[862] Herrera attempts to save somewhat the reputation of the astrologer by the statement that he prophesied death for himself or his brother.
[863] Every one, say Cortés and Herrera; but Ixtlilxochitl states that one sister of King Cacama was saved, and he intimates that one or two of his brothers also escaped. He is contradictory, however. Hist. Chich., 302, 390. The one who escaped must have been Cuicuitzcatl, the newly made king of Tezcuco. Brasseur de Bourbourg adds two of his brothers, probably from misinterpreting Ixtlilxochitl. Hist. Nat. Civ., iv. 339.
[864] Ixtlilxochitl names some of the chiefs to whom these offers were made. Hist. Chich., 302.
[865] Ávila, a veritable martinet, maimed a soldier with a blow for stepping from the ranks to pluck some fruit. Herrera, dec. ii. lib. x. cap. xii. The same story has been told of Ávila in Cempoala.
[866] Cortés allows the five scouts to defeat the enemy, who are frightened by the supposition that a larger force is upon them. Cartas, 137. Herrera is more explicit with regard to the ambuscade, and makes Ordaz lead up the reinforcements. dec. ii. lib. x. cap. xii.
[867] ‘Mas no cenar.’ Gomara, Hist. Mex., 162. Sahagun states, however, that this was the town to which the Otomís had on the preceding day invited them, chiefly because they were related to the Otomís of the Tlascaltec division under Cortés. Hist. Conq., 34-5. A risky proceeding, if true, for an isolated community, on whom might fall the vengeance of the hostile Mexicans. In the account of the route followed to Tlascala Cortés is still the best guide, for he not only kept a record, but wrote his report while the occurrences were yet fresh. He is wanting in details, however, and fails to give names to localities. These omissions are remedied by Sahagun, who now seems more reliable. Other authors are vague or misleading for the route, but the occasional incidents told by them are noteworthy. Bernal Diaz indicates only one stopping place, Quauhtitlan evidently, before Otumba is reached. Camargo skips to a place adjoining Otumba, and Ixtlilxochitl takes the army to Quauhximalpan, a place which modern maps locate south of Remedios. He resumes the northern route, but names some towns that cannot be identified. Gomara adheres pretty well to Cortés, but his commentator, Chimalpain, supplies names for places, which differ from Sahagun and indicate a deviation from the extreme northern course, as will be seen. Torquemada follows chiefly Sahagun, whom he recommends. Orozco y Berra has closely studied the journey, and throws much light on it, more so than any other writer; yet his conclusions are not always satisfactory. Itinerario del Ejercito Español, in Mex. Not. Ciudad., 246 et seq. I have already spoken at length, in Native Races, iii. 231-6, on the life and writings of Father Sahagun, and will here refer only to the twelfth book of his Historia General, inserted by Bustamante, at the beginning of the set, under the title of Historia de la Conquista de Mexico. This copy is from one found by Muñoz in the Franciscan convent of Tolosa, in Navarre. Another copy of the twelfth book, in possession of Conde de Cortina, claimed as the true original, was published separately by the same editor, at Mexico, 1840, with lengthy notes from Clavigero and other writers to complete the chain of events, and to comment on the suppression in the former issue of statements concerning Spanish misdeeds. It has also an additional chapter. Neither copy, however, corresponds quite to that used by Torquemada, who in more than one instance quotes passages that are startling compared with the modified expressions in the others. The severity of the friar toward Spanish conquerors was no doubt a strong reason for the suppression of his work. The twelfth book begins with Grijalva’s arrival and the omens preceding it, and carries the narrative of the conquest down to the fall of Mexico. According to his own statement, on page 132, it is founded to a great extent on the relations given him by eye-witnesses, soldiers who had assumed the Franciscan robe and associated daily with the friar; but much is adopted, with little or no critique, from superstitious natives, the whole forming a rather confusing medley, so that it is difficult to extract the many valuable points which it contains. This difficulty is, of course, not encountered by such followers as Bustamante and Brasseur de Bourbourg, and similar supporters of native records or anti-Spanish versions.
In the Native Races I give the traits which characterize the French abbé and his famous works on Central American culture and antiquities, and it remains only to refer briefly to his version of the conquest, comprised in the fourth volume of the Histoire des Nations Civilisées. His pleasing style lends attraction to every page, but his faults become more conspicuous from the comparison presented by a vast array of authorities, revealing the indiscreet and enthusiastic readiness to accept native tales, or anything that favors the hypotheses by which he is ruled, and in the disposition to build magnificent structures on airy foundation. His version, indeed, strives rather to narrate the conquest from a native standpoint, and to use Spanish chronicles only as supplementary authority. To this end he relies chiefly on the now well known writings of Sahagun, Ixtlilxochitl, Camargo, and Torquemada, and it is but rarely that he is able to quote the often startling original manuscripts possessed only by himself.
[868] ‘Mordiendo la tierra, arrancando yeruas, y alçãdo los ojos al cielo, dezian, dioses no nos desampareys en este peligro, pues teneys poder sobre todos los hombres, hazed que con vuestra ayuda salgamos del.’ Herrera, dec. ii. lib. x. cap. xii.
[869] Herrera conforms to Cortés and Gomara in admitting a stay of two nights at one place, but makes this Tecopatlan, called ‘duck town,’ from its many fowl. This is evidently Tepotzotlan. But it was not near the lake like Citlaltepec, and ‘duck town’ applies rather to a lake town, in this region, at least. Cortés also writes, in Cartas, 137, ‘fuimos aquel dia por cerca de unas lagunas hasta que llegamos á una poblacion,’ and this does not apply well to Tepotzotlan, which lies a goodly distance from the lakes, requiring certainly no march along ‘some’ lakes to reach it. Hence the Citlaltepec of Sahagun must be meant. This author, however, supposes the Spaniards to stay one night at each place. Hist. Conq., 36 (ed. 1840), 129. Ixtlilxochitl calls the place after Tepotzotlan, Aychqualco. Hist. Chich., 302. At Tepotzotlan, says Vetancurt, some of the people remained to receive the Spaniards—this is in accordance with one of Sahagun’s versions—and here remained to hide the son of Montezuma, whom he supposes to have escaped with the troops. Teatro Mex., pt. iii. 144. According to Chimalpain’s interpretation the Spaniards stay the two nights at Quauhtitlan, and thence proceed by way of Ecatepec, now San Cristóbal, skirting the northern shore of Tezcuco Lake, and on to Otumba. Hist. Conq., i. 304-5. This route certainly appears the most direct, but there is no authority for it. The sentence from Cortés might no doubt be adopted equally well for this road; but Sahagun, Ixtlilxochitl, and Herrera name towns which lie east and north of the Zumpango Lake, and during the rainy season now prevailing the passages between the lakes were rather swampy. Tezcuco was beside too close for the fleeing army. Alaman accepts the route south of Zumpango, Disert., i. 122, against which nearly all the above reasons apply.
[870] ‘Nos convenia ir muchas veces fuera de camino.’ Cortés, Cartas, 138. Owing to the guide’s inefficiency, adds Gomara, Hist. Mex., 162.