalcoatl, and Ce Acatl-Quetzalcoatl is consistently discernable in all sources but one. The Anales de Cuauhtitlan gives Totepeuh as the father of Quetzalcoatl, but also includes a segment of the miraculous legend usually reserved for the context of Mixcoatl-Camaxtli. Upon close analysis, however, this exception strengthens rather than weakens the argument.

The Anales is of post-Conquest composition and is designed to be read as history, which justifies the inclusion of the name Totepeuh as the father of Quetzalcoatl. Following this historical vein, the Anales gives a terse "historical" description of the death of Quetzalcoatl's father. The parallel passage in the Leyenda de los soles (where the father is Mixcoatl-Camaxtli) is filled with the supernatural, all of which is absent in the version given in the Anales. Angel Maria Garibay noted the discrepancy between the two versions of the same legend and concluded that: "the Ms of Cuauhtitlan, with its pretensions of history, has taken the more simple version" (Garibay 1971, 1:307). To this point in the text the writers of the Anales have been consistent with their purpose. They have chosen the proper names for the historical context and have purposefully toned down any mystical passages. Any doubt that they could have chosen the more mythical account is dispelled by the segment which follows.

Unlike the parallel sections of the death of Quetzalcoatl's father, the section on the flight of Quetzalcoatl from Tula has not been demythicized. Either the composer(s) of the Anales did not have access to the mythical version of Quetzalcoatl's search for his father's bones, or the inclusion of the Tula material is an unusual addition to the text. Why choose the "historical" in one case and the mythical in another?

This seemingly anomalous introduction of supernatural legend in a historical narrative can be explained in two ways. The first is by the nature of the text itself. The anales is written in the historical style Nicholson has labeled "continuous dating", or one which is "distinguished by the recordation of a continuously sequent record of years" (Nicholson 1971, p. 45). Garibay explains the adaptation of the style used in the Anales: "between one notice and the other the teller has intercalated what he knows of the tales and traditions of the ancients" (Garibay 1971 2:282). All of the explanatory text "hangs" on the framework of the years, and serves as an elucidation of the events of the years.

In the case of the tale of Quetzalcoatl at Tula, the Anales' version is so close to that of the Sahagun texts that there can be no doubt of a common provenance (Garibay 1971, 1:306). This was clearly a well known tale. It is possible that the well known tale was simply inserted at the proper point without editorial demythicizing, even though this was a "historical" document.

The second reason for the "uncut" version of the Tula tale involves the nature of the tale itself. inclusion of this full tale without editorial demythification is most likely due to the intense interest of the Spanish fathers in anything concerning Quetzalcoatl.

The second reason is the nature of the tale of the departure from Tula itself. The function of that tale is to describe the ordering of the present world out of the fall of the Eden-like Tula. The overriding point of the tale is not just the departure of Quetzalcoatl (which might be an appropriate historical entry), but the naming that occurs as Quetzalcoatl wends his way to the sea. The supernatural ordering of this world are precisely the point of the tale, and it might have neutered the tale to leave out its major focus.

In any case, the Anales is a Spanish influenced document in spite of being written in Nahuatl. The influence of the Spanish is subtle, but the choice of the inclusion of certain events, and likely the inclusion of much of the Quetzalcoatl material was likely a response to Spanish interest. With respect to the names used as the father of Quetzalcoatl, the body of literature suggests that there was an identifiable function for each of the three variants of the name of Quetzalcoatl's father, and that the naming of the father created the context in which the hearer would understand important aspects of Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl, Topiltzin-Quetzalcoatl, or Ce Acatl-Quetzalcoatl.

Anales de Cuauhtitlan. In Codice Chimalpopoca. Ed. And Tr. Feliciano Velazquez. Mexico: Imprenta Universitaria. 1971: 3-118.

Annals of the Cakchiquels. Tr. Daniel G. Brinton. New York: AMS Press. Rpt. 1885. 1969.

Casas, Bartolome de las. Apologetica historia sumaria. Ed. Edmundo O'Gorman. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonima de Mexico. 1967. 2 volumes.

Codex Telleriano-Remensis. In: Antiguedaded de Mexico. Mexico: Secretaria de hacienda y Credito Publico. 1964. 1:151-337.

Codex Rios. In: Antiguedaded de Mexico. Mexico: Secretaria de hacienda y Credito Publico. 1964. 3:7-313.

Garibay, Angel Maria. Historia de la literatura Nahuatl. Mexico: Editorial Porrua. 1971. 2 volumes.

Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas. In: Teogonia e historia de los Mexicanos. Ed. Angel Maria Garibay. Mexico: Editorial Porrua. 1973. Pp. 23-66.

Historia de Mexico. (Histoyre du Mechique). In: Teogonia e historia de los Mexicanos. Ed. Angel Maria Garibay. Mexico: Editorial Porrua. 1973. Pp. 91-120.

Ixtlilxochitl, Don Fernando de Alva. Obras historicas. Ed. Alfredo Chavero. Mexico: Editoria Nacional. 1952. 2 volumes.

Jimenez Moreno, Wigberto. "Sintesis de la historia precolonial de Valle de Mexico." In: Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropologicos. 1954-55. 14:219-236.

Leyenda de los soles. In: Codice Chimalpopoca. Ed. And tr. Feliciano Velazquez. Mexico: Imprenta Universitaria. 1945. 119-142.

Mendieta, Geronimo de. Historia Eclesiastica Indiana. Mexico: Editorial Salvador Chavez Hayhoe. 1945. 4 volumes.

Mendieta, Geronimo de. Historia Eclesiastica Indiana.Mexico: Editorial Porrua. 1971.

Munoz Camargo, Diego. Historia de Tlaxcala. Mexico: Oficina tipografica de la Secretaria de Fomento. 1966.

Nicholson, Henry Bigger. Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl of Tollan: A Problem in Mesoamerican Ethnohistory. Doctoral dissertation: Harvard 1957.

Nicholson, Henry Bigger. "Pre-Hispanic Central Mexican Historiography." In: Investigaciones contemporaneous sobre historia de Mexico. Texas: University of Texas Press. 1971. Pp. 38-81.

Toribio de Benavente, or Motolinia. Memoriales o Libro de las cosas de la Nueva Espana y de los naturales de ella. Ed. Edmundo O'Gorman. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonima de Mexico. 1971.

Torquemada, Juan de. Monarquia Indiana. Mexico: Editorial Salvador Chavez Hayhoe. 1943. 3 volumes.

Endnote

1. The main sources to Tonacatecuhtli as the father of Quetzalcoatl are: Historia 1973 p. 23; Codex Telleriano Remensis 1964 1:180; and Codex Rios 1964 3:50.

The main sources for Mixcoatl as the father of Quetzalcoatl are: Leyenda 1945 p. 124; Munoz Camargo 1966 p. 40; Motolinia 1971 p. 12; and Mendieta 1971 p. 146.

The main sources for Camaxtli as the father of Quetzalcoatl are: Historia 1973 p. 37; Histoire 1973 p. 112; Torquemada 1943 2:80; and Las Casas 1967 1:196