History of Mexico, Volume 1, 1516-1521

by Hubert Howe Bancroft

Montezuma and his people were inhuman monsters, and Grotius, Montesquieu, and others who should know, say that war in behalf of humanity is a duty;[1232] and this notwithstanding the remedy be tenfold more inhuman than the disease.

Not that the Spaniards were insincere in their proffers of such excuses; duty comes to us in the color of our desires. Moreover, they were fresh from the Moorish wars; they were imbued with a religious exaltation and chivalric sentiment that placed before them in varied light duty to their God, their king, and themselves. For centuries they had been trained to devote life and possessions to advance the interests of sovereign and church. Many of the noblest characteristics were interwoven in the nature of Cortés, and also with admirable distinctness in such men as Juan Velazquez, Sandoval, and Puertocarrero. In others we find the dignity of the hidalgo upheld without marked stain, and this notwithstanding the tendency to intrigue, the disregard for truth and justice, and a yielding to certain vices on the part of leaders, and the greed and brutality of rank and file. But even among the common soldiers, in fairness we cannot disregard the echo of noble sentiment, the aspiration toward high emprise there present. It is the leader, however, who with all his selfish cruelties and unprincipled trickeries must ever remain the central figure of our admiration. If ever there was a hero, a genius of war worthy the adoration of war worshippers, if ever there were grand conception and achievement, all were vividly displayed in the mind and person of Hernan Cortés.

An able French writer, comparing the siege of Mexico with that of Troy, depicts Cortés as an Achilles in whom were combined the talents of Agamemnon and Ulysses.[1233]

In some respects, and as compared with his companions, he indeed approached the deity the Mexicans thought him. Behold him out upon this venture, throwing life to the winds that waft him from Cuba, sinking his ships behind him, plunging into the heart of a hostile country, and with a handful of men opposing powerful armies, quelling insurrections, capturing his captors, turning enemies into allies, balancing upon his finger contending powers, and after the grand cataclysm opened by him on the central plateau has spent itself, he quietly pockets the prize. No Alexander, or Scipio, or Cæsar, or Napoleon ever achieved results so vast with means so insignificant. It was indeed a rare piracy!

Taken as a whole, the testimony of eye-witnesses and the early chroniclers on the conquest may be considered as fully up to the average of historical evidence. While there was no little exaggeration, and some downright mendacity, such were the number of the witnesses, the time, place, and circumstances of their several relations, and the clearness of their testimony, that we find no difficulty with regard to any important matters in determining truth and falsehood. When in addition to the writings of the Spaniards we have native records and architectural remains as collateral evidence, every honest searcher after truth may be satisfied.

In regard to the two writers by the name of Diaz who accompanied the first expedition to Mexico, I have spoken of the Itinerario de Grijalva of the priest, and before closing this volume I will review the Historia Verdadera of the soldier. Following these were the memorials of the relatives of Velazquez, wholly unreliable; the relation of the Anonymous Conqueror, whose statements were for the most part true; many documents, such as the Carta del Ejército, and Probanza de Lejalde, as well as the Cartas de Cortés, in the main true, but which may properly be accepted only after close scrutiny and careful comparison; the reports of Zurita, and the innumerable papers and documents lately brought to light by Navarrete, Ramirez, Icazbalceta, Ternaux-Compans, and others, and published as Coleccion de Documentos Inéditos, Coleccion de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, etc.; native and Spanish historians, Tezozomoc, Camargo, and Ixtlilxochitl; Duran, Veytia, Sahagun, Mendieta, and Las Casas; Oviedo, Peter Martyr, and Gomara; Herrera, Torquemada, Solis, and Clavigero; Bustamante, Robertson, Prescott, and Brasseur de Bourbourg. These and others of but little inferior importance offer ample foundation on which the modern historian may safely rear his superstructure.

I say that it is easy enough to determine truth from falsehood in such a study as this, where the evidence is so abundant and the witnesses are so widely separated. When Torquemada enters into a long argument to show that the misery wrought by the conquest was the punishment by God for the vices of the Mexicans, I do not discuss the matter. I willingly admit that the ancient historian knew, if indeed he knew anything about it, more concerning the mind of the deity than the modern, though the latter might ask if the sufferings of the Spaniards were not in like manner on account of their vices.

The books treating of Cortés’ achievements, as I have said, form an immense array, as may be expected from the importance and interest of what Robertson justly terms “the most memorable event in the conquest of America,” involving the subjugation of the richest and most advanced country therein, the fall of its beautiful and renowned city, and one of the most daring campaigns ever undertaken. The narrative reads indeed like a romance rather than history based on stern facts, and it is not strange that men have arisen who seek to cast doubt, not alone on certain incidents, but on the main features of the achievement and the field.

One method of doubt has been to lower the estimate of native culture and resources; to sneer at the large cities, magnificent palaces, regal state, certain industrial and fine arts, picture-writing, and other evidences of a higher culture. Such statements reveal to the experienced student a lamentable disregard or ignorance of evidence extant, of ruins with their massive form, their beautifully designed ornamentation, their admirable sculptured and plastic delineation of the human figure, both far in advance of the conventional specimens of Egypt, and the former equal in many respects to the productions of the higher Greek art. The picture-writing, again, reveals the phonetic element so developed as to endow the Mexicans with that high proof of culture, written records, applied not only to historic incidents and common facts, but to abstract subjects of philosophic, scientific, and poetic nature, as instanced in my Native Races.

It needed not the official investigation instituted by the Spanish government to confirm the mute testimony of relics, and the vivid declaration of chroniclers. Native records exist in sufficient abundance to speak for themselves; records written by and for the people, and therefore free from any suspicion of misrepresentation; records used by a number of writers for obtaining that insight into esoteric features of Nahua institutions which could not well be acquired by Spaniards. The translation of these records, as reproduced in the volumes of Sahagun, Ixtlilxochitl, Kingsborough, and others, with copies of original paintings, have been carefully used both for the Native Races and the histories of Mexico and Guatemala, and introduced indeed more thoroughly in this series as evidence than by any modern writer on the subject, not excepting the learned Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, though unlike this enthusiast I have not allowed myself to accept this evidence with the same non-critical bias. I have merely used it for what it is worth, after applying severe analytic tests. Certain points may be covered by merely one or two authorities; but even then the erudite student will readily determine the value of the testimony from internal evidence, while in the generality of cases he will find a number of versions by natives and Spaniards, by partisans and rivals, whose contradictions will aid him in determining the truth.