[XVIII-34] The rest being spared, since they had been guilty chiefly of listening to the plot, says Cortés; 'pero quedaron procesos abiertos para que ... puedan ser castigados,' if required. The execution took place within a few days of the disclosure. Cartas, 421. Bernal Diaz, Herrera, and Gomara agree. The latter adds that king Cohuanacoch, of Tezcuco, who had also plotted, died some time before of bad food and water. Hist. Mex., 274. Torquemada adds five caciques to the three royal victims, according to the native version. i. 576.
[XVIII-35] Hist. Verdad., 200.
[XVIII-36] 'Por carnestollendas ... en Izancanac.' Gomara, Hist. Mex., 258-9. On February 26, 1525, specifies Vetancurt; on a Tuesday, three hours before dawn, adds Ixtlilxochitl, who also declares that the native songs and versions place it at Teotilac, and it certainly appears to have been carried out before the capital was reached. The Mexicans were so oppressed by hardships, says Bernal Diaz, that they seemed to be quite indifferent; still, the Spaniards hastened the departure for fear of an uprising. He places the occurrence at a pueblo beyond Acalan. Ixtlilxochitl tells another story. The kings were brought out three hours before dawn for fear of a tumult. The two of Mexico and Tlacopan had already been hanged, and Cohuanacoch was about to be, when his brother, Ixtlilxochitl, being advised, rushed forth and called upon the Indians. Perceiving the danger, Cortés cut the rope and saved the half-strangled king of Tezcuco. He thereupon proceeded to explain to Ixtlilxochitl the just reasons which had brought about the execution. The prince appeared convinced, and dismissed the auxiliaries, who stood ready to fall upon the Spaniards. The chief motive, however, for sparing them, was not the justice of the deed, for he regarded it ever as a treacherous one, but the fear of wars that might result from a revolt and carry desolation over his country, checking the progress of the saving faith. Cohuanacoch, whom Cortés accused as the chief conspirator, was carried with the army in a hammock, suffering severely from the wrenching of the noose. His grief brought about an intestinal hemorrhage, from which he died within a few days. Horribles Crueldades, 98-4.
[XVIII-37] 'Y sin auer mas prouãças, Cortes mandò ahorcar al Guatemuz, y al señor de Tacuba.... Y fue esta muerte que les dieron muy injustamente dada, y pareciò mal a todos los que ibamos aquella jornada.' Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 200. But his account of all this expedition is questionable, and his testimony loses force through the evident fact that he is carried away by sympathy for the kings, who had often favored him, and for the natives to whom his later condition in life bound him rather closely. He certainly admits the strong accusation and the confirmatory admission of the victims, the king of Tlacopan stating, for instance, that he and Quauhtemotzin had declared one death preferable to the daily deaths suffered. Torquemada adopts the version of a Tezcucan manuscript, which relates that Cohuanacoch on one occasion remarked to his royal confrères that, if they chose to be disloyal, the Spaniards might have to regret past injuries. Quauhtemotzin hastened to silence him by observing that walls had ears, which might misunderstand such expressions. A plebeian native reported them, and that very night those who had been present at the conversation, three kings and five caciques, were found hanging from a ceiba-tree. Torquemada will not believe that the Indians intended to revolt, especially since their country was now divided, but that Cortés regarded the kings as a burden, i. 575-6. Cavo, Tres Siglos, i. 46-8, agrees, and Gomara even intimates something to this effect in saying that Cortés ought to have preserved so prominent and brave a captive to point the triumph of his victories, but that the dangerous circumstances must have prevented him. Hist. Mex., 259. 'Es notorio, que Quauhtemoc y los demás señores murieron sin culpa, y que les levantaron falso testimonio.' Indeed, continues Ixtlilxochitl, when the Indians complained to the kings of maltreatment, they counselled submission. But his story is so full of glaring misstatements and absurdities, and so evident is the desire to relieve his kinsmen from the traitor's brand, that he cannot be relied on. Horribles Crueldades, 82, etc.; Id., Relaciones, Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., ix. 440, etc. Brasseur de Bourbourg follows him implicitly of course, as he does almost any record from native source. There was no witness except the spy, and the princes were not allowed to defend themselves. Hist. Nat. Civ., iv. 608. He evidently pays no attention whatever to the Spanish versions. Bustamante accepts even more implicitly the records of those whom he prefers to regard as his ancestors. See his edition of Gomara, Chimalpain, Hist. Conq., ii. 135-6. Cano, who married the cousin and widow of Quauhtemotzin, calls the execution of the three kings a murder, as may be expected from his dislike of Cortés. Oviedo, iii. 549. Carried away by hyperbolic flights of fancy, wherein he surpasses even Solis himself, Salazar condemns the deed as based on false testimony, and blames Cortés for irritating the natives by resorting to so rash a measure. Conq. Mex., 240-3. Father Duran emphasizes this with well-known sympathy for the native cause. 'Y levantándose contra él algunos testigos falsos le mandó á horcar.' Hist. Ind., MS., ii. 522. On imperfect evidence and without a trial, says Robertson, Hist. Am., ii. 138. Prescott sympathizes with Quauhtemotzin and regards the testimony as insufficient, while Helps, Cortés, 208-9, doubts the statements of Bernal Diaz, and refers to the act as cruel practical wisdom. The chief ground for this view is that Cortés, as an hidalgo, would not lie, and can therefore be relied upon. It has not been my fortune to acquire such faith, and I fancy that a closer study of his hero might have changed Sir Arthur Helps' views. Alaman, a Mexican with Spanish sympathies, believes in the conspiracy, but regards the execution as a blot on Cortés. Quauhtemotzin, at least, should have been sent to Spain after the fall of Mexico. Disert., i. 214. This certainly would have been the best way to secure and make use of him. Pizarro y Orellana, Varones Ilvstres, 114-16, regards the evidence as clear and the execution as just; so does Revilla, although his reasons are not the best. Solis, Conq. Mex. (ed. 1843), 508.
[XVIII-38] It is not improbable that suspicions as to the thoughts and acts of the kings may have created a prejudice against them, but the suspicions existed already before they left Mexico, as proved by their being taken not only as hostages for the loyalty of their subjects, but as a precaution against their own possible disloyalty. Quauhtemotzin was evidently not the most submissive of men, for he had always been regarded as requiring a close watch, and Cortés brought him chiefly because of his 'bullicioso' character, as he expresses it. It may not be considered unpardonable for the Indian auxiliaries to relieve their feelings in mutinous expressions against the taskmasters and despoilers who were taking them away from home to meet an unknown fate, to endure toil, hunger, and danger. But such sentiments could not be overlooked in the kings. They, as captured leaders, existed only by sufferance, the condition being good behavior. For them even to listen was to encourage, and they were consequently guilty. Not that I blame them. Nay, I would rather blame them for not being more prompt and determined in the patriotic effort. But in resolving to listen, and to act, no doubt, they accepted a risk with a penalty well defined among all peoples. Cortés was not the man to hesitate at almost any deed when private or public interests demanded it; and it needed but little to rouse to blind fury the slumbering suspicions of the soldiers regarding Mexican loyalty. But here we have evidence—not groundless even from a native point of view—to justify the Spaniards in assuming that a conspiracy, or, at least, mutinous talk, was wide-spread, and this among a horde tenfold superior in number; a horde known ever to have cherished unfriendly feelings, and now doubly embittered by suffering. Under the circumstances even saints would not have disregarded testimony however doubtful; and the Castilians were but human. Self-preservation, ay, duty to king, and country, and God, whose several interests they were defending, demanded the prompt suppression of so ominous a danger. What were the best measures? A long campaign in Mexico had impressed Cortés with the belief that a people so trained to abject subservience as the Aztecs, and so bloody in their worship, could be controlled by severity alone, and that the lesson must fall on the leaders. Situated as they were the soldiers could not be expected to guard a large number of captives. Hence no course remained, except capital punishment. According to Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 201, Cortés' distress of mind at the sufferings of the expedition was so increased by this deed that he became sleepless, and, in wandering around one night in a temple forming the camp, he fell from a platform a distance of ten feet, hurting his head severely.
[XVIII-39] On a watercourse falling into Términos. Cortés, Cartas, 419.
[XVIII-40] 'Pueblos, ò Tierras de Venados.' Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, 43. 'Provincia de Maçatlan, que en su lengua dellos se llama Quiacho.' Cortés, Cartas, 422.
[XVIII-41] Called by Cortés Táica, Tahica, and Taiça, the latter not incorrect perhaps, although Atitza or Tayasal may be better.
[XVIII-42] This is probably Lake San Pedro, from which all the fish were caught, over 1,000 in number. Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 201.
[XVIII-43] 'Parescia brazo de mar, y aun así creo que lo es, aunque es dulce.' Cartas, 427.