OCR Text |
Show DlSSERT. Vl. '---.---' HISTORY OF ME X I C 0. veniently, with a good number of allies. " Since it has pleafed our Lord," fuys Cortes in his )aft letter to Charles the V. "that this great " city of Tla~elolco fhonld be onquered, I have not thought proper " to refidc in it on account of many inconveniences; I have therefore· " gone, with all my people, to O:ay at Cuyoacan." Jiad what M. de Paw tnyii cen true, it would have been fufficicnt for Cortes to have faid that he did not remain in M xico becaufe there were no houfcs left fit to be inhabited. The palace of Cortes was<!reB:ed in the &me place where formerly that of Montezuma ftood. If Cortes had not ruined this palace, he might have lodged conveniently in it, as that monarch had done, with all his court. It is falfe that the palace ereCted for Cortes is fiill in exiftence; it was burnt in the .time of a popular fedition, in I 692. But it is fiill falfer that the walls of the Mexican houfcs were only loofe ftones laid one upon another without any cement, as the contrary is proved by the teftimony of all hiftorians, and by the remains of ancient buildings, of which we ihall fpeak in their place. From hence it appears, that the whole paffage above cited from M. de Paw, is idle and fiCtitious. M. de Paw, not contented with annihilating the houfes of the Mexicans, engages alfo with their temples; and in anger againO: Solis, becaufe he affirms that the temples of Mexico were not lefs than two thoufand in number, including large and fmall, writes thus, " There cc never has been fo great a colleCtion of houfes in at1y city from Pe .. "' kin to Rome, on which account Gomara, lefs raih or more dif- " cerning than Solis, fays, that computing feven chapels, there were not " more than eight places deftined for the repofitories of the idols of " Mexico." In ord,er to ihew the unfaithfulnefs of M. de Paw in citing authors, we !hall infert the paffi1ge from Gomara to which he al- , ludcs. '" There were," f.1.ys Gomara, in chapter eighty of his Chronicle of New Spain, " many temples in the city of Mexico, '' fcattered through the different difi:riets, that had their towers, in " which were the chapels and altars for the repofitories of the idols ..• :: T~cy. had a1mofi a~l the fame form, fo that what we !hall £:1y ?f the pnnc1pal temple w11l fuffice to explain all the others." And after makin~ a minute defcription of that great temple, of which he boafis the he1gh t, largcnefs, and beauty, · he adds, " Befides thofe towers, · "which • • H I S T 0 R Y 0 F M E X I C 0. " which were formed with their chapels above the pyramid, there were " more than forty other towers, great and fmall, in other fmaller 'l'eoca//i (i), which were within the inclofure of that principal tem~ " ple, all of which were the f.1me in form ... There were other Teo- :: calli or Cues ~n other places of. the _city ... All thofe temples had " ~1~ufes belongt?g to them, thetr pn~il:s, and_ their gods, together wtth every tlung ncceff.1.ry for thea· worih1p and ·fervice." So that Gomm·a, who, according to M. de Paw, docs not enumerate in Mexico more than eight places deftined for the repofitories of the idols incl~ding feven chapels, reckons clearly more than forty temples withi~ the 1nclofure of the principal temple, befides many others fcattered through the other diftriB:s of the city. Can we give any faith to M. de Paw after fo manife.ll a falfification ? · · It is true that Solis was inconfiderate in afferting that number of tem .. ?l~s for a certainty which the firft hiftorians mentioned only from conJeCture. But M. ~ePa'; ~1ews himfelf not very difcerning in including amongft the pubhc bUlldmgs thofe chapels alfo which the Spaniards call temples. Of thefe the quantity was innumerable; all thofe who faw that country before the conqueil: tefi:ify unanimoufiy, that not only in the inhabited places, but on the roads and mountains they f~w fuch kinds of buildings, which, although fmall and totally dtfferent from our churches, were yet called temples, becaufe they were confecrated to the wodhip of the idols. From the letters of Cortes, as well as from the hifiory of Diaz, we know that the conquerors hardly went a fiep in their expeditions without meeting with fome temple or chapel. Cortes fays he numbered more than four hundred temples in the city of Cholula alone. But there was a great difference in the fize of the temples. Some ~ere nothing elfe than finall terrailcs of little height, upon which was a little chapel for the tutelar idol. Others were of fiupendous dimenfions. Cortes, where he fpeaks of the· greater temple of Mexico, declares to the emperor, that it is difficult to defcri~e its parts, its grandeur, and the things contained in it; that it was fo large, that within the inclofure of that :f.l:rong waH which furrounded it, a village of five hundred houfcs might (i) V~ocnll;·, t.he ho\ll<' of God, was tl1c nnme wl1i h the Mexicans gnve to their temple. '! ; Ddd 2 be 387 . DISSERT. VI. ~ |