When Montezuma Met Cortes

by Matthew Restall

  11.CCR (1960: 57; 1971: 94) (me trajeron figurada en un paño toda la costa). On the coastal Nuremberg Map, see Boone (2011: 38–41). My analysis is heavily indebted to the insights in Mundy (1998: 26–28).

  12.His fame: Hajovsky (2015: 11). Title page: See the Gallery; CCR (1522: frontispiece/title page (de la q[ua]l ciudad y provi[n]cia es rey un gra[n]disimo señor llamado Muteeçuma: do[n]de le acaeciero[n] al capita[n] y los españoles espa[n]tosas cosas de oyr. Cuenta largame[n]te del gra[n]dissimo señorio del dicho Muteeçuma y de sus ritos y cerimonias. y de como se sirve); see the Gallery figure for the original text. Also mentioned once on this page is “Your Majesty,” King Carlos, presumably the monarch in the portrait (Schreffler 2016: 23–24 is clear on that fact), although I suspect the image is also meant to convey a generic monarch—taken from an old plate of a medieval Castilian king (there are similar portraits in earlier Cromberger publications) and intended to refer here both to Carlos and to Montezuma.

  13.See the Gallery for an imaginative depiction of Spaniards and Aztecs before Popocatepetl and Iztaccihuatl, showing two related but separate moments, one in the background, one in the foreground. The accompanying passage in America parallels the background moment, recounting that all but two of the ten Spaniards who climbed one of the volcanoes had to turn back (but those two reached “the Fiery Gulph,” for which “they were admir’d by the Indians for their undaunted Resolution”; Ogilby 1670: 85; Montanus 1671: 79). The foreground image of feather-dressed indigenous men begging a haughty Cortés to stop the eruption is not in this text, or supported by any account of the Spanish invasion. But the impression of “undaunted” Spaniards and credulous, superstitious “Indians” is consistent with centuries of European accounts of the early Spanish-indigenous encounters. Gómara repeats that the climb up the volcano was made by ten unnamed Spaniards; Aguilar and Díaz state that Ordaz led the group, with Díaz claiming “he took with him two of our soldiers and certain of the principal men of Guaxoçingo [the nearby Nahua town of Huexotzinco]” (LXXVII; 1632: f.54v; 2005 [1632]: 189) (llevó consigo dos de nuestros soldados y çiertos indios principales de Guaxoçingo). According to Díaz LXXVIII (1908, I: 288), Ordaz was granted a coat of arms depicting a smoking volcano, although I found no mention of this in the Ordaz probanza in AGI Patronato 150, 5, 1 (or in the 1529 Ordaz letters in AGI Justicia 712 [old citation] and Otte 1964). The events of November 1 and 2 are described by CCR (1522: f. 9v–10r; 1971 [1519–23]: 78–80; 1993 [1519–25]: 198–202) (original quotes, in order: quisiessen perseverar en nos hazer alguna burla . . . diez de mis compañeros . . . truxeron mucha nieve y caranbalos para que los viesemos . . . algunas aldeas . . . viven muy pobremente . . . el dicho Muteeçuma los tiene cercados con su tierra . . . para todos muy complidamente de comer y en todas las posadas muy grandes fuegos y mucha leña . . . me dixeron que era hermano de Muteeçuma . . . fasta tres mill pesos de oro . . . era tierra muy pobre de comida y que para yr a ella auia muy mal camino . . . que viesse todo lo que queria que Muteeçuma su señor me lo mandaria dar . . . nos podrian ofender aquella noche). One of the better recent summaries of November 1–8 is Thomas (1993: 265–85).

  14.CCR (1522: f. 7r; 1971 [1519–23]: 73; 1993 [1519–25]: 192–93).

  15.The events of November 3–6 are described in CCR (1522: f. 10; 1971 [1519–23]: 80–81; 1993 [1519–25]: 202–3) (original quotes, in order: unas muy buenas casas . . . hasta xl esclauas y iii mill castellanos . . . todo lo necessario pa nra comida . . . me fiziessen proueer d todas las cosas necessarias . . . y assimismo quisieran alli prouar sus fuerças con nosotros: excepto que segun parescio quisieran fazerlo muy a su salvo: i tomarnos de noche descuydados . . . espias que venian por el agua en canoas como de otras q por la tierra abarauan a ver si hauia aparejo pa efecutar su voluntad amanescieron quasi quinze o veynte q las nras las auian tomado y muerto). A castellano was the same as a peso de oro, and was a specific weight of gold (in Cortés’s day, legally equivalent to 485 maravedís). Obviously the Aztecs are not actually giving Cortés gold in coins (as Mesoamericans did not mint coins and did not value gold the way Europeans did), so he was probably estimating for the king the value of the gifts being given him. He was also likely exaggerating, in order to impress the king with the wealth of the land he had found; as discussed in a later chapter, this would come back to trouble Cortés for decades, as the royal inquiry into his activities repeatedly focused on the eventual location of all this alleged gold.

  16.See the Gallery for the rendering of the Valley of Mexico first printed in 1869 by the Chicago atlas publisher George F. Cram, showing the route that the Spanish-Tlaxcalteca forces took November 5–8 from Chalco through Ayotzinco, Cuitlahuac, and Ixtlapalapan, into Tenochtitlan. Where Cram marked “Camp of Cortez” was not where the expedition camped, but was the gateway where Montezuma’s advance entourage of a thousand men came to greet the invaders. Printed variously in color and in black and white, this example is from a 1904 edition of John Abbott’s 1856 biography of Cortés (1904 [1856]: 190).

  17.The events of November 7 are described in CCR (1522: f. 10; 1971 [1519–23]: 81–83; 1993 [1519–25]: 203–6) (original quotes, in order: un gran señor mancebo fasta xxv años . . . que alla nos veriamos y conosceria del la voluntad que al servicio de vra alteza tenia . . . ahincaron y purfiaron mucho . . . padesceria mucho trabajo y necessidad).

  18.Today the town is called Tláhuac and is one of the sixteen districts (delegaciones) of Mexico City (the Distrito Federal); the lakes around it have long ago been almost completely drained (see Candiani 2014) (quotes for this paragraph: una cibdad la mas hermosa aunque pequeña que fasta entonces habiamos visto assi de muy bien obradas casas y torres como de la buena orden que en el fundamento della habia por ser armada toda sobre agua . . . nos dieron bien de comer . . . me hizieron muy buen acogimiento . . . fasta iii mill o iiii mill castellanos y algunas esclauas y ropa . . . tan buenas como las mejores de España . . . bien labradas assi de obra de canteria como de carpinteria).

  19.Díaz LXXXVII; LXXXVIII (1632: f. 64v, 65r; 1910, II: 39; 2005, I: 218–19, 220; 2008 [1632]: 156–57) (ver cosas nunca oidas ni vistas, ni aun soñadas, como vimos . . . y no era cosa de maravillar porque jamas avian visto cavallos ni hombres como nosotros).

  20.CCR (1522: f. 11r; 1971 [1519–23]: 83; 1993 [1519–25]: 206–7) (original quotes: que pueden ir por toda ella ocho de caballo a la par . . . muy buenos edificios de casas y torres . . . estan en la costa della y muchas casas dellas dentro en el agua).

  21.Delgado Gómez (in Cortés 1993: 210) suggests that propuso (from proponer) is intended, following the Madrid MS, not prepuso (from preponer, “to place in front, prioritize”). In fact, I think Cortés may have deliberately written prepuso, intending to convey the formality and legal significance of the speech.

  22.Las Casas quote in LCHI, Bk. 3, Ch. 58 (1971: 196); he also denounces the Requirement in his Very Brief Account (2003 [1552]: 35–36). For my earlier discussion of the Requirement, see Restall (2003: 87, 94–95, 98, 105); also see Seed (1995); Clayton (2012: 66–69). Gruzinski (2014: 91) calls Montezuma’s surrender speech a “textbook illustration” of ideal Requirement practice.

  23.Faudree (2015: quote on 459); this article’s important rethinking of the Requirement as “performative” and for a Spanish audience does not mention Montezuma’s speech, but Faudree does rightly suggest that her analysis might apply to other Spanish documents “legitimating power” (457) in the Americas. My earlier thinking on the Requirement (2003: 94) did not move far beyond the Las Casas “absurd” verdict. Damian Costello, a scholar of Las Casas, has made similar arguments to Faudree in work as yet unpublished, and I thank him for sharing it and for his correspondence on the topic (October–December 2016).

  24.CCR (1522: ff. 43v–44v; 1971 [1519–23]: 86–87; 1993 [1519–25]: 210–12). Potonchan was a Chontal Maya town, today in Tabasco state; Cempohuallan (Cempoala) was the Totonac capital city, near the Gulf coast, today in Veracruz state; and Tascaltecal was Tlaxcallan.


  25.In other words, history is the dynamic whereby two worlds generate an encounter, which thereby alters those worlds—a self-generating dynamic built around multiple encounters. This is similar to what the structuralist anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has called “the structure of the conjuncture” (1985: xiii–xiv, 153). Also see Sewell (2005: 197–224). For a fuller treatment of my “Encounter Theory of History” and the debt it owes to Sahlins (1985 et al.), Sewell (2005), and Altman (2008), see Restall (n.d.). “Warped”: Fernández-Armesto (2015: 168). “Facts”: Carr (1961: 30).

  26.Fernández-Armesto (2014: xxi); Carr (1961: 7–30); Díaz (1632); Miralles (2008); Duverger (2013); Adorno (2007; 2011: quote on 6). A brief essay that defines the New Conquest History (NCH) is Restall (2012). NCH examples that focus specifically on Mesoamerica and are illustrative of how it has evolved over the last quarter century include Lockhart (1993), Restall (1998; 2003), Wood (2003), Townsend (2006), Matthew and Oudijk (2007), Restall and Asselberg (2007), Schroeder (2010), Schwaller and Nader (2014), and Villella (2016).

  27.I have borrowed the phrase narcotic effect from Lamana (2008: 33, writing about Spanish accounts of the Conquest of Peru).

  28.“Genes”: Gruzinski (2014: 68). “Configuration”: Lamana (2008: 6).

  29.Seigel (2004: 436–38) expands engagingly on the larger argument here (although neither the Spanish Conquest nor Mexico falls under her purview).

  CHAPTER 2: NO SMALL AMAZEMENT

  1.Epigraph sources, in sequence: Ogilby (1670: 86); Escoiquiz (1798, III: 337) (Cortés entró triunfante, y al Imperio / De España se agregó aquel emisferio).

  2.Although designed by Brumidi in 1859, the frieze was painted later—by him and Filippo Costaggini between 1878 and 1889. See the excellent official website on the Capitol and the frieze for its history and high-quality images: aoc.gov/history-us-capitol-building; also Hanson (2015–16: 2–10) and Restall (2016c). On the Columbus-Armstrong link, see Restall (2003: 2). I am grateful to William “Chuck” diGiacomantonio of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society for his correspondence and assistance.

  3.Johannsen (1985: 150, 155, 246).

  4.Cholmley (1787) is a memoir that mostly covers the exploits of Sir Hugh’s father (also Sir Hugh) in the English Civil War; it includes the Tangier years but makes no mention of the Mexico paintings; on those, see Morris (1866, I: 14); Henning (1983, I: 62–63).

  5.Brienen in Jackson and Brienen (2003: 57–58); Brienen and Jackson (2008: 188, 204–5). The second and third Anglo-Dutch Wars were in 1665–67 and 1672–74.

  6.Solís (1684 et al.); Brienen and Jackson (2008: 189); Restall (2008: 94, 100–2); Schreffler (2008: 118–22).

  7.More specifically, this sweep of sources includes the more than one hundred histories, novels, plays, poems, and paintings discussed throughout this book, including a wide variety of modern textbooks, as well as films and television shows (such as the 2015 Spanish series Carlos, Rey Emperador).

  8.The first book-length reconstruction of the “Conquest of Mexico” was Francisco López de Gómara’s 1552 biography of Cortés; since then, almost all books, be they titled as biographies or as Conquest histories, have narrated the story around Cortés. Prescott, for example, declared from the start of his History of the Conquest of Mexico that his “purpose” was “to exhibit the history of this Conquest, and that of the remarkable man by whom it was achieved,” explaining that he chose not to end his narrative with the fall of Tenochtitlan, as Solís and others did, but to continue “to the death of Cortés, relying on the interest which the development of his character in his military career may have excited in the reader” (1994 [1843]: 9, 3). For group citations of Cortés biographies/Conquest histories, see Restall (2016a) and my notes to the chapters in Parts III–IV.

  9.I am drawing here upon Brooks’s insight into Cortés’s Second Letter (1522) as itself a three-act drama (1995: 151–57).

  10.Like the frieze in the Capitol Rotunda, the Kislak Paintings are also easily found online (in color): loc.gov/exhibits/exploring-the-early-americas/conquest-of-mexico-paintings.html.

  11.For an argument against categorizing conquistadors as army soldiers, see Restall (2003: 27–37).

  12.Aguilar and Malintzin are introduced in Painting #1, in a background (but well-lit) scene that brings in the important theme of religious conversion (the implied purpose and justification of the invasion). The scene is captioned as “the baptism of doña Marina and five other [women],” and the culmination of the events in the painting is “they [the people of Tabasco] make peace and are the first Christians of this New Spain” (Entran en Tabasco las nuestros por la punta de los palmares; Bautisase D. Marina y otras cinco; Azen pazes y son los primeros cristianos desta nueva España).

  13.Kislak Paintings #2 and #3 are both included in the Gallery. The cartouche (added later) at bottom right of Painting #2 translates to: “Cortés arrives in Veracruz, anchors in Veracruz. The caciques, with the ambassadors from the emperor Montezuma, go out and bring presents of gold and textiles. Cortés receives them, after [talking] by means of the interpreters Marina and Aguilar. He eats with them and then he has the horses gallop and [cannon fire].” The key identifies: “Cortés-1, Bernal [Díaz]-2, Caciques giving presents-3, Messengers[?]-4, Those who galloped-5, The artillery-6, Marina-7, The other people-8.” The original cartouche is badly faded and its corresponding numbers presumably faded too and were poorly rewritten (Díaz’s “2” is on the rock off the coast, and the “1” for Cortés, himself cut off in a reframing, is in the sea). The cartouche to Painting #3 translates to “Cortés leaves for Iztapalapa, where he discovers towns and cities on the water and the straight causeway; Moctezuma comes out of Mexico to receive him and presents him with the necklace that he had around his neck. Cortés goes to put his arms around him but they restrain him, as that is not customary. Four kings carry the bier on their shoulders.”

  14.The cartouche in Kislak Painting #4 (also in the Gallery) translates to “Seeing themselves surrounded within the palace in Mexico, the Spaniards have Moctezuma appear on a rooftop and from there he calmed them down; but an Indian threw a stone and the other Indians shot arrows from which he died; they put the rooms to the torch.”

  15.The cartouche in Kislak Painting #7 (in the Gallery) reads, “The final battle for Mexico by Cortés and his men along the three causeways that go to Mexico, and across the lagoon with the brigantines, which the Indians fought savagely. Pedro de Alvarado wins the great temple of Huitzilopochtli [alto cu de guichilobos] and raises the flag of His Majesty.” Painting #8 is not included in our Gallery.

  16.Anonymous (1522 [Newe Zeitung]); Anonymous (1522 [Ein Schöne Newe Zeytung]); Wagner (1929); Martyr d’Anghiera (1521).

  17.Newe Zeitung, von dem Lande, das die Spanier funden haben ym 1521 Iare genant Jucatan (Anonymous 1522 [Newe Zeitung]); because the Yucatan peninsula was the first part of Mesoamerica discovered by Spaniards on the expeditions of the late 1510s, the whole region, Mexico included, was initially called Yucatan (soon replaced by “New Spain”). Block quote: Anonymous (1522 [Newe Zeitung]: unnumbered p. 6), my translation, indebted to Wagner (1929: 201) and with the kind assistance of Wolfgang Gabbert (personal communication, January 2014).

  18.This famous line from Gilbert and Sullivan’s comic opera The Mikado (1885) is applied to Díaz’s account (XCV; 1632: ff. 74v–75) of Montezuma’s arrest in Brooks (1995: 167–68), from where I have borrowed it.

  19.Anonymous (1522 [Ein Schöne Newe Zeytung], unnumbered p. 7); my translation, heavily indebted to Wagner (1929: 206).

  20.Calvo (1522; 1985); he titled the booklet News of the Islands and the Mainland Newly Discovered in India by the Captain of His Caesarean Majesty’s Fleet. Block quote: Calvo (1522: f. 5v; translation from the Italian is mine, but aided by 1985: 24–25). A more detailed analysis of the timing of these accounts of 1522 would need to include discussion of Carlos’s own efforts to expand and retain his growing European empire.

  21.I am building here upon my brief discuss
ion of the Meeting in Restall (2003: 77–82, 87, 92, 95–98).

  22.Wytfliet (1598: 57–58) is an example of the stripped-down version. The Solís version (1684: 220–27 [Bk. III, Chs. X–XI]; 1724: 59–64) was copied or paraphrased in numerous eighteenth-and nineteenth-century accounts. Also see Gómara (1552: Chs. 65–66; 1964: 140–42); Díaz LXXXIX–XC (1632: ff. 66–67v); Herrera (1601: 224–29; 1728, I: 400–4; Dec. II, Bk. VI, Chs. 5–6); Ruiz de León (1755: Canto VI, 166); Escoiquiz (1798, I: final stanzas); Prescott (1994 [1843]: 278–86). Note that, if judged by modern standards and practices, the run of accounts from Gómara through Solís and into the eighteenth century would all be considered heavily tainted by plagiarism; they all tell the same story, misleading later historians into seeing evidence piling up, instead of Cortesian lies repeated. Perhaps the most pernicious example is Díaz, because he is still so widely read and so praised as offsetting Gómara’s hagiography with the “truth” (in fact, he overwhelmingly follows Gómara, copying page after page with minor changes, sometimes adding invention to error or error to invention; Brooks 1995: 168–76), as being objective with respect to Cortés (in fact, his book is an extended defense of Cortés and an attack on Velázquez and his faction), and as being an eyewitness with an incredible memory (his invented memories and imagined presence at events have been extensively documented; Miralles 2008); no wonder Duverger (2013) concluded that Díaz was not his book’s true author!

  23.Properly called General History of the Things of New Spain, the Florentine Codex (which I have cited throughout as FC), was circulated in manuscript in sixteenth-century Mexico but not published until the nineteenth century. Sahagún quote is from his introduction in Book I (FC, I: 9); the Conquest narrative is FC, XII. Scholar of Peru: Lamana (2008: 8 et al.).