The following is a partial summary of the contents of three original sources: The Florentine Codex - Book 1; Cortéz: the Life of the Conqueror by his Secretary; and Five Letters to the Emperor, by Cortéz himself. I'm interested in what these narratives reveal about Aztec and Spanish perceptions of the world, and how those perceptions affected the outcome of the conquest. The record of the events presents us with a number of factors which contributed to the Spanish victory over the Aztecs - and eventually over all the Mesoamerican tribes -  but the roles of the various factors is ambiguous. The importance of different factors to success or failure changed with different situations. In forming alliances, a Nahuatl translator was crucial, but was of no use in combat. In the open field, horses were a great advantage, but on narrow causeways they were not. The Aztec belief in predestination was a factor in Moctezuma's submission to Cortéz, but it didn't prevent Aztec warriors from driving the Spanish out of Tenochtitlan. Despite this situational ambiguity, there were some factors that, taken together, could account for the Spanish victory: the smallpox epidemic, steel swords and lances, horses, the crossbow and cannon, a Nahuatl interpreter, the fragmentation of the Aztec empire, and the vulnerability of Tenochtitlan. Of the various factors that contributed to the fall of the Aztec empire, the original sources provide insight into those of cultural and perspective. They reveal the fundamental mysticism of Aztec society through Moctezuma's speech to Cortéz, and through the signs of predestination cited by the narrators of the Florentine Codex. In that mystic and deterministic interpretation of the world is support for Inga Clendinnen's argument that warfare itself is an aspect of culture, and that the Aztec conduct of diplomacy and combat with the Spaniards was a product of their cultural and religious beliefs.

Before I begin with the theme of culture, there are some problems I want to admit with applying the word "original source" to all three of these documents. Francisco López de Gómara was not actually present at the events he describes in his biographical account of Cortéz . The letters of Cortéz to the Emperor were written to impress the Spanish court, and contain transparent exaggerations. The Florentine Codex was written in Nahuatl by Franciscan monks who were presumably fluent in the language, and compiled by Fray Bernardino de Sahagún.  Still, we cannot be certain of the exact meanings and context in which the Nahuatl account was made. In other words, all three documents have some flaws, either because of uncertainty of authorship and translation, or because of an agenda held by the author or authors which colors their account. These shortcomings, however, are inherent in original sources. They represent the view of a particular person or group of persons at a point in time. They are not necessarily, therefore, more accurate or honest than the view of historians or observers who are removed from the event. These biases are part of the information provided by original sources, and should be seen as additional information about the actor, and about the actor's cultural frame of reference, rather than a corruption of the source.

Despite their different perspectives, the three original sources I used agreed on the major events of the conquest: the Spanish victory over the Tlaxcalans; the fact that Moctezuma allowed Cortéz to enter Tenochtitlan as his guest; the massacre of Aztec worshipers by Pedro de Alvarado and the events of Noche Triste: the contest for leadership between Panfilo de Narvaez and Cortéz at Cempoala; the expulsion of the Spaniards from Tenochtitlan; and the desperate final defense of Tenochtitlan by the Aztecs. The extent to which they differ in particulars does not greatly change the historical record. The differences are primarily in detail, especially between the account by Cortéz, which tends to be sweeping and general, and that of  Gómara, which is more detailed. The differences between these two sources and the Codex is often the result of each set of authors seeing the other in the context of their own culture. Cortéz frequently describes the Indian through analogies to Moors. In Cholula, he notes that the people were "better clothed" than the Tlaxcalans, wearing "a kind of Moorish cloak".[i] The Spaniards associated being clothed with being civilized. Later, he climbs a "little mosque" to survey the town.[ii] The Aztecs attempted to understand the Spanish in terms of their own culture as well. When Cortéz arrives at the court of Moctezuma, the Indians offered their guests food that had been prepared with the blood of sacrificial victims. It was logical, since Aztec gods fed on human hearts and blood, that the Spaniards would be pleased with the offering. Instead, "Much did it revolt them; it nauseated them. For strongly did it reek of blood".[iii] When Moctezuma heard that Cortéz was marching inland with his Tlaxcallan allies, he sent officials to meet him with a trove of gold, cloaks, feathers, and necklaces. The Spanish reaction to the gold is recorded in the Florentine Codex: "As if they were monkeys they seized upon the gold. It was as if their hearts were satisfied, brightened, calmed. For in truth they thirsted mightily for gold; they stuffed themselves with it; they starved for it; they lusted for it like pigs."[iv]  This account speaks not only to Spanish acquisitiveness, but to the Indian discipline in things having to do with self-gratification. A warrior society valued drinking, fighting, relaxation, and sexual pleasure, but the enjoyment of them was regulated by custom and by rank. It must have seemed ignoble or barbaric to the Aztecs to see such a display of unchecked greed.

In the course of highlighting these cultural misunderstandings, the original sources reveal that the Aztecs were conceptually unprepared for the Spaniards. That they were technologically unprepared is evident in the superior tools the Spanish had at their disposal: cannon, crossbow, steel swords, brigantines, and engineers who could build ships and mobile wooden bridges. That they were conceptually unprepared is shown in their references to the prophecy of Quetzalcoatl, and in their understanding of the conquest in terms of a divine cycle of growth and decay. Their mystic understanding of the world contributed to their sense of fatalism, and may explain why the Indians didn't attempt to capture and use Spanish translators in the manner in which Cortéz used Doña Marina. The narratives provide some support the positions of Tzvetan Todorov, Inga Clendinnen and Nancy Farriss that knowledge, culture, religion, and language determined the course of the conquest.

The In the early part of the Florentine Codex, the authors list the signs that foretold of the disaster of the conquest. This ties to the Aztec cosmology which was based on the idea of predestination, and the cyclic view of history which was explained by Nancy Ferriss in her article, "Remembering the Future, Anticipating the Past: History, Time and Cosmology Among the Maya of Yucatan" that all things that would happen had precedents in the past. All things could be divined by spiritual knowledge, or contact with the gods. Thus, when the conquest came, there was a temptation on the part of the Aztec story-tellers to look back for signs which they might have previously missed or misinterpreted that would have indicated the conquest was imminent. This may also reflect a post-conquest effort by the authors to preserve and justify their belief in predestination. The book opens with an enumeration of these signs:

an "omen of evil" appeared in the sky, like a column of fire,

the temple of the "demon Uitzilipochtli" caught fire for no apparent reason,

a temple was struck by lightning,

there was a comet "in three parts"

the "lake water foamed up",

a woman was heard wandering the streets, lamenting for a lost son,

some hunters caught a brown crane with the sign of a constellation on its head,

lastly, they caught "thistle-men having two heads", who escaped before they could be brought to Moctezuma.[v]

When Moctezuma meets Cortéz, he makes an oblique reference to the mystery of the future, and how it is revealed only in dreams, prophecies and distorted visions. The Aztecs compared the vision of the future to looking into a fogged mirror, and so they lived with the insecurity of knowing that the future was both pre-ordained and largely impenetrable. Moctezuma's speech to Cortéz speaks volumes about his world-view:

"O that one of them might witness, might marvel at what to me now hath befallen, at what I see quite in the absence of our lords. I by no means merely dream, I do not merely see in a dream, I do not see in my sleep… I have gazed at the unknown place whence thou has come - from among the clouds, from among the mists… The rulers departed maintaining that thou wouldst come to descend upon thy mat, upon thy seat. And now it hath been fulfilled, thou hast come… May peace be with our lords."[vi]

It would also be logical, within the context of the Aztec metaphysical world, that magic and divination would be the first tools used to understand and deter the newcomers. Moctezuma sent magicians and soothsayers, "that they might see what sort (the Spanish) were; that they might perhaps use their wizardry upon them, cast a spell over them; that they might perhaps blow upon them, enchant them… so that they might take sick, might die, or else because of it turn back."[vii] Repeatedly, Moctezuma and his nobles attempt to dissuade the Spanish from approaching Tenochtitlan, and become increasingly afraid and paralyzed as the Spanish approach. Because of their indeterminate nature and intentions, however, the Aztec king does not risk warfare. Who can hope to fight a god and win?

It is uncertain how much of the Aztec paralysis in the face of Cortéz's initial advance was the result of Moctezuma's personal doubts and fears, and how much it reflected a common sentiment among the nobility. The Codex was recorded after the conquest, when the Aztecs had been beaten badly, and  Moctezuma's wavering must have seemed cowardly and imprudent to them in retrospect. Consequently, the account of his behavior in the Codex is unflattering, especially for an Aztec warrior. When he learned that "the gods" wished to see him personally, "it was as if his heart was afflicted; he was afflicted. He would flee; he wished to flee…"[viii] Later, when Moctezuma was put in chains by his Spanish guests, the rulers of the surrounding areas, who had been at the temple to receive the Spanish, and who were present at Moctezuma's court, "abandoned him in anger" because he had allowed the Spanish into his city and then submitted to their authority.[ix]

It is difficult for the student of history, reading this original source, to disassociate the feelings and words ascribed to Moctezuma from those of the Aztecs in general. The narrators of the Codex place the blame on Moctezuma's shoulders by way of relieving themselves and their nobles from culpability. Their references to the cosmology and determinism of the Aztec people are one cultural aspect that they relate explicitly. When Cortéz's men clear the maguey cactus from the road to Tenochtitlan, "the common folk said: 'Let it be thus. Let it be accursed. What more will it be that you do? For already we are to die, already we are to perish. Yea, we await our death.'"[x] The common people may have said no such thing, but the fact that the narrators say it is significant. They are asserting that the conquest affirmed their belief in predestination, and its associated fatalism. It can be seen as a defense of one's cultural beliefs in the face of the destruction of one's culture.

Having accounted for the Aztec mentality invites a comparison with the conquistadors, who also had a perspective on the world that was greatly influenced by their religious beliefs. Both Columbus and Cortéz had the objective of Christianizing the Indians as one of their motivations for conquest. This seems to have been more than moral posturing, for both men devoted a considerable amount of energy to the project of spread of Christianity among the Indians. Upon reaching Mexico, Cortéz told his men the first priority of the conquest was the "rooting out of… idolatries from the natives and bringing them to a knowledge of God and the true Catholic Faith…".[xi] Still, one did not find conquistadors rushing into the countryside to convert Indians, but instead rushing to the cities to extract tribute, slaves and gold. They weren't really as interested in looking for converts as Cortéz's Letters suggest. This hypocrisy served the Spanish well, as it kept their Christian beliefs from interfering with their conduct. J. Bayard Morris comments in Five Letters of Cortés to the Emperor that the Spaniards as a group saw the spiritual mandate to Christianize as a part of their  secular goals of conquest. He says in the introduction, "A compromise between treasure-hunting, empire building, and the spreading of the gospel was therefore easily effected; and the paradox of preaching an evangel of peace by means of the sword and musket was never perceived".[xii] The fact that the Spaniards referred frequently to their deliverance from harm as being "by the grace of God" does not indicate a fatalistic mentality such as that of the Indians, but rather a malleability of Christian belief to conform to the circumstances. The difference between the Cortéz's and those of the Aztecs is that Cortéz appeals to God to sanction his conduct, rather than to guide or instruct him. For Cortéz, knowledge is the product of investigation, not of reading omens.

Francisco López de Gómara, who did not travel with Cortéz, but wrote his biography, adds a little depth to Cortéz's account. According to Lesley Byrd Simpson, the translator and editor of  De Gómara's work, De Gómara's account and that of his critic, Bernal Díaz, "correspond so closely in their narratives… that their fundamental difference turns out to be one of style".[xiii] I would say the same of De Gómara's account of the conquest and Cortéz's. The similarities reflect partly that De Gómara was Cortéz's chaplain and paid secretary, and that he used Cortéz as his primary source. De Gómara's account is an interesting supplement to Cortéz's own account because it gives more insight into what Cortéz was thinking as events unfolded, whereas Cortéz's own letters were somewhat contrived. For example, López de Gómara indicates that Cortéz saw the conquest as a war from the very beginning, and evaluated each piece of information that he acquired along his journey with a military purpose in mind. Of course, Francisco López de Gómara is not an indifferent source. He was an admirer of Cortéz, and wanted to support his master's reputation. His work, as Cortéz's own account should be read with this in mind. We are reading an account that praises Cortéz the way a friend or admirer would write about him, rather than the way a disinterested historian might write.

Lesley Byrd Simpson, translator of de Gómara's work, points to a passage from the book that indicates how De Gómara answered the criticism that there was a paradox in preaching with "sword and musket". He says, "Truth to tell, it is war and warriors that really persuade the Indians to give up their idols, their bestial rites, and their abominable bloody sacrifices…".[xiv] So when Cortéz sets out on a mission of conquest after he sees the booty brought back from the coast of the Yucatan in 1518 by Juan de Grijalba, one can see it as a mission of both commercial conquest and Christian evangelism, with the commercial motive the dominant one. The commercial motivation was strong enough that it was not necessary to pay the crews of the conquest before or during the voyage. Instead, they were promised a share of the spoils of the New World. In his speech to his troops before their departure from Cuba, Cortéz mingles the Christianizing spirit with naked opportunism: " We are engaged in a just and good war which will bring us fame. Almighty God, in whose name and faith it will be waged, will give us victory… and if you do not abandon me, as I shall not abandon you, I shall make you in a very short time the richest of all men who have crossed the seas…".[xv]

The Spaniards' ability to adhere to religious formalities, such as hearing mass while in the field, or baptizing Indians, while simultaneously ignoring the spirit of the Christian faith showed a mentality that distinguished the formal, religious and legal formalities from the pragmatic and more scientific approach to warfare, engineering, sailing, and food production. Their ritualistic delivery of the requerimiento, for example, gives the impression that Spanish law shares a mystic element Aztec and Christian rituals. When Moctezuma delivers his speech of submission to Cortéz in Tenochtitlan, Cortéz notes in his journal that, "All this took place in the presence of the public notary and was duly drawn up by him in legal form and witnessed in the presence of many Spaniards".[xvi] Although this has an air of absurdity to it, it was part of a cultural and historical tradition of legalistic forms that the Spanish used for determining property rights, citizenry, and rights of conquest. It differs fundamentally from the Aztec system of ritual, which was aimed at imposing a religious orthodoxy on individual behavior and maintaining the power of elites who ruled through religious authority.

By linking culture and ritual to words and deeds, all three sources, but especially the Codex, reveal how differences in Spanish and Aztec beliefs influenced the course of the conquest. They reveal through narratives of the actors how the Indians and Spanish understood - or, more accurately, failed to understand - each other. Each saw the other through the beliefs of his own culture, which are either expressly or implicitly found in the narratives. The speeches of Moctezuma and the descriptions by the authors of the Codex are filled with references to predestination and cyclic history. Those of the Spanish contain references to their own sense of divine mission, to their search for wealth, to their preoccupation with legal formality and politics, and to their self-confidence and pragmatism. This is the nature of original sources, which are not written by historians, nor by dispassionate observers. None of the original sources we have read in class have been without some bias or ideological motive for expressed by the author. For that matter, the same could be said about the latter-day histories.