[252] The names vary somewhat in different authorities, Bernal Diaz including instead of Peñate, a number of the Gibraltar sailors known as Peñates, who were lashed at Cozumel for theft. The plot was hatched ‘Desde â quatro dias que partieron nuestros Procuradores.’ Hist. Verdad., 39. Cortés mentions only four ‘determinado de tomar un bergantin ... y matar al maestre dél, y irse á la isla Fernandina.’ Cartas, 53-4. Gomara assumes them to be the same who last revolted on setting out for Tizapantzinco. Hist. Mex., 64. ‘Pusieron ... por obra de hurtar un navío pequeño, é salir á robar lo que llevaban para el rey.’ Tapia, Relacion, in Icazbalceta, Col. Doc., ii. 563. Peter Martyr jumbles the names, dec. v. cap. i.
[253] Thus Cortés had his revenge on the alguacil. ‘Y no le valiò el ser su Compadre,’ says Vetancvrt, with a hasty assumption which is not uncommon with him. Teatro Mex., pt. iii. 119. Gomara mentions no mutilation. ‘Parece claro ser aquestas obras, ... propias de averiguado tirano,’ says Las Casas, Hist. Ind., iv. 496, which may be regarded as a singularly mild expression for the bishop. Herrera dwells upon Cermeño’s extraordinary skill with the leaping-pole; he could also smell land fifteen leagues off the coast, dec. ii. lib. v. cap. xiv. ‘Coria, vezino que fue despues de Chiapa.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 39.
[254] ‘Embiado ... por los pueblos de la sierra, porque tuuiessen que comer; porque en nuestra Villa passauamos mucha necessidad de bastimentos.’ Id. This seems unlikely, since the Totonacs were not only willing, but bound, to provide supplies.
[255] Testimonio de Montejo y Puertocarrero, in Col. Doc. Inéd., i. 489, 494. ‘Viniesen á él, cuando estuviese mucha gente con él junta, y le denunciasen como no podian vencer el agua de los navíos.’ Las Casas, Hist. Ind., iv. 497. ‘Tuuo forma para que los soldados mas aficionados que tenia se lo pidiessen.... Los soldados se lo pidieron, y dello se recibio auto por ante escriuano.’ Herrera, dec. ii. lib. v. cap. xiv. ‘Le aconsejamos los que eramos sus amigos, que no dexasse Nauio en el Puerto.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 39.
[256] ‘Los Pilotos, ê Maestres viejos, y marineros, que no erã buenos para ir â la guerra, que se quedassen en la Villa, y cõ dos chinchorros que tuuiessen cargo de pescar ... y luego se vino (Escalante) â Cempoal con vna Capitania de hombres de la mar, que fuessen los que sacaron de los Nauios, y salieron algunos dellos muy buenos soldados.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 40.
[257] It is generally admitted that Cortés suggested the idea of destroying the fleet, for even Bernal Diaz, who at first gives the credit to the men by saying, ‘le aconsejamos los que eramos sus amigos,’ confesses on the following page that ‘el mismo Cortès lo tenia ya concertado.’ Hist. Verdad., 39-40. The preponderating testimony also shows that the masters made their report in public, with the evident object, as the best authorities clearly indicate, of obtaining the consent of the responsible majority for the scuttling. During the partition of treasures at Mexico, large shares were set aside for Cortés and Velazquez to cover the cost of the fleet and the outfit, ‘que dimos al traues con ellos, pues todos fuimos en ellos,’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 84, which is proof, in addition to the reliable assertion that the deed was agreed upon by the majority. Cortés’ expression, ‘los eché á la costa,’ Cartas, 54, is merely that of a leader of that party or majority, who besides really gives credit to others. Hence the conclusion of Prescott and others, that the scuttling was done on his own responsibility, is not well founded. Cortés was clever enough always to have those present who were ready to take any responsibility for him that he might wish. The phrase, ‘his was the greatest sacrifice, for they (the vessels) were his property,’ Prescott’s Mex., i. 374, is also wrong, for he was compensated by the army. And it is an exaggeration to say that the execution of the measure ‘in the face of an incensed and desperate soldiery, was an act of resolution that has few parallels in history,’ Id., 376, since his party supported him. According to Gomara the pilots bore holes in the vessels, and bring their report, whereupon five vessels are first sunk; shortly afterward the remainder except one are scuttled. The offer of this vessel to those who wished to return was made with a view to learn who were the cowards and malcontents. Many indeed did ask for leave, but half of them were sailors. Others kept quiet out of shame. Hist. Mex., 65. It was never Cortés’ policy to mark the disaffected, however. This author is followed by Torquemada, ‘porque asi se ha platicado siempre entre las Gentes, que mas supieron de esta Jornada,’ i. 409, and on the strength of this the latter argues that Herrera’s version, dec. ii. lib. v. cap. xiv., which adheres chiefly to Bernal Diaz’, must be wrong. Tapia, Relacion, in Icazbalceta, Col. Doc., ii. 563, conforms chiefly to Gomara. Robertson, after following Bernal Diaz, takes the trouble of having the ships ‘drawn ashore and ... broke in pieces.’ Hist. Am., ii. 33-4; Clavigero, Storia Mess., iii. 35-6; Oviedo, Hist. Gen., iii. 262; Sandoval, Hist. Carlos V., i. 171; Peter Martyr, dec. v. cap. i. Peralta has them burned by secret agents of Cortés. Nat. Hist., 76. Solis, ever zealous for his hero, objects to Bernal Diaz’ attempt to pluck any of the glory, and scouts the idea that fears of pecuniary liability could have influenced Cortés to gain the approval of others for his act. ‘Tuvo á destreza de historiador el penetrar lo interior de las acciones,’ is the complacent tribute to his own skill in penetrating the question. Hist. Mex., i. 214-15. The view of the foundering fleet, appended to some editions of his work, has been extensively copied. One is given in the Antwerp edition of 1704, 141. A still finer view, with the men busy on shore, and the sinking vessels in the distance, is to be found in the Madrid issue of 1783, i. 213. The destruction of the fleet has been lauded in extravagant terms by almost every authority, from Gomara and Solis to Robertson and Prescott, as an unparalleled deed. Of previous examples there are enough, however, even though the motives and the means differ. We may go back to Æneas, to whose fleet the wives of the party applied the torch, tired of roaming; or we may point to Agathocles, who first fired his soldiers with a resolution to conquer or to die, and then compelled them to keep their word by firing the vessels. Julian offered a tamer instance during his campaign on the Tigris; but the deed of the terrible Barbarossa in the Mediterranean, only a few years before the Mexican campaign, was marked by reckless determination. Still examples little affect the greatness of an act; motives, means, and results afford the criteria. ‘Pocos exemplos destos ay, y aquellos son de grandes hombres.’ Gomara, Hist. Mex., 65. ‘Una de las acciones en que mas se reconoce la grandeza de su ánimo.... Y no sabemos si de su género se hallará mayor alguna en todo el campo de las Historias.’ Solis, Hist. Mex., i. 213. ‘An effort of magnanimity, to which there is nothing parallel in history.’ Robertson, Hist. Am., ii. 34. ‘Un’impresa, che da per se sola basterebbe a far conoscere la sua magnanimità, e ad immortalare il suo nome.’ Clavigero, Storia Mess., iii. 35; Prescott, Mex., i. 375-6, is equally carried away, and he finds more words for his admiration. He is wrong in supposing that one of the vessels in the harbor was left intact; the exempt ship referred to by a chronicler was the one carrying the messengers to Spain.
Antonio de Solis y Ribadeneyra is remarkable as the first Spanish historian of the conquest. It appears to us strange that an episode so glorious to the fame of Castilians should have been allowed to lie so long neglected in the musty pages of their chroniclers. True, these were worthy, zealous men, who conscientiously narrated every occurrence of any note, but their standard for historic truth and dignity caused them to clothe facts, however striking, in a garb of dreary gravity, dryness of detail, and ambiguous confusion, which discouraged even the student. It required the dramatic eye of the composer and the imagination of the poet to appreciate the picturesque sketches of a strange people now fading into oblivion, the grandeur of a semi-savage pageantry, the romantic exploits that recalled the achievements of the Cid. This faculty was innate in Solis, developed besides by a long and successful career in letters. He had profited also by the advantages opened to him as the secretary of Conde de Oropesa, Viceroy of Navarre and of Valencia, who Mæcenas-like fostered the talents and aided in the promotion of the promising savant, for as such he already ranked. Cradled in the famous college town of Alcalá de Henares, he had given early evidence of talent, and at Salamanca university he had signalized himself in his seventeenth year by producing a comedy of considerable merit. While pursuing with energy the study of law and moral philosophy, he cultivated with hardly less ardor the muses, to which end he was no doubt impelled also by his intimacy with the illustrious Calderon. Several of his dramas were received with acclamation, and one was translated into French, while his miscellaneous poems, reprinted in our days, are marked by a vivid imagination and an elegance which also adorns his letters. Talents so conspicuous did not wait long for recognition, and with the aid of his patron he advanced to the dignities of royal secretary and chief chronicler of the Indies. When 56 years old his mind underwent a change, and entering the church he abandoned forever the drama and light literature. The pen changed only its sphere, however, for it served the historiographer zealously, achieving for him the greatest fame; and fame alone, for at his death, in April, 1686, at the age of 76, deep poverty was his companion. When he entered on this office the Indies had lapsed into the dormant quietude imposed by a strict and secluding colonial régime. There were no stirring incidents to reward the efforts of the historian, save those connected with free-booter raids, which offered little that could flatter Spanish pride. To achieve fame he must take up some old theme, and present it in a form likely to rouse attention by its contrast. Thus it was that he selected the thrilling episode of the conquest of Mexico, with the determination to rescue it from the unskilful arrangement and repetitions, the want of harmony and consistency, the dryness and faulty coloring, to which it had hitherto been subjected, and to expend upon it the effects of elegant style and vast erudition. When the work appeared at Madrid, in 1684, its superior merits were instantly recognized, and although the sale at first was not large, editions have multiplied till our day, the finest and costliest being the illustrated issue of 1783-4, in two volumes, which I quote, while consulting also the notes of several others. So grand and finely elaborated a subject, and that from a Spanish historian who was supposed to have exhausted all the available resources of the Iberian archives, could not fail to rouse general attention throughout Europe, and translations were made into different languages. Robertson, among others, while not failing to point out certain blemishes, has paid the high compliment of accepting Solis for almost sole guide on the conquest, and this with a blindness which at times leads him into most amusing errors. Even Prescott warms to his theme in a review of six closely printed pages, wherein eulogy, though not unmingled with censure, is stronger than a clearer comprehension of the theme would seem to warrant. But in this he is impelled to a great extent by his oft displayed tendency to hero worship.
Solis deserves acknowledgment for bringing order out of chaos, for presenting in a connected form the narrative of the conquest, and for adorning it with an elegant style. But he has fulfilled only a part of the promises made in his preface, and above all has he neglected to obtain information on his topic beyond that presented in a few of the generally accessible works, even their evidence being not very closely examined. He has also taken great liberties with the text, subordinating facts to style and fancy, seizing every possible opportunity to manufacture speeches for both native and Spanish heroes, and this with an amusing disregard for the consistency of language with the person and the time. His religious tendencies seriously interfere with calm judgment, and impel him to rave with bigoted zeal against the natives. The hero worship of the dramatist introduces itself to such an extent as frequently to overshadow everything else, and to misrepresent. ‘Sembra più un panegirico, che una istoria,’ says Clavigero, very aptly. Storia Mess., i. 16. His arguments and deductions are at times most childish, while his estimation of himself as a historian and thinker is aired in more than one place with a ridiculous gravity. With regard to style, Solis had Livy for a model, and belonged to the elder school of historians; he was its last good representative, in fact. His language is expressive and elegant, greatly imbued with a poetic spirit not unsuited to the subject, and sustained in eloquence, while its pure idiom aids to maintain the work as classic among Castilians. ‘Ingenio Conceptuoso, Floridisimo, i Eloquente,’ is the observation in the work of his historiographic predecessor, Pinelo, Epitome, ii. 607. But it lacks in boldness and dignity; the rhapsodies are often misplaced, and the verboseness is tiresome. Some of the faults are of course due to the time, but not the many, and it also becomes only too apparent that Solis is so conceitedly infatuated with his affected grandiloquence as to sacrifice facts wherever they interfere with its free scope. It is said that he intended to continue the history of Mexico after the conquest, and that death alone prevented the consummation of the project. But this is mere conjecture, and it appears just as likely that the dramatist recognized the effect of closing a great work at so appropriate a point as the fall of Mexico. The work was taken up, however, by Salazar y Olarte, who published in 1743 the second part of the Conquest, till the death of Cortés, abounding in all the faults of the superficial and florid composition of Solis.
[258] ‘Luego le zahumaron [the chiefs] al Juan de Escalante con sus inciensos.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 40. ‘Dejé en la villa de la Veracruz ciento y cincuenta hombres con doze de caballo.’ Cortés, Cartas, 52-3. One hundred and fifty Spaniards, with two horses and two fire-arms, were left here under Pedro de Ircio, Gomara, Hist. Mex., 65-6, but Bernal Diaz corrects him. ‘Al Pedro de Ircio no le auian dado cargo ninguno, ni aun de cuadrillero.’ ubi sup.; Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., 291. The force seems to be altogether too large. Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 51, says 60 old and suffering soldiers were left as garrison.
[259] Bernal Diaz says one vessel; but Cortés and other authorities mention four.