ence of a formidable enemy in the coast provinces, whose threatening attitude against both him and Cortés served to form a bond between them.
More than a year previous, Nuño de Guzman had been appointed governor of Pánuco, in accordance with the royal policy of restricting the power of officials, and with a view to support Ponce de Leon, in case of need, to obtain control at Mexico. He was a cavalier of good connection, from Guadalajara, who had long resided at Puerto de Plata, in Española, as encomendero; but beyond the claim as colonist, and a knowledge of law, he appears to have possessed no experience or merit for service rendered that could have warranted the bestowal of so important a portion of New Spain, conquered and settled by more deserving men. The preferment was due chiefly to the influence of the Velazquez party, who, regardless of the many zealous adherents in Mexico, chose to support a member of the ruling clique.[1] He was known, however, as a man possessed of the talent and resolution necessary to support Ponce and to face the dreaded Cortés in his own field.
Sickness and preparations detained him from his post for over a year, and he did not reach his capital of San Estévan del Puerto until May 20, 1527.[2] His entry was celebrated with processions, triumphal arches, and other demonstrations attending the inauguration of a new government from which conciliatory reforms and favors are expected. These hopes were not unreasonable, for Guzman was most engaging in manners, pleasant in converse, and of evident culture; and only time revealed the haughty disposition, the cruel nature, and the unprincipled ambition of the
- ↑ That he was of this clique appears from the advancement soon after of his relative Gonzalo de Guzman to the governorship of Cuba. Zumárragqa, Lettre, in Ternaux-Compans, Voy., serie ii. tom. v. 19. 'Sin mas seruicios, ni esperiécia de guerra,' is Herrera's indignant comment on Guzman's appointment. dec. iv. lib. iii. cap. vii.
- ↑ Herrera indicates the year 1528. Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., iv. 733, writes 1525, and others are equally in error.
