Page:Vol 1 History of Mexico by H H Bancroft.djvu/307

Rh was placed in command of Villa Rica. The native chiefs were directed to regard him as the Calderon. Several of his dramas were received with acclamation, and one was translated into French, while his miscellaneous poems, reprinted in our days, are marked by a vivid imagination and an elegance which also adorns his letters. Talents so conspicuous did not wait long for recognition, and with the aid of his patron he advanced to the dignities of royal secretary and chief chronicler of the Indies. When 56 years old his mind underwent a change, and entering the church he abandoned forever the drama and light literature. The pen changed only its sphere, however, for it served the historiographer zealously, achieving for him the greatest fame; and fame alone, for at his death, in April, 1686, at the age of 70, deep poverty was his companion. When he entered on this office the Indies had lapsed into the dormant quietude imposed by a strict and secluding colonial régime. There were no stirring incidents to reward the efforts of the historian, save those connected with freebooter raids, which offered little that could flatter Spanish pride. To achieve fame he must take up some old theme, and present it in a form likely to rouse attention by its contrast. Thus it was that he selected the thrilling episode of the conquest of Mexico, with the determination to rescue it from the unskilful arrangement and repetitions, the want of harmony and consistency, the dryness and faulty coloring, to which it had hitherto been subjected, and to expend upon it the effects of elegant style and vast erudition. When the work appeared at Madrid, in 1684, its superior merits were instantly recognized, and although the sale at first was not large, editions have multiplied till our day, the finest and costliest being the illustrated issue of 1783-4, in two volumes, which I quote, while consulting also the notes of several others. So grand and finely elaborated a subject, and that from a Spanish historian who was supposed to have exhausted all the available resources of the Iberian archives, could not fail to rouse general attention throughout Europe, and translations were made into different languages. Robertson, among others, while not failing to point out certain blemishes, has paid the high compliment of accepting Solis for almost sole guide on the conquest, and this with a blindness which at times leads him into most amusing errors. Even Prescott warms to his theme in a review of six closely printed pages, wherein eulogy, though not unmingled with censure, is stronger than a clearer comprehension of the theme would seem to warrant. But in this he is impelled to a great extent by his oft displayed tendency to hero worship.

Solis deserves acknowledgment for bringing order out of chaos, for presenting in a connected form the narrative of the conquest, and for adorning it with an elegant style. But he has fulfilled only a part of the promises made in his preface, and above all has he neglected to obtain information on his topic beyond that presented in a few of the generally accessible works, even their evidence being not very closely examined. He has also taken great liberties with the text, subordinating facts to style and fancy, seizing every possible opportunity to manufacture speeches for both native and Spanish heroes, and this with an amusing disregard for the consistency of language with the person and the time. His religious tendencies seriously interfere with calm judgment, and impel him to rave with bigoted zeal against the natives. The hero worship of the dramatist introduces itself to such an extent as frequently to overshadow everything else, and to misrepresent. 'Sembra più im panegirico, che una istoria,' says Clavigero, very aptly. Storia Mess., i. 16. His arguments and deductions are at times most childish, while his estimation of himself as a historian and thinker is aired in more than one place with a ridiculous gravity. With regard to style. Solis had Livy for a model, and belonged to the elder school of historians; he was its last good representative, in fact. His language is expressive and elegant, greatly imbued with a poetic spirit not unsuited to the subject, and sustained in eloquence, while its pure idiom aids to maintain the work as classic among