Entertaining, but Flawed History

I found History of the Conquest of Mexico to be useful both as a history and an example of 19^th century historical scholarship.  As a history, it is an engaging story of the conquest of Mexico; Prescott has integrated voluminous detail on the Spanish march across Mexico, as well as the battles, the heroes, the geography.  Additionally, he has done so with a literary flourish that makes the history enjoyable to the reader.  For example, a description of Montezuma’s attire when he is sent out to negotiate on behalf of the Spaniards (561-562), states “…his mantle of white and blue, flowed over his shoulders, held together by its rich clasp of the green chalchivitl.”  And he goes on to describe the golden shoes, the tiara.  Beautifully written, but after a while you begin to wonder – how does Prescott know this? 

Examined as representative of 19^th century scholarship, one quickly sees flaws that would not likely be present in current historical analysis.  First and foremost, Prescott has written this exclusively from the Spaniard point of view, and spends much time denouncing the intellectual accomplishments and level of civilization of the Aztecs – in fact, he regularly refers to them as barbarians.  On occasion he assigns thoughts or reasoning to Mexican characters (he frequently describes what Montezuma is thinking), but based solely on a white, 19^th century perspective and injects his subjectivity into the account.  These would be the silences that Trouillot would want to explore. Related to this, he makes clear the superiority of the Christian religion, as he describes in great detail the sacrificial rites, the numerous gods, the power of the Aztec priests.  Prescott links this tightly to his conclusion of the “barbarism” of the Mexicans. Of course, Prescott is somewhat limited by the historical records available to him at the time – primarily Spanish accounts by individuals present during the Conquest.  Prescott himself discusses the sad state of his resources, and even questions the hidden agenda of some “gentleman historians”.   The one-sided perspective, lack of context and inadequate resources relegate this to a flawed, but extremely illuminating historical narrative of the conquest of Mexico.