MOTIVES AND CONDEMNATION.
417
from the maddened multitude without were soon heard, roaring in response to the death clamor of their countrymen. Warned by the guard at the gates, the plunderers hastened to regain the fort. Yells of execration greeted them as they issued from the temple, and showers of stones and darts fell thick, while the front ranks of the assailants pressed them with swords and clubs.[1] Short as was the distance to the
- ↑ Tapia, and others, in Ramirez, 38, 67, 131. Torquemada assumes that the arms used by the assailants were those which had been collected for the outbreak in the houses adjoining the temple. i. 490. As regards the motives for the massacre, the Spanish authorities seek as a rule to justify them, while the native accounts are equally inclined to ascribe them to greed or to wanton cruelty. According to Sahagun the celebration was held at the instance of Alvarado, who slaughtered the devotees without known cause. Hist. Conq., 27 (ed. 1840), 100. Duran, who is as prejudiced as he is blundering, dates the massacre after the return of Cortés from the coast. Alvarado persuades him to secure the submission of the country by killing all the Îords and chiefs, and they are accordingly allured to their death. Hist. Ind., MS., ii. 456–7. Las Casas inclines to a similar motive; 'quo magis cresceret, & augeretur in his provinciis formido illorum crudelitatis.' Regio. Ind. Devastat., 30. Nearer the truth comes Ixtlilxochitl, who, while disposed to credit his countrymen, dares not accuse the Spaniards, and so takes the prudent middle course of casting the blame on the Tlascaltecs. Prompted by the hatred bred of former wrongs inflicted by Mexicans, and by greed for spoils, they invent charges of treason and speedy revolt. Alvarado, being also avaricious, is readily induced to believe them, and considers it besides a good opportunity to obtain control by dispatching the assembled chiefs, unarmed as they are. Hist. Chich.,300; Relaciones, 389,412. Ixtlilxochitl is not to blame for his assumption, since his admired guide, the biographer of Cortés, does not attempt to defend Alvarado, but merely mentions that he was influenced either by reports of a proposed uprising or by avarice. Gomara, Hist. Mex., 151. The commentator Chimalpain says bluntly that the latter motive 'es mas de creer.' Hist. Cong., i. 281; Benzoni, Mondo Nuovo, 94; Pizarro y Orellana, Varones Ilvstres, 92. Vetancurt rather condemns Alvarado for acting on insufficient evidence. Teatro Mex., pt. iii. 139-40. Cortés' silence respecting the cause may be attributed to his usual prudence in suppressing unpleasant facts. He states, however, that Montezuma supplicated him not to be annoyed at what. had happened, since he regretted it as much as the Spaniards. This implies that the Indians were regarded as originators of the trouble. The severity with which he treated the emperor on his return to Mexico, notwithstanding the efforts made by him to save the Spaniards, indicates still more strongly that Cortés was convinced of Mexican treachery. Cartas, 126 et seq. In the letter of the army to the emperor the uprising is attributed to Narvaez' plots. Carta del Ejército, in Icazbalceta, Col. Doc., i. 429. Herrera notices the native versions, particularly that which accuses the Tlascaltecs. of having trumped up charges against the Mexicans, but he affirms, 'la verdad fue, que pensaron matar los Castellanos.' He thereupon enumerates proofs. of the plot. dec. ii. lib. x. cap. viii. Torquemada, who is more fully acquainted with native accounts, condemns them as unreliable, and states that Sahagun accepted them without investigation. i. 489-91. The charge that Alvarado was influenced by avarice is promptly rejected by Bernal Diaz. 'No lo creo, ni nunca tal oí, ni es de creer que tal hiziesse.' His motive was to inspire terror and inflict such injury as to prevent the Indians from attacking Herrera
