Response to Prescott

In my opinion, the History of the Conquest of Mexico is useful as both a history of the conquest and as an example of a phase in the research and writing of history.  However, for the purposes of this exercise, I will concentrate on the latter.  In the introduction, Lockhart revealed that Prescott was “a figure of his time” (p. xxvii).  Lockhart explained that Prescott sought to express the events of the conquest of Mexico in the term “of an exceptional great man” (p. xxvii).  To Prescott, that great man was Cortes.  Indeed, he doted over Cortes to a degree that the conquistador almost became god-like.  In two instances, where a soldier in Cortes expeditionary force gave an account that contradicted his commander’s, Prescott rationalized away a primary source to so he could conform to his hero (pp. 456-457).  Moreover, Prescott used his footnotes as a forum for critique, but appeared less critical when Cortes was involved, as opposed to the Aztecs or Bernal Diaz.

Another area that to me demonstrated that Prescott’s work was a sign of his times was his method of critique in his footnotes.  At various times, he compares the Aztec civilization to the ancient Roman and Greek societies and their religion to the Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, and ancient mythologies.  From my perspective, because Prescott lacked the full range of sources that area available today, he attempted to understand the Aztecs by comparing them to the civilizations and religions that were familiar to him.  However, I did find his critiques hard to follow at times, because they were often written in their original language. 

While I am sure that Troillot would have a field day attempting to break silences in Prescott’s work, I believe that one has to look at the two books in the context of the time they were written.  In my opinion, much of Troillot’s book was subjective and one-sided in a time when objectivity is valued in historical writing.  Whereas Prescott does more to explore some of the differing perspectives of the actors involved, albeit in a subjective method that was more accepted at the time.  As with any history there are silences, however Troillot’s methods would be out of place in Prescott’s work.