to have originated with Cortés, who was by no means scrupulous, as we have seen, while Narvaez appears to have borne the reputation of a man of honor.[1] It is still more probable that Cortés invented the warning in order to be free before his followers, and before Narvaez, to carry out a more momentous project, which, with the increased knowledge of affairs in the enemy's camp, and with the growth there of his party, had begun to unfold in his mind.
It was a grand conception; yet grander still the execution. It was a different matter with a small force to fall upon a well appointed army of countrymen; different from war on naked savages, to surprise them by night, or otherwise to vanquish them. Yet this was what Cortés now proposed to do. Nor, in adopting this bold measure, does he lay himself open to the charge of rashness or recklessness. His situation was desperate: he must conquer or be conquered. Cortés was no abstract theorist: he dealt mainly in concrete facts; not necessarily demonstrated facts, but facts reached often by intuition alone. With facts, intuitively or practically arrived at, he kept himself well stored. He possessed many noble qualities, but on the whole, as we have seen, his character was not cast in an immaculate mould. He was exceedingly religious; and while, as I have said, he would not let religion stand in the way of his ambition, yet he was more bigoted than any of his followers. Aside from the chivalrous abandonment of himself to fate, and the brilliant achievements thence arising, there was little admirable in him. He knew nothing of lofty magnanimity, although he did many magnanimous acts; he knew nothing of pure disinterestedness, or a generosity of soul, although he was ofttimes exceedingly generous. He had none of that sense of unswerving justness and sensitiveness to wrong which characterized Grijalva. His self-posses-
- ↑ The fact that he allowed such dangerous men as Velazquez de Leon and Olmedo to go free indicates that he harbored no treachery.
