[124] Ibid., cap. 156.—Also Oviedo, Hist. de las Ind., MS., lib. 33, cap. 48,—and Martyr (De Orbe Novo, dec. 5, cap. 8), who, by the epithet of magnanimo regi, testifies the admiration which Guatemozin’s lofty spirit excited in the court of Castile.
[125] The ceremony of marriage, which distinguished the “lawful wife” from the concubine, is described by Don Thoan Cano, in his conversation with Oviedo. According to this, it appears that the only legitimate offspring which Montezuma left at his death was a son and a daughter, this same princess.—See Appendix, No. 11.
[126] For a further account of Montezuma’s daughter, see Book VII., chapter iii. of this History.
[127] The event is annually commemorated—or rather was, under the colonial government—by a solemn procession round the walls of the city. It took place on the 13th of August, the anniversary of the surrender, and consisted of the principal cavaliers and citizens on horseback, headed by the viceroy, and displaying the venerable standard of the Conqueror.{*}
{*} [It was the royal standard, not that of Cortés, which was carried on this occasion. The celebration was suppressed by a decree of the cortes of Cadiz in 1812. Alaman, Conquista de Méjico, trad. de Vega, tom. ii. p. 212, note.—K.]
[128] Toribio, Hist. de los Ind., MS., Parte 3, cap. 7.—Sahagun, Hist. de Nueva-España, MS., lib. 12, cap. 42.—Bernal Diaz, Hist. de la Conquista, cap. 156.—“The lord of Mexico having surrendered,” says Cortés, in his letter to the emperor, “the war, by the blessing of Heaven, was brought to an end, on Wednesday, the 13th day of August, 1521. So that from the day when we first sat down before the city, which was the 30th of May, until its final occupation, seventy-five days elapsed.” (Rel. Terc., ap. Lorenzana, p. 300.) It is not easy to tell what event occurred on May 30th to designate the beginning of the siege. Clavigero considers it the occupation of Cojohuacan by Olid. (Stor. del Messico, tom. iii. p. 196.) But I know not on what authority. Neither Bernal Diaz, nor Herrera, nor Cortés, so fixes the date. Indeed, Clavigero says that Alvarado and Olid left Tezcuco May 20th, while Cortés says May 10th. Perhaps Cortés dates from the time when Sandoval established himself on the northern causeway, and when the complete investment of the capital began. Bernal Diaz, more than once, speaks of the siege as lasting three months, computing, probably, from the time when his own division, under Alvarado, took up its position at Tacuba.
[129] It did not, apparently, disturb the slumbers of the troops, who had been so much deafened by the incessant noises of the siege that, now these had ceased, “we felt,” says Diaz, in his homely way, “like men suddenly escaped from a belfry, where we had been shut up for months with a chime of bells ringing in our ears!” Hist. de la Conquista, ubi supra.
[130] Herrera (Hist. general, dec. 3, lib. 2, cap. 7) and Torquemada (Monarch. Ind., lib. 4, cap. 101) estimate them at 30,000. Ixtlilxochitl says that 60,000 fighting-men laid down their arms (Venida de los Españoles, p. 49); and Oviedo swells the amount still higher, to 70,000. (Hist. de las Ind., MS., lib. 33, cap. 48.)—After the losses of the siege, these numbers are startling.{*}
{*} [And entirely untrustworthy, as are almost all of the estimates, made by the Conqueror, of the native inhabitants or warriors.—M.]
[131] “Digo que en tres dias con sus noches iban todas tres calçadas llenas de Indios, é Indias, y muchachos, llenas de bote en bote, que nunca dexauan de salir, y tan flacos, y suzios, é amarillos, é hediondos, que era lástima de los ver.” Bernal Diaz, Hist. de la Conquista, cap. 150.