History of the Conquest of Mexico; vol. 1/4Prescott, William Hickling
History
History of the Conquest of Mexico; vol. 1/4
Prescott, William Hickling
Cortés, Hernán, 1485-1547; Mexico -- History -- Conquest, 1519-1540
[135] The Tezcucan priests would fain have persuaded the good king
Nezahualcoyotl, on occasion of a pestilence, to appease the gods by
the sacrifice of some of his own subjects, instead of his enemies; on
the ground that they would not only be obtained more easily, but would
be fresher victims, and more acceptable. (Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chich.,
MS., cap. 41.) This writer mentions a cool arrangement entered into by
the allied monarchs with the republic of Tlascala and her confederates.
A battle-field was marked out, on which the troops of the hostile
nations were to engage at stated seasons, and thus supply themselves
with subjects for sacrifice. The victorious party was not to pursue his
advantage by invading the other’s territory, and they were to continue,
in all other respects, on the most amicable footing. (Ubi supra.) The
historian, who follows in the track of the Tezcucan Chronicler, may
often find occasion to shelter himself, like Ariosto, with
“Mettendolo Turpin, lo metto anch’ io.”
[136] [Don José F. Ramirez, the distinguished Mexican scholar, has
made this sentence the text for a disquisition of fifty pages or
more, one object of which is to show that the existence of human
sacrifices is not irreconcilable with an advance in civilization. This
leads him into an argument of much length, covering a broad range of
historical inquiry, and displaying much learning as well as a careful
consideration of the subject. In one respect, however, he has been led
into an important error by misunderstanding the drift of my remarks,
where, speaking of cannibalism, I say, “It is impossible the people who
practise it should make any great progress in moral or intellectual
culture” (p. 100). This observation, referring solely to cannibalism,
the critic cites as if applied by me to human sacrifices. Whatever
force, therefore, his reasoning may have in respect to the latter, it
cannot be admitted to apply to the former. The distance is wide between
human sacrifices and cannibalism; though Señor Ramirez diminishes
this distance by regarding both one and the other simply as religious
exercises, springing from the devotional principle in our nature.{*}
He enforces his views by a multitude of examples from history, which
show how extensively these revolting usages of the Aztecs--on a much
less gigantic scale indeed--have been practised by the primitive races
of the Old World, some of whom, at a later period, made high advances
in civilization. Ramirez, Notas y Esclarecimientos á la Historia del
Conquista de México del Señor W. Prescott, appended to Navarro’s
translation.]
{*} [The practise of eating, or tasting, the victim has been generally
associated with sacrifice, from the idea either of the sacredness of
the offering or of the deity’s accepting the soul, the immaterial part,
or the blood as containing the principle of life and leaving the flesh
to his worshippers.--K.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account