Many historians and jurists—Spanish and foreign—have debated the justice of the wars waged by Spain to acquire her overseas dominions. What is unique about the book under review is that it studies the nature of the conquest of Mexico in the light of the letters penned by the protagonist of that amazing event. Victor Frankl, in 1962, seems to have been the first to turn his attention briefly to this topic. But Straub’s monograph is the first book-length attempt to investigate Cortés’ concept of the justice of the wars he was waging to conquer Moctezuma’s “Empire.” Although based exclusively on printed materials, this study is an important pioneer contribution to the subject.
The first chapter sets forth Cortés’ idea of Charles V’s universal dominion in virtue of the latter’s position as Holy Roman Emperor. His claim to the New World dominion was strengthened by papal donation. The second chapter studies the justice of warfare in general against pagans. It draws on a long tradition of eminent authorities, beginning with Tertullian, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and their commentators. The third chapter, “The Just Wars of Hernán Cortés,” comes to the heart of the problem. All the classical principles justifying warfare and deriving mainly from Roman law, as later discussed by Francisco de Vitoria and Alonso de la Vera Cruz, were already invoked by Cortés in his letters: freedom to travel and trade, freedom to use unclaimed natural resources, the right to proclaim the Christian faith, the duty to prevent crimes against the natural law, the right to defend allies, etc.
The rest of the volume does not deal directly with the main theme. Chapter four compares Cortés with Caesar—both made use of the disaffected allies of their enemies, both brought peace to disunited regions, and both fought victoriously against vast odds. Chapter five shows the influence of military fiction on the narrative form of Cortés. Although the Conquistador did not expressly cite such romantic sources, Straub finds numerous parallels between his letters and popular contemporary Spanish novels.
The thesis of the sixth and last chapter may come as a surprise to most scholars of Mexican history. Francisco López de Gómara’s account is interpreted as an extended literary version of Cortes’ letters; the historian took nothing of importance from other sources. Further, Bernal Díaz del Castillo—despite his pretended refutation of Gómara—simply plagiarized the historian’s work, adding nothing from any other source, not even from his own memory.
Straub is unaware of the profound influence of Roman law on Cortés. I am puzzled by the spelling of “Mexico” in the title; it is neither German nor Spanish. Many authors (e.g. Dante, Henry of Susa, Thomas Aquinas) are cited according to the works of others rather than directly. A better acquaintance with the geography and history of Mexico would have enabled the author to use more familiar and consistent forms.
