Essay on How Useful Is the Source in Providing Information About the Experience of Empire?

The primary source I will be using during the course of this essay, is a letter written by Hernán Cortés to Charles V of Spain[1], which throughout this essay the letter will be referred to as the source, this is to ensure clarity for the reader. Historians such as Miguel Leon-Portilla, feel the letters written by Cortés to King Charles are one of the most important resources historians have used to formulate hypothesis about the events which occurred during the conquest of the Aztec Empire[2].

The source I will be critiquing, details an ‘incident’ which occurred in Cholula[3]. Cortés wrote this letter during his conquest of Mexico. Despite Velázquez revoking his charter to send him to explore and conquer Mexico, Cortés went anyway. After first conquering Veracruz and forming an alliance with the people of Tlaxcala, Cortés and his men marched upon Cholula, dismissing the authority of the Cuban government and marching directly under Charles V orders[4]. The events which ensued in Cholula are then described by Cortés himself, within his letter to Charles. During the course of this essay I will be evaluating how useful this source is, in providing information about the experience of empire.

It must be noted that, the reliability and validity of the source could be challenged due to its nature. Kiston Clark tells how all documents have been produced by fallible, potentially dishonest human beings[5]. There is also the potential issue of translator/editor Anthony Pagden, making an error whilst restoring the source[6]. The fallibility of man could mean that this source, (and many others), are not very useful in providing accurate information about the experience of empire, as historians may have to focus their attention on whether the creator of the source has reliably recreated the source, rather than the validity of the information provided in its content.

It is also possible that the original letter which Pagden translated[7], was in fact a forgery. There have been cases in which letters have been forged, for example, many of Mary Antoinettes letters were in reality fictitious[8]. It also must be consider, that all documents were preserved or recreated for a reason, as suggested by Crocs, due to the interest and or biases which the historian working with the source has[9]. Reviewing and critiquing the potential biases, deceits and mistakes involved in historical evidence and its creation is difficult for the historian.

However, in the same fashion all sources have been created for a purpose, the source in question was originally written by Cortés for a particular intention. Discovering this purpose, using the source, can be very useful to the historian when learning about the experience of empire. It not only shows the relationship which existed between Cortés and Charles V, but on a broader spectrum shows what it was like for leaders who were under an emperor in an imperial domain. Jon Manchip White felt that the Charles V, (the White Emperor), needed to support Cortés, in order for Cortés to take possession of the Aztecs wealth in a legal manner[10]. This hidden agenda by Cortés, in writing this letter to Charles is one of many theories which have evolved based on the source when pondering its creation, supporting its usefulness in providing information about the experience of empire

Within the source, Cortés makes perfectly known that he attempted to persuade the 100,000 men who were “all well armed for war” not to accompany him into Cholula[11]. This may have been done to make sure Charles believed Cortés to be the peaceful party in the ‘incident’, it would have also appealed to Charles well known sense of chivalry[12]. This is also supported by the repetition of Cortés assuring Charles, that no women and children were harmed[13]. The source is a harrowing story of personal sacrifice, (for example when Cortés tells of how he slept in a ditch for the night to ensure his men wouldn’t cause trouble within the city), and heroics, (“we fought so hard that in two hours more than three thousand men were killed”)[14]. It is apparent that Cortés wished Charles to view the incident in Cholula in a positive way, and think favorably upon him. This shows the source is useful as it highlights the way in which Cortés wanted his conquering of Mexico to be viewed.

Inga Clendinnen believes that Cortés needed Charles to view his campaign favorably as it was central to his future political career[15]. Without Charles support, Cortés could be arrested for the theft that he was involved in whilst in Cuba and hanged. Cortes had also disobeyed an order from Charles not to go inland once he arrived in Mexico[16], this means the letter could be considered, a desperate attempt to gain the support of Charles despite his misdemeanors, in the hope he would be allowed to prosper politically and economically once his mission to conquer the Aztecs was successful. Cortés also planned to send back a fifth of the gold he took from the Aztec cities, which can also be conceived as another attempt to gain the backing of Charles[17].

The letter to Charles, shows the complex relationships which can exist within an imperial empire, making it a very useful source. As some historians note, the information Cortés fails to mention within his letter can tell as much, as the facts he has stated[18]. Cortés interpreter Dona Maria, was only referred to as an “Indian women from Putunchan” [19]. Making her role seem small, rather than the integral part of his life she truly was (even fathering his child). The information Cortés does not tell Charles within his letter is another indication of his attempt to win favour with him, again highlighting the source as useful. However, some could argue that the source is better used to highlight the relationship between Cortés and Charles V, rather than helping divulge information about the experience of the Spanish empire in its entirety. But, I feel that viewing the inner workings of how the Emperor’s subservient men, such as Cortés, wished to be viewed by Charles helps to reveal both what the Spanish empire was like and the experiences of individuals living within it.

Clendinnen describes the Aztec empire as a, “house of cards”, with many warring tribes, making it easier for Cortés to destabilize it and take control[20]. The letter which Cortés wrote certainly helps support this view. Within it, Cortés mentions how the people of Tascaleteca, first inspired Cortés to believe that the citizens of Cholula planned to cause him harm[21]. He then mentions how the people of Tascaleteca became considerably distressed when there was a possibility Cortés would believe the people of Cholula over themselves[22]. Miguel Leon-Portilla argues, that the Tascaletecas told rumors and lies to Cortés to convince him to destroy them[23]. He felt the hatred for the people of Cholula was the catalyst for the massacre which ensued[24]. This source certainly highlights the divides which existed within the Aztec empire. This source can be used as an example of the hatred which existed between the various warring tribes, making it useful evidence of the disparities and divisions within the Spanish Empire.

Some historians feel that Cortés and his men attacked the city of Cholula, to fulfill a promise of vengeance for the people of Tascaleteca[25]. This may well have been the case, but the source does not state this[26], as this would have made him look in an unfavorable manner to Charles. It may have been easier to say that Cortés and his men were fighting a defensive battle to ensure Charles’ support. It could be argued that this prevents the source from being useful to a historian studying the experience of empire. The bias in which it may have been written in prevents any real knowledge being gained about what really occurred to cause the massacre in Cholula, as you must wade through Cortés’ attempts to win favour with Charles, before you can discover the true facts concerning the incident.

To conclude, historian Meiland summarizes best, when he states that every historian will view the same source from a different perspective[27]. This means every historian will have a different opinion on the usefulness of the same source. In my opinion the source clearly written for the purpose of gaining Charles V support for his campaign in Mexico, this means the letter would have been created to gain maximum credit for Cortés, possibly at the expense of any true information. The bias which may exist within the source could lead some historians to consider the source to be useless. However, I adhere to Marc Bloch’s theory that everything around us is evidence, and can be useful in some way[28]. Despite the bias which exists, there is much to learn from the letter about the experiences of empire. Particularly for historians on both sides of the debate over whether Cortés was an aggressor, in a premeditated attack, or whether he really did fear native treachery, and acted in a defensive manor. As well as this, the historian can learn of the complex relationships which can exist between the ruler of an empire, and his subordinates. Historian Jon Manchip White, is one historian who found Cortés useful, as it appears, his account on the incident of in Cholula, is identical to the description Cortes penned within his letter[29]. Even if only one historian has found reliable evidence within this letter, for example learning of the experience of the Spanish conquest of Mexico, then it must be deemed useful.

My Chosen Source

Hernán Cortés (1986 [1523]). Letters from Mexico, translated and edited by Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J.H Elliot, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp.70-4

Bibliography

Marc Bloch, The Historians Craft (Manchester University Press, 1954)

Bernal Diaz del Castillo, The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico (Da Capo Press LTD, 1996)

Kiston Clark, The Critical Historian (Heinemann Educational books LTD, 1970)

Inga Clendinnen, Aztecs and Interpretation (Cambridge University Press, 1991)

Mary Fulbrook, Historical Theory (Routledge, 2002)

Cortés. (2007) [DVD] Producer Andrew Greive [Viewed 15^th December 2009]

Ludmilla Jordanova, History in Practice (Oxford University Press, 2000)

Jack W. Meiland, Scepticism and Historical Knowledge (Random House Inc, 1965)

Miguel Leon-Portilla, The Broken Spears, The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico (Beacon Press books, 1992)

Jon Manchip White, Cortés and the Downfall of the Aztec Empire (Hamish Hamilton, 1971)

[1] Hernán Cortés (1986 [1523]). Letters from Mexico, translated and edited by Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J.H Elliot, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp.70-4

[2] Miguel Leon-Portilla, The Broken Spears, The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico (Beacon Press books, 1992) p.XXV

[3] Hernán Cortés (1986 [1523]). Letters from Mexico, translated and edited by Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J.H Elliot, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp.70-4

[4] Cortés. (2007) [DVD] Producer Andrew Greive [Viewed 15^th December 2009]

[5] Kiston Clark, The Critical Historian (Heinemann Educational books LTD, 1970) p.60

[6] Hernán Cortés (1986 [1523]). Letters from Mexico, translated and edited by Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J.H Elliot, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp.70-4

[7] Hernán Cortés (1986 [1523]). Letters from Mexico, translated and edited by Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J.H Elliot, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp.70-4

[8] Marc Bloch, The Historians Craft (Manchester University Press, 1954) p.90

[9] Jack W. Meiland, Scepticism and Historical Knowledge (Random House Inc, 1965) pp.23-33

[10] Jon Manchip White, Cortés and the Downfall of the Aztec Empire (Hamish Hamilton, 1971) p.210

[11] Hernán Cortés (1986 [1523]). Letters from Mexico, translated and edited by Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J.H Elliot, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp.70-4

[12] Jon Manchip White, Cortes and the Downfall of the Aztec Empire, p.77

[13] Hernán Cortés (1986 [1523]). Letters from Mexico, translated and edited by Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J.H Elliot, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp.70-4

[14] Hernán Cortés (1986 [1523]). Letters from Mexico, translated and edited by Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J.H Elliot, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp.70-4

[15] Inga Clendinnen, Aztecs and Interpretation (Cambridge University Press, 1991) p.267

[16] Bernal Diaz del Castillo, The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico (Da Capo Press LTD, 1996) p.82

[17] Cortés. (2007) [DVD] Producer Andrew Greive [Viewed 15^th December 2009]

[18] Inga Clendinnen, Aztecs and Interpretation, p.16

[19] Hernán Cortés (1986 [1523]). Letters from Mexico, translated and edited by Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J.H Elliot, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp.70-4

[20] Inga Clendinnen, Aztecs and Interpretation, p.268

[21] Hernan Cortés (1986 [1523]). Letters from Mexico, translated and edited by Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J.H Elliot, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp.70-4

[22] Hernan Cortés (1986 [1523]). Letters from Mexico, translated and edited by Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J.H Elliot, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp.70-4

[23] Miguel Leon-Portilla, The Broken Spears, The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico (Beacon Press books, 1992) p.40

[24] Miguel Leon-Portilla, The Broken Spears, p.38

[25] Miguel Leon-Portilla, The Broken Spears, p.47

[26] Hernan Cortés (1986 [1523]). Letters from Mexico, translated and edited by Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J.H Elliot, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp.70-4

[27] Jack W. Meiland, Scepticism and Historical Knowledge, p.35

[28] Marc Bloch, The Historians Craft, p.60

[29] Jon Manchip White, Cortés and the Downfall of the Aztec Empire, pp.193-197