Note 399 — Chapter XIV · SUBJUGATION OF CHOLULA. October, 1519.

Spanish chroniclers as a rule approve the deed as necessary and just, either in tacit or open comment, and a few devout missionaries, who have assumed the rank of Indian apostles, are the only ones to take exception. Chief among these stands Las Casas, as might be expected from his sympathy with Velazquez, and from his character as Indian protector. He condemns it in the most unmeasured terms as a base murder of innocent and defenceless people, committed merely with a view to spread terror. Six thousand carriers, he writes, were shut up in a court and put to the sword, while the many discovered alive on the following days were thrust through and through. The chiefs of the city and neighborhood, to the number of over 100, were chained together to a circle of poles and burned alive, and the king, who fled with 30 or 40 followers to a temple, met the same fate there. While the soldiers were butchering and roasting the captives, ‘

eorum Capitaneum summa lætitia perfusum in hunc cantum prorupisse

:

Las Casas, Regio. Ind. Devastat., 26-8. A number of finely executed copper plates are appended to illustrate these deeds.

Bernal Diaz expresses himself hotly against this version, and states that several of the first Franciscans who came to Mexico held an investigation at Cholula of the massacre. After examining the leaders, and other persons who had witnessed it, they came to the conclusion that the story of the conquerors was true, and that the slaughter was a well merited punishment for a plot which involved the lives of Cortés’ soldiers, and would, if successful, have stayed the conquest for God and the king. Diaz had heard the pious Motolinia say that although he grieved over the deed, yet, being done, it was best so, since it exposed the lies and wickedness of the idols. Hist. Verdad., 61. The Franciscans did not probably care to weigh carefully the value of testimony from new converts given before a tribunal composed of their religious and political masters, nor were they likely to favor a Dominican friar like Las Casas when the interest of their patron Cortés was at stake. In awe of the friars, and in terror of the conquerors whose encomienda slaves they were, the Indians hardly dared to say aught to implicate the latter. This is doubtless the view Las Casas would have taken. Intent on pleading the cause of his dusky protégés, he cared not to sift statements that might create sympathy for them. Yet, had he foreseen how widely his accusations would be used to sully Spanish fame, he might have been more circumspect. ‘E’ vero, che fu troppo rigorosa la vendetta, ed orribile la strage,’ says Clavigero; yet he severely condemns Las Casas for his distorted account. Storia Mess., iii. 63-4. According to Sahagun’s native record, the Tlascaltecs persuaded Cortés to avenge them on the Cholultecs, and as the latter received him coldly, he began to believe the accusations of his allies. Assembling the chiefs and soldiers, together with citizens, in the temple court, he slaughtered them, defenceless as they were. Hist. Conq., 18. Bustamante comments on this version, and denounces the conquerors as atrociously cruel. Id. (ed. 1840), 56-63. Duran’s version is a little milder. His main object being to give the life of Montezuma, he has passed by many events connected with the Spaniards, and has suppressed many accounts of their cruelties. He accordingly refers but briefly to the Cholula massacre, saying that ‘the Indians, in their eagerness to serve the Spaniards, came in such large numbers to their quarters with provisions, grass, etc., that Cortés suspected treasonable designs, and put them to the sword.’ Hist. Ind., MS., ii. 438-9. Ixtlilxochitl evidently struggles between his fear of the Spanish rulers and the desire to tell what he regards as the truth. He intimates that the only ground for suspicion against the Cholultecs was the effort to dissuade Cortés from going to Mexico. The chiefs and the citizens were assembled on the pretence of selecting carriers, and over 5000 fell beneath the sword. Hist. Chich., 294. An antagonistic view of the affair is offered by Juan Cano, of Narvaez’ expedition, who gave Oviedo the hearsay statement that Cortés had asked for 3000 carriers, and wantonly killed them. iii. 552. Carbajal Espinosa, a Mexican historian, like Bustamante, regards the victims as innocent and the deed as barbarous. Hist. Mex., ii. 182. Robertson considers that Cortés had good reasons for it, yet ‘the punishment was certainly excessive and atrocious.’ Hist. Am., ii. 452. Solis condemns those who seek to accuse the Spaniards of cruelty and to pity the Indians—‘maligna compasion, hija del odio y de la envidia.’ The conquerors gave religion to them, and that he regards as sufficient compensation. Hist. Mex., i. 345. ‘Cortez felt but doubtful of their fidelity, and feared to leave his rear to a people who might ruin his enterprise,’ says Wilson, Conq. Mex., 383, in explanation of the motive; but he forgets that a few hostages, as taken from other peoples on the route, would have secured Cortés far more than the murder of a small percentage of this population. Prescott compares the deed with European cruelties, and, considering the danger threatening the Spaniards, he excuses it. He prefaces his comments by a consideration of the right of conquest. Mex., ii. 29-39. Alas for honesty, humanity, decency, when talented American authors talk of the right of one people to rob and murder another people! See also Veytia, Hist. Ant. Méj., iii. 381-2; Pizarro y Orellana, Varones Ilvstres, 86-9; Peralta, Not. Hist., 112-13, 313-14; Pimentel, Mem. Sit., 90-2. Although some of the early Dutch writers eagerly copy and even exaggerate Las Casas’ version, the contemporary German writers are quite moderate. Cortés’ version is given in the Weltbuch Spiegel und bildtnis des gantzen Erdtbodens von Sebastiano Franco Wördensi, Tübingen, 1534, ccxxxvii leaves, beside preface and register. This book was much sought after in its day, and received several editions, in German and Dutch, as late as the seventeenth century. The earliest mentioned by Harrisse is dated 1533. The new continent was gradually receiving a larger space in the cosmographies at this period, and Franck actually assigns it a whole section, as one of the four parts of the world. The historic and geographic description of Africa occupies the first and smallest section; Europe follows and absorbs about half the pages, while Asia receives 100 folios, and America the remainder, beginning at folio 210. The heading reads: Von America dem vierdten teyl der welt, Anno M.CCCC.XCVII. erfunden; but after this chapter follow several pages on Portuguese discoveries in Africa and eastward, till folio 220, when begins the voyage of Columbus, ‘sunst Dauber genant,’ the German translation of the admiral’s name. After several chapters on the physical features, natural resources, and inhabitants of the new discoveries, comes one relating how Americus Vespucius found the fourth part of the world. This is followed by three pages of matter on Asia, as if the author, fearful of forgetting it, there and then gave his story. Several interpolations occur, but the chief portion of the remaining folios relates to Cortés’ conquest of Mexico. The carelessly compiled and badly arranged material of the volume claims to be based on over sixty authorities, among which figure Apianus, Munster, Vespucci, Columbus, and Cortés. The affix Wördensi indicates that Franck was a Hollander, although he is often referred to as a German, probably because his life was passed chiefly in Germany. Here he issued, among other works, a not very orthodox chronicle, which was excommunicated at Strasburg. Franck was chased from more than one place, but enjoys the honor of standing in the first class among authors condemned by the Roman Church, and of having been deemed worthy of special refutation by Luther and Melancthon. Even the liberal-minded Bayle, after applying the term Anabaptist, refers to him as ‘un vrai fanatique.’ Dict. Hist., ii. 1216.