Page:Vol 1 History of Mexico by H H Bancroft.djvu/817

Rh

 version is given by Gomara, the biographer of the great captain, who had access to private and public archives and individual narratives now lost; but he frequently colors the incidents to the credit of his hero and his profession. Nevertheless the value of the text is testified to by his Mexican translator Chimalpain, who adds some interesting facts from native records and personal knowledge. The Tezcucan writer Ixtlilxochitl also follows him pretty closely for the Spanish side, while the archives left him by his royal ancestors and different narratives furnish the other side, frequently absurd and highly colored. Camargo gives a rather brief Tlascaltec version. Gomara's coloring, which, in accordance with the method of most historians, leaves the credit for achievements with the leader, roused the feelings of more than one of the soldiers who had shared in the glories of that period, and Bernal Diaz promptly began to write his celebrated Historia Verdadera, which professes to tell the true story and rectify in particular the so-called blunders of Gomara. Although this profession is not always to be relied on, the story is most valuable from its exceeding completeness, its many new facts, and its varied version. Not long after, Herrera, the official historiographer, began his decades, wherein for the conquest he uses the material already printed, with a leaning toward Gomara, yet with several additional narratives to perfect his own revised version, notably that of Ojeda, a leading officer under Cortés, and also no small mass of material from the archives of Spain. Torquemada copies him for the most part, though he adds much native testimony from Sahagun, from a Tezcucan writer, and others, making his account of the conquest the most complete up to that time. Solis elaborates with little critique, and with a verboseness and grandiloquence that tire. Vetancurt's version is comparatively brief, with few additions, and Robertson's is a brilliant summary; but Clavigero, while adding not much to Torquemada's bulky account, presents it in quite a new form, pruned of verboseness, re-arranged in a masterly manner, and invested with a philosophic spirit altogether superior to anything presented till Prescott's time. On the above historians and some of Cortés' letters are founded the immense array of minor accounts and summaries on the conquest, both in separate and embodied form, some of them provided with occasional observations, but for the great part they contain nothing of any value to the student. Those after Prescott's time follow him as a rule. Mexican accounts might naturally be expected to present useful features, but such is hardly the case. Alaman, Ramirez, Icazbalceta, Orozco y Berra, Bustamante, and certain writers in the Boletin of the Mexican Geographical Society, have brought to light several documents and monographs bearing on particular incidents and features; but no complete account of real value has been written, Carbajal's pretentious version being almost wholly a plagiarism from Clavigero, Mora's a hasty compilation, and so on. As for the new bulky Spanish version by Zamacois, it is not only verbose but superficial and narrow in its research, blundering even where Prescott points the way, and representing more a feuilleton issue than a history.

Bernal Diaz del Castillo is, as I have said, the main historian of the conquest, from the exhaustive thoroughness of his material, as compared with other original writers, and from his participation in all its leading scenes,