If a clever gleaner of the curious and notable things in literature
should write on the curiosities of historical speculation, he would be
sure to take some account of "A New History of the Conquest of Mexico"
published in Philadelphia in 1859. The special aim of this work is to
deny utterly the civilization of the Aztecs. The author has ability,
earnestness, and knowledge of what has been written on the subject; he
writes with vigor, and with a charming extravagance of dogmatic
assumption, which must be liked for its heartiness, while it fails to
convince those who study it. This writer fully admits the significance
of the old ruins, and maintains that a great civilization formerly
existed in that part of the continent. This he ascribes to the
Phoenicians, while he gives it an extreme antiquity, and thinks the
present ruins have existed as ruins "for thousands of years," explaining
these words to mean that their history "is separated by a cycle of
thousands of years from the civilization of our day." In his view, the
people who constructed the old cities were subjugated and destroyed,
long ages since, "by inroads of northern savages," who were the only
people in the country when the Spaniards arrived.
The chief business of this "New History" is to set forth these views.
Under the treatment of its author, Montezuma becomes a rude Indian
sachem, his kingdom a confederation of barbarous Indian tribes like that
of the Iroquois, the city of Mexico a cluster of mud huts or wigwams in
an everglade, its causeways rude Indian footpaths, its temples and
palaces pure fictions of lying Spanish romance, and all previous
histories of the Aztecs and their country extravagant inventions with a
"Moorish coloring." He would have us believe that what he calls "the
pretended civilization of Montezuma and his Aztecs" was a monstrous
fable of the Spaniards, a "pure fabrication," encouraged by the civil
authority in Spain, and supported by the censorship of the Inquisition.
Therefore he undertakes to destroy "the fabric of lies," unveil those
"Mexican savages" the Aztecs, and tell a "new" story of their actual
character and condition.
Of course, views so preposterous do not find much favor. If the Mexicans
had been nothing more than this, the experience of Cortez among them
would have been like that of De Soto in his long and disastrous march
through Florida, the Gulf regions, and the country on the lower
Mississippi. Cortez and his men had a different fortune, because their
march was among people who had towns, cities, settled communities, and
the appliances and accumulations of civilized life. Doubtless some of
the Spaniards exaggerated and romanced for effect in Spain, but they did
not invent either the city of Mexico or the kingdom of Montezuma. We can
see clearly that the Mexicans were a civilized people, that Montezuma's
city of Mexico was larger than the present city, and that an important
empire was substantially conquered when that city was finally subjugated
and destroyed.
That the ancient city of Mexico was a great city, well built partly of
timber and partly of cut stone laid in a mortar of lime, appears in all
that is said of the siege, and of the dealings of Cortez with its people
and their rulers. Montezuma, wishing to remove false notions of the
Spaniards concerning his wealth, said to Cortez during their first
interview, "The Tlascalans, I know, have told you that I am like a god,
and that all about me is gold, silver, and precious stones; but you now
see that I am mere flesh and blood, and that _my houses are built of
lime, stone, and timber_." Lime, stone, and timber! This was the poorest
view of the old city of Mexico that could be given to those who saw it.
It is not easy to understand how a denial of the Aztec civilization was
possible.