[510] Bernal Diaz makes Cortés accuse the emperor of perfidy, and of having instigated the Cholula massacre. Hist. Verdad., 74. But this he would hardly do, since his purpose was clearly to persuade, not to arouse anger.
[511] ‘No querria començar guerra, ni destruir aquesta Ciudad ... que si alboroto, ò vozes daua, que luego sereis muerto de aquestos mis Capitanes, que no los traigo para otro efeto,’ is Bernal Diaz’ blunt version. Hist. Verdad., 74.
[512] ‘Auia tenido platica de su idolo Huichilobos ... que convenia para su salud, y guardar su vida, estar con nosotros.’ Id., 75.
[513] ‘Estuuieron mas de media hora en estas platicas.’ Id., 74. Tapia and others say four hours, which is unlikely.
[514] ‘Porque mas vale que desta vez asseguremos nuestras vidas, ò las perdamos.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 75.
[515] ‘Era, ó muy falto de ánimo, ó pusilánime, ó muy prudente.’ Oviedo, iii. 289. ‘En él se cumplió lo que de él se decia, que todo hombre cruel es cobarde, aunque á la verdad, era ya llegada la voluntad de Dios.’ Ixtlilxochitl, Rel., 411.
[516] Bernal Diaz intimates clearly enough that no demonstration was made till after his arrival. Hist. Verdad., 75. And so does Cortés. ‘Llorando lo tomaron en ella [the litter] con mucho silencio, y así nos fuimos hasta el aposento donde estaba, sin haber alboroto en la ciudad, aunque se comenzó á mover. Pero sabido por el dicho Muteczuma, envió a mandar que no lo hubiese; y así, hubo toda quietud.’ Cartas, 90. Ixtlilxochitl, however, allows Montezuma to stay long enough in his palace, after ordering the litter, to enable the lords and nobles to come and offer their services. A delay like this, which the Spaniards certainly never could have permitted, might have given time for the tumultuous gathering which he describes. Hist. Chich., 297. Prescott, in following this version, makes the emperor so far overstep his usual dignity as to ‘call out’ to the people to disperse. ‘Tambien detuvieron consigo á Itcuauhtzin, gobernador del Tlatilulco,’ says Sahagun, while the leading nobles ‘cuando fue preso Mocthecuzoma le desampararon y se escondieron.’ Hist. Conq., 25.
The seizure has, like the equally prominent episodes of the massacre at Cholula, and the scuttling of the fleet, aroused no little comment in justification or condemnation. ‘Now that I am old,’ says Bernal Diaz, ‘I stop to consider the heroic deeds then performed, and I do say that our achievements were not effected by ourselves, but were all brought about by God; for what men have existed in the world who, less than 450 soldiers in number, dared to enter into so strong a city as Mexico, larger than Venice, and so remote from Castile, to seize so great a lord?’ Hist. Verdad., 76. ‘Never Greek or Roman, nor of other nation, since kings exist, performed a like deed, only Fernando Cortés, to seize Motecçuma, a king most powerful, in his own house, in a place most strong, amid an infinity of people, while possessing but 450 companions.’ Gomara, Hist. Mex., 124. Commenting on this, Torquemada adds that ‘it was indeed a deed for daring never seen, and must be attributed to God rather than to human heart.’ i. 458. Solis of course fails not to extol the genius and daring of his hero, whose deed ‘appears rather in the light of a fable’ than in consonance with simple history. Hist. Mex., i. 448. ‘A deed which makes one tremble even to conceive, and much more to carry out. But God had so determined it.’ Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., 296. ‘History contains nothing parallel to this event, either with respect to the temerity of the attempt, or the success of the execution,’ etc. Robertson’s Hist. Am., ii. 60. ‘An expedient, which none but the most daring spirit, in the most desperate extremity, would have conceived.’ Prescott’s Mex., ii. 159. ‘An unparalleled transaction. There is nothing like it, I believe, in the annals of the world.’ Helps’ Cortés, ii. 351. Clavigero is less carried away by the incident, for he sees therein the hand of God. Nevertheless, he sympathizes with Montezuma. Storia Mess., iii. 95, etc. Pizarro y Orellana finds the deed eclipsed by the similar achievement, with a smaller force, under his namesake Pizarro. Varones Ilvstres, 89-90. And later Mexican writers, like Bustamante, see, naturally enough, nothing but what is detestable in the incident, for according to the native records which form their gospel, Montezuma was guiltless of any base intents. Unfortunately for them, these very records paint him a blood-thirsty despot who punishes the slightest offence against himself, even when merely suspected, with the most atrocious cruelty; one who is continually seeking his aggrandizement at the expense of inoffensive, peace-loving tribes, who oppresses not only conquered peoples, but his own subjects, with extortionate taxes and levies to satisfy his inordinate appetite for pomp and for new conquests. These records also admit that he had repeatedly sent sorcerers, if not armies, to entrap and destroy the Spaniards. He who looked calmly on hecatombs of his own subjects, slaughtered before his very eyes, would not hesitate to condemn strangers for plotting against the throne which was dearer to him than life itself. The Spaniards may have anticipated events considerably, but there is no doubt that numerous personages, from Cuitlahuatzin downward, were bitterly opposed to their enforced guests, and they would sooner or later have realized the rumors which the allies began to circulate. Placed as he was, Cortés’ duty to himself, to the men intrusted to him, to his king, and to the cause of religion, as then regarded, required him to give heed to such rumors, and, after weighing their probability, to take the precautionary measure of seizing the monarch, since retreat not only appeared fraught with disaster and dishonor, but would be regarded as a neglect of opportunity and of duty. With Cortés, naught but the first steps in assuming the conquest, and in usurping certain credit and means, can be regarded as crimes, and the former of these was forced upon him by circumstances of his age and surroundings. Every project, then, conceived by him for the advancement of his great undertaking must redound to his genius as soldier and leader. Of course, among these projects appear many which did not advance the great object, and which must be condemned. But where do we find greatness wholly free from stain?