Like the Mexican Revolution, the subject of the conquest of Mexico is such that there will always be room on the shelf for one more good book on it. But the ante, in terms of scholarship and intellectual sophistication, has gone up over the years, reflecting both the singular accomplishments of individual scholars and their consequential effect upon a growing maturity within Mexican historiography.
Mr. White’s contribution, a stylish and pretentious book, fails in its mission, not so much for what the author does as for what he does not do. On the basis of his introduction one expects to find an updating of the history of the conquest based upon a “greatly enlarged viewpoint” resulting from studies performed since Prescott’s day. How disappointing, then, to read on and discover that the author is apparently ignorant of several key monographs and books directly pertaining to his subject. It is as though Seler, Orozco y Berra, Icazbalceta, and Alamán never wrote. More recent works are similarly ignored. His bibliography is in good part mere accoutrement, since the text to which it is appended lacks the very enlightenment many of the listed works could have provided had they been read and incorporated. The prime sources fare no better: Mr. White limited himself almost entirely to the writings of Cortés, Bernal Díaz, and Gómara, leaving untouched that vast bank of relevant data to be found in the standard printed sources. Sahagún, Ixtlilxochitl, and Durán were seldom used, and with the utmost superficiality. Completely ignored was the mass of printed Franciscan materials that are so vital to any study of Cortés. Incredible as it may seem, there is no evidence that the author ever consulted the Archivo Hospital de Jesús, which is the foundation piece of Cortesian studies.
Eschewing much relevant scholarship and ignoring available sources, Mr. White has taken a number of secondary accounts in hand and produced a scissors and paste version of Cortés and the conquest that can most politely be described as superficial. His narrative lacks the immediacy that penetration of the sources can yield; he fails to comprehend the full dimension of Cortés’ victory and Montezuma’s tragedy. He does offer a good bit of conjecture, apparently without realizing that many of the questions he speculates on have already been answered by others, some as long ago as 1880 when Manuel Orozco y Berra published his great work. One can sympathize with the author’s obvious desire to portray Cortés in his best light and to dispel the shadows of the Black Legend that have so long overlaid the conqueror of Montezuma and Tenochtitlán. But surely Cortés deserves better than is given here.
