[727] ‘Nos quitaron la comida e enbiando por ella no nos la quisieron dar e nos davan de palos a las naborias e estando lavando una yndia de las nuestras la hahogaron e dezian e publicavan que asy avian de hazer a los españoles.’ Ramirez, Proceso contra Alvarado, 66. This testimony is confirmed by a number of his followers.
[728] ‘Con muchas escalas para subir y matar a los españoles.’ Id., 67. Martin, in Id., 144.
[729] ‘Le prince acolhua Tecocoltzin.’ Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., iv. 287.
[730] ‘A number of poles were raised in the court-yard, destined, as I was told, to impale the Spaniards, one taller than the rest upon the pyramid being reserved for me.’ Alvarado, in Ramirez, Proceso contra Alvarado, 66.
[731] Alvarado’s statements with regard to reports and signs of revolt, and to the confession of several natives, is confirmed by a number of witnesses, including the clergyman Juan Diaz. Id., 66, 113, et seq. Tapia, who is arrayed against Alvarado, intimates that torture induced the natives to give the confirmation of the plot as desired by the Spanish captain, and that the interpreter was unreliable. One witness declares that the uprising was understood to be planned to take place within ten days; another says on the day following the torture, intimating that it was to be after the great dances. Id., 37, 150. ‘Alvarado dixo, que luego le auian de venir a dar guerra ... que lo supo de vn Papa, y de dos Principales, y de otros Mexicanos.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 102.
[732] Tapia’s testimony to this and other criminating points is particularly valuable, as he was a bitter opponent of Alvarado. The latter states that Montezuma declared himself powerless to prevent the premeditated sacrilege to the Christian images. Ramirez, Proceso contra Alvarado, 36-7, 66-7. But this plea, if made, must, according to other accounts, be interpreted to apply only to pagan ceremonies, held almost before the images, and which might be regarded as a sacrilege. Torquemada writes that arms had been collected within the temple and everything prepared for the day when the Spaniards attended by invitation to witness the dance of the nobles. At a given signal an evidently simultaneous attack was to be made on the assembled guests and on the fort, thus taking the Spaniards at a disadvantage. Jars stood prepared, filled with certain liquids, wherein to cook their bodies for the feast. i. 489-90. The general inclination of those who follow the Spanish version, of which Torquemada, usually so stanch for the natives, is here the best exponent, has been to assume that the attack was arranged for the day of the great dances; and this is not unlikely, although the original writers and their commentators appear to be ignorant of or oblivious to certain features of the festival. Another view has been to place the attack during the installation of the new image of the war-god. This ceremony belonged to the preceding day, a fact not as a rule understood, and therefore the source of much confusion. Brasseur de Bourbourg, who is clearest on these points, assumes that the raising of the idol would involve the casting forth of the Christian emblems, and be the signal for attack. But evidences are conclusive that the natives were not ready on that day. They were too occupied with the celebration, and Alvarado, with his small force, was not so negligent as to wait till the last moment, when the enemy was fully prepared. He and several of his men indicate clearly enough that they attended the temple at the installation. The uprising must therefore have been appointed for the following or even a later day. See [note 25]. Vetancurt, Teatro Mex., iii. 139, is among the authorities who follow the version of Torquemada in general. One of the fervid-minded witnesses of Alvarado repeats the account of pots and jars for cooking the Spaniards. Helps supposes that Huitzilopochtli’s festival had not yet been entered upon, and that Tezcatlipoca’s image is the one in question; but the Spaniards, who knew the difference between these idols, all affirm that the celebration of the war-god was now held. See Ramirez, Proceso contra Alvarado, 69, 113, 130, 137, and 150.
[733] This received support from his neglect to interfere when supplies were cut down. Even Tapia refers to a change in his disposition, and to Alvarado’s displeasure thereat, but his words may apply to the stoppage either of supplies or of presents. Id., 36. Want of power could not be pleaded by Montezuma, because a few days later, when the natives were far more embittered both against the Spaniards and against their captive sovereign, the latter was able by a mere appeal to stay their onslaught. The testimony speaks not only of an undermined wall and scaling ladders, but of weapons, ‘porras y otras armas,’ and of conspirators within the fort. Id., 67, 113, et seq. Gomara says that his love for the Spaniards has been denied by some. Hist. Mex., 154-5; but Bernal Diaz will not believe Montezuma guilty of conspiracy. Hist. Verdad., 102. The grief of the Spaniards at his death, and the care taken of his children, indicate that they and the crown regarded him as loyal.
[734] ‘Los españoles lo requirieron al dicho D. Pedro.’ Ramirez, Proceso contra Alvarado, 150. Tapia pretends that he objected. Id., 37.
[735] Alvarado and his men in more than one instance indicate the day when the dough idol was raised. Id., 67, 113, 134. Ixtlilxochitl points to the following greater day, which he dates May 19th. Relaciones, 412. Sahagun is not so definite, but his editor accepts the chief day, calling it whitsunday, May 27th. Hist. Conq. (ed. 1840), 99. In another place he says May 25th. Tezcuco en los ultimos tiempos, 274. One of Alvarado’s men states that it was a Thursday. Ramirez, Proceso contra Alvarado, 131.
[736] The testimony of the conquerors, confirmed by native paintings and records, leaves no doubt that the dance of the nobles and the massacre took place in the great temple adjoining the fort. Ramirez, Proceso, 37 et seq. Acosta writes, however, that they occurred in the palace, Hist. Ind., 522, and he is partly right, since a massacre was carried out here also. Clavigero follows Acosta, and assumes that the fort is meant. He argues that the dance was held there so that the emperor might, as customary, be present, and that a massacre could not have been undertaken by so few Spaniards in the great temple, where the arsenals were situated, and where the concourse of people must have been very large. Storia Mess., iii. 118. The Spaniards had forbidden the use of arms during the festival, and none appear to have been produced in the temple. Among other precautions Alvarado appears to have insisted on a small attendance beyond that of nobles, and most authorities so accept it.