2905341

7/27/2019 2905341

1/21

Discourses on Colonialism: Bernal Daz, Las Casas, and the Twentieth-Century Reader

Author(s): Rolena AdornoReviewed work(s):Source: MLN, Vol. 103, No. 2, Hispanic Issue (Mar., 1988), pp. 239-258Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2905341 .

Accessed: 07/03/2013 08:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

MLN.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:54:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2905341?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2905341?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

7/27/2019 2905341

2/21

Discoursesn Colonialism:Bernal iaz, Las Casas, nd theTwentieth-CenturyeaderIRolenaAdorno

"Y quiero volver on la plumaen la mano,como el buen piloto ieva la sonda por lamar,descubriendoos bajos cuando sienteque los hay,asi hare yo en caminar, laverdadde lo que pas6, a historia el cron-istaG6mara...." BernalDiaz, Verdaderais-tora . . , cap. XVIII.

These wordsofBernal Diaz del Castillo onghave been consideredthe motto of his historiographic roject.Readers have agreed thatthe somewhatcontentiousnature of the Historia erdadera e a con-quistade la Nueva Espafia s owed to Bernal's desiretocorrectFran-cisco Lopez de Gomara'sHistoria e las ndiasy a conquista e Mexico[1552] and to share a spot in thehistorical imelightwith HernanCortes. The most recent editorsof Bernal's work Carmelo Salenzde Santa Maria and Miguel Leon-Portilla), answer the question,"Whydid Bernal Diaz write his history?" y emphasizinghis po-lemic against Gomara. When Salenz (Historiade una historia: acronica eBernalDiaz delCastilloMadrid: Consejo Superiorde In-vestigacionesCientificas, 984], p. 50) introducesBernal Diaz andtalks of polemics,he refersto Gomara, Illescas y Giovio: "Desdeeste punto la cronica adquiere ciertavibracionde polemica que leva muy bien;" he adds: "Polemica desde luego ma'saparente quereal, pues no se puede negar que ni don Francisco Lopez de Go-mara ni mucho menos la pareja Illescas-Giovio merecen los re-gafnos e nuestro escritor."He mentionsLas Casas only inciden-tally,notingthatBernal was presentat the 1550 Valladolid debate

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:54:18 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/27/2019 2905341

3/21

240 ROLENA ADORNObetween the Bishop of Chiapas and Juan Gines de Sepulveda onwhether ust war could be waged in the Indies, and he suggeststhattheBrevissima elacion e la destruccione las ndias 1552] was inBernal's library pp. 97, 122). Choosing to leave polemicsaside inhis attribution o Bernal of reasons for takingup the pen, Leon-Portilla n his recentedition of theHistoria erdadera e la conquistade la Nueva Espafia (Madrid: Historia-16, 1984) omitsany refer-ence to Las Casas, even as he discusses Saenz's account.Leon-Por-tillagivesas his ownexplanationof Bernal's literary ocationthreefactors: hegreatcontributions ernal and his fellowshad made tothe conquest, the small compensationhe had received for thoseefforts, nd the desire that his deeds be perpetuallyremembered("para que su dicho tuvieraperenne validez") ("Introduccion,"p.47).Scholars who have looked into Bernal's strident nd witheringcriticism fGomara on matters f historical ontent nd rhetoricalstylehave discoveredBernal's commentsto be eitherexaggeratedor misplaced. The historian Ramon Iglesia's examinationof theworks of both revealed that on mattersof substance Bernal andGomara often gave virtually dentical accounts and, in others,Bernal attributedto Gomara statements hat he in fact had notmade.' Iglesia suggested that Bernal may have used Gomara tochallenge Cortes, by criticizing he historianwho took down theaccount which Corteshad givenhim(p. 28). Iglesia also suggestedthatBernal was jealous or contemptuousof Gomara because thelatter's social and literary tatus ("clerigo," "gran retorico") lenthim an authority onsideredfalse by Bernal because it did not de-pend on eyewitnessparticipation nd yetwas capable, thankstothe prestige of the professional historian, of undermining thetruer uthority f the eyewitness ccount p. 29). Of interestnthisregard is the literary cholarRobertLewis's more recentexplora-tion of Bernal's criticism f Gomara's language and style.Here welearn that Gomara did not indulge in the obfuscatingrhetoricalpyrotechnics f which Bernal accused him, but that Gomara in-stead adhered to a styleof simplicitynd clarity hatBernal pre-sumablycould have admired.2Gomara's status as a professional

1Ram6n Iglesia, "Las criticas e Bernal Diaz del Castillo a la "Historiade la Con-quista de Mexico" de Francisco L6pez de G6mara,"en "Dos estudios sobre el mismotema," RevistaTiempoMexico), 1940: p. 30.2 Robert Lewis, "Ret6rica y verdad: los cargos de Bernal Diaz a L6pez de G6-mara,"De la cr6nica la nueva narrativamexicana,MerlinH. ForsteryJulio Ortega,eds. (Oaxaca, Mexico: Oasis, 1986), pp. 37-47.


7/27/2019 2905341

4/21

M L N 241historian and his evident literary kill made him a hard act tofollow, in Bernal's view, but a necessary one. Since some ofBernal's most strident ccusations have been revealed to be exag-gerated or unfounded, it behooves us to seek themotivesbehindthose accusations, nd reflecton whythose motiveshave not beeninterrogatedpreviously. n the first ase, one hopes for a fullerand more accurate account of Bernal's outlookon the memoriali-zation in writtenhistories f the dramaticevents n which he hadparticipated; n the second, some insight nto the sensibilities notto say deologies) of Bernaldian scholarship.Althoughsuch ref ec-tion and the conclusionsto be drawnfrom t are theobject of thisstudy, t is necessaryfirst o enter into Bernal Diaz's world andreconstruct hedomain of his real and feignedbattles.Briefly, he discussionthatfollowswill take thiscourse: First,more important dversaryof Bernal than Gomara was Las Casas.The significanceof this assertion is that it raises the stakes ofBernal's debate from the issue of "Who is the betterhistorianoftheconquest of Mexico?" to "Was theconquestofMexico ustifiedand do the veteransof its war deserve the rewardof encomiendagrants n perpetuity?" econdly,thisreading shiftsBernal's con-cernsfromacademic problemsofhistoriographynd rhetoricperse to their mmediateand intimaterelationshipto the social andpoliticalproblemsaffecting is own self-interestnd personalwel-fare.Mygoal is to suggestsome considerations hat reflect ess onBernal'swork as such than on the conditions f itsemergence, ndothers,on the assumptionsand biases of colonial literary cholar-ship.

Bernal Diaz wroteand revised tirelessly. aving begun his worksometime n 1551, he didn'tput down hispen until 1568. Thanksto the critical ditionprepared by Saenz de Santa Maria, (BernalDiaz del Castillo, Historia verdaderade la conquistade la NuevaEspania, Madrid: Consejo Superior de InvestigacionesCientificas,1982]), that decades-long editorial process has been partiallyre-constructed.The juxtapositionof the earliestversion,the Guate-mala manuscript,withthe one Bernal sent to Spain to be pub-lished (the so-calledRemon manuscript s reconstructedwith theaid of the 1632 publishedversion and the Guatemala manuscript)(I, xxxvii,1), providesaccess to Bernal's evolving onceptionofhiswork. With respect to Gomara, two observationsare pertinent.The first s that Bernal was at workalreadywhen he came uponGomara's Conquista eMexico I, 33); the second is that, inceGo-mara's work was ordered withdrawn rom irculation nd prohib-


7/27/2019 2905341

5/21

242 ROLENAADORNOited from furtherprintings n 1553,3 Bernal's persistence n hisattackon Gomara suggestseitherthathe was unaware of thepro-hibition, r that,knowing bout the suppression,he had little on-fidencethat t would be effective r thatthedamage it had causedalreadywas irrevocable. He suppressedfrom he atermanuscripthis statement hat the Council of the Indies should expurgateGo-mara's history I, 33]). The question thatscholars have not askedor answered regarding Bernal's attack on Gomara is, "Whatdamage and towhom did Gomara's workcontribute?" n myview,Bernal's complaintthat the indispensibleand tirelessheroismofthe conquistadors was eclipsed by Gomara's overglorificationftheir captain is necessarybut insufficiento explain Bernal's ire.His passion on thispoint is well articulated;he blamed Gomaraand Cortes's son, "el marques que ahora es," for thisemphasis:"toda la honra y prez della [su historia] a dio solo al marques donHernando Cortes,e no hizo memoria de ningunode nuestrosva-lerososcapitanes yfuertes oldados" (I, 36).I would suggest that Bernal's writings nd rewritingswere anattemptto keep abreast of the pace of events that profoundlythreatenedhis economic well being. The policies and politickingconcerningthe institutionf encomienda in the 1540's and 1550'scan further xplain his complaints bout Gomara and, at thesametime,define his rage againstanother,more threatening dversarywho looms larger n his workbutis named less,FrayBartolomedelas Casas.I. Bernal Diaz reads G6maraWhat is behind Bernal's criticism f Gomara? He describesthe sit-uation I want to analyze in his famous Chapter 18, the final ver-sion ofwhich s entitled De algunas advertencias cerca de lo queescribe Francisco Lopez de Gomara, mal informado, en su his-toria."Bernal's principal task,as revealed by the pointson whichhe attackedGomara, was to refutethe information r impressiongivenby Gomara thatthe conquistadorskilled great numbers ofIndians and destroyedmany citiesand temples. He accuses Go-mara of sensationalism,n order to appeal to the lowest commondenominator of his readership,and of deliberately gnoringthe

3 The royaldecree of 17 November1553 is reproducedinJoseTorre Revello,Ellibro, a imprenta el periodismon Ame'rica urante a dominaci6nspafola (BuenosAires: Facultad de Filosofia yLetras, 1940), p. x.


7/27/2019 2905341

6/21

M L N 243accounts that the "true conquerors" and the discerning readersknow to be true:"Pues de aquellas grandes matanzas que [Gomara] dice que ha-ciamos, siendo nosotrosobra de cuatrocientos oldados los que an-dabamos en la guerra, que hartoteniamosde defendernos que nonos matasen o lievasen de vencida; que aunque estuvieran losindios atados, no hicieramos tantas muertes y crueldades comodice que hicimos; ... Tambien dice que derrotamos-ybrasamosmuchas ciudades y templos, que son sus cues, donde tienen susidolos, y en aquello le parece a Gomara que place mucho a losoyentes que leen su historia,y no quiso ver ni entender cuando loescribiaque los verdaderos conquistadoresy curiosos lectoresquesaben lo que paso, claramente e dirain ue en su historia n todo loque escribe se engafo6,y si en las demas historiasque escribe deotras cosas va del arte del de la Nueva-Espafia, tambien ra todoerrado" (I, 34).Bernal's comprehensive assertionthat the conquistadors werenot as destructive s Gomara claims s the first lue whichsuggeststhatthesimple correction f factual rrorsforthe sakeofhistorysnot the only agenda of the old war veteran;at stake was the per-sonal and collectivehistory f theconquistadors.Among the specificerrors of Gomara that Bernal enumeratedwas the account of the treachery f Montezuma'scaptain Cualpo-poca and his executionby burning t thestake:"Tambien dice quecomo Cortes mando quemar un indio que se decia Quezalpopoca,capitan de Montezuma, sobre la poblacion que se quemo" (I, 34).Nevertheless, Gomara's account of that episode in Chapters 87and 88 of theHistoriade la conquista e la Nueva Espafia Caracas:BibliotecaAyacucho, 1979, [pp. 139-140]) is very nearly denticalto thatof Bernal but forone element: a casual concludingobser-vation by Gomara that raises the issue of the rightof conquest.Although Gomara presented the burning of Cualpopoca as thejust punishment f a traitorwho had confessedhisguiltto Cortes,and described in an additional chapterthe treacherywhichCual-popoca had carried out at Montezuma's command,Gomara con-cluded his accountby notingthat the Azteccaptainand his collab-orators were executed publiclywithoutnativeprotestor incident:"y asi, se quemaron publicamenteen la plaza mayor,delante todoel pueblo, sin haber ninguin scandalo, sino todo silencioy espantode la nueva manera de justicia que veian ejecutar en sefnor anprincipal yen reinode Moteczuma,a hombresextranjerosyhues-pedes" (p. 140).


7/27/2019 2905341

7/21

244 ROLENA ADORNOGiventhescrupulouscare thatGomara took n showingthatthis

sentence was executed for ust cause (Gomara tells how Cualpo-poca's treacherywas confirmedby letters sent from Pedro deHircio to Cortes at Cholula [p. 140]), there is only the slightestcause for Bernal's uneasiness upon reading this passage; it isfound in the last line of Gomara's account,cited above: those re-sponsible for killinga captain of the Mexican lord in his ownkingdomwere foreigners nd outsiders.The comment s an answer to one of the many questionsposedin the ust war debate, "Did the Spanish have the right o invadethe dominionof a sovereign ord whohas notoffendedany Chris-tian prince?"Bernal, like Juan Gines de Sepulveda and Gomara,would say yes.Las Casas would say no, pointing o the authority fnatural aw.Accordingto Las Casas, it was unlawful o war againstthe princesof kingdomswhohad never attackedone's own.4 n hismost strident ondemnationsto the wars of conquest, Las Casaschallenged the legal prerogative of the Spanish monarch byseekingtheoretical upport in theThomist theory f natural aw,as exemplified n thisconclusion: "Tienen todas estas sus reinos,sus sefiorios, us reyes, us urisdicciones, ltasy bajas, sus ueces ymagistradosy sus territorios, entro de los cuales usan legitima-mente y pueden librementeusar de su potestad,ydentro dellos aninguin eydel mundo, sin quebrantarel Derecho natural, s licitosin licencia de sus reyesyde sus repuiblicasntrar,ymenos usar niejercitar urisdiccionni potestad alguna" (p. 489).By implicitlynswering just-warquestion,Gomara had implic-itly nd effectivelyaised it.Reading Gomara's tendentiousnarra-tion, Bernal Diaz smartedfromthe addition of insultto injury.Atthe same timeas he felt he need toprovidea corrective o theviewthat the war of conquest was won by Cortes alone, and therebysecure his own place in history-and on the encomienda-,Bernal was confrontedby increasingcriticismbout the ustice ofthe conquest whichwas being translated nto legislation imitingthe prerogativesof encomenderos. Thanks now to Gomara's his-tory,Bernal was notgiven hishistorical ue as a conquistadorand,at the same time,the integrityf the conquest itselfwas inadver-tently ut effectivelyndermined.On the first oint,Bernal workedhard to enlargehistory's ur-

4Fray Bartolome de las Casas, "Tratado de las doce dudas," Obrasescogidas eFray Bartolome e las Casas, t. V, ed. Juan Perez de Tudela Bueso, Biblioteca deAutoresEspafioles,t. CX, Madrid: Atlas, 1958, pp. 486ff.


7/27/2019 2905341

8/21

M L N 245view to include himself.A decisiveexperience in thisregard hadoccurredduringhis 1540 trip to Spain withCortes.At one of thesessions of the Council of the Indies whichBernal attended, thefiscal Villalobos objected to the privilegesrequestedby Bernal be-cause "el dicho Bernal Diaz no habia sido tal conquistador,comodecia, ni le habian sido encomendados los dichos pueblos por ser-vicios que hubiese fecho."5 Bernal did not dignify he accusationwithso much as a referenceto Villalobos when he describedhis1540 visit o Spain (Chapter 201). Nevertheless, heaccusations ofVillalobos, compounded by the silencesofGomara,no doubt gaveparticularurgencyto his literary roject.Thus, in one of the lastchaptersof theHistoriaverdaderaI, 661-662), Bernal listed all thebattles in which he claimed to have fought, and after railingagainstGomara, he declared: "Asi que parteme cabe desta loa deCortes;" "asi, que de todas sus hazafiasme cabe a ml partedellas,pues yo fui en le ayudar;" "mas aun no me alabo tanto como yopuedo y debo" (I, 660). Apart fromcreatinga dialogue withalle-gorical Fame (Ch. 210) and responding to charges that he hadpraised himself oo much, he replied that the viceroyAntoniodeMendoza and Cortes had written o the emperorin his praise andthathe, not unlike Julius Caesar, was duty-bound o writehis warmemoirs I, 659-660).Yet, correctinghisself-portrait as mucheasier than controllingthe damage being done to the historicalprojectof the conquest.Bernal's very real, very deep ire against Gomara was in part aproduct of the conquistador's frustration t the harm that thewritten istories id theconquistador/encomendero'sause. Thus,when Bernal harangued againstGomara and othersfornothavingbeen presentat theconquest,his real complaintwas not thattheycould not "get their factsstraight," ut thattheycould not sharethe conquistadors' pointofview nor write bout them nan appro-priately ympatheticmanner. That is why, n Bernal's view,theypresented accounts-be they accurate or inaccurate in detail-which missedthe mark "no aciertan")because theirnarratives idnot capture the perspective,or thereforereflectthe interests, fthe veterans who had foughtthe war. ExaminingLas Casas's acti-vism,we can betterunderstandadditionaldimensionsof Bernal'scriticism f Gomara and, at the same time,raise the issue of the

5 Carmelo Sdenz de Santa Maria, "Introducci6ncritica la "Historiaverdadera"de Bernal Diaz del Castillo" (Madrid: Consejo Superior de InvestigacionesCienti-ficas,1967), p. 85.


7/27/2019 2905341

9/21

246 ROLENA ADORNOgenerally overlooked importance of Las Casas-indeed of thewhole conquest debates of the 1540's and 1550's-to Bernal's lit-eraryvocationand production.II. Bernal Diaz reads Las CasasAs I hope to show,the ust war debate was not a generalizedandself-evident ackgroundto Bernal's literary ctivity ut ratherthevery platformon which it unfolded. Shiftingthe emphasis onBernal as soldierand historian o thatof encomenderoand polem-icist,we will examine the few but crucial points n Bernal's narra-tive where Las Casas himself s brought nto the discussion.Thefirst s the episode of the military ncounterat Cholula (Ch. 53);the second, theaccountofthe killings hatAlvarado incitedduringthe fiestaof Toxcotl when Cortes (and Bernal) were on the coastconfronting Panfilo de Narvalez (Chs. 125-126); the third isBernal's recreation f theLas Casas-Sepuilvedadebate in 1550 (Ch.211).The encounterof the Spaniards and the Cholulanswas the sub-ject of many diverse opinions and much controversy.Opinionsranged from the Dominican Aguilar's accusationthat Cortes hadkilled nnocent Cholulans carryingwater and wood, to MufiozCa-margo's praise forthetriumphofhis compatriotTlascalans, alliesofCortes.Bernardo Vazquez de Tapia had been thefirst oaccuseCortesofwrongdoing n the case (Saenz 1967: pp. 57-58) and LasCasas publisheda scathing ccount of theepisode in his Brevissimarelacion e la destruccione las ndias in Obras scogidas eFrayBarto-lome e las Casas, V [Madrid: Atlas, 1958], pp. 134-181).Bernal defended the Spanish cause at Cholula and in Chapter52, he prepared the reader to interpret hose eventsaccordingtohispointof viewbyconveying, hrough he ords ofCempoal, thattheCholulans were known as traitors,s friends f Montezuma (I,116). His title oChapter 53, in whichhe narrates heevent,makesthepoint: "Como tenian concertadoen esta ciudad de Cholula denos matar por mandado de Montezuma, y o que sobre ellos paso."Bernal recreatedthe eventsthatcame to be knownas the massacreof Cholula but to whichhe referred s "el peligrode lo de Cho-lula" (I, 661) in greatdetail. Even includingthe detail that Corteswarned the treacherous Cholulan enemies before attacking hem,all the narrativeelements added up to exemplaryconditionsandcauses by which a war could be waged justly, according to the


7/27/2019 2905341

10/21

MLN 247viewpoint n the ust war offeredbyJuanGinesde Sepulveda (De-mocratesegundo de las ustas causasde la guerra ontra os ndios, d.Angel Losada [Madrid: Consejo Superior de InvestigacionesCien-tificas,1951]) and obviouslyapproved by Bernal. The Spaniardsdefeated the Cholulans, stopped the ally Tlascalans fromtheirex-cessive looting, made peace withthe Cholulans and establishedalasting friendshipwith them (I, 158-166). The war produced thedesired result not only n Cholula but throughoutNew Spain, forword of the Spanish triumph spread throughout the country:"desde alli adelante, nos tenian por adivinos, y decian que no senos podria encubrir cosa ninguna mala que contra nosotros tra-tasen, que no lo supiesemos, y a esta causa nos mostraban buenavoluntad" (I, 166). Clearly,Bernal sought to communicate herethat the triumph t Cholula was a major moral victory s well as acrucial turning point in the entire conquest; henceforth, thebearded white trangerswould be morerespectedand feared thaneverbefore.In addition to tellinghow and why this attackon the Cholulanswas carried out, Bernal adds a "footnote"to this chapter whichconfirmshis positionthat thisconquestwas ust. Afterhavingtoldhow the Spaniards were to have become sacrificialvictims theirthighs and arms and legs to become sacrifices nd their entrailsand carcasses to be eaten by caged snakes, serpents, nd tigers),Bernal closed the case of Cholula by tellinghow theconquistadorsbroke open the cages containing potentialsacrificialvictims ndhow Cortes ordered theMexican captivesto return o theirhome-lands and exhortedtheCholulans to cease the barbaric practiceofhuman sacrifice.According to Sepulveda's point of view both inhis Democratesegundo p. 62) and in his oral interventionn theValladolid debate, crimesagainstthe innocent constituted ne offour principal causes bywhich a just war could be waged againstthose found guilty f such acts. Bernal's exploitationof Cholulansavagery, nd his emphasis on their ncorrigible arbarism afterCortes's exhortationthattheycease the practiceof human sacri-fice, Bernal comments: "Mas eque aprovechaban aquellos prome-timientos ue no lo cumplian?" [I, 166]), underscores neatlythenarrationof theepisode with n argumentfor ts ustification.Before Bernal concludes thischapter, however,he bringsLasCasas to centerstage and attackshim forbeing one of thosewhoreportswhat he has not seen. Bernal citesa Franciscanpanel ofinquiryand the opinion of Las Casas's old enemy, Fray Toribio


7/27/2019 2905341

11/21

248 ROLENA ADORNOMotolinia, to refute the account of the Cholula encounterwhichthe influentialDominican bishop offered n the Brevissima elacionde la destruccione lasIndias.Significantly,he Cholula and Toxcotlepisodes were the ones that Las Casas singledout to characterizeand condemn the entireconquest of Mexico. Not coincidentally,Bernal openly disputed Las Casas's accountsin his own narrationof them.Bernal claimed thatLas Casas attributed heCholulan killings othe conquistadores' ustforviolence: "porque afirmaydice que sincausa ninguna, sino por nuestropasatiempo y porque se nos an-tojo, se hizo aquel castigo . ." (I, 166). Interestingly, ernal's ac-cusations against the Dominican sound remarkably ike one hemade against Gomara: "Pues desque tornamos conquistar a granciudad de Mexico e la ganamos, tampoco dice [Gomara] los sol-dados que nos mataron e hirieron n las conquistas, inoque todolo hallabamos como quien va a bodas y regocijos" (I, 35). Whatgalled Bernal was the accusation,made bya defenderof the con-quest and its principalantagonist both of whom obviouslywereunable to sympathizewith he soldiers'hardships), hatthe soldiersacted frivolously,s ifenjoyingeasy times, nd wantonly, s ifun-affectedby pangs of Christian onscience.Las Casas did notin fact ttribute he massacre at Cholula to thesoldiers' wanton lust for violence, as Bernal had stated of him.Rather, the Dominican criticized he Spanish decision to carryoutan exemplary punishment:"acordaron los espafiolesde hacer alliuna matanza o castigo como ellos dicen) para poner ysembrarsutemor e braveza en todos los rincones de aquellas tierras.Porquesiempre fue esta su determinacion en todas las tierrasque losespafnoles an entrado, onviene saber: hacer una cruel e sefialadamatanza porque tiemblen dellos aquellas ovejas mansas" (LasCasas 1958: t. V, p. 148). As we have seen, Bernal subsequentlydefended this tactic as necessaryand extraordinarily uccessful.His refutation f Las Casas consisted n an eloquent and dramaticdefense of theexemplarypunishment rgumentwhile refusing oacknowledge that thiswas the precise source of Las Casas' criti-cism.

Saenz (1967: p. 58) observed thatthis was one of the very fewchapters that Bernal did not submitto extensiverewriting, nlikehis usual practice, lthoughFray Alonso Remon, the Mercedarianeditor of the work as published in 1632, suppressed lines he con-sidered too bluntly ritical f Las Casas, such as the following: Y


7/27/2019 2905341

12/21

M L N 249[Las Casas] aun dicelo de arte en su libro la Brevissima] quien nolo vio ni lo sabe, que les hard creer que es ansi aquello e otrascrueldades que escribe,siendo todo al reves e no paso como loescribe" I, 166). Accordingto Saenz's comparisonof various ver-sionsof the text,Bernal himself xcised statementswhichempha-sized his ire againsttheBishop of Chiapas.Although Bernal and his first ditordid not wishto seem toocontentious with respectto Las Casas, it is clear that,for Bernal,refuting he argumentsthat the Dominican representedachievedgreat mportance.When Bernal refutedGomara, it was by his owntestimony lone, pitting he word ofthe participant nd eyewitnessagainstthat of someone who was not presentduringthose events.When he refuted Las Casas, the stakes shiftedfromthe eyewit-ness/outsider pposition to include as well that of secular versusreligious authority, nd Bernal made sure to bring religious au-thorityo his side. Relyingon the authority f the Franciscans ndMotolinia,Bernal shared the conviction hat fthe Spaniards hadbeen killedat Cholula, New Spain would have been a long time nconquering,with the result that the natives would still persist ntheir dolatries. To Las Casas' old enemyMotolinia he attributessimilar sentiments: t would have been good if the killingcouldhave been avoided, but since itcould not, at least the goal of theevangelizationand salvationof the nativepopulationswas served(I, 167).Refuting Las Casas' account of the massacre that took placeduringthe fiestaofToxcotl was moredifficult ecause Bernal didnot have his own authority s an eyewitness n whichto rely. nLas Casas' account,the Spaniards attackedthisgathering f "todala flor y nata de la nobleza de todo el imperio de Montezuma"withoutprovocation:". . . dicen "iSantiagoya ellos!" e comienzancon las espadas desnudas a abriraquellos cuerpos desnudos ydeli-cados e a derramaraquella generosa sangre, que uno no dejaron avida: lo mesmo hicieron os otros en las otrasplazas" (V, 149). LasCasas summarizedhis account, calling it an event thatfilled thepeople of thosekingdomswithanguish and mourningfrom nowtill the end of the world: "y de aqui a que se acabe el mundo, oellos del todo se acaben, no dejaran de lamentary cantar en susareitos y bailes, como en romances (que aca decimos), aquella ca-lamnidad e perdida de la sucesion de toda su nobleza, de que sepreciabande tantosanos atras" V, 149).Bernal's account is interesting ecause it ncludesan internal ri-


7/27/2019 2905341

13/21

250 ROLENA ADORNOtique of Alvarado's instigation f the killingsby a stern and out-raged Cortes. Alvarado defended himselfby arguingthathe hadsimply made a preemptivestrike against the planned treachery.Bernal made two subsequentadditionsto thischapter,obviouslynresponse to the polemic surrounding this episode, to assure theprovidential haracterof the outcome.He claimedthatmiraculousvisions of Santiago and the Virgin Mary had appeared to theMexica, causing them to cease theirresistance;thus,he asserted,many ives were spared (I, 272). The other sBernal's refutation fLas Casas' interpretation f the event. As in the previous case,Bernal attributedto Las Casas an accusation he did not in factmake. In the BrevissimaV, 149), Las Casas condemned theSpan-iards for using the opportunity f the fiesta to impose an exem-plary punishmentto frighten he Mexicans. Bernal said that LasCasas attacked Alvarado forgreed; the old soldier refutedthis asbeing untrue I, 272). Withoutreference o Las Casas' position onthe preemptive strike nd exemplary punishment,he went on tocite thatprecisetactic s essential I, 272).Bernal no doubt declined to confront as Casas head-on on thisissue because, as we have noted, it was central to the ust war de-bate. While Las Casas was Bernal's most threatening nd formi-dable opponent in thereal debate (theone centered on the usticeof theconquest), his refutation f Las Casas consisted n acknowl-edging and simultaneouslybelittlinghis opposition, referencinghim only a few times and attributing o him accusations whichBernal found most easy to refute.The sheer weightof Bernal's concerns for Las Casas and theLascasian point of viewcan be demonstrated nd understood bythe factthatBernal, back in Spain and at court,was present t theofficial ebate organized by the Council of the ndies to determinethe ust means of conquest and colonization. Bernal devoted thepenultimate hapterof hisbook, in its finalversion, o thehistoricmeetingdevoted to the determination, s the theologian Domingode Soto (in Las Casas, V, 295) summarizedthedispute,"si es licitoa Su Magestad hacer guerra a aquellos indios antesque se les pre-dique la fe, para subjectallosa su Imperio, y que despues de sub-jectados puedan mas facil y comodamente ser ensefiados y alum-brados por la doctrina evangelicadel conoscimiento-e sus erroresyde la verdad cristiana."Bernal, nterestednot n warsofconquesttobe carried out in thefuturebut in the rewardsrightfullyarned


7/27/2019 2905341

14/21

MLN 251by those who participated n conquestsof the past, referred o thetopic under debate as grants n perpetuity: el repartimiento er-petuo" (I, 655).Although there are no summary ccounts of the discussion ongranting epartimientosn perpetuity n whichBernal was called into testify, e did leave Spain with series of royaldecrees grantinghim favors and apparently eaving his desire and need for com-pensation satisfied Saenz 1967: pp. 88-90). Having met face toface the power of Las Casas and his arguments gainst the usticeof the conquest and therefore gainst those who would be its prin-cipal benefactors,Bernal discoveredthathis own interests eededto be protected n everyway possible. The factthatBernal tookupthe writing f his Historiaverdaderaheyearafterhis returnfromSpain and the Valladolid debate is suggestivecircumstancial vi-dence of what we find in the work: the need to refuteany inter-pretationof the conquest of Mexico that would undermine-de-liberately r unwittingly-the ustice of thevictory.Here again, Gomara was guilty f having assumed thatthe in-terpretation f thatwar as ust did nothave tobe defended. He sostated n hisHistoria e la conquista eMexico, ecommending ohisreaders on the subject Juan Gines de Sepulveda, "the Emperor'sChronicler,who wrote most elegantly n Latin on thistopic,andthus you will be completely atisfiedon thismatter."6Having as-sumed thatSepulveda's viewsdid and would prevail,Gomara leftthe good names of Cortes,whomhe would exalt,and thoseof allhis soldiers, open to the charges that were increasinglymadeagainstthem.

In recounting he 1550 Valladolid meeting,Bernal recalledhowhis testimonyhad no effect, ither on Las Casas's and his sup-porters,or upon the representatives f the Council of the Indies:.... yno aprovecho cosa ningunacon los sefioresdel real consejode Indias y con el obispo frayBartolomede las Casas, y frayRo-drigo, su companfero,y con el obispo de las Charcas" (I, 657).Nothing was resolved at court, and subsequently,Bernal com-plained: ". . . de esta manera andamos de mula coja, yde mal enpeor, yde un visorrey n otro,yde gobernadoren gobernador" I,658).

6 Cited in Lewis Hanke, The SpanishStruggle orJustice n theConquest fAmerica[1949] (Boston: Little,Brown, 1965), p. 129.


7/27/2019 2905341

15/21

252 ROLENAADORNOIII. Other encomenderos and Las CasasAs an encomendero, Bernal's concerns were typical f thosemenwho, "proud of their achievements and unbothered by moraldoubt, were nonetheless greatlyperturbedin theirold age by agrowing governmentalreluctance to allow them to pass on theirstatus and wealth undisturbed to the next generation."7 Enco-mienda,8 the official onsignmentof groups of Indians to privi-leged Spanish colonists who were entitled to receive tribute ndlabor from them, was already established n New Spain by 1523;the legal distinction etween encomienda and slaverywas that theIndians were not regarded as propertyby their encomenderos.The wealth and size of Aztecpopulationsfacilitatedarge-scale x-ploitation of the natives, and gave rise to a group of individualsdetermined to become a hereditary olonial aristocracy. he enco-menderos faced a monarchwho was determinedto reduce theirpretensions;throughout he sixteenth entury, s encomiendas re-verted to thecrown, progressively reater hare of Indian tributewas directedto theroyal treasury,nd encomiendawasweakened,as themid-century pproached, not so muchbyIndian resistanceas bythe intensified pplicationof royal aw (Gibson pp. 61-62).In the face of thisdecline, encomenderos commonlymade theircomplaintsknownthroughthatcommon forumof political ctionin the age of the absolutistmonarchy, he "letter o the king." Onesuch case is the letter fRuy Gonzallez, onquistadoriejo, ncomen-dero and regidorf thecity fMexico. I shall cite his 1553 letter oCharles V at length as a wayof placingBernal's laments n theirmost familiar etting.Several points are noteworthy: he first sthat,as in Bernal, Las Casas is the chieftargetof Gonzalez's con-siderable aggravation. Second, his arguments n favorof his in-terests as a conquistador/encomendero um up in miniaturethearguments presented n narrativeformby Bernal; third,his com-plaints against the colonial administration mirrorthe quejas ofBernal. The colonial historianswho collectedthis etter onsider t''an excellentexample of thegenreof correspondencesentbytheconquerors and early settlers of the colonies back to Spain"

7 Arthur P. Stabler and John E. Kicza, "Ruy Gonzalez's 1553 Letter to EmperorCharles V: an annotated translation," he Americas,2, No. 4 (April, 1986), 473.8 The source of this summary s Charles Gibson,The Aztecs nder panishRule: AHistory fthe ndiansoftheValley fMexico, 519-1810 (Stanford,Ca.: StanfordUni-versity, 964), pp. 58-59.


7/27/2019 2905341

16/21

M L N 253(Stablerand Kicza, p. 473), and I too shall consider t exemplary fthe discourseof the conquistador/colonizer.The main topicof Gonzalez's several-page epistlewas thehard-ship and aggravationcaused him by Las Casas' merciless ntago-nismof the encomenderos.He decried Las Casas' accusationsthatthe conquistadorswere tyrants nd robbersand thatthe encomen-deros should rejectencomienda in perpetuity nd provideimme-diate restitutionof lands and goods to their Indian owners inorder to save their own souls (p. 476). Particularly exatiouswasthe confesionariohichLas Casas had prepared for confessing n-comenderos and merchants nd whichdemanded full restitutionof all lands and properties hatwere acquired (Las Casas, Obras,V,pp. 235-249). Gonzalez accused Las Casas ofoverlooking hegreatgood theconquistadoreshad done inmakingpossiblethe salvationof the Indians while he apparentlycondemned themto hell forhavingdone so. Having spent little r no time n New Spain, LasCasas himselfneitherunderstood nor knew what the conquista-dores suffered,what theyhad achieved, nor anything bout theconditionsof the land and itspeoples withwhichtheyhad to deal(p. 476). In any case, in order to establish los prencipiosyfunda-mentosde nuestradesculpa e ynocencia,"Gonzalez reminded thekingthattheconquesthad a legal basis, thanksto thecapitulationsgranted to Diego Velazquez in 1518, among other royaldecrees.Second, he asserted that the illegal rule of Montezuma overMexico ("no era legitimo efior") ustifiedthe conquest; third,heremindedthekingof the collaboration f "all the ords of Mexico,"who gave their obedience willingly o Cortes and joined in liber-atingtheMexicansfromtyranny. s a resultCorteshonored theirtitles nd jurisdictions s he had promised p. 479). Fourth,he as-serted,as we heard Bernal do implicitlyt the end of the accountof the massacre at Cholula, the sinsof the nativepeoples ustifiedthe conquest: "estagenteera barbara [,]ydolatrica ,] acrificadora,matadora de ynocentes,Comedora de carne humana, expurcis-simaynefanda sodomia"); ifcannibalism nd othercrimes gainstnature commonlypracticedwere not sufficient ause for them tolose their kingdom, the abuses and atrocities they committedduringthe war ofconquestwere (p. 478). Thus, royaltitles f con-quest, the ust treatment f thenatives, he destruction f an ille-gitimate nd tyrannical ule,thesuppressionofmanysins and thedestruction f Satan's hegemony, nd the preparationfor the na-tives'conversionto Christianityounded out Gonzalez's listof ust


7/27/2019 2905341

17/21

254 ROLENA ADORNOcauses forwar and the ust reward of encomienda. How, then,heasked rhetorically,ould theconquistadoresbe vilified nd theem-peror's rights hallenged byan activist ro-indigenous lergy?: V.magd no tiene menos tituloque al patrimoniode los rreyesVrosantepasados de glorisamemoria yno quiera Dios que V. magd. seael mas engafiadoni se de oydo a los que ynorantemente n los pul-pitos diziendo con bozes desentonadas lo que ny saben ni en-tienden" (p. 479). Gonzallez's ament brings nto sharp relief theanimosity he encomenderosheld for thosewho "ignorantlyn thepulpit talkin stridentvoices of that which theyneitherknownorunderstand." Gonzalez ended his letterwiththe kind of concernwe heard fromBernal: Royal officialsmake and repeal laws attheirwhim; the friars rrange Indian affairswithno regardto theencomenderos' needs, and administrative nd bureaucratic onfu-sion reigns p. 479).Behind Gonzalez's assessmentwere several years of legislationnegatively ffectingncomienda. Due to a major epidemicin 1545which reduced the native population and labor supply by aboutone-third n New Spain, a substantialportionof all encomiendaincome was eliminated Gibson,p. 62). In 1549,a numberofroyaldecrees aimed at protecting Indians under encomienda werepassed. The crownruled thatencomenderos could continueto re-ceive tribute, utcould no longerdemand thepersonalservicesofthe nativesunder theirurisdiction;withpersonal service n enco-mienda eliminated, the institution ost much of its economicpower, whichwould be substitutedby a system f forced labor.9Indians were prohibited frombeing sent by encomenderos towork in the mines; they were no longer to be used as tamemes,rcarriers.A further low to the encomenderoswas a 1550 decreeordering that encomiendas would automatically revert to thecrown when the present encomendero left no heirs (Zavala, p.101). In this etting, as Casas made himself he greatest nemyofthe encomenderos, declaringthat therewere two typesof tyrannyimposed by the Spanish over "those so innumerable republics."The firstwas the war of conquest; the second was encomienda, a"government f tyrannymuchmore unjustthanthatto which theHebrews were subjected by the EgyptianPharaoh" (Cited by Za-vala, p. 145).

9SilvioZavala, La encomiendandiana 1935], 2nd. ed. (Mexico: Porrda, 1973), p.97; Gibson, p. 62.


7/27/2019 2905341

18/21

M L N 255PuttingBernal's work n relief gainstthe writings f other en-comenderos illustrates he kind of relations n which he was in-volved. The portrait hat emerges responds to the final transfor-mation of the old chivalric ormulaof the valorous vassal ever oyalto his king; his most dreaded enemies are no longer barbarousprinces but bureaucrats. Royal vacillation nd bureaucraticchaosmeant only nsecuritynd hardship for the veteranof the conquestwho expected to live out his ifebeingserved and supported by theheathens whose souls through a just war of conquest he hadhelped to save. This portrait s not a pretty ne but with t n mind

we come full circle to consider the question posed at the outset.Why has scholarshipso readily taken Bernal's expressed motives-of correctingGomara's accounts-at face value withoutgivingmore than lip serviceto the issue of Las Casas and the key debateof the sixteenth entury n which he was not only implicatedbutalso personally nvolved? For all the scholarly nterest n BernalDiaz, who is one of themostpopular of all the chroniclers f theconquests,the oversight f so readilyaccessible a topicis striking.IV. Critical SensibilitiesThe answerto thequestionabove implicates hewaywe as literaryscholars have come to domesticate heconceptof "theconquestofAmerica." Through a process of atomization,we have bracketedoffcertainauthors and certainworks, solating hem somewhat r-bitrarilyfrom one another as well as from the negative moraljudgments thatwe make so easilyof some. SeparatingBernal Diazfrom his ideological compatriotsCortes and Gines de Sepulveda,instead of placinghimalongside them, s but a single example ofthe effort o findheroes among the colonizers. At the same time,we have ignoreduntilveryrecently hepresenceof the ndigenousAmerican voice in the discoursesofcolonialism;as a result,we arebarelyaccustomed to seeking n our canonical texts heubiquitouscolonized nativeAmerican,who is implicitly resent n everycolo-nialistdiscourse even whenhe is not mentioned.Nevertheless, o have recognized the Amerindian as the absentterm of the oppositionis in itself nsufficients a means to betterunderstand the dynamicsof colonial discourse. It is, in fact,thedichotomous model (European/American, victor/vanquished,master/slave) hat has petrifiedour understanding of the phe-nomena inquestion.Withthis tatement, hope it willbe clear that


7/27/2019 2905341

19/21

256 ROLENAADORNOmy objective n the case of Bernal Diaz is not to place himamongthe "villains"of conquest history s an exploitative ncomenderobut ratherto add an essential nd missingdimensionto theoverallportrait.The adventurousyoungsoldier mesmerizedby the fabu-lous sightof Tenochtitlan, he disgruntled, nappreciatedold vet-eran, the conquistador who recalls with considerable eloquenceand sympathy he person of Montezuma, and the aging colonialsettlerwho wantsto insure thatthe grantsof Indian labor willbepassed on to his descendents,are all facetsof the same persona.Bernal Diaz, like most Europeans of thosefirst ostcolumbiande-cades who ourneyed into the never-before-seenands and colon-ized its peoples, can be characterizedby a clear idea of what hehoped to gain and, at thesame time,by a set of attitudes nd seriesof insights hat eem to confound and conflictwith hat imple andlaudatory or blameworthy) oal.To have placed the site of Bernal's polemics in his diatribeagainstGomara has been to cast Bernal in the glow of a lightveryattractive o the twentieth-century entality: he ordinaryfellow(thecommon soldier and eye-witness eporterBernal) pitting im-selfagainst the Goliath of the politicaland scholarly lite (Cortesand Gomara, respectively).Ramon Iglesia (pp. 25-26) acknowl-edged this contemporary ensibilityf ours in his explorationofthe question of why Bernal Diaz has been so favoredin scholar-ship,Gomara so much maligned.Furthermore,we allowourselvesto thinkof Bernal Diaz, but neverthinkof Hernan Cortes, as thehero of a marvelous adventure,thanks n good measure to thatcommonplace about Bernal's alleged inspiration n the novels ofchivalry.0To make of Bernal a hero of the conquest and a hero of con-quest historiography,o allowhimto "win" by general acclamationover Gomara a battleof the pen and overCortesa battle for fameis, in fact,to be seduced by Bernal's own efforts t rhetoricalper-suasion-a rhetoricalpersuasionwhich s one of his truest-andobviously,most far-reaching-achievements. But there is morethan innocence or ignorance in this figuration f historical har-

10Particularly, da Rodriguez de Prampolini,Amadises eAmerica: a hazafia deIndias comoempresa aballerescaMexico: Junta Mexicana de InvestigacionesHis-t6ricas, 1948) and IrvingLeonard, Books fthe rave Cambridge: Harvard Univer-sity,1949). See my critiqueof this iterary ommonplace in "LiteraryProductionand Suppression: Reading and Writing bout Amerindiansin Colonial SpanishAmerica,"Dispositio, ol. 10, nos, 28-29 (1985), pp. 1-25.


7/27/2019 2905341

20/21

M L N 257acters. Pitting Bernal directly against Gomara and indirectlyagainstCortes is the glue that holds in place this popular figura-tion of a popular hero.What happens when we place the site of Bernal's literary ndrhetoricalbattle at Las Casas's doorstep is quite another matter;our hero who excelled in arms and in letters s transformednto aself-serving ontestant n the battle over other people's lands andlives. To call into play Bernal's concerns as an encomendero ineffect removes the rose-coloredglasses throughwhichwe havegazed at this charmingold curmudgeon of a conquistador.Theencomendero theme turnsour preferredview of Bernal as a well-meaning but under-compensatedand aging military eteran ntothatof a self-righteousncomenderowho assumesthatthecrown'sinterest nd his own are identicaland whose concern for usticefails to include the rightsof the vanquished. This figure, he en-slavingencomendero,lso playsa role in our contemporaryensibili-ties.Since it s an entirely egativeone, it s suppressed.Worthy fnote is the fact that Bernal removed a chapter from his originalmanuscript in which he had defended his participationin thetaking and branding of Mexicans as slaves in New Spain (I,668-675). The failure to interrogateand acknowledge Bernal'scontentiousness gainstLas Casas is to silencethedisagreeablena-ture of the polemics in which the author of the Verdadera istoriawas actuallyengaged.Yet,as I indicated above, mygoal here is not to relabelBernal asa villain nsteadof a hero; it s to transcend he dichotomouschar-acterizations f thecaptainversusthe soldierand theprofessionalhistorianversusthe testimonyf theparticipant yadding anotheropposition, that of encomendero versus the indiotributario.hisadditional oppositiondoes not erase theothers,but itsuccessfullyblurs their distinctions ecause in this case Bernal is not the un-derdog but the overlord. We should not be embarrassedto addthiscategory, orwe have transcended although t does notalwaysseem so) the rancors of the Valladolid debate. We can no moreenrich our treatment f the culturalproductionsthatoriginatedout of the colonialistexpansion of earlymodern Europe byover-looking patterns fexperiencethat re repugnanttoour sensibili-ties, nymore than we can do so by raising uch issuesonlyfor thesake of sending one more volleyonto the battlefield f the six-teenth-centuryebate. The considerationof Bernal Diaz vis-A-visLas Casas bringsup directlynd explicitlyheproblemof the rela-


7/27/2019 2905341

21/21

258 ROLENA ADORNOtionshipof the European conquistador and encomendero to thenative inhabitantof Mexico. A close reading of Bernal demon-strates hat he never forgot t, ust as readily as a close readingofcontemporary cholarshipshows that we alwayshave. In thisre-spect,our view has been distorted,untrueto the problematics fthe literary nd discursivedomain we have soughtto know better.Restoringthisaspect is not designed to underminethe old heroesas such, but ratherto give a "trueraccount" of the dynamicsatstake,to shift hegroundsofinvestigation rom somewhat mptypanegyric o a richer nd fullerunderstanding f the discoursesofcolonialism.UniversityfMichigan

Documents

2905341