| The first paragraph or the hyphenated word end was joined in the previous page. — Ineuw (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
Ashamed, perhaps, of his share in the transaction, and unwilling to face the taunts of the captive, Montezuma refused to see him, and he was surrendered to Cortés, who, regardless of royalty, applied the fetters as the surest means against escape.[1] This seizure scattered the conspirators and their schemes to the winds, and the demoralization was completed by the arrest of several of the more important personages, such as the king of Tlacopan and the lords of Iztapalapan and Coyuhuacan, who were also shackled.[2] Thus we see that Montezuma's captivity did not greatly affect his power, since he could so readily place under restraint the confederate kings, in their own provinces; and it was not wholly unwelcome to him to find his misfortune shared by other prominent men, since this made his disgrace less conspicuous.
- ↑ Gomara, Hist. Mex., 133. Yet Bernal Diaz assumes that Montezuma examined him and the other prisoners, 'y supo Monteçuma de los conciertos en que andaua, que era alçarse por señor.' Hist. Verdad., 80. 'Y à cabo de pocos dias le dieron Garrote secretamente,' adds Torquemada, i. 470, erroneously. Had Cortés fallen into his hands, the stone of sacrifice would speedily have received him, and the captive must accordingly have regarded himself as mercifully treated. The general knew the value of such prominent hostages. The leniency gained him besides great credit, as Solis rightly assumes. Hist. Mex., ii. 21-2.
- ↑ 'En ocho dias todos estuuieron presos en la cadena gorda.' Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 80. This author includes the lord of Matlaltzinco, who escaped his pursuers the longest, and when finally brought before the emperor spoke his mind so freely that he would have been consigned to the executioner had not Cortés interfered. Duran adds the lord of Xochimilco instead of the last two. Hist. Ind., MS., ii. 444. 'Pigliò ancora il Re di Tlacopan, i Signori d'Iztapalapan, e di Cojohuacan, fratelli tutti e due del Re Motezuma, due figliuoli di questo medesimo Re, Itzquauhtzin Signor di Tlatelolco, un Sommu Sacerdote di Messico, e parecchj altri.' Clavigero, Storia Mess., iii. 107.
recommended Tepetzinco as the place best suited for beginning operations on Mexico, and while proceeding to the place in a canoe he was carried on to Mexico by his faithless brothers. Without Ixtlilxoclhitl's aid Montezuma and Cortés could never have been able to overcome the powerful Cacama, concludes the author. Hist. Chich., 298-9. In his Relaciones, 389, 412, the same author states that Cacama was seized not for plotting, but because Cortés desired to secure so powerful a personage. Brasseur de Bourbourg follows the former version, and believes that Montezuma favored the conspiracy as a means to oblige the Spaniards to depart. Hist. Nat. Civ., iv. 258. There may be some truth in this belief, so far as the beginning of the plot is concerned, but it must be considered that Montezuma would have preferred not to intrust such a movement to a probable rival, the ruler of a people jealous of Aztec supremacy, and the ally of his most hated enemy, Ixtlilxochitl. If, again, Cacama was his tool, the emperor would not have had him seized, to be executed for all he knew, when he could have warned him to flee or to defend himself. Had Ixtlilxochitl surrendered the king, Cortés would not be likely to give the credit to Montezuma, as he does. Cartas, 97-8.
