[406] Rel. Seg. de Cortés, ap. Lorenzana, p. 86.
[407] “Quando Io lo consintiera, los mios no pasarian por ello.” Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 85.
[408] “¿Que haze v. m. ya con tantas palabras? O le lleuemos preso, ó le darémos de estocadas, por esso tornadle á dezir, que si da vozes, ó haze alboroto, que le mataréis, porque mas vale que desta vez asseguremos nuestras vidas, ó las perdamos.” Bernal Diaz, Hist. de la Conquista, cap. 95.
[409] Oviedo has some doubts whether Montezuma’s conduct is to be viewed as pusillanimous or as prudent. “Al coronista le parece, segun lo que se puede colegir de esta materia, que Montezuma era, ó mui falto de ánimo, ó pusilánimo, ó mui prudente, aunque en muchas cosas, los que le viéron lo loan de mui señor y mui liberal; y en sus razonamientos mostraba ser de buen juicio.” He strikes the balance, however, in favor of pusillanimity. “Un Príncipe tan grande como Montezuma no se habia de dexar incurrir en tales términos, ni consentir ser detenido de tan poco número de Españoles, ni de otra generacion alguna; mas como Dios tiene ordenado lo que ha de ser, ninguno puede huir de su juicio.” Hist. de las Ind., MS., lib. 33, cap. 6.
[410] The story of the seizure of Montezuma may be found, with the usual discrepancies in the details, in Rel. Seg. de Cortés, ap. Lorenzana, pp. 84-86,—Bernal Diaz, Hist. de la Conquista, cap. 95,—Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 85,—Oviedo, Hist. de las Ind., MS., lib. 33, cap. 6,—Gomara, Crónica, cap. 83,—Herrera, Hist. general, dec. 2, lib. 8, cap. 2, 3,—Martyr, De Orbe Novo, dec. 5, cap. 3.
[411] “Siempre que ante él passauamos, y aunque fuesse Cortés, le quitauamos los bonetes de armas ó cascos, que siempre estauamos armados, y él nos hazia gran mesura, y honra á todos.... Digo que no se sentauan Cortés, ni ningun Capitan, hasta que el Monteçuma les mandaua dar sus assentaderos ricos, y les mandaua assentar.” Bernal Diaz, Hist. de la Conquista, cap. 95, 100.
[412] Herrera, Hist. general, dec. 2, lib. 8, cap. 3.
[413] On one occasion, three soldiers, who left their posts without orders, were sentenced to run the gauntlet,—a punishment little short of death. Ibid., ubi supra.
[414] Bernal Diaz, Hist. de la Conquista, cap. 97.
[415] [The patriotic sensibilities of Señor Ramirez are somewhat disturbed by my application of the term barbarians to his Aztec countrymen.{*} This word, with the corresponding epithet of savages, forms the key, he seems to think, to my description of the ancient Mexicans. “Regarded from this point of view,” he says, “the astounding examples of heroism and self-devotion so rarely met with in the history of the world are interpreted not as a voluntary sacrifice inspired by the holy love of country and of freedom, but as the effect of a brutish hatred and stupid ferocity.” There may be some foundation for these strictures, though somewhat too highly colored. And one cannot deny that, as he reflects on the progress made by the Aztecs in the knowledge of the useful arts, and, indeed, to a certain extent, of science, he must admit their claim to a higher place in the scale of civilization than that occupied by barbarians,—to one, in truth, occupied by the semi-civilized races of China and Hindostan. But there is another side of the picture, not presented by the Eastern nations, in those loathsome abominations which degraded the Aztec character to a level with the lowest stages of humanity, and makes even the term barbarian inadequate to express the ferocity of his nature.]