# Letters of Cortes to Emperor Charles V - Vol 1/Appendix 7 of the Second Letter

APPENDIX VII.
DEATH OF MONTEZUMA
Montezuma's assurance to the people that he was not held a prisoner, but lived with the Spaniards from choice, free to come and go at his pleasure, was so contrary to obvious facts, and his reproof to them for taking arms, as though they had been the aggressors, was so unjust, that he failed to secure the cessation of hostilities. On the contrary, he had hardly finished speaking when the young prince Quauhtemotzin, who was one of the leaders of the people, reviled him as a coward and the effeminate tool of the Spaniards, declaring that his subjects renounced obedience to one who had so degraded his royal dignity. With that he hurled a stone, and, in the volley of missiles which followed, one struck the Emperor on the head (Codex Ramirez in Orozco y Berra, tom. iv., cap. x.; Acosta, Hist. Nat. y. Moral de las Indias, lib. vii., cap. xxvi.). Clavigero refuses to believe that Quauhtemotzin so insulted his royal uncle, but offers no reason for his disbelief. The Spaniards, who had been charged to protect Monteztmia's person with their shields, were not quick enough, and it is said he was also wounded by arrows in the arm and in the leg. The wounds were not, however, serious, but the unfortunate monarch was evidently determined not to survive this supreme humiliation, and, refusing to allow his hurts to be properly dressed, he remained without food in a profoundly dejected condition. Herrera describes Cortes as showing the greatest concern, solicitously visiting the Emperor to comfort him, but it seems little likely that in the midst of his perilous occupations the commander found time to condole with his wounded captive, for Montezuma's tardy efforts for peace had failed completely, and, though Prescott says that the Aztecs "shocked at their own sacrilegious act. . . dispersed, panic-struck in different directions. . . so that not one of the multitudinous array remained in the great square," there seems to be no authority for believing that any such dramatic revulsion of feeling took place. Montezuma had fallen from his royalty and his high priesthood, to be a thing of scorn and loathing to his people, while his influence on the course of events was less than nil. Montezuma Xocoyotzin ninth king of Mexico died on June 30, 1520, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, the eighteenth of his reign, and in the seventh month of his captivity.
His death was attributed, by the Spaniards, to the wound caused ​by the stone, which struck him on the head; by the Mexicans, it was on the contrary, asserted that he was put to death by Cortes. The Codex Ramirez, before quoted from the work of Orozco y Berra, states that Montezuma was found stabbed to death by the Spaniards, with the other chiefs who shared his captivity. Acosta accepts this as true, and Father Duran (cap. 76) says "They found him dead with chains upon his feet, and five dagger wounds in his breast, and with him many other of the chiefs and lords who were prisoners." Amongst the nobles were the kings of Tlacopan and Texcoco and the lord of Tlatelolco. Cacamatzin, according to Ixtlilxochitl was stabbed fortyfive times, and he adds that Montezuma died from the wound in his head, "although his vassals say that the Spaniards themselves killed him, and plunged a sword into his fundament" (apud, Orozco y Berra, tom. iv., cap. x.). The murder of the other chiefs was deemed necessary, as it was neither possible to be burdened with them in the flight from the city, nor was it wise to release them. Their bodies were thrown out of the Spanish quarters at a spot called Teayotl, because of a stone turtle which stood there, in the hope that their fate might discourage the people, and also give them occupation in preparing their funerals as required by custom (Sahagun, lib. xii., cap. xxiii.; Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chichimeca). Cortes's account of the wounding and death of Montezuma was naturally followed by Gomara; Oviedo also copies his words, and says that he heard the same account viva voce from Pedro de Alvarado; Herrera asserts that the emperor's wound was not mortal (lib. x., cap. x.), but that he died because he refused all attendance and food; and Bernal Diaz, who relates the same story, adds the affecting detail that Cortes and all the captains and soldiers wept as though they had lost a father (Verdadera Hist., cap. cxxvi.), which those may believe who can. Clavigero refers to the grief of the Spaniards, as described by Bernal Diaz, and says that, in view of the contradictory accounts, it seems impossible to know the truth adding, "I cannot believe that the Spaniards would take the life of a king to whom they owed so many benefits, and from whose death they would derive only evil." He does not say why he cannot believe this; Montezuma's influence was gone; another leader had been chosen by the nation in the person of the brave Quauhtemotzin, and when Cortes announced his death, offering to deliver his body for burial they cried out: "We want Montezuma neither living nor dead!" (Herrera, lib. x., cap. X.) Hence the fallen sovereign's presence was only an embarrassment to Cortes, who was planning to fight his way out of the city with as few encumbrances as possible—even the precious gold was being left behind. The moment the emperor became an obstacle, his doom was sealed, and there was nothing in the character or conduct of Cortes which warrants the belief that he was influenced by sentiments of compassion for the king he had degraded, while his disposal of Cacamatzin at that time, and of Quauhtamotzin later in Yucatan, revealed the absence of any scruples whatever. Prescott joins Clavigero in his ​generous assumption, and with a fine outburst of indignation finds it "hardly necessary to comment on the absurdity of this monstrous imputation." Such sentiments do credit to the magnanimity of these writers, for it is manifestly the nobler part to admit such a charge against Cortes, only when forced by irrefutable proofs, which in this case are not forthcoming. Orozco y. Berra, the results of whose exhaustive researches are expressed in calm, judicial language in his Conquista de Mexico, adopts the Indian version. Clavigero has perhaps said the most that generous impartiality will allow, when he states that "There reigns such variety among historians that it seems impossible to verify the truth." Torquemada (lib. iv., cap. Ixx.) records that Montezuma's body was taken to Copalco where it was cremated, according to the Aztec usage, though the solemnity was marred by the insults heaped by some of the by-standers upon the hapless corpse. Herrera was of the opinion, that the body was buried at Chapultepec, because the Spaniards heard great lamentations in that quarter, and because that was the place of royal sepulture, but the observation of Clavigero on this opinion, that there was no fixed place for burying the sovereigns and that Chapultepec, being some three miles distant from the Spanish quarters it was hardly likely they could have heard lamentations, seems to weaken this assumption.
Diego Muñoz Camargo, the Tlascallan historian, would seem to be the chief authority for the pious legend that Montezuma was baptised by his own desire just before he died, and that Cortes and Pedro de Alvarado were his godfathers. Gomara asserts that the Emperor had expressed his wish to become a Christian prior to Cortes's departure from Mexico to meet Narvaez, but that the ceremony was deferred until Easter so that it might be celebrated with more solemnity, and was afterwards forgotten amid the confusion of the changed circumstances. The silence of Cortes on a matter he would have been eager to report in his letters, seems alone sufficient to dispose of the assertion, and Torquemada, who would also have not been slow to enroll a royal convert, does not admit the story (Monarchia Indiana, lib. iv., cap. Ixx.). A most instructive dissertation on this subject is contained in an interesting study by Don José Fernando Ramirez entitled Bautismo de Motecuhzoma II., Noveno Rey de Mexico.
A pathetic figure is that of this Aztec king, gifted with some of the highest qualities of his race, venerated during a long and prosperous reign almost as a demi-god, only to be humbled to the very dust. The starting point of his downfall was his superstition, for had he listened to his generals rather than to his priests Cortes and his handful of adventurers would never have left the sea-coast alive. The misfortunes and humiliations of the last months of his life seem to have completely changed his character, so that from the time of his docile abdication at the bidding of Cortes, to the infamy of his appearance on the walls of the Spanish quarters to rebuke his long-suffering people, was but a ​step on the way to the nameless grave where his dishonoured form was finally laid.
Prescott's description of the scenes of Montezuma's death-bed, with Cortes present to whom he confided his daughters, is based upon Cortes's own narration made in the grant afterwards conceded to one of the daughters, Doña Isabel, when she married Alonzo Grado, who is described in the same document as an hidalgo of Alcantara (Prescott, lib. iv., cap. ii.)
It is to Cortes's credit that he recognised the debt of the Spanish crown to Montezuma, and that he procured the royal protection for his children.
END OF VOLUME I.