Prescott - Conquest of Mexico

I believe when Prescott originally wrote and published the History and Conquest of Mexico it was undoubtedly useful and perhaps even the unparalleled standard for a historical account of the conquest.  Due to the lively and descriptive literary approach he used, I would imagine that Prescott was read and enjoyed by scholars, students, and the general public alike.  However, now in our contemporary time, I believe the book’s efficacy lies in its value as an example of a phase in the development and writing of history.  I say this mostly because Prescott is not an unbiased chronicler of facts, but he routinely inserts his own voice and opinions into the narrative; and the work is often highly subjective instead of objective.  Even though at times I enjoyed Prescott’s lively descriptions and colorful language, often his word choice conveyed strong connotations which propel the reader toward a certain conclusion instead of letting the reader draw their own conclusions.  For example, he refers to the Aztecs as pagan, barbarian, uncivilized, and diabolical and discusses the dread ministers who perform dismal and abominable rites – not exactly neutral word choices!  I would hesitate to assign this book to my students unless part of the lesson addressed considering the role of the historian and how the historian’s voice and presentation of the information can influence the reader.  

I believe Trouillot would have found many opportunities for silences to be created by Prescott's work.  Without a doubt Prescott underwent herculean efforts to use as many resources and primary manuscripts as he could.  However, it appeared to me that most of those sources, or those who translated and interpreted the native sources, were all European.  My concern is that the perspective of most of the sources is from an outsider etic view which could be biased or have a specific cultural, political, or economic agenda.  Prescott does mention Veytia, a Mexican scholar, who published an early history of Mexico in 1836 but whose work gained no recognition outside of Mexico.  Prescott compares Veytia to the European Abbe Clavigero whose work was published again and again throughout Europe (pp. 25-26).  I think this speaks to the availability of sources which historians can draw from and also whose voice and perspective gets heard by the wider world and perpetuated through time.  We can’t hold a historian responsible for not using emic/native sources if none exist, but I think the historian does have the responsibility to make sure his/her readers are aware if the sources are all from non-natives and that they could have a cultural bias.

Additionally, I think Prescott creates a number of other silences.  Firstly, on several occasions he gives credit for some cultural achievements to the Aztec’s predecessor, the Toltecs, instead of to the Aztecs. For example, Prescott says that any scientific understanding, any architectural or cultural advancement, and even their hieroglyphic picture-writings should all be attributed to the Toltecs (pp. 68 and 83-84).   This removal of recognition effectively diminishes the accomplishments of the Aztecs and reduces their power and importance.  Secondly, Prescott tells the reader that he is not going to discuss an unpleasant episode of litigation between Cortes and Valesquez for fear of embarrassing the reader.  However, this could be creating a silence or cover-up of important facts which might give greater insights into the character of the two men or their personal motivations concerning actions and events at that time.  Perhaps Prescott does not want to include less that flattering information about Cortes or the conquers, maybe he wants to draw attention away from facts which show their motivations for the conquest to be less than altruistic – I don’t know why he passed over that episode but it should be the job of the historian to present all the information for the reader to consider and not make decisions for the reader concerning what is important and what is not.  And Lastly, I would argue that Prescott even silences Cortes himself.  Prescott sets Cortes up to be a romantic swash-buckling epic hero who is handsome and gallant and even refers to him as “our hero” (pp. 170-174).  Prescott goes on to say this about Cortes when he was made Captain-General of the Armada, “…and the young adventurer, whose magic lance was to dissolve the spell which had so long hung over these mysterious regions, now stood ready to assume the enterprise” (p. 180).  I think Prescott’s language impels the reader to connect Cortes to mythic or legendary heroes, like King Arthur and his magic sword.  I believe this silences the true nature, character, and motivations of the actual man. I also think that Prescott creates a silence and takes power away from Cortes and all the conquerors with his repeated assertions that Cortes and the conquerors had been chosen by Providence to accomplish their divine “mission” (pp. 68 and 457).  This silences any other possible motivations for the conquest, such as personal or national economic gain, and diminishes the accomplishments of the individuals by giving the power to divine Providence.