[559] ‘Mandó echar presos tres dellos.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 80.
[560] ‘Cacama le respondio muy agramente, diziendo que si el tuuiera sangre en el ojo, ni estaria preso, ni catiuo de quatro estranjeros,’ etc. Gomara, Hist. Mex., 133.
[561] According to Bernal Diaz and Gomara, Cortés was informed by Montezuma before he and Cacama exchanged the severe messages referred to, and that the Spaniard sent the first remonstrance, but the emperor, as master, and as the person whom the revolt immediately concerned, had naturally to take the initiative.
[562] Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 79. He would not hold friendship with him who took away his honor and kingdom. The war was for the good of his subjects, and in defence of their land and religion. Before laying down arms he would avenge his uncle and his gods. He knew not who was the king of the Spaniards, nor would he listen to him, much less know him. Gomara, Hist. Mex., 132.
[563] ‘Con hechizos le teniamos quitado su gran coraçon, y fuerça; ò que nuestros Dioses, y la gran muger de Castilla ... nos dá aquel gran poder.’ In this last he did not err, remarks Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 80.
[564] Over 100,000 men. Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., 299.
[565] ‘Tenia en su tierra del dicho Cacamazin muchas personas principales que vivian con él y les daba su salario.’ Cortés, Cartas, 97.
[566] According to Bernal Diaz, six chiefs were sent with the imperial signet, which was to be given to certain relatives and dignitaries discontented with Cacama, and they were to seize him and his council. Hist. Verdad., 80.
[567] ‘Tambien truxeron otros cinco presos.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 80. ‘Prendieron al Cacama vn dia, estando con ellos y otros muchos en consejo para cõsultar las cosas de la guerra.’ Gomara, Hist. Mex., 133. According to Ixtlilxochitl, when Cacama left Mexico, partly out of fear lest the Spaniards should seize him for promoting a revolt there, his brothers Cohuanacoch and Ixtlilxochitl, all now reconciled, pretended to fall into his views. Ixtlilxochitl recommended Tepetzinco as the place best suited for beginning operations on Mexico, and while proceeding to the place in a canoe he was carried on to Mexico by his faithless brothers. Without Ixtlilxochitl’s aid Montezuma and Cortés could never have been able to overcome the powerful Cacama, concludes the author. Hist. Chich., 298-9. In his Relaciones, 389, 412, the same author states that Cacama was seized not for plotting, but because Cortés desired to secure so powerful a personage. Brasseur de Bourbourg follows the former version, and believes that Montezuma favored the conspiracy as a means to oblige the Spaniards to depart. Hist. Nat. Civ., iv. 258. There may be some truth in this belief, so far as the beginning of the plot is concerned, but it must be considered that Montezuma would have preferred not to intrust such a movement to a probable rival, the ruler of a people jealous of Aztec supremacy, and the ally of his most hated enemy, Ixtlilxochitl. If, again, Cacama was his tool, the emperor would not have had him seized, to be executed for all he knew, when he could have warned him to flee or to defend himself. Had Ixtlilxochitl surrendered the king, Cortés would not be likely to give the credit to Montezuma, as he does. Cartas, 97-8.
[568] Gomara, Hist. Mex., 133. Yet Bernal Diaz assumes that Montezuma examined him and the other prisoners, ‘y supo Monteçuma de los conciertos en que andaua, que era alçarse por señor.’ Hist. Verdad., 80. ‘Y à cabo de pocos dias le dieron Garrote secretamente,’ adds Torquemada, i. 470, erroneously. Had Cortés fallen into his hands, the stone of sacrifice would speedily have received him, and the captive must accordingly have regarded himself as mercifully treated. The general knew the value of such prominent hostages. The leniency gained him besides great credit, as Solis rightly assumes. Hist. Mex., ii. 21-2.