Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm
In the future, we’re all going to be urban biologists.
—Timothy Quinn, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2003)
KEY CONCEPTS
1. There are several lines of evidence that document the need for urban wildlife management.
2. There are similarities and differences between wildlife management in urban and rural habitats.
3. The wildlife profession is still not prepared to meet the wildlife management challenges in urban environments.
I.1 A SNAPSHOT OF THE URBAN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPE
To be absolutely accurate, the focus of this book is on wild vertebrate species found in human dominated landscapes… but “urban wildlife” is quick, catchy, and is the accepted terminology. Urban, in this context, includes both the cities and the suburbs. Also known as “the built environment,” an urban landscape includes places where most of the property is devoted to all things man-made and/or maintained: buildings of all shapes and sizes, manicured lawns and landscaped office parks, cemeteries and vacant lots, strip malls and parking structures, elementary schools and college campuses, airports and warehouse districts. A substantial portion of this land is covered with some kind of impervious surface, in the form of either structures or pavement. The plant life is often native to other parts of the world or highly hybridized and thus requires much caretaking in the form of mowing, pruning, weeding, watering, and treating with herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers.
Urbanization and the encroachment of people into formerly undeveloped wild habitats will continue into the foreseeable future, changing the landscape and the wildlife management agenda. In fact, in the first edition of this book, published in 2006, we predicted that within the next 10–20 years it was entirely possible that urban wildlife management (UWM) would become the dominant focus of wildlife professionals. Now, a little more than 10 years later, it would be an overstatement to say that UWM is presently the primary focus of the profession, but the issue continues to gain attention and importance in the professional literature, the popular media, the classroom, and among state and federal agency personnel.
I.2 CHANGING WILDLIFE VALUES
There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from a grocery store, the other that heat comes from a furnace.
Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac, 1949)
The “typical” American has changed dramatically over the past 50+ years in contrast to the dominant rural, agricultural lifestyle of previous eras. Life in cities and suburbs has influenced Americans’ attitudes and expectations concerning wildlife. Many, if not most, are several generations removed from a culture of living close to the land. They are more likely to value wildlife similarly to the way they value companion animals and people (Mankin et al. 1999, Sterba 2012) than as a consumptive-use resource.
The Baby Boom Generation and their children were raised in a technological rather than natural environment. As such, contemporary society retains an affinity with nature, described by biologist E.O. Wilson as biophilia (1984), but it has also become exceptionally uninformed about the natural world (including wildlife) around them…which is not to say they’ve lost their curiosity about wildlife and the natural world. Access to both is considered an important contribution to quality of life. Americans are now more likely to be involved in wildlife-related recreation such as observing, feeding, and photography than traditional hunting and fishing activities (Figures I.1 and I.2).
Figure I.2 Interest in nonconsumptive wildlife recreation is on the rise. (Courtesy of Mason Hayes.)
Figure I.1 Participation in traditional consumptive-use activities has decreased over time. (Courtesy of Chris ware and Mark tyson.)
The home-building industry has certainly taken note of the public’s interest in connecting to the natural world; promoting close proximity of green space and wildlife has become a common marketing strategy for developers.
If you doubt this statement, consider that in 2011 more Americans were involved in wildlife watching (71.8 million) than the combined total of those who hunt and fish (33.1 million, U.S. Department of the Interior 2011). The U.S. Census Bureau (2010) estimated the total population is growing at an average rate of 1.16% each year, but societal participation in hunting, fishing, or wildlife watching is not increasing in proportion to total population growth (Figure I.3). However, the number of self-reported wildlife watchers has dropped less (down 6% since 1991) than the ranks of hunters and anglers (down 10% since 1991, U.S. Department of the Interior 2011, Figure I.4).
It appears that state DNRs are losing their traditional clientele base with no signs of reversing the trend. According to Robinson and Ridenhour (2012), little research has addressed the decline in hunting. They proposed two hypotheses that attributed the decline of hunting to the urban publics’ (1) decreasing interest in the outdoors due to their preferences for indoor electronic media (e.g., called videophilia) and (2) reduced access and connection to rural areas as a result of urbanization. State DNRs are fully aware of the declining hunting license sales revenues and game animal overpopulations. Urban residents are often disinterested in conservation and do not see the connection with hunting as a recreational pursuit and overpopulations of game animals. DNRs, however, have no sustainable programs that recruit the urban public back into hunting, or compete with contemporary urban societies’ preferences for engaging with the wildlife around them. Efforts to bring the urban public back as hunting participants causes one to recall the old southern American phrase, “that dog won’t hunt,” meaning something just isn’t going to happen. How is all of this relevant to UWM? Wildlife management agencies need to begin addressing the attitudes, activities, knowledge, and expectations of the majority, nonhunting, urban public concerning all things wild. Their future may rely, in part, on the development of wildlife management programs that specifically target the educational needs of a nonconsumptive majority. “One size will not fit all” in this endeavor. The entire conceptual framework for Urban Wildlife Management exemplifies the
Figure I.3 Percent changes in u.s. population and participation in hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching (u.s. department of the Interior 1991, 1996, 2000, 2006, 2012). (Courtesy of Clark e adams.)
Figure I.4 u s. population changes in census and participation in wildlife watching, hunting, and fishing. (u s department of the Interior 1991, 1996, 2000, 2006, 2012). (Courtesy of Clark e adams.)
diversity of knowledge required to begin reframing the wildlife management paradigm to fit the needs of twenty-first-century urban publics.
I.2.1 Disconnecting from Nature
So what does the population shift from primarily rural to primarily urban mean in terms of the public becoming partners in ecosystem management? Though many studies have demonstrated a connection between access to the natural world and improvements to health and quality of life, when it comes to competing for the public’s attention, the “outdoors” is at a disadvantage compared to smartphones and other mobile devices, laptop computers, and social network platforms, not to mention television, video games, and the shopping mall (Sterba 2012). There appears to be a growing public disconnect with nature, described by author Richard Louv as “nature deficit disorder” (2005). One memorable quote from his book Last Child in the Woods came from a suburban fifth grader who said, “I like to play indoors better ‘cause that’s where all the electrical outlets are.” In addition to Louv’s work, there are a number of books and other publications dedicated to examining the growing detachment of urbanites from the natural world, including Nature Wars (Sterba 2012) and Welcome to Subirdia (Marzluff 2014).
I.2.2 Structural Barriers
A structural barrier—restricted access to wildlife resources on private rural lands—further aggravates public indifference toward wildlife. Causes for lack of access may include proximity (or lack thereof), landowner resistance, high trespass prices, and loss of undisturbed wildlife habitat due to rampant development. Some wildlife professionals lament that “the loss of access to wildlife for a diversity of uses is likely to erode support for public custodianship of wildlife resources, a central premise of the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD),” which views all wildlife as a public resource to be managed by governmental trustees as a “commons” for the benefit of all people living now and in the future (TWS 2010, p. 17). Furthermore, the public can develop antipathy toward wildlife when they experience property damage (see discussions in Chapters 2 and 15), loss of income, fear, and exclusion from the wildlife management decision-making process. “The resulting indifference by the public toward their wildlife resources makes the Trust’s assets valueless, eliminating the need
for trusteeship” (TWS 2010, p. 19). The trustees, in this context, are state natural resource agencies, more commonly referred to as departments of natural resources, and these entities have legitimate concerns over the possible loss of their raison d’etre
I.2.3 Wildlife Values
Finally, the animal welfare and animal rights movements have introduced a different philosophical approach to how humans should view and value wildlife. One of the central tenets of the animal rights movement is that nonhuman animals (both domesticated and wild) are sentient creatures capable of feelings and perception through physical senses and of responding through overt actions and emotionally, not unlike humans. So, from the mindset of some urban publics, lethal (and largely traditional) wildlife management options that violate this tenet are considered unacceptable. Research suggested the attitudes of nonrural residents toward wildlife are quite similar to those held for pets (Bjerke et al. 2003). This perspective influences opinions on how, or even if, these species should be managed.
Concurrently, there is a growing concern about human–wildlife encounters, especially those perceived to endanger the health and safety of people and their companion animals. Outbreaks of zoonotic diseases such as West Nile virus, hantavirus, and chronic wasting disease make headlines in both local and national news. The number of human–wildlife conflicts continues to rise, as does the number of private wildlife control businesses (Lindsey 2007). Clearly, life in the urban wilds is not a return to Eden. Which begs the question—Who is tending this garden?
I.3 NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE TREATMENT OF URBAN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Change often must begin at the grassroots level. The National Institute for Urban Wildlife was the first formal organization of individuals who recognized and wanted to address UWM issues. To start a dialogue, the Institute hosted three national symposia on urban wildlife (Chevy Chase, Maryland, 1986; Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1990; and Bellevue, Washington, 1994), and two proceedings were published (Adams and Leedy 1987, 1991).
The Wildlife Society (TWS, the professional organization for wildlife biologists in the United States) published an entire issue devoted to urban wildlife management in the Wildlife Society Bulletin in 1997 and again in 2011 (Volume 25, No. 2 and Volume 35, No. 3, respectively; discussion in greater detail later). This is usually the first step in the professional recognition of a subdiscipline within the larger context of wildlife management. TWS now has both an Urban Wildlife Working Group (UWWG) and a Human Dimensions Working Group (HDWG), both of which focus on UWM issues. Additionally, there are now several peer-reviewed journals that publish urban wildlife management research (Magel et al. 2012, discussed later).
The fourth national urban wildlife symposium was held in Tucson, Arizona, in 1999 (Shaw et al. 2004). Subsequently, the Arbor Day Foundation, in cooperation with the UWWG, took on the task of organizing and hosting a biannual national UWM conference, initially held at the Lied Conference Center, Nebraska City, Nebraska (2001, 2003, 2005), and finally, in Portland, Oregon (2007). A variety of topics were presented at these conferences, ranging from managing wildlife in urban environments, human–wildlife conflicts, public education on urban wildlife, and stakeholder recognition, among others. The TWS UWWG organized three more UWM conferences in Amherst, Massachusetts (2009); Austin, Texas (2011); and Chicago, Illinois (2015). No records or proceedings have resulted from these meetings thus far.
During the 2003 conference, one attendee who represented a city government asked if there were any publications that summarized the issues and complexities of urban wildlife management
under one cover. At that time, there was no such document, but the first edition of Urban Wildlife Management was published at the end of 2006. Since then, valuable feedback has been received from colleagues and students, along with requests to include topics that initially had to be omitted due to space limitations.
Ideally, a comprehensive book on urban wildlife management should have been available at least 20 years ago. The earliest observation on urban wildlife (squirrels, raccoons, and coyotes) was chronicled in 1897 by Ernest Ingersoll in Wild Neighbors: Outdoor Studies in the United States. The seminal work on urban wildlife is Leonard Dubkin’s The Natural History of a Yard (1955). Both publications have mostly escaped the attention of contemporary urban wildlife biologists. Dubkin was a pioneer in the study of urban wildlife habitats within “parks and forest preserves, empty lots, the industrialized riverfront, patches of open land between housing developments, tenement slums, dank underground passages, railroad embankments, and sidewalk cracks” in Chicago (Bryson 2011). Lowell Adam’s work, Urban Wildlife Habitats: A Landscape Perspective (1994), which as the name suggests focused on urban/suburban wildlife habitat, was a fortuitous resurrection of Dubkin’s earlier studies. Other authors have addressed individual aspects of urban wildlife management, such as urban ecology and sustainability (Platt et al. 1994, Whiston-Spirn 1985), human dimensions (Decker et al. 2012, Manfredo et al. 2008), human–wildlife conflicts (Conover 2002, Hadidian 2007), urban wildlife law (Rees 2003), urban planning (Tyldesley 1994), and even urban species identification (Landry 1994, Shipp 2000). The first edition of Urban Wildlife Management filled a void, but the field continues to grow and evolve (Magle et al. 2012). This current edition is my best attempt at reflecting the changes without giving short shrift to the basic ecological principles that are the underpinning of urban wildlife management.
This is not a “how-to” book for solving specific urban wildlife conflict issues—other authors (e.g., Conover 2002, Hadidian 2007, Reidinger and Miller 2013) have addressed these problems admirably. Rather than providing a prescription for short-term, reactive methods that address symptoms, the material included here provides professionals in wildlife management and related fields with the information and insight required to set and achieve long-term, proactive management goals that focus on the root cause of UWM challenges.
As before, the third edition can be used as a textbook for both undergraduate and graduate courses on urban wildlife management, urban ecology, or even urban planning. Often, if a textbook is not available, much-needed college courses will not be taught. Urban wildlife management is not a traditional component in university curricula for wildlife biologists, but more courses are available now than ever before. The first and second editions of this book have so far been adopted by 17 and 20 different colleges and universities, respectively, both nationally and internationally. In some cases, the book was adopted for use in existing urban wildlife classes, but in other cases new classes were designed with Urban Wildlife Management in mind. I am confident that the third edition will support a continuation of this trend.
There are two key questions a teacher has to answer when preparing a class: (1) “What am I going to teach?” and (2) “How am I going to teach it?” Answering these questions for an undergraduate class on urban wildlife management without a textbook at hand can be a formidable task. There’s an ever-increasing body of literature in scientific journals and the popular media (both print and electronic) about urban wildlife. The public, and to some degree even wildlife professionals, are largely unaware of the information on urban wildlife presented in the scientific literature, while the primary focus of popular media is as much entertainment as education. A curriculum for training urban wildlife biologists emerged as I examined the full range of urban wildlife issues in the context of human history and society, natural history, ecology, politics, law, and economics. Urban Wildlife Management captures information strewn throughout journal articles, conference proceedings, government documents, websites, other books, secondary data sets, and personal experiences and those of colleagues. Urban Wildlife Management gathers the essential information together under one cover, providing a synthesis document for academic, community, and professional development.
Case Studies and Perspective Essays are included to illustrate the concepts. My approach was to continue to tell a story based on a review of over 1000 references (see References), but there was no way to include all of the pertinent literature without creating an encyclopedia. The information provided in each chapter was meant to be an overview of the subjects discussed, not an exhaustive treatment. Many chapters have been, or could be, the subject of an entire book. Readers are invited to take the opportunity to expand their understanding of the concepts introduced here.
Urban Wildlife Management has found an audience outside of the university classroom as well. Many individuals working for the government, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit businesses whose responsibility or job description includes some aspect of urban wildlife management have found previous editions of this book to be a necessary addition to their reference libraries. Developers, for example, failing to take into account the surrounding wildlife community while at the same time hoping to attract buyers by incorporating community green space may, in spite of good intentions, create some of the management challenges addressed in this book. An understanding of the cause-and-effect outcomes could significantly change the “business as usual” development process, leading to a planning approach that allows for increased interaction between humans and wildlife while avoiding potential conflicts. Other fields that may benefit from a greater understanding of urban wildlife management issues include public health, urban planning, parks and recreation, sanitation, tourism, transportation, and animal control (both domestic/feral and wild species). At the very least, exposure to the subject matter will make it clear there is value to be gained by inviting someone with urban wildlife management experience and expertise to take a seat at the planning table.
The goals for writing this book were fairly straightforward: (1) to compile a body of information that stimulates the reader’s curiosity about the urban world in which most of them live and present it in a way that would be accessible for most readers, (2) to expand the reader’s knowledge about how natural and urban ecosystems work, (3) to challenge readers to examine the role their personal actions may have in creating at least some of the urban wildlife issues covered in this book, and (4) to give readers an opportunity to apply their new knowledge and understanding through personal actions that promote sustainable approaches to urban wildlife management.
I.4 UNDERSTANDING AND MEETING THE FUTURE CHALLENGES OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
The wildlife profession as a whole has been slow to respond to the shift in public interest and need resulting from an increase in urban wildlife populations. In 1999, the TWS UWWG conducted a national survey of state wildlife management agencies and land-grant universities offering a degree in wildlife science (Adams 2003, repeated by Murphy 2014). The surveys were designed to determine how well agencies and universities were prepared to address urban wildlife management issues. The results were disturbing in many respects, as discussed in detail in Chapter 2, but the general conclusion was that the infrastructure for urban wildlife management was missing in state DNRs and land-grant universities in 1999, and it was still missing in 2014.
The role of the wildlife manager has changed significantly in the twenty-first century. So has the role of those responsible for preparing the next generation of wildlife professionals. However, many wildlife management faculty have yet to respond to this changing management environment and are either completely oblivious, dismissive, or grossly misinformed as to what the discipline entails. A telling example of the latter was observed during a meeting at one of the premier university departments of wildlife sciences in the United States. The topic of discussion was whether or not to add an urban wildlife management option to the department’s undergraduate curricula. One faculty member, a nationally recognized scholar in ecology and conservation biology, commented that he could see no reason for developing a curriculum about raccoons (Procyon lotor) in garbage
cans and consequently voted against its inclusion. Often, when we disclose that urban wildlife is our primary research interest, we are asked how we like studying pigeons and rats (neither of which, of course, are technically wildlife in the United States, since both urban pigeons (Columba livia) and Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) are an introduced species in the United States…but we digress.). University faculties must begin to recognize the need to develop new instructional paradigms that meet the challenges faced by wildlife professionals now, not as it was practiced during earlier eras, or they may find they have become largely irrelevant. Human residents of urban and suburban habitats do not stay in their own home ranges—they venture forth into previously undisturbed lands and create urban wildlife through development, feeding (intentional and unintentional), and habituation, so even traditional wildlife professionals are likely to find themselves faced with the issues described in this book.
Students, too, must become aware of this paradigm change. When we talk with and advise students interested in wildlife professions, we often see a reflection of ourselves at their age and level of educational development. Many are drawn to working with wildlife because they enjoy nature and are looking for professional pursuits that offer a more adventurous life, hoping (somewhat naïvely) that it won’t require much contact with “the public.” They picture themselves collecting and analyzing data in the middle of a remote forest, far removed from the aggravation of the human race (other than, perhaps, an equally adventuresome National Geographic photographer!). They want to “fight the good fight,” gathering information that could someday save a species or an ecosystem from extinction. These budding wildlifers can make a difference but if they want to do so while employed they may have to change the scenery of their daydreams to residential developments instead of remote rainforests (Figures I.5 and I.6).
In our formative years and early in our careers, we were drawn to the study of wild things for the sake of knowledge and also because, in our opinion, they were so much more interesting than people. Since those early days, we have come to understand there is no place on Earth that is not a
Figure I.5 the traditional image of a wildlife biologist is that of an individual collecting and analyzing data in the middle of a remote forest, possibly even saving a species from extinction. (Courtesy of John and Karen Hollingsworth, usfws, washington, dC.)
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
and the promise of rich spoils induced him to follow the preceding party, in contradistinction to which his stout and lusty recruits were dubbed the ‘strong-backs.’[965] Hearing that two other vessels had been fitted out to follow the Pánuco expeditions, and were probably now cruising along the coast, Cortés ordered a crew to be sent in pursuit, with the sole desire, as he expressed it, to save them from the fate which had so nearly overtaken Camargo. One was never heard of, and the other, the largest, entered the port before the searching vessel had left, it seems, bringing about one hundred and twenty men and sixteen horses. Camargo was induced to remonstrate with the captain against proceeding to Pánuco, since the result could only be disastrous, the native lord having, beside, tendered allegiance to Cortés in Montezuma’s time.[966] But the captain would not listen to him. To the joy of Cortés, however, a storm arose, which obliged this captain to slip his anchor and put to sea; obliged him to take refuge in San Juan de Ulua harbor, where he found his vessel so unsafe as to require her to be stranded, whereupon the forces and armaments were landed.[967] Cortés at once sent a sympathizing message, offering the captain every assistance, but never for a moment intending to give him any. He even tendered other vessels for his voyage—so he tells the emperor. [968] But there is no doubt that the tender was illusive, and that he did all in his power, with bribery, promises, and even force, to secure the men and armament, and at the same time to weaken his rivals by their loss. According to some accounts he caused their vessels to be sunk to prevent departure,[969] an act which Oviedo declares a fair war measure, particularly on the part of Cortés, who greatly needed reinforcements. Men destined for so comparatively unattractive a region as Pánuco must have been pleased by the prospect of ready spoils and Mexican treasures soon to fall into their hands under so able and successful a leader as Cortés. They were therefore readily induced to join him, the captains alone, as in the
last instance, interposing objections for a while. These several accessions amounted, according to the testimony of Cortés, to about two hundred men and some twenty horses,[970] together with a large quantity of small-arms, artillery, and ammunition. Thus again and again was the shrewd and lucky Cortés aided by the very means which his great enemies and rivals had sent to be used against him; aided to reap the advantages they had planned and plotted to secure. And all the while he was pitting the antagonisms of native foes one against another, employing them also to assist him in securing the grand prize. Greatness is but another name for good fortune. Circumstances certainly did as much for Cortés in promoting success as Spanish arms and superior civilization.
Civilization! What fools we are, pluming ourselves in its radiance, the radiance of ghastly electrical lights, adopted instead of the glorious sun of nature. For is not the unartificial nature, and nature God, while artifice is rather of the devil? And yet we persist in glorifying artifice and calling it deity The human sacrifice of the Aztecs was a horrible rite, but in the hands of the Spaniards is not Christianity a bloody mistress? And does not European civilization constantly demand the sacrifice of millions of lives, if not for the propitiation of gods, then to avenge an insult, to preserve the integrity of a nation, or to gratify the spleen of rulers? At hand even now, coming to the assistance of the magnificent Cortés, civilization’s pride and pet for the moment, is another ally of civilization, more terrible than horses, blood-hounds, gunpowder, or steel. At the time of Narvaez’ departure for Cuba, small-pox was raging there so severely that it offered a reason for preventing the governor from leaving with the expedition. A pioneer vessel of the fleet sowed the malady at Cozumel, whence it entered the continent. Before it spread far in this direction Cempoala was infected by a negro slave of Narvaez.[971] The Spaniards knew little about its treatment, and that little they sought to impart, not for their own
safety, since those that were left of them were considered almost proof against the malady, but for the sake of the allies. Their advice did not avail much, however, for the natives were too devoted to their panacea, the hot and cold bath, which only intensified the evil. The terrible force of the first attacks of epidemics and endemics is well known, and it has been advocated with apparent truth that the diseases of a strong people fall with particular force on weaker races. After desolating the coast region for some time, the small-pox crossed the plateau border during the summer, and in September[972] it broke out round the lakes, on its way to the western sea, smiting high and low, rich and poor. For sixty days, according to native records, the hueyzahuatl, or great pest, raged here with such virulence as to fix itself a central point in their chronology. In most districts, says Motolinia, over half the population died, leaving towns almost deserted, and in others the mortality was appalling. Those who recovered presented an appearance that made their neighbors flee from them, until they became accustomed to the sight. Learning how contagious was the disease, and terrified by the number of deaths, the inhabitants left the bodies to putrefy, thus aiding to extend the pest. In some cases the authorities ordered the houses to be pulled down over the dead, so as to check the contagion. Not the least of the evil was a famine, which resulted from a lack of harvesters.[973]
Among the first victims at the capital were King Totoquihuatzin, of Tlacopan, and Cuitlahuatzin, the successor of Montezuma. The latter had ruled barely three months,[974] but sufficiently long to prove himself a most able leader of his people in their struggle for liberty, for he was brave, full of devices, and energetic, yet prudent; a man who, not content with securing the expulsion of invaders, had sought to strengthen his position with alliances and by attracting the subject provinces through gifts, remissions, and promises. If he did not succeed so well as he had hoped, the fault must be ascribed to
the reputation of the previous government and to dereliction of duty among his officers.
As a monarch he would not have fallen far short of the native ideal, for as a general he had distinguished himself; and, the brother of Montezuma, he had in his court imbibed the dignity and majestic manner born of constant adulation from subservient nobles and plebeians. Crafty and unscrupulous, he appears not to have hesitated at crime and breach of faith to secure his aims for personal and state advancement. The flourishing condition of his own province indicated a not unwise administrator; and the beauty of Iztapalapan, its magnificent palaces, and exquisite gardens filled with choice plants from different regions, pointed to a ruler of cultivated taste.
There is no doubt that Mexico lost in him one of the most promising of sovereigns, and perhaps the only leader capable of giving her a longer lease of freedom in face of the irresistible onslaught of foreigners.[975] Thus bravely worked the small-pox for Cortés and the superior civilization.
The strongest candidate for the Mexican throne was now the high-priest Quauhtemotzin,[976] a young man of about twentythree[977] years, rather handsome, of fairer complexion than the average of his race, grave and dignified, as befitted a prince, and ‘quite a gentleman for an Indian.’ He is said to have been the son of Montezuma’s sister by Itzquauhtzin, lord of Tlatelulco, the twin town or suburb of Mexico, who had been fellow-prisoner of the late emperor, and sharer in his fate.[978] The brothers and descendants of Montezuma had been pretty well removed by death, or through the machinations of Cuitlahuatzin; but if nearer legitimate claimants existed, Quauhtemotzin had eclipsed them all in experience, influence, and fame, as a brave and able leader. As the chief companion of his predecessor, and one who even before the
appearance of the latter had led the uprising against the Spaniards, he had become identified as a true patriot, keeping himself at the head of the dominant party which began and continued the struggle for freedom. In order further to secure his influence he had taken to wife the only legitimate daughter of Montezuma, Princess Tecuichpo, or Isabel; and although the marriage was merely nominal, she being but a child, yet the alliance served the intended aim.[979] The Tepanecs at the same time elected as successor to their king, his son Tetlepanquetzaltzin,[980] whose coronation took place at the same time as that of Quauhtemotzin, hallowed by the blood of captive enemies, including no doubt some Spaniards. Cohuanacoch had meanwhile been chosen at Tezcuco in lieu of the disowned protégé whom Cortés had foisted upon them. By this trio were taken up the plans of Cuitlahuatzin for the deliverance of the country from her invaders, and especially were their efforts directed toward securing the loyalty of provinces and allies which had been stirred by the alarming progress of Spanish arms in Tepeaca.
A loss to the Spaniards through the epidemic, which outweighed many a gain, was the death of Maxixcatzin, to whose devoted friendship they chiefly owed their escape from the recent crises;[981] for he it was who took the lead in offering the Tlascaltec alliance and in overthrowing the inimical plans of the younger Xicotencatl in favor of the Aztecs. When the sad news came, Cortés felt as if he had lost a father, says Bernal Diaz, and mourning robes were donned by quite a number of the captains and men. In this they felt the more justified, since the chief, on finding himself stricken by the dread disease, had expressed a wish to become a Christian, and with the name of Lorenzo had received baptism at the hands of Olmedo, who joyfully hastened to Tlascala to perform so welcome a service for the Spaniards’ champion. He died exhorting his family and friends to obey Cortés and his brethren, the destined rulers of the land, and to accept their god, who had given victory over the idols.[982] It was
fortunate that he did not die before Spanish prestige had been reëstablished by the Tepeaca campaign; for his friendship sufficed to confirm the allies in their adhesion, to gain for the Spaniards further coöperation, and to obtain for them a firm footing in the country.
The allied forces had become so numerous by the time Itzucan fell that they were absolutely unmanageable, and on returning from this place to Tepeaca Cortés dismissed them with friendly words to their homes, retaining only the tried Tlascaltecs, who had become efficient in the European style of warfare under the Spanish discipline and tactics.[983]
Before the Quauhquechollan expedition summoned him away, Cortés had begun a report to the emperor on the condition of affairs. On returning, he completed this his second and perhaps most interesting letter, dated at Segura de la Frontera, or Tepeaca, October 30, 1520, wherein are related the occurrences since the despatch of the first letter in the middle of July, a year before. “I write your Majesty,” it states, “although poorly told, the truth of all that has happened in these parts, and that which your Majesty has most need of knowing. With the aid of God the conquest is progressing in this new country, which from its similarity to Spain, in fertility, extent, temperature, and many other things, I have called La Nueva España del Mar Océano.” Then he proceeds to humbly beg his majesty to confirm this name. In a brief supplementary letter he asks the emperor to send a person of confidence to investigate and prove the truth of his statements.[984]
The council also wrote a letter to the emperor, speaking hopefully of the conquest, which already “extended, over one hundred and fifty leagues of the coast, from Rio Grande de Tabasco to Rio de Pánuco,”[985] while the remainder of the interior was on the sure way to reduction, under the able leadership of Cortés, whose valor and energy they praised.
They prayed that he, the beloved of all the troops, might be confirmed in the office of captain-general, as the only man whose genius and experience could be relied on to carry out and maintain the conquest. The natives being docile and ready to receive conversion, friars should be sent to secure this harvest for the church, and also to administer to the spiritual wants of the Spaniards. Colonists were needed; also horses, and other live-stock —the latter to be paid for at a future time—in order to secure the country and develop its wealth.
With these letters went one from the army, which, recounting but briefly the leading incidents of the campaigns, had for its main object to decry Narvaez and Velazquez as the sole cause of all the disasters that had occurred in the country, and to praise Cortés as a noble, loyal, and able man, by whom alone the conquest could be achieved.[986] These and other letters were intrusted to Alonso de Mendoza, a townsman of Cortés, together with thirty thousand pesos, in fifths and presents, and a number of commissions from different members of the expedition. A well appointed vessel was assigned for the voyage, and three other vessels were despatched for Española, there to enlist recruits and to buy horses, arms and ammunition, cattle, clothing, and other requirements, and four strong vessels to maintain traffic with the Antilles. Letters were sent to Licenciado Rodrigo de Figueroa and other royal officers on the Island, inclosing duplicates of those forwarded to Spain; and a number of specimens of the jewels, manufactures, and natural resources of the country, were transmitted as presents and as samples to allure recruits. The letters and the ample funds for the enlistment and purchases were intrusted to Contador Ávila and another officer,[987] with instructions to use every effort to confirm the audiencia officials in their good opinion of Cortés, so that they might plead his cause in Spain. The ill-treatment of Aillon by Velazquez and Narvaez had already impelled them to do this, as we have seen.
Their advice was to be asked regarding the enslavement of rebels and other measures, and their authority and aid sought for obtaining men and stores.[988] Another vessel was sent under Solis[989] to Jamaica to buy horses and war material. Bernal Diaz does not fail to point out the evidence in the large remittance for Spain and the Antilles of treasures secretly taken from Mexico by Cortés and his clique, and accuses him of having appropriated also the share for Villa Rica, claimed to have been captured by the Indians during its transmission from Tlascala.[990]
No sooner were these preparations announced than Duero and a number of others of the Narvaez party claimed a fulfilment of the promise regarding their departure. The success of the Spanish arms and the allurement of spoils had reconciled most of the lately disaffected, so that those who now demanded to return were only a few of the more wealthy. The services of these could be readily dispensed with, now that such large reinforcements had been received, and the display of their accumulations at home might inspire fresh recruits. Therefore Cortés gave his consent, with abundant promises that as soon as the conquest was fully accomplished, gold and other rewards would flow on those who supported his cause either in the Islands or in Spain. Leaders like Duero and Bermudez were the chief recipients of such offers; and offers alone they remained in most instances, for Cortés was not the man to reward desertion. Duero and others evidently expected nothing more, since they were soon after found arrayed on the side of Velazquez. When some among the Cortés party raised objections to this diminution of the force, they were quieted with the declaration that the army was better rid of unwilling and inefficient soldiers, whose presence served only to discourage others.[991]
The vessel for Spain and two of those for the Islands were wrecked on the coast; and one consequence was that Mendoza’s
departure was delayed till the 5th of March. He took with him a supplementary letter for the emperor, relating the progress so far made for the recovery of Mexico. By this time Ordaz was, according to Bernal Diaz, commissioned to join him and plead the cause of Cortés before the emperor, and at the same time to receive the reward for his many achievements, one of which was the ascent of the volcano. Several of the Narvaez party appear to have left by the same vessel.[992]
In course of the late campaign the advantages of the town of Tepeaca for permanent occupation had become apparent, chiefly as a point of observation for watching over the new conquest. It was well situated for protecting the road to Villa Rica,[993] and for communicating with Cholula and Tlascala, each capital eight or nine leagues distant, and it lay in the midst of a fertile maize country, which offered ample subsistence for a garrison. Although the punishment at first inflicted, by sacking and enslaving, had been severe, yet the treatment of the inhabitants became afterward so considerate that they themselves prayed for a continuance of Spanish protection.[994] Every circumstance, therefore, demanding a settlement, it was decided in council to found a villa in this same town, with the appropriate name of Segura de la Frontera, intended, as it was, to secure the frontier against the Mexicans. Pedro de Ircio was made alcalde, with Francisco de Orozco and others as regidores.[995]
The campaign being practically concluded, a division was ordered to be made of the spoils not hitherto distributed, including slaves, which had now become a prominent feature thereof, and were intended for personal and plantation service, as already practised in the Antilles. The pretence was to enslave only the inhabitants of districts concerned in the murder of Spaniards, but the distinction was not very strictly observed, and rebellious tribes and
those addicted to cannibalism and other vicious practices were included.[996] The Spaniards, as a rule, kept only the women and the children, the men being transferred to the allies for their share, “because they were difficult to watch,” says Bernal Diaz, “and because their services were not needed while we had the Tlascaltecs with us.”[997]
The soldiers were ordered to bring in all their captives, which from the first had been branded for recognition with a ‘G,’ signifying guerra, war.[998] When the day for distribution came, it was found that the leaders and favored men had already secured their share by appropriating the prettiest and choicest slaves. They had probably been priced by the officials, and the leaders, being entitled to larger shares, had secured the best articles. At this there was a considerable uproar, increased by the outcry against the fifth set apart for Cortés, after deducting the royal fifth.[999] How the matter was settled is not clear, except that the general had recourse to the soothing eloquence he knew so well how to apply, promising that for the future he would conform to the general desire, which appeared to be in favor of offering the slaves at auction, so as to arrive at their proper value, and to give all members of the expedition an equal chance in securing the more desirable.[1000]
One of the last expeditions fitted out at Segura was for the reduction of the northern route to Villa Rica, by which the Spaniards had first entered the plateau, and for the punishment of those concerned in the murder of Alcántara and other Spaniards.[1001] It set out in the beginning of December, under Sandoval, with two hundred infantry, twenty horses, and the usual complement of allies, and entered Xocotlan valley, which readily submitted, with the exception of the main town, named Castilblanco during the first entry into the country. The cacique, who had then already shown himself unfriendly, rejected every proposition, with the threat that he would
make a feast on the commander and his followers, as he had on the former party. There being no alternative, the cavalry charged the large force which had taken up position near a ravine, on the outskirts of the city, with a view to defend the entrance. Under cover of the musketeers and archers, who from one side of the ravine did considerable harm to the enemy, the charge succeeded, though four riders and nine horses were wounded, one of the latter dying. The enemy thrown into disorder fled to join the remaining garrison, which occupied the temples on the plaza. With the aid of the infantry and allies the stronghold speedily fell, and a number of prisoners were secured.[1002]
Proceeding northward along the mountain border of the plateau Sandoval added a considerable extent of country to his conquest, meeting serious opposition only at Jalancingo, where the Aztec garrison, ever since the beginning of the Tepeaca campaign, had been employed in fortifying the place, and either considered themselves secure or feared that a surrender would procure no better terms, for them, at least. They were disconcerted by being attacked on different sides, under native guidance, and after a brief resistance took to flight, during which a number of them were captured, the Spaniards losing three horses, and having eight men severely injured, Sandoval receiving an arrow wound. In a temple were found relics of slaughtered Spaniards, in the shape of dresses, arms, and saddles.[1003] A few days later the expedition set out to rejoin the army, with a large amount of spoils and a train of captives. The chiefs were pardoned by Cortés, with politic regard for the future, and enjoined to furnish their quota of supplies at Segura.[1004]
The head-quarters had meanwhile been removed to Tlascala, preparatory to a march on Mexico, and Segura was now in charge of the alcalde, Pedro de Ircio, lately lieutenant of Sandoval at Villa Rica, assisted by the regidor, Francisco de Orozco, and sixty men,
including the invalids and the disabled.[1005] Cortés had left it in the middle of December,[1006] taking with the cavalry the route through Cholula,[1007] to settle the question of succession to a number of cacique offices vacated during the epidemic. These appeals were made to him not only as the representative of the Spanish monarch to whom the people had sworn obedience, but as an acknowledgment of his influence over the native mind. His treatment of the conquered and his equitable decisions of disputes had made him the umpire and king-maker whom not only allies, but halfreconciled tribes were willing to heed, in private and public affairs.
Having made the appointments, and formed favorable arrangements for himself, he rejoined the army. The march to Tlascala was one befitting the return of conquering heroes. Triumphal arches covered the roads, and processions came to chant the praises of the victors, and recount the successes achieved by the Tlascaltec allies, as shown by spoils and banners from different provinces and cities, and by long files of captives. On nearing the republican capital the whole population came forth to join in the ovation, and at the plaza an orator stepped forward to greet Cortés in a glowing panegyric, wherein he reviewed his progress as conqueror and avenger. In reply Cortés alluded feelingly to the brotherhood between the two races, now cemented by blood and victories, and to the common loss sustained in the death of the wise and noble Maxixcatzin. These words, added to the evidence of sorrow in the mourning array of their dress and arms, left a most favorable impression on the minds of the brave allies.
He was again called as representative of his king to appoint as successor to Maxixcatzin his eldest legitimate son, a boy of twelve years, against whom a claimant had arisen.[1008] This done, Cortés dubbed him a knight, according to Castilian usage, in recognition of the services of his father, causing him also to be baptized, with the
name of Juan, Maxixcatzin becoming the family name.[1009] Taking advantage of the occasion and of his own popularity, the general sought to inspire a more general feeling in favor of his religion, but the effort met with little encouragement, and he wisely refrained from pressing so dangerous a subject. According to Bernal Diaz, the elder Xicotencatl was among the limited number of saved souls, and received the name of Vicente.[1010] The native records, as given by Camargo and Torquemada, and adopted by most writers, assume that the four chiefs were all baptized at this time, if not earlier; but they are neither clear nor consistent, and are evidently impelled by a desire to redeem the native leaders from the charge of idolatry. Cortés, Herrera, Diaz, and other chroniclers would not have failed to record so large and prominent a conquest for the church, particularly since the two latter do mention the exceptional converts.[1011] Cortés also refers to a conversion in the person of Tecocoltzin, a younger brother of King Cacama, and the future head of Tezcuco, who is named Fernando; but he does so in a manner which indicates that the conversion was exceptional.[1012] His baptism took place probably on the same day as that of young Maxixcatzin and old Xicotencatl, the occasion being celebrated with banquets and dances, with illumination, sports, and exchange of presents, the Spaniards adding horse-races and other interesting proceedings for the gratification of the natives.
FOOTNOTES
[959] ‘Con este vino vn Francisco Lopez, vezino, y Regidor que fue de Guatimala ’ Bernal Diaz, Hist Verdad , 113 Vetancurt assumes that Pedro del Castillo—Diaz calls him ‘el Almirante Pedro Cauallero’—secured Barba and his vessel. Teatro Mex., pt. iii. 148; Cortés, Residencia, ii. 165.
[960] ‘El capitã Diego de Camargo,’ says Herrera; but Bernal Diaz explains that this man stepped into the captaincy on the murder of ‘fulano Alvarez Pinedo,’ at Pánuco ‘Dixeron, que el Capitan Camargo auia sido Fraile Dominico, e que auia hecho profession ’ Hist Verdad , 114
[961] Seven leagues up, says Herrera
[962] ‘Muerto diez y siete ó diez y ocho cristianos, y herido otros muchos. Asimismo ... muerto siete caballos.’ Cortés, Cartas, 144. Bernal Diaz assumes that the whole attacking force was killed and some vessels destroyed ‘Dexaron vna carauela,’ says Herrera
[963] Herrera states that hunger caused the land expedition to abandon the vessels some twenty leagues above Almería The people from the wrecked caravel were taken on board the last vessel dec ii lib x cap xviii Cortés leaves the impression that both vessels arrived at Villa Rica, perhaps because the one was wrecked so near it ‘Vn nauio y traia sobre sesenta soldados ’ Bernal Diaz, Hist Verdad , 114 This may include the land party, but not the sailors
[964] ‘Con hasta treinta hombres de mar y tierra ’ Cortés, Cartas, 154 ‘Sus soldados, que eran mas de cincuenta, y mas siete cauallos,’ says Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 114; and, since Cortés would be less apt to indicate large accessions, he may be correct.
[965] ‘Este fue el mejor socorro.... Diaz de Auz sirvió muy bien a su Magestad en todo lo que se ofreciò en las guerras, ... traxo pleyto despues, sobre el pleyto de la mitad de Mestitan, ... conque le den la parte de lo que rentare el pueblo mas de dos mil y quinientos pesos.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 114-15. He was excluded from the town itself, owing to cruel treatment of Indians.
[966] ‘El señor de aquel rio y tierra, que se dice Pánuco, se habia dado por vasallo de V. M., en cuyo reconocimiento me habia enviado á la ciudad de Tenuxtitan, con sus mensajeros, ciertas cosas.’ Cortés, Cartas, 144-5. But this is probably a mere assertion, since the Spanish expeditions had never been higher than Almería, and the cacique could have had no inducement for submitting.
[967] Bernal Diaz refers to the last accession from Garay’s expeditions as 40 soldiers and 10 horses, under an old man named Ramirez. Protected by heavy cotton armor they were nicknamed the ‘albardillas.’ Hist. Verdad., 115.
[968] ‘Si todos ó algunos dellos se quisiesen volver en los navíos que allí estaban, que les diese licencia.’ Cortés, Cartas, 163.
[969] Oviedo, iii. 335; and so Herrera also intimates in reference to Camargo’s only remaining vessel, ‘la qual se anegò tãbien dẽtro de 10. dias en el puerto.’ dec ii lib x cap xviii
[970] The last two vessels bring 150 men and 16 horses, probably over 20, to which must be added Camargo’s force, amounting no doubt to 50 effective men, for Bernal Diaz admits 60 soldiers, not counting sailors; and Herrera intimates that over 100 men must have reached Villa Rica of the total force on board Camargo’s three vessels Bernal Diaz’ estimates for the five vessels which he enumerates exceed 170 soldiers and 20 horses; on fol 115 he contradicts several points, including the total, to which the sailors may be added, while a small reduction is to be made for deaths among Camargo’s men Vetancurt follows Bernal Diaz, and so does Prescott, who assumes that full 150 men and 20 horses must have been obtained. Mex., ii. 438. Robertson raises this nearer to the truth by saying 180 men, Hist. Am., ii. 104, as does Brasseur de Bourbourg, who nevertheless, on an earlier page, adds Sahagun’s fanciful reinforcement of 300 men. Hist. Nat. Civ., iv. 371, 387. While the Spaniards were curing themselves, ‘llegó á Tlaxcala un Francisco Hernandez, español, con 300 soldados castellanos y con muchos caballos y armas.’ Sahagun, Hist. Conq., i. 37. The later edition does not give the number. Gomara merely states that numerous small parties came over from the Antilles, attracted by Cortés’ fame, through Aillon’s reports, he seems to say. Many of them were murdered on the way, but sufficient numbers reached him to restore the army and encourage the prosecution of the conquest Hist Mex , 173
[971] Said to have been named Francisco Eguia. Sahagun, Hist. Conq., i. 39, 66, and Chimalpain, Hist Conq , i 278 Herrera writes that many assumed the malady to have been one of the periodical scourges that used to fall on the country ‘Y el no auer tocado a los Castellanos, parece que trae aparencia de razon ’ dec ii lib x cap iv But it appears to have been wholly a new disease to the natives
[972] ‘En el mes que llamaban Tepeilhuitl que es al fin de setiembre,’ as Sahagun assumes Hist Conq , i 39
[973] Motolinia, Hist Ind , in Icazbalceta, Col Doc , i 14-15; Sahagun, Hist Conq , i 39, 66; Mendieta, Hist Ecles , 514; Bernal Diaz, Hist Verdad , 101; Id (Paris ed 1837), iv 460 (a chapter omitted in the original); Gomara, Hist Mex , 148; Chimalpain, Hist Conq , i 279; Torquemada, i 489; Tezcoco en los ultimos tiempos, 273
[974] ‘Vivió despues de su elecçion solos sessenta dias ’ Cano, in Oviedo, iii 549 The election having taken place twenty days after Montezuma’s death, according to Ixtlilxochitl, who assumes that he ruled only 40 or 47 days. Hist. Chich., 304; Id., Relaciones, 413. Others extend the rule to 80 days, both as leader and king, perhaps, which would agree with Cano’s version.
[975] Such characteristics may be seen in Spanish as well as native records; yet Solis writes, ‘su tibieza y falta de aplicacion dexáse poco menos que borrada entre los suyos la memoria de su nombre ’ Hist Mex , 372 Sufficient proof of his energy is found in the siege resulting in the expulsion from Mexico
[976] The native authorities incline to Quauhtemoc, but the Spanish generally add the ‘tzin,’ the ‘c’ being elided, and the ‘Q’ changed to ‘G,’ making the name Guatemotzin ‘Quauhtemoc, que significa Aguila que baja ’ Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex , pt iii 51
[977] Bernal Diaz describes him about a year later as 23 or 24 years old, while on another occasion he alludes to him as 25 Hist Verdad , 112, 155 Ixtlilxochitl makes him 18 Hist Chich , 304
[978] ‘Por muerte de su Padre gobernaba el Tlatelulco ’ Duran, Hist Ind , MS , ii 479 ‘Sobrino de Monteçuma, que era papa ó saçerdote mayor entre los indios ’ Cano, in Oviedo, iii 549; Peter Martyr, dec v cap vi ‘Cuauhtemotctzin hijo del rey Ahuitzotzin y de la heredera de el Tlatelulco ’ Ixtlilxochitl, Relaciones, 413 This incorrect view is adopted by Brasseur de Bourbourg and many others.
[979] ‘Moglie già del suo Zio Cuitlahuatzin,’ is the supposition of Clavigero, Storia Mess., iii. 160. ‘Se hizo temer de tal manera, que todos los suyos temblauan dél.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 112. For fanciful portraits of these last two emperors, see Frost’s Pict. Hist. Mex., 104, 114.
[980] Ixtlilxochitl, loc. cit.; Torquemada, i. 570.
[981] ‘Al que solo fue causa q los Christianos se conseruassen en aquella tierra.’ Herrera, dec. ii. lib. x. cap. xix.
[982] Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 118; Herrera, ubi sup.
[983] During the absence of the troops, says Herrera, a part of the Tepeacans had formed a plot to surprise them when divided; but some women informed Marina in time to prevent trouble. Cortés inflicted on them severe chastisement. dec. ii. lib. x. cap. xvi. xviii.
[984] The reports and other papers by Cortés, written during a period of nearly three decades in connection with New Spain, are both numerous and lengthy, but only the five letters relating to the actual conquest of Mexico and Central America have achieved bibliographic celebrity, under the title of Cortés’ Letters or Relations. Although the first letter has been lost, and the companion letter long missing, yet an allusion to the expedition against Mexico appeared as early as 1520 in Ein auszug ettlicher sendbrieff dem aller durchleüchtigisten
grossmechtigistẽ Fürsten ... von wegen einer new gefundẽ Inseln. Nürmberg durch Fryderichen Peypus am. 17. tag Marcij MDXX., wherein the voyages of Córdoba and Grijalva are also described Harrisse, Bib Am Vet , 179, assumes that the information is taken from Peter Martyr’s Decades A later brief reference to the city of Mexico itself is given in Translationuss hispanischer sprach zü Frantzösisch gemacht so durch dẽ Vice Rey in Neapole fraw Margareten Hertzogiñ iñ Burgundi zü geschrieben, published in 1522 On folio A iii is written: Not far from the same island they have conquered a city called Tenustitan, wherein 60,000 hearths have been counted, within a good wall The letter of the ayuntamiento was first published in Col. Doc. Inéd., i., 1842.
By the time of the receipt in Spain of Cortés’ second letter, of October 30, 1520, the general and his conquest had become so famous that his communications were not likely to be lost sight of The incidents treated of were besides highly enticing, particularly the victories in Tlascala, the entry into Montezuma’s wonderful island city, the disastrous expulsion, and the renewal of the campaign, and Cromberger had it printed in 1522 under the title of Carta de relaciõ ẽbiada a su S majestad del ẽpador nto señor por el capitã general dela nueua spaña: llamado fernãdo cortes, etc Seuilla: por Jacobo crõberger aleman A viii dias de Nouiẽbre Año de M d y xxij ‘Fué las Primicias de el Arte de la Imprenta en Sevilla, y acaso de toda España,’ observes Lorenzana, in Cortes, Hist. N. España, 171, but this is a great mistake, for printing had been done already for several decades in Spain. An Italian abstract of the letter appeared immediately after, as Noue de le Isole & Terra ferma Nouamente trouate In India per el Capitaneo de larmata de la Cesarea Maiestate. Mediolani decimosexto calẽ. Decembris M.D.XXII. A reprint of the Seville text was issued at Saragossa in January, 1523. A later abridged account of the conquest is given in Ein schöne Newe zeytung so Kayserlich Mayestet auss India yetz newlich zükommen seind, ascribed to Sigmund Grimm of Augsburg, about 1522. Bibliotheca Grenvilliana and Harrisse Ternaux-Compans wrongly supposes the narrative to extend only to 1519, instead of 1522, and assumes the imprint to be Augsburg, 1520 Bibl Amér , 5 Perhaps 1523 is the more correct date, which may also be ascribed to Tres sacree Imperiale et catholique mageste eust nouuelles des marches ysles et terre ferme occeanes Colophon, fol 16 Depuis sont venues a sa mageste nouuelles de certaīes ysles trouuez par les espagnolz plaines despecerie et beaucoup de mines dor, lesquelles nouuelles il receupt en ceste ville de vailladolid le primier doctobre xv. cent. xxij. This is a book noticed by no bibliographer except Sabin, who believes that it contains only the second letter, although the holder supposes the third letter to be also used. In 1524 appeared the first Latin version of the second letter, by Savorgnanus, Praeclara Ferdinãdi Cortesii de Noua maris Oceani Hyspania Narratio, Norimberga. M.D.XXIIII., which contains a copy of the now lost map of the Gulf of Mexico, and also a plan of Mexico City. In the same year two Italian translations of this version, by Liburnius, La Preclara Narratione,
were printed at Venice, one by Lexona, the other by Sabio, yet both at the instance of Pederzani. The plan and map are often missing. Antonio, Bib. Hisp. Nova, iii 375, mentions only Lexona’s issue A translation from Flavigny appeared in the Portfolio, Philadelphia, 1817 The originals of the second and other letters were, in the early part of the eighteenth century, ‘en la Libreria de Don Miguel Nuñez de Rojas, del Consejo Real de las Ordenes,’ says Pinelo, Epitome, ii 597 Much of the vagueness which involves the narrative of events previous to the flight from Mexico may be due to the loss of diary and documents during that episode The loss was convenient to Cortés, since it afforded an excuse for glossing over many irregularities and misfortunes.
The third letter, dated Coyuhuacan, May 15, 1522, and relating the siege and fall of Mexico, was first published at Seville, on Cromberger’s press, March 30, 1523, as Carta tercera de relaciõ: embiada por Fernãdo cortes capitan y justicia mayor del yucatan llamado la nueua espana del mar oceano It received a reproduction in Latin by the same hand and at the same time as the second letter Both were reprinted, together with some missionary letters and Peter Martyr’s De Insulis, in De Insvlis nuper Inventis Ferdinandi Cortesii Coloniæ, M D XXXII The title-page displays a portrait of Charles V , and is bordered with his arms Martyr’s part, which tells rather briefly of Cortés, found frequent reprint, while the second and third letters were republished, with other matter, in the Spanish Thesoro de virtudes, 1543; in the German Ferdinandi Cortesii. Von dem Newen Hispanien. Augspurg, 1550, wherein they are called first and second narratives, and divided into chapters, with considerable liberty; in the Latin Novus Orbis of 1555 and 1616; and in the Flemish Nieuwe Weerelt of 1563; while a French abridgment appeared at Paris in 1532. The secret epistle accompanying the third letter was first printed in Col. Doc. Inéd., i., and afterward by Kingsborough and Gayangos.
The fourth letter, on the progress of conquest after the fall of Mexico, dated at Temixtitan (Mexico), October 15, 1524, was issued at Toledo, 1525, as La quarta relacion, together with Alvarado’s and Godoy’s reports to Cortés. A second edition followed at Valencia the year after. The secret letter accompanying it was not published till 1865, when Icazbalceta, the well known Mexican collector, reproduced it in separate black-letter form, and in his Col. Doc., i. 470-83.
The substance of the above three relations has been given in a vast number of collections and histories, while in only a limited number have they been reproduced in a full or abridged form, the first reproduction being in the third volume of Ramusio Viaggi, of 1556, 1565, and 1606, which contains several other pieces on the conquest, all supplied with appropriate headings and marginals Barcia next published them direct from the manuscript, in the Historiadores Primitivos, i. This collection bears the imprint Madrid, 1749, but the letters had already been printed in 1731, as Pinelo affirms, Epitome, ii. 597. Barcia died a few years before his set was issued. From this source Archbishop Lorenzana took the
version published by him under the title of Historia de Nueva-España, Mexico, 1770, which is not free from omissions and faults, though provided with valuable notes on localities and customs, and supplemented with illustrated pieces on routes and native institutions, a map of New Spain by Alzate, an article on the Gobierno Politico by Vetancurt, a copy of a native tribute-roll from picture records, not very accurately explained, and the first map of Lower California and adjoining coast, by Castillo, in 1541 This version of the letters was reproduced in New York, 1828, with a not wholly successful attempt by Del Mar to introduce modern spelling The work is also marked by a number of omissions and blunders, and the introductory biographic sketch by Robert Sands adds little to its value. An abridgment from Lorenzana appeared as Correspondance de Fernand Cortés, par le Vicomte de Flavigny, Paris, 1778, which obtained three reprints during the following year at different places. A great many liberties are taken with facts, as may be imagined; and the letters are, beside, misnamed first, second, and third. From the same source, or perhaps from Flavigny, of whom they savor, are Briefe des Ferdinand Cortes, Heidelberg, 1779, with several reproductions, and with notes; and the corrected Brieven van Ferdinand Cortes, Amsterdam, 1780-1. The first edition in English, from Lorenzana, was issued by Folsom, as Despatches of Hernando Cortes, New York, 1843, also with notes.
The fifth letter of the conqueror, on the famous expedition to Honduras, dated at Temixtitan, September 3, 1526, lay hidden in the Vienna Imperial Library till Robertson’s search for the first letter brought it to light. Hist. Am., i. xi. He made use of it, but the first complete copy was not published till of late, in Col. Doc. Inéd., iv. 8-167, reprinted at New York, 1848, and, in translation, in the Hakluyt Society collection, London, 1868. It bore no date, but the copy found at Madrid has that of September 3, 1526, and the companion letter printed in Col. Doc. Inéd., i. 14-23, that of September 11th. This, as well as the preceding letters, was issued by Vedia, in Ribadeneyra’s Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, xxii.; the first three letters being taken from Barcia, and the fifth from its MS The letter of the ayuntamiento is given and a bibliographic notice of little value A very similar collection is to be found in the Biblioteca Historica de la Iberia, i But the most complete reproduction of the principal writings by Cortés, and connected with him, is in the Cartas y Relaciones de Hernan Cortés, Paris, 1866, by Gayangos, which contains 26 pieces, beside the relations, chiefly letters and memorials to the sovereign, a third of which are here printed for the first time Although a few of Lorenzana’s blunders find correction, others are committed, and the notes of the archbishop are adopted without credit, and without the necessary amendment of date, etc., which often makes them absurd. The earliest combined production of Cortés’ relations, and many of his other writings, may be credited to Peter Martyr, who in his Decades gave the substance of all that they relate, although he also mingled other versions. Oviedo, in the third volume of his Hist. Gen., gives two
versions of the conquest, the first, p. 258 et seq., almost a reproduction of Cortés’ letters, and the other, p. 506 et seq., from different sources.
Beside the relations, there are a number of miscellaneous letters, petitions, orders, instructions, and regulations, by Cortés, largely published in Navarrete, Col. de Viages; Col. Doc. Inéd.; Pacheco and Cárdenas, Col. Doc.; Icazbalceta, Col. Doc.; Kingsborough’s Mex. Antiq.; Alaman, Disert., and as appendices to histories of Mexico. A special collection is the Escritos Sueltos de Hernan Cortés, Mex., 1871, forming vol. xii. of the Bib. Hist. de la Iberia, which presents 43 miscellaneous documents from various printed sources, instructions, memorials, and brief letters, nearly all of which are filled with complaints against ruling men in Mexico.
Cortés’ letters have not inaptly been compared by Prescott to the Commentaries of Cæsar, for both men were military commanders of the highest order, who spoke and wrote like soldiers; but their relative positions with regard to the superior authorities of their states were different, and so were their race feelings, and their times, and these features are stamped upon their writings. Cortés was not the powerful consul, the commander of legions, but the leader of a horde of adventurers, and an aspirant for favor, who made his narrative an advocate. The simplicity and energy of the style lend an air of truth to the statements, and Helps, among others, is so impressed thereby as to declare that Cortés ‘would as soon have thought of committing a small theft as of uttering a falsehood in a despatch addressed to his sovereign ’ Cortés, ii 211 But it requires little study of the reports to discover that they are full of calculated misstatements, both direct and negative, made whenever he considered it best for his interest to conceal disagreeable and discreditable facts, or to magnify the danger and the deed They are also stamped with the religious zeal and superstition of the age, the naïve expressions of reliance on God being even more frequent than the measured declarations of devotedness to the king; while in between are calmly related the most cold-blooded outrages on behalf of both. There is no apparent effort to attract attention to himself; there is even at times displayed a modesty most refreshing in the narrative of his own achievements, by which writers have as a rule been quite entranced; but this savors of calculation, for the general tone is in support of the ego, and this often to the exclusion of deserving officers. Indeed, generous allusions to the character or deeds of others are not frequent, or they are merged in the non-committing term of ‘one of my captains.’ Pedro de Alvarado complains of this in one of his Relaciones, in Barcia, Hist. Prim., i. 165-6. In truth, the calculating egotism of the diplomate mingles freely with the frankness of the soldier. Cortés, however, is ever mindful of his character as an hidalgo, for he never stoops to meanness, and even in speaking of his enemies he does not resort to the invectives or sharp insinuations which they so freely scatter His style bears evidence of training in rhetoric and Latin, yet the parade of the latter is not so frequent as might be expected from the half-bred student and zealot Equally
