[409] “Y con estas últimas palabras cesó; y todos respondiéron sin discrepancia, é á una voce dicentes: Sirvanse Dios y el Emperador nuestro Señor de tan buen capitan, y de nosotros, que así lo harémos todos como quien somos, y como se debe esperar de buenos Españoles, y con tanta voluntad, y deseo, dicho que parecia que cada hora les era perder vn año de tiempo por estar ya á las manos con los Enemigos.” Oviedo, Hist. de las Ind., MS., ubi supra.
[410] According to Diaz, the desire to possess himself of the lands of his comrade Chichemecatl, who remained with the army (Hist. de la Conquista, cap. 150); according to Herrera, it was an amour that carried him home. (Hist. general, dec. 3, lib. 1, cap. 17.) Both and all agree on the chief’s aversion to the Spaniards and to the war.
[411] “Y la respuesta que le embió á dezir fué, que si el viejo de su padre, y Masse Escaci le huvieran creido, que no se huvieran señoreado tanto dellos, que les haze hazer todo lo que quiere: y por no gastar mas palabras, dixo, que no queria venir.” Bernal Diaz, Hist. de la Conquista, cap. 150.
[412] So says Herrera, who had in his possession the memorial of Ojeda, one of the Spaniards employed to apprehend the chieftain. (Hist. general, dec. 3, lib. 1, cap. 17, and Torquemada, Monarch. Ind., lib. 4, cap. 90.) Bernal Diaz, on the other hand, says that the Tlascalan chief was taken and executed on the road. (Hist. de la Conquista, cap. 150.) But the latter chronicler was probably absent at the time with Alvarado’s division, in which he served. Solís, however, prefers his testimony, on the ground that Cortés would not have hazarded the execution of Xicotencatl before the eyes of his own troops. (Conquista, lib. 5, cap. 19.) But the Tlascalans were already well on their way towards Tacuba. A very few only could have remained in Tezcuco, which was occupied by the citizens and the Castilian army,—neither of them very likely to interfere in the prisoner’s behalf. His execution there would be an easier matter than in the territory of Tlascala, which he had probably reached before his apprehension.
[413] Herrera, Hist. general, dec. 3, lib. 1, cap. 17.—Torquemada, Monarch. Ind., lib. 4, cap. 90.
[414] “Y sobre ello ya auiamos echado mano á las armas los de nuestra Capitanía contra los de Christóual de Oli, y aun los Capitanes desafiados.” Bernal Diaz, Hist. de la Conquista, cap. 150.{*}
{*} [As they were approaching the town, Olid sent a squad of soldiers ahead to secure quarters. When Alvarado entered he found every house in the place already decorated with the green branch upon its roof, which indicated that it was already occupied. According to Bancroft, Alvarado and Olid began their march on the 22d of May. He insists that Prescott was misled by an error in Cortés, Cartas, 208.—M.]
[415] Bernal Diaz, Hist. de la Conquista, cap. 150.—Rel. Terc. de Cortés, ap. Lorenzana, p. 237.—Gomara, Crónica, cap. 130.—Oviedo, Hist. de las Ind., MS., lib. 33, cap. 22.
[416] The Tepanec capital, shorn of its ancient splendors, is now only interesting from its historic associations. “These plains of Tacuba,” says the spirited author of “Life in Mexico,” “once the theatre of fierce and bloody conflicts, and where, during the siege of Mexico, Alvarado ‘of the leap’ fixed his camp, now present a very tranquil scene. Tacuba itself is now a small village of mud huts, with some fine old trees, a very few old ruined houses, a ruined church, and some traces of a building, which —— assured us had been the palace of their last monarch; whilst others declare it to have been the site of the Spanish encampment.” Vol. i. let. 13.
[417] Rel. Terc. de Cortés, ap. Lorenzana, pp. 237-239.—Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 94.—Oviedo, Hist. de las Ind., MS., lib. 33, cap. 22.—Bernal Diaz, Hist. de la Conquista, cap. 50.—Gomara, Crónica, cap. 130.—Clavigero settles this date at the day of Corpus Christi, May 30th. (Clavigero, Stor. del Messico, tom. iii. p. 196.) But the Spaniards left Tezcuco May 10th, according to Cortés; and three weeks could not have intervened between their departure and their occupation of Cojohuacan. Clavigero disposes of this difficulty, it is true, by dating the beginning of their march on the 20th instead of the 10th of May; following the chronology of Herrera, instead of that of Cortés. Surely the general is the better authority of the two.