Notes
Page 80 (1).—Bernal Diaz, Hist, de la Conquista, cap. 126.—Oviedo, Hist, de las Ind., MS. lib. 33, cap. 13.—Gomara, Crónica, cap. 107.
Page 80 (2).—Cortés sent Marina to ascertain from Montezuma the name of the gallant chief who could be easily seen from the walls animating and directing his countrymen. The emperor informed him that it was his brother Cuitlahuac, the presumptive heir to his crown, and the same chief whom the Spanish commander had released a few days previous.—Herrera, Hist. General, dec. 2, lib. 10, cap. 10.
Page 82 (1).—Acosta reports a tradition, that Guatemozin, Montezuma's nephew, who himself afterwards succeeded to the throne, was the man that shot the first arrow.—Lib. 7, cap. 26.
Page 82 (2).—I have reported this tragical event, and the circumstances attending it, as they are given in more or less detail, but substantially in the same way, by the most accredited writers of that and the following age,—several of them eye-witnesses. (See Bernal Diaz, Hist, de la Conquista, cap. 126.—Oviedo, Hist, de las Ind., MS., lib. 33, cap. 47.—Rel. Seg. de Cortés, ap. Lorenzana, p. 136.—Camargo, Hist, de Tlascala, MS.—Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 88.— Herrera, Hist. General, dec. 2, lib. 10, cap. 10.—Torquemada, Monarch. Ind., lib. 4, cap. 70.— Acosta, ubi supra.—Martyr, De Orbe Novo, dec. 5, cap. 5.) It is also confirmed by Cortés in the instrument granting to Montezuma's favourite daughter certain estates by way of dowry. Don Thoan Cano, indeed, who married this princess, assured Oviedo that the Mexicans respected the person of the monarch so long as they saw him; and were not aware, when they discharged their missiles, that he was present, being hid from sight by the shields of the Spaniards. This improbable statement is repeated by the chaplain Gomara. (Crónica, cap. 107.) It is rejected by Oviedo, however, who says that Alvarado, himself present at the scene, in a conversation with him afterwards, explicitly confirmed the narrative given in the text. (Hist, de las Ind., MS., lib. 33, cap. 47.) The Mexicans gave a very different account of the transaction. According to them, Montezuma, together with the lords of Tezcuco and Tlatelolco, then detained as prisoners in the fortress by the Spaniards, were all strangled by means of the garrote, and their dead bodies thrown over the walls to their countrymen.
It is hardly necessary to comment on the absurdity of this monstrous imputation, which, however, has found favour with some later writers. Independently of all other considerations, the Spaniards would have been slow to compass the Indian monarch's death, since, as the Tezcucan Ixtlilxochitl truly observes, it was the most fatal blow which could befall them, by dissolving the last tie which held them to the Mexicans.—Hist. Chich., MS., ubi supra.
Page 83 (1).—"I went out from the fortress, although my left hand was crippled by a wound that I had received on the first day; tying my shield to this arm I marched to the tower with some Spanish followers."—Rel. Seg. de Cortés, ap. Lorenzana, p. 138.
Page 84 (1).—See ante, vol. i. p. 44. I have ventured to repeat the description of the temple here, as it is important that the reader, who may perhaps not turn to the preceding pages, should have a distinct image of it in his own mind, before beginning the combat.
Page 85 (1).—Many of the Aztecs, according to Sahagun, seeing the fate of such of their comrades as fell into the hands of the Spaniards, on the narrow terraces below, voluntarily threw themselves headlong from the lofty summit and were dashed in pieces on the pavement. "And those (Mexicans) upon the summit, seeing the slaughter of those who were below, and the killing of their comrades who climbed up, began to throw themselves down from the temple; all these died, dashed to pieces, with broken arms and legs, for the temple was very lofty; those who did not jump were thrown down by the Spaniards, and thus everyone of the Mexicans who reached the summit died a cruel death."—Sahagun, Hist, de Nueva España, MS., lib. 12, cap. 22.
Page 85 (2).—Among others, see Herrera, Hist. General, dec. 2, lib. 10, cap. 9.—Torquemada, Monarch. Ind., lib. 4, cap. 69.—and Solís, very circumstantially, as usual, Conquista, lib. 4, cap. 16.421
